Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Black Horse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Developer seeks zoning tweak for 32‑acre Black Horse Hill parcel; commissioners voice spot‑zoning and infrastructure concerns
Summary
Property owner First Black Horse LLC asked the board to adopt an R2A zoning modification to allow clustered townhomes (up to 72 units) on a constrained 32.5‑acre site. Planner and residents debated feasibility, sewer access, emergency access and whether the change would be spot zoning.
Brian Nagel, representing Property Owner First Black Horse LLC, told the board the roughly 32.5‑acre parcel west of the Veterans Hospital cannot be developed feasibly under the township's current R2 rules because of steep topography, an easement across the site and sewer and water connections more than 3,000 feet away. He said the planning commission recommended an R2A modification that would allow clustering and townhomes and showed a concept for 72 units while preserving roughly 21 acres of open space.
"Because of the narrow entrance, steep slopes and the easement, you probably can't even get 35 single‑family units here," Nagel said, arguing the R2A option would permit a feasible project while preserving most of the property as open space. He said the proposed R2A would cap development at 72 units and require a conditional‑use filing if the commissioners adopt the zoning change.
Several commissioners and nearby residents pushed back. One commissioner said the proposal resembles spot zoning and warned that creating an R2A category for this parcel could invite similar petitions for other large tracts, risking a precedent the township may not want to set. Others questioned whether townhomes would fit the surrounding one‑acre lot character and asked for more detailed engineering and traffic, emergency‑response and school‑district input before deciding.
Residents raised practical concerns about driveway depth, overflow parking, fire apparatus turning radii and school‑bus access, and urged the township to require developer responses on those points before any ordinance change. A resident also asked whether grant applications tied to the project had been submitted without prior permission; the petitioner said many grants are proposed to run through municipalities but that participation is optional.
The board did not vote. Commissioners asked the petitioner to supply additional materials — engineering constraints, sewer/water connection details, emergency‑vehicle circulation, and a clearer demonstration of why the parcel is not reasonably developable under existing rules — and signaled they will revisit the petition after staff and the planning commission provide more information.
Next steps: The applicant said it would work with the township and solicitor to assemble the requested materials and return to a future meeting. No formal zoning change or conditional‑use filing was authorized tonight.
