Residents voiced concern over the development, which requires 26 variances at the intersection of Kresson Road and Route 73.
At its latest meeting, the Voorhees Township Planning Board continued its preliminary site plan and minor subdivision hearings for VRI-W/J&J Voorhees II LLC, an applicant trying to build a Super Wawa and Tractor Supply Company store at the corner of Kresson Road and Route 73.
After three rounds of testimony, the board has not voted on the construction, but says it plans to decide at the next meeting scheduled for July 11.
The proposed Wawa would be 5,585 square-feet with 16 fueling stations and open 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The Tractor Supply Company store would be 19,097 square-feet with an additional 13,500 square-foot outdoor display area.
The development, which requires more than 20 variances that spread over Voorhees and Evesham townships, has received pushback from some members of the Voorhees community. Members of the immediate area believe the project presents a dangerous encroachment upon an already hazardous intersection. They’ve argued the construction could increase air, noise and light pollution, as well as create traffic congestion and heightened crime.
Some variances include lot sizes, required number of parking spaces, fence sizes and light fixture heights. An ordinance requires a minimum front yard for the Wawa site to Route 73 of 50 feet, whereas only 35.2 feet are proposed. Another ordinance requires a minimum rear yard for the Wawa site of 100 feet, and some 57 feet are proposed.
The site also requires several street traffic changes, including adding a three-lane exit/entry way onto Kresson Road along the Route 73 intersection
Both attorney Howard Sobel, representing some of those opposed to the project and whose law firm is located along the proposed site, and the applicant’s lawyer, Timothy Prime, presented a few witnesses, specifically experts in landscape architecture who argued for and against the efficiency of the project’s proposed vegetation buffering.
At a previous planning board meeting, Pamela Pellegrini, project manager for Maser Consulting, says there will be an average of 52 feet of plantings, meeting the 50-foot requirement. Along with retaining trees, an additional 25 more trees will be preserved to areas that originally lacked plantings.
To illustrate the proposed buffer’s alleged inefficiency, Steve Chepurny, a licensed landscape architect since 2002, used a Voorhees buffer and landscape standards code to argue his claim. The code states a typical 25-foot wide buffer should be “comprised of three rows of trees and/or shrubs as specified planted five feet on center. The typical 50-foot wide buffer shall be doubling of all the 25-foot wide buffer.”
“The proposed quantity is grossly insufficient … buffers are instituted and valued by every township for a very specific reason,” he said. “It provides a definite benefit to the business, as well as the township, as well as to the surrounding community members.”
Presenting a few deficient numbers from his own calculations using the code as a basis, he argued the need for improvements, supporting his claim that nine of the 25 preserved trees are located outside the service area, and, because basins would be placed in those areas, the trees could be damaged or removed during construction.
“You’re comprising the buffer for 16 trees,” Chepurny said. “Why not come with a little more of a substantial plan?”
He suggested maintaining several more trees, including evergreens, to the area, as they will presumably grow fully over the year, which could provide more of a visual buffer.
Chepurny stressed an improved buffer is especially critical considering the project would be a 24-hour operation.
“I think the buffer needs to be seriously reconsidered, as well as the plant count of what’s being preserved and how that’s being designed,” he said.
In opposition, Gerald DeFelicis, a landscape architect with Maser Consulting, explained the applicant’s revised buffer plan was intended to bolster the existing vegetation with new greenery, explaining the idea was to preserve as much as the current trees.
The new planting, which he says includes all flora native to South Jersey such sweetgums and red maples, would fill in the lower area of the buffer, which is between six-feet tall height and the ground.
“The idea also behind the buffer was to re-naturalize it and make it both a buffer and a native plant,” DeFelicis said.
Planning board engineer Rakesh J. Darji explained an ordinance requirement is a 100-foot buffer, permitting 50 feet that has to be vegetated while the other 50 feet would be occupied by drainage space, which the applicant presents.
The applicant plans to vegetate within the drainage base they were proposing by adding additional plantings.
Pellegrini said at a previous meeting that now there will be an average of 52 feet of plantings, meeting the 50-foot requirement.
Following both landscape architecture cross examinations and testimony, the public continued to voice concerns about the project, highlighting the dangers of the construction, including privacy concerns related to the proposed buffering.
Members of the public also inquired about how the construction presence could influence property value.
“The variances here — we’re very concerned about. It would be one thing if we’re talking about a handful of variances but we’re talking about 20,” said resident Dr. Lewis Horvitz. “There really needs to be a balance between what’s good for the residents and what’s good for the bringing in business for a very high-tax paying township that we have right now.”
Residents questioned if this was a project intended to satisfy ratables, which Deputy Mayor Jason Ravitz explained is not the case, as he says the township is in good fiscal shape.
Continuing dialogue from the previous meetings, nearly every resident mentioned the potential decrease in traffic safety, citing several car accidents they say unfold at the intersection every day.
“My daughter is 3 and she knows the sound of car accidents way more than she should,” said resident Shera Goldstein who lives off the intersection. “We run out there calling 911 checking on people. That is not going to get better if we add any increased traffic.”
The planning board explained the applicant has presented a series of traffic improvements to the area that would be of no cost to taxpayers, as the developers would be spending their own money.
The planning board intends to present the improvements to the public at the meeting on July 11 at 7:30 p.m. at the Voorhees municipal court.
“It worries me — the prospect of adding that much more traffic. I don’t want to leave Voorhees … I want to stay where I am,” Goldstein said. “And I feel like I’d be forced out if the safety of the residents is taken over and tossed aside for another business to come in. It’s just not the right spot.”
