Sump pump draft headed for revisions

[Guest guest]

Sump pump draft headed for revisions

Pennington council concerned over water discharge

Tuesday, July 18, 2006

The Trenton Times

BY ZACK NEEDLES

Special to the Times

http://www.nj.com/news/times/regional/index.ssf?/base/news-

6/1153195965115770.xml & coll=5

PENNINGTON -- Mold, fungus, mosquitoes, erosion and ice are the five

plagues at the core of a sump pump debate here.

Borough officials want residents to take responsibility for water

discharged from basements and other areas into streets, sidewalks

and neighboring properties, but after vigorous public debate a draft

ordinance designed to fix the problem is back on the drawing board --

for revisions.

The town council has tabled ordinance No. 2006-8, which is designed

to force sump pump owners to contain runoff to prevent standing

pools of water that pose a health hazard during the warmer months --

spawning mold, fungus and mosquitoes -- and dangerous icy patches

and road deterioration in the colder months.

At a meeting last week, residents had mixed opinions. For some, the

runoff is no big deal. For others, it's a headache.

Abey Drive seems to be one of the streets most affected by sump pump

runoff in the wake of storms; a number of residents of that street

spoke at the meeting.

Abey Drive resident Burke presented photographs and pleaded

for the council's " intervention " in what she called a " significant

storm water issue " involving her home, which sits at the bottom of a

steep driveway and incurs a large amount of natural runoff as well

as that from neighborhood sump pumps, resulting in large amounts of

standing water.

" Storm water is dumped on us from above and blocked from below, " she

said.

Burke's next door neighbor, Pam Lafferty, claimed that when they

first moved to Abey Drive in 1986, the majority of sump pump runoff

sat on her property because her former neighbors were unwilling to

properly maintain their pump.

" The puddle was more like a lake, " she said. " It was 80 feet long,

five inches deep and 10 to 20 feet across. "

Eventually, the Laffertys were able to have a system of pipes

installed that would redirect runoff to storm drains. But, according

to Lafferty, the problem persists as a result of neighbors who are

unwilling to manage their sump pumps properly.

" We have been more than helpful to our neighbors, " she said. " It's

time for all of our neighbors to take responsibility. "

Jerry Lacks, also of Abey Drive, said his sump pump runs directly

into the street but didn't see the problem.

" I don't see it as a public health problem, " he said. " I don't

bother my neighbors. "

Lacks said that after a recent spell of rain he spent about two

hours driving every street in Pennington to survey the drainage and

came to the conclusion that sump pumps aren't the real problem.

" I don't think this (ordinance) addresses storm water from gutters

and things like that, " he said.

Hutsman, who lives next door to the borough hall on North Main

Street and receives a large amount of runoff from that property,

agreed with Lacks, but added that trying to determine the origin of

specific runoff would be nearly impossible.

" It's not your problem, " she told the council about the runoff from

borough hall. " I have always felt the goal was to let the water

flow. On North Main Street, we are all very close together and some

of our gutters go off in different directions. I'm not sure who owns

what water and sends it where. "

However, according to borough superintendent of public works Jeff

Wittkop, Lacks' and Hutsman's comments had little to do with the

sump pump issue.

" I think a lot of people were confusing sump pumps and storm water, "

he said.

As far as any long-standing issues with storm water in Pennington,

such as flooding, Wittkop said there are none.

" I live in town and I've worked here for a number of years and I

don't see that, " he said.

The sump pump amendment would force a number of Pennington residents

to figure out new places to send their runoff. Wittkop said the

borough engineer will visit these homes to try to work out a

solution with the homeowners.

However, a few residents worried about the cost of having to

redirect their runoff water. Burke's husband, n, took

issue with the draft ordinance, claiming it does not provide a " cost-

effective and census-based solution to storm water problems, " and

suggesting studies be done to determine the cost for residents to

redirect their runoff.

" It appears the ordinance is broad, excessive, and without a clear

purpose, " he said.

After closing the floor to the public, the council decided to take

the amendment back to the drawing board.

" I think it needs some work, " said council member Garber. " We

need to address known problems, while respecting homeowners and not

creating more problems for people. "