Judge Richard Hertzberg denied the motion filed by Tabernacle Township Solicitor, William Burns, to reconsider an earlier ruling by the judge that halted the demolition of Tabernacle’s Town Hall, and allowed for an independent structural engineer to do an assessment of the 150 year old building that housed Tabernacle’s Town Hall from 1966 till a little less than two years ago. Judge Hertzberg did not mask his clear disdain for the Township’s decision to reopen Medford Lakes Road just days after the judge had clearly ruled that it stay closed until at least the litigation was settled.

Judge Hertzberg wrote:

“The motion for reconsideration is denied.

The Defendant’s conduct undermines the credibility of its experts. As noted at prior hearings, despite warnings of imminent collapse, and despite the Court’s April 19, 2024 direction to maintain the status quo, on or about April 24, 2024 the Defendant saw fit to remove the detour allegedly put in place to protect the public. Upon learning of this violation of its directive, on May 22, 2024, the Court entered an Order reiterating the importance of the detour. On or about May 28, 2024, the Court discovered not only that the road remained open, but that the town Memorial Day parade, occurring on May 25, 2024, ended at the Town Hall structure with activities taking place in its parking lot.

The proffered justification for hosting a public celebration in the shadow of the unstable structure is as follows: “The Township Engineer estimates that the fall radius of the building is approximately 35 feet . . . The closest section of the parking lot to Town Hall is approximately 59.5 feet.”

Even if this “approximate” estimate were accurate to the inch, the Court concludes there is no reason why men, women, and children should have been invited to celebrate 24 feet from a collapse zone. The Court does not need expert testimony to apply common knowledge and common sense.

The Court cannot imagine that Defendant would place the public in danger if it truly believed collapse was imminent. However, the Court cannot simply ignore the proffered reports and is obligated to protect residents from the Town Hall’s possible collapse. The Court acts in an abundance of caution and not because it finds Defendant’s reports credible or admissible.

Separately, the certification submitted by the Township Administrator does not support reconsideration. It simply sets forth a self-serving narrative of Defendant’s supposed compliance public notice obligations. The adequacy of compliance will be addressed at a plenary hearing.

The above course of conduct requires further examination by this Court. The members of the Township Committee are ordered to appear in person before this Court on July 19, 2024, to show cause why they disregarded this Court’s directives and to address R. 1:4-8 issues.”

Now the two parties wait for Judge Hertzberg to approve the independent engineer so the building can be inspected, as well as wait for the Township to do another inspection and architectural examination of different options to save the building. Even if this case were to be dismissed by both parties and they agree to walk away, Judge Hertzberg is still going to bring Mr. Burns back in to answer to the court why he twice disregarded his orders.