Black Run Watershed Plan – Pinelands Forest Preservation or Development Scheme?
Plan would include 325 new housing units, plus new sewage treatment plant in violation of CMP
headwaters of Black Run, Evesham NJ
On Saturday, motivated by last Friday’s Pinelands Commission staff presentation of their Black Run Watershed Plan, I went down to Evesham in search of the headwaters of the Black Run, the environmentally sensitive lands targeted for preservation, and a place called the Black Run Preserve.
Meandering the rural roads, I came upon a huge scar on the land, with EPA and DEP Environmental Infrastructure signs, so I decided to take a tour of a place called Aerohaven:
old Aerohaven airport – site of wastewater impoundments
I was shocked by that disturbed landscape, which forms the headwaters of Black Run – more about that in a future post.
When I got home, I did a little Googling to learn the history of that place and a huge development called Kings Grant – again shocked by what I found there, again an issue I will discuss in a future post about the history of the watershed.
In the meantime, until I do more research on the original Evesham – Medford plan for Black Run, I thought I’d repost my initial impression of the staff’s presentation, with one update.
During the discussion of the staff’s plan, Commissioner Earlen asked a pointed question that again illustrated that the Commission’s staff are actively promoting and negotiating development schemes – much like they did in the South Jersey Gas pipeline debacle – prior to policy direction from the Commission and public awareness.
Commissioner Earlen: Is Evesham in favor of Option #2?
Planner Liggett: They have heard about Option #3 more than anything – that’s the one that’s been discussed for some time.
Earlen: Are they in favor of – do they like #2?
Liggett: We haven’t broached it.
Planner Grogan: We would have to ask them.
Why is staff only discussing option #3 – the development oriented density transfer, and not Option #2 – the forest preservation plan?
Why are they presenting their preferred option #2 without approval of the Commission and knowledge of the public?
Such staff manipulation makes a mockery of the public process and undermines the Commission’s role to set policy.
This is a repost of my initial take based on the staff’s presentation:
4) Black Run Watershed – Forest preservation or development scheme?
Staff made a presentation on the Black Run watershed, in portions of Evesham and undisturbed and preserved forested lands in Medford.
The plan was designed to reflect a 2006 transfer of development plan developed by Medford and Evesham.
The plan involves protection of high water quality by re-designation of 4,000 acres of undisturbed forested lands from rural development area to Forest Area. The plan would reduce allowable development density from 1 unit per 3.2 acres to 1 unit per 25 acres (for a total maximum of just 70 units), and expand the boundaries of thousands of acres permanently preserved ecologically signifiant lands.
If that sounds too good to be true, you are right.
Staff found that
- the current rural development designation “does not reflect the ecological value of the area”
- the current rural development designation ”continues to create unrealistic development expectations“
- a Forest Area resignation would reflect the current CMP standards for Forest Area
Despite those findings, and in a complete contradiction to the above findings, staff also found that Forest Area re-designation would result in:
significant, uncompensated loss of property-owner’s value
How can the reduction of development potential be “significant” if the site has significant environmental and regulatory constraints to development at the allowable RDA density of 3.2 units per acre?
Why is staff’s recommendation so heavily influenced by greatly exaggerated diminution in development potential and property value?
Based what appears to be primarily on this “significant uncompensated loss of property-owner’s value”, the plan option recommended by staff would transfer the development density reduced in the Forest Area to a 175 acre parcel o the Evesham border with Voorhees Township. That parcel is currently zoned for 55 units – the new density transfer would allow 325 units.
Very bad deal – if the development potential of the current forested land is severely contained and is a maximum of 70 units, then there is no way 325 new units is a good plan.
Plus, the proposed planning option #3 would violate the current CMP standards regarding wastewater management.
Why is staff recommending options that violate the current CMP?
As Commissioner Jackson said:
If we keep straying from it [the CMP] we’re going to kill it.
Commissioner Ashmum raised concerns that the staff presentation lacked the full history of the Medform Evesham Plan and a discussion of all the data, objectives, and programs that plan was based on.
Other Commissioners agreed and the staff recommendations thankfully were tabled for reconsideration at the new P&I meeting.
This is something to keep an eye on.
