Land owner denies showing plans to any resident
The Voorhees Township Planning Board voted to recommend that a series of connected plots located north of the Borough of Lindenwold be designated as an area of redevelopment.
These properties sit on the north side of Kirkwood-Gibbsboro Road, and one lot is the vacant Carriage House Restaurant. The restaurant has been vacant since 2012.
Malvika Apte is a planner hired by the township to conduct a study of these properties — properties owned by a member of the planning board, Subash Rashatwar.
The presentation was followed by a public hearing. Rashatwar recused himself from all aspects of the meeting concerning his properties and left the building.
Deputy Mayor and planning board member Jason Ravitz also recused himself as his property sits within 200 feet of the area of discussion.
“In my opinion, the sites do meet the requirement to be designated an area in need of redevelopment,” Apte said at the conclusion of her presentation that detailed the lots as mainly vacant and in need of attention.
She deemed the vacant restaurant as “untenantable.” That lot is the only designated commercial lot.
Before opening the floor to the public, board solicitor CherylLynn Walters explained that Apte’s presentation is meant to essentially offer a suggestion the discussed properties be redeveloped.
“If this board makes that determination tonight and makes the recommendation to the governing body, the governing body would then pass a resolution designating these properties in consistency with the board’s recommendation,” she said. Walters stressed that no redevelopment plan for the land is on the books and will not be for quite some time.
However, Cheryl Cole, a township resident, said during the public hearing: “I just want to point out one thing real quick. … I already have concerns, and I will tell you that even though you don’t have what you’re saying is plans, plans have been presented by Mr. Rashatwar to other people that he is looking to build a three-story Muslim living facility.”
Walters met that comment with, “We don’t know that yet.”
Cole continued to say her property is located in close proximity to Rashatwar’s, and she claims to have experienced issues in the past.
Cole later said, “I moved here 25 years ago because of this quaint little town, I don’t want stuff built up there. That’s not what this town is about.”
In a later phone call, Rashatwar vehemently denied having shown potential plans to anyone stating only his attorney has an idea of what he wants to build and called comments from the meeting “discriminatory.”
When asked about showing plans to residents he said, “Absolutely not. … We have not shared any information with any resident yet because I don’t have a solid plan right now.”
Rashatwar told The Sun his initial plans are for an age-targeted, “strictly residential” space. He specified the age would not be limited to, but would target, the 55 and older community.
Walters explained that even if residents have seen plans, they are conceptual and have not met the eyes of the planning board.
Several residents spoke following Cole.
Denise Misselhorn said the surrounding neighborhood is a “very old, historical town.” She added “I would hate to see something built there that did not conform with the look and feel of the town.”
She was directed to express her concerns to the township committee.
Louis Mueller, speaking directly about the property owner, suggested the plots of land were possibly not maintained for a “self-serving” reason.
The board stated it did not have a way to know if that was true.
After learning of that comment and others, Rashatwar denied the claim.
Throughout the evening, Chairman Tom Fanelli said, “We have a long way to go before anything happens there.”
The board voted to recommend to the township committee the plots of land be deemed an area of redevelopment. However, Fanelli voted “no” and stated he wishes the board takes into consideration what the public has to say. He was the last to vote.
In a letter issued by the township to residents in close proximity to the land in discussion, the plots are shown as Block 197, lots 4, 4.01, 4.02, 5 and 11 on the township tax map.
