Save the 700 Acre Pole Branch Forest
This is our last chance to protect a large portion of the great remaining forests of the East Coast.
Save the Pole Bridge Forest
- Thread starter Jon Holcombe
- Start date
- Status
I love the map (s/), and deplore the propaganda. Isn't it already zoned as a rural development area and subject to Pinelands Commission developmental review?
If you click on the link the mission statement makes clear the Pole Bridge Forest is not protected land. The purpose of petition is to advocate for the 700 acres to be protected, and not to be developed.
Advocacy is not propaganda. Brendan Byrne advocated for The Pinelands Protection Act. Was that propaganda?
Advocacy is not propaganda. Brendan Byrne advocated for The Pinelands Protection Act. Was that propaganda?
You have still not given the full story. Where exactly are these 700 acres near 530? What percentage of that is already zoned under the Pinelands Commission, and what is the curerent zoning. The precursor advocates leading to the Pinelands Commission went through a lot of trouble in the 1970's fighting these battles already. Is the Pineland Commission onboard, or are you trying to change their zoning by doing an end run around them?
I am not a member of the PPA. Jason asked me to take some pictures of the development area. If you look on the Pine Barrens Facebook page there is a map link somewhere on the initial post. I used that map to figure out where to take the photos.
I am on board with anything that protects the Pinelands from further development and keeps trees and natural land in the environment. The Pinelands Commission will either agree or they won't based on the petition and the information provided.
I looked up the Pemberton Township Zoning Map (dated May 3, 2021) and this particular parcel is zoned "Infill Residential District with Planned Retirement Community Conditional Use". It's the only area in the township so zoned; I presume it got rezoned at some point in the past to permit this project and the petition is seeking to reverse that, whenever it happened.
Thanks Gabe. I used to live in Browns Mills in my youth. This is not some "last great expanse of pinelands wilderness". It's right next to Country Lakes, and It's only about 130 acres they would further develop beyond the senior community already there. And if the Pinelands approves it in this Regional Growth Area, it's ok by me. If they start letting the public pressure the Pinelands Commission, then developers will call for fair play in the forest area.
So, where are the 700 acres?
So, where are the 700 acres?
Last edited:
I didn't calculate the acreage (you can question Jason or the PPA about that), but there is a road which approximately encircles the development area and I drove that.
It is nice forest and whether it is 130 acres or 700 acres it is worth saving as woods, instead of hardtop and housing. You certainly can count on developers calling for fair play. They did when the Pinelands Protection Act was being debated and they would develop every acre of the Pinelands if it was legal. Every acre that remains greens is additional buffer to climate change and more sanctuary for wildlife.
It is nice forest and whether it is 130 acres or 700 acres it is worth saving as woods, instead of hardtop and housing. You certainly can count on developers calling for fair play. They did when the Pinelands Protection Act was being debated and they would develop every acre of the Pinelands if it was legal. Every acre that remains greens is additional buffer to climate change and more sanctuary for wildlife.
The entire thing is deceptive unless Jason can prove otherwise. Over 300 people signed that petition, and I'll bet most didn't even look into it.
Actually Guy, the Pole Bridge Branch is right next to it. I canoed that section in 1978 or so with a flotilla of other guys and a case of beer. Very choked in shrubbery. We went all the way to Mount Misery Brook where we stashed a vehicle somewhere.
Assuming your calculations about acreage is correct, and there are 130 acres in the planned development and PPA number of 700 is totally off. I don't know that you are correct but let's say you are. The average number of trees in any given forest are 125 per acre (based on quickly averaging Google calculations), then perhaps 16,250 mature trees would be saved if the planned development were stopped. 130 acres or 700 acres, the forest is worth saving.
You may be right on some of the facts but totally wrong on the big picture.
One of the petition signers said he he has personally seen endangered species in that forest. Take a look at page 18.
Of course Jason is banking on hoping that entire rural development area in orange is taken off the table. But that's wrong. People who owned that property when the plan was developed should not have the rug pulled out from under them 40 years later.
Jeff larson is a member of PBX. I know him well. He may have seen something, but unless it's documented it means nothing.
From the petition wording:
"The proposed development pushes right up to the edge of what the Pinelands Commission will allow in proximity to wetlands."
So, where is the problem here?
"NJ’s Affordable Housing Laws specify that at least 20% of all “for-sale” homes need to be affordable as well as 15% of all rental homes, but the developer has negotiated a lower percentage and is seeking an exemption from including any units in the first phase of development."
I thought you were a preservation organization. Why do you care about this. It's not your fight.
"Citizens have voiced....worries of empty grocery store shelves in the singular Acme in town."
Sure, sure. Browns Mills is not a food desert. Are you saying a few more seniors will clean the shelves? This is a ridiculous comment.
"The development proposed as part of the Lakehurst Road redevelopment plan is for age-restricted single-family homes, in which owners must be 55+ years old, but other residents in the home just need to be at least 18 years old. "
Again, not your fight.
"The proposed development pushes right up to the edge of what the Pinelands Commission will allow in proximity to wetlands."
So, where is the problem here?
"NJ’s Affordable Housing Laws specify that at least 20% of all “for-sale” homes need to be affordable as well as 15% of all rental homes, but the developer has negotiated a lower percentage and is seeking an exemption from including any units in the first phase of development."
I thought you were a preservation organization. Why do you care about this. It's not your fight.
"Citizens have voiced....worries of empty grocery store shelves in the singular Acme in town."
Sure, sure. Browns Mills is not a food desert. Are you saying a few more seniors will clean the shelves? This is a ridiculous comment.
"The development proposed as part of the Lakehurst Road redevelopment plan is for age-restricted single-family homes, in which owners must be 55+ years old, but other residents in the home just need to be at least 18 years old. "
Again, not your fight.
I did some calculations using Google maps and an area "feet to acres" calculator. First, your acre calculation is innacurate. The development area is 180 acres, not 130 acres as you stated. Second, the development area completely bisects the larger wooded area which looks to me around 700 to 1000 acres. I am guessing that is what Jason considers the "Pole Bridge Forest".
Contiguous forest is important for wildlife. I support the petition and hope that others will sign it.
Contiguous forest is important for wildlife. I support the petition and hope that others will sign it.
I intentionally did not count the area close to the lands already developed. Are you saying they are part of the last remaining wilderness? Imagine looking across from China King, while eating your egg roll, and remarking that the area across the street must be the last remaining wilderness. This whole thing is a farce, you should jump off this train Jon.
Here, I fixed it for you guys. If your car breaks down in the wildernes, R&R automotive is only 100 yards away.
Last edited:
- Status