Homes Ok’d in Conservation Zone

VILLAS – Lower Township Zoning Board’s meeting March 7 was filled to overflowing with residents who wished to have their voices heard regarding a use-variance application to allow 21 single-family dwellings to be built on a Shawmount Avenue lot in Villas. The area is mostly in the Conservation Zone in the Cox Hall Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA) where residential development is not an allowed use.
One by one, residents lined up to oppose the project. They didn’t like what they heard when the zoning board made its decision on the application.
At the Feb. 7 meeting, a use-variance application submitted by Marcello Magavero, the contracted purchaser, represented by an attorney, Jeffrey Barnes, requested 21 single-family homes be built on a seven-acre parcel zoned both R3 and Conservation. No development is allowed in the Conservation Zone.
Since a variance to build on the lot occurred in 2012, Barnes argued that the new variance should be granted. He explained to the board that the previous variance expired due to lack of sewer and water available to the site and the owner’s failure to renew the variance. Public water and sewer could now be extended to the site.
Barnes also explained that the former golf course, known as Ponderlodge, went through bankruptcy in 1997. The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) bought the property from a bankruptcy court in 2005, but the lot in question was previously conveyed to the current owner in lieu of payment from the bankruptcy and has been privately owned since that time.
That fact was lost when the township reviewed the master plan in 2009 and rezoned the lot to Conservation District in 2010. The Master Plan was again reviewed in 2012 and the zoning for the tract was not changed.
At the February meeting, attorney Justin Turner, representing Shawmount Avenue property owner Ellen Seward, who opposed the variance, reminded the board that those issues were not for the zoning board to decide.
Engineer John Kornick and Planner Tiffany Morrissey presented the case for allowing the use variance, showing how the 21 homes would not negatively impact the area and pointing to the fact that a similar variance was allowed in the past, while Turner produced experts who spoke to the environmental sensitivity of the property.
Three dozen spoke of the beauty of the lot in question, the effect the construction would have on the surrounding neighborhoods and the lack of need for more housing in the area.
“One reason I moved here three years ago was that park. I ride my bike there. I see kids there not staring at their phones, looking at the wildlife. Living near green space is beneficial to our health and well-being. People come from all over to visit this area,” Karen McGarrity said. “Our ecology is our economy here.”
Michael Erb, who lives within 200 feet of the proposed development, said he was worried about his children.
“I have two kids and kids play in the street. The increased traffic is going to be a hazard. You have the final say, but we all have to live with it,” he added.
Brian Williamson, a biologist who lives near Cox Hall Creek WMA, told the zoning board that development there would be detrimental to several species.
“Cox Hall Creek WMA is important to many species. Progress does not mean paving over environmentally-important habitat. We stand to lose more than we gain.”
When the public portion closed, the variance was in the hands of the board. Board member Bruce Waterman was first to speak.
“We love Ponderlodge,” Waterman said referring to fellow zoning board members. “Who knew walking through that gate that the property there was privately owned? We all thought it was purchased by the state, but it was mislabeled when it was rezoned. This man has a right to do what he wants with his property.”
Waterman continued by stating the environmental issues at the site are not the purview of the zoning board, but up to the DEP.
“I wish we could turn down this variance, but it would wind up in court and we would lose and spend a lot of money. We have to protect the individual as well as the community,” Waterman added.
Other board members agreed with Waterman and zoning board Chairman James Hanson said the rezoning of the property amounted to inverse condemnation.
“That would require the township to purchase the property. The property was previously granted development rights.”
The board unanimously approved the application.
After the meeting, Turner said he would have to consult with his client before a decision to take further action.
The applicant, Magavero, said there were more hurdles to leap before any development begins.
“We’ve got a long road ahead of us,” Magavero said.
To contact Carl Price, email cprice@cmcherald.com.