Holdmel Zoning Board: When to say NO

On May 17th Holmdel’s Zoning Board approved a “density variance” request to convert 930 Holmdel Road, an eleven plus acre farm, into four residential lots of roughly 2.5 acres each. Current zoning requires 4 acre lots hence the variance request.

The property is in Southern Holmdel and current zoning complies with the established Master Plan. The 4 acre lots were mandated so as to ensure that the Swimming River reservoir’s water shed was adequately sized to permit natural replenishment. Swimming River reservoir is an extremely important fresh water resource for the entire surrounding area. A senior member of the audience reminded the Zoning Board that the large size lots in the Master Plan had survived court challenges in the past primarily due to the argument of preserving the water shed.

Maintaining low density is not a marginal issue it is the THE ISSUE. It not just any issue it is OUR FRESH WATER SUPPLY that we are talking about. This is not a matter of striking a delicate balance between private and public interests; 2.5acres is not even marginally close to the 4 acre requirement. Three houses would have made the petition within striking distance of a fair request for variance but the request for four houses was an easy NO.

So within an hour, the thoughtful, hard fought for, court survived Master Plan to preserve a crucial public asset was rejected. Why? so that the owner could build one additional house. Pray tell what did it gain Holmdel? Taxes, net of costs, on one additional house! Holmdel lost the high ground of no precedence.

Whilst precedence is not a legal concept in Zoning Variance requests in reality the effects are very real. The potential queue for variance requests now automatically increases to include every owner of larger size lots in this part of town. The economics are very compelling for owners, each residential lot fetches north of $350,000 with additional profit sharing in the house constructed. Most of the monies are pure profit since the cost basis, of such properties, are typically marginal. Certainly even my public mindedness would be severely tempted by such numbers!

Zoning board members please live up to your responsibilities and protect what is important. Please listen to your Chairperson, he correctly understood the seriousness of this variance request and suggested discussion. Unfortunately the ensuing discussion was weak and despite spirited challenges from the small audience the only NO vote was that of the Chairperson.

Zoning Board please think more holistically and wisely the next go-around.

Pradeep Jhanjee

Holmdel Resident