Latest Developments on the Shire Road Subdivision
Highlights
Just-released maps from the New Jersey Geologic Survey show Well Head Protection Areas, and the map for the Consumers New Jersey Water Company well adjacent to the proposed subdivision shows that most of the septic systems on the property would be within the protection area – and sewage, solvents and household cleaners could contaminate the water supply for Consumers customers along Route 519.
- The developer has submitted a proposal for a water availability study prepared by his own consultant. Our expert shoots back that the proposal is too incomplete to judge, it contains mistaken calculations, and for a water study to be credible, it has to be done by an unbiased expert selected by the planning board, not by the developer's hand-picked consultant.
- The developer seems to be having discussions behind closed doors about meeting the requirements to use Lot Averaging, and he's promised to submit a new design. But we want this key topic discussed on the record at the public hearing – and a Soil Survey of the property shows that the property cannot satisfy the requirements that would allow lots smaller than the 5 acres mandated by Holland law.
- The Holland Township Environmental Commission has told the Planning Board that they have "a number of concerns" about this subdivision including how the water study should be done – and they warn that the Planning Board has legal responsibility for making sure the trout production stream isn't degraded in any measurable way.
Below you'll find more detail on each of these issues, as well as links to the documents, studies and maps.
Back to Top
Well Head Protection Area
What's happening:
Information just made available by the state shows the high danger of contamination of drinking water for customers of Consumers New Jersey Water Company, and everyone with individual wells adjacent to the proposed subdivision.
-
Foreseeable contaminants in the Well Head Protection Area include:
- Drain cleaners, solvents (turpentine, paint thinner), household cleaning products (bleach, ammonia, oven cleaner) and prescription drugs
- If the percolation tests are not absolutely accurate, possible E. coli bacterial contamination
- Runoff from the subdivision lots such as weed killers, insecticides, pet feces, and motor oil from driveways
- The New Jersey Geologic Survey has just released maps that show public water supply wells and the extent of the surrounding water they draw upon.
- The map shows the timetable for contaminants to reach the drinking water in the public well (two years or less, five years or less, or twelve years or less zones).
- The mapping project is intended to help state and municipal officials take measures, such as changing zoning rules and preserving open space, to protect the state's 2,425 public drinking water wells.
- The map for the Consumers New Jersey Water Company well that is adjacent to the property shows that all but one or two of the new septic systems would be within the area the well draws upon.
- Click here to see the Well Head Protection Area for the well that provides drinking water for everyone with Consumers water service along Route 519.
- During the years after this subdivision is built, the Consumers well would draw upon water coming from areas containing septic systems built on steep slopes, in soils where the USDA says "disposal of onsite sewage effluent" is listed as "severe: very steep; extremely high stone content."
Back to Top
Water Availability Study 
What's happening:
The developer finally admits he needs to prove there's enough water for the wells in his subdivision, but our expert says the proposal is vague and an independent consultant should do the study.
- Before the August hearing, the developer submitted a study prepared by his own water consultant that had proposals for studying the availability of water on the property proposed for this major subdivision.
- It's good news that the developer is now being asked to demonstrate that there's enough water to supply the houses he wants to build – while not drying up the wells of homes that abut the proposed subdivision.
- But it's bad news if the developer is allowed to have this study done by his own chosen consultant – the neighbors and citizens of Holland deserve a credible study done by a neutral expert selected by the Planning Board and financed by the developer.
- In September, our expert, Bill Honachefsky (who testified at the July hearing) submitted an Additional Review, commenting on new developments. Read his complete report here.
- In an analysis of the report by the water consultant hired by the developer, Mr. Honachefsky says it's impossible to judge what she wants to do because she hasn't submitted what's called a detailed "QA/QC Project Workplan" as is usually done.
- He says her calculations of water recharge are off because she doesn't account for all the impermeable surfaces if the development is built – new roads, driveways and houses that block rainfall getting into the ground.
- He recommends the methods for doing fair and accurate pump well tests.
- And he says the developer's paid consultant shouldn't be trusted to carry out the study – "The pumped well test should be monitored by an impartial expert hired by the Township or actually conducted by the Township's own expert."
- Responding to remarks that the proposed subdivision may be eligible for approval under the Clustering law, he points out what clustering is really all about and says the project would have to be completely redesigned to meet the law.
- He says that the preference should be to not develop this land at all--because current engineering practices can't eliminate dangers to such rugged topography.
Back to Top
Lot Averaging
What's happening:
The Planning Board is asking the developer to meet the requirements for putting 3-acre lots in the 5-acre zone, but a U.S. Government Soil Survey proves he can't meet those requirements.
- It looks like the developer is now being asked to show that he meets the requirements of the Lot Averaging law.
- He's using Lot Averaging to put in the 5-acre zone of Holland lots that are mostly closer to 3 acres, with 11 of the lots smaller than 5 acres.
- Read for yourself what the Lot Averaging law requires. You'll find two requirements must be met:
- The land must vary from the usual environmental limitations that led to 5-acre zoning in the first place.
- And lots as small as 3 acres are allowed because there are larger lots that can support agriculture.
- In his letter asking to postpone the September 9th hearing, developer William Scopetto says he's changing his plans and will now join two lots into a large lot "that can be utilized for agriculture purposes."
Click here to read Mr. Scopetto's letter.
Click here to see a map of the proposed development with the location of the "agricultural" tract.
- We've said all along that the Planning Board has to decide whether or not the developer meets the requirements for Lot Averaging--so we're happy to see he's being asked to satisfy at least one of the two requirements.
- But we're not happy to learn that this critical subject is being discussed behind closed doors, denying the public their right to know what's going on.
- This isn't some minor detail the Planning Board can properly discuss with an applicant out of the public's eye – Lot Averaging is central to Mr. Scopetto's entire design for his proposed subdivision.
- We strongly urge the Planning Board to force Mr. Scopetto to go on the record before the public at the October hearing and explain how his proposal satisfies the requirements for Lot Averaging.
- A new study we've obtained demonstrates that his plans don't meet the requirements for Lot Averaging.
- A Soil Survey from the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service concludes that "the limitation of the soils on this tract of land, in general, are severe in most of its ranges of use."
- See a map of the soil types on the lots that are supposed to "support agriculture" – match the soil types on the map with the explanations in the report.
- Click here for a map of the entire property proposed for the major subdivision -- match the soil types on the map with the explanations in the report.
- One requirement for using Lot Averaging is that the plan must create "larger lots which could support agriculture."
- The USDA expert advises, "The proposed agricultural lots are predominantly Edneyville soils. These soils are severely limited in their agricultural uses."
- In short, the lots can't really "support agriculture" as required – the applicant calling them agricultural lots won't make things grow in the poor soil.
- The USDA goes on to warn that the erosion potential of the soils on the supposed agricultural lots could cause "degradation to the wetlands and the associated stream corridor."
- In other words, if the land is cleared and plowed, it will erode and present yet another threat to the protected Category One Trout Production Stream.
- Since the soils are of such poor quality, anyone attempting to use these lots for agricultural purposes would need to use plentiful fertilizers, creating more degradation of the trout production waters.
- The Soil Survey also proves that the proposed subdivision doesn't meet the second requirement for using Lot Averaging – that the property vary from the environmental limitations of "steep slopes, adverse soil and bedrock conditions, septic effluent disposal limitations and limited groundwater yield."
- All the houses on 3-acre lots along the ridge of the hill are in the STBF zone, and the analysis for this soil type concludes that "available water capacity is low," and "disposal of onsite sewage effluent" is listed as "severe: very steep; extremely high stone content."
- Even "foundations for dwellings" is characterized as "severe: very steep; extremely high stone content" and "lawns and landscaping" get the same description.
Bottom line: The evidence shows that this proposal doesn't meet the requirements for using Lot Averaging – and the Planning Board needs to make the applicant address this critical issue on the record, at the next public hearing. We have the legal right to know how he justifies putting 3-acre lots in a sensitive area zoned for 5 acres.
Back to Top
Holland Township Environmental Commission Expresses Concern
What's happening:
- Our Environmental Commission tells the Planning Board they have "concerns" about how the water availability study should be done and about the Township's legal liability if the trout production steam is degraded.
- In an August 29, 2002, Memorandum to the Planning Board, the Environmental Commission said they have "a number of concerns" about this development:
- The water study plan submitted by the developer is too sketchy to determine if the design is adequate and fair.
- The tests should not be done just by the developer's chosen consultant.
- The law mandates that the trout steam "shall be protected from any measurable change to existing water quality."
- The Planning Board is responsible for ensuring that the storm water management system is properly designed so it won't degrade Spring Mills Brook.
- The DEP could find the Township negligent in approving the design if the trout production stream suffers any measurable change to existing water quality - that could mean fines for which taxpayers will be liable.
Back to Top