Developer Looking to Build on Wemple Property

For residents living near the formerly owned Wemple property, they were under the impression it would never be developed—and now that an application is before the township planning board, they just want to make sure the property is protected.

About 40 residents turned out to the April 23 planning board meeting with the intent of hearing the beginnings of an application concerning subdividing the 35-acre former Wemple property—at Twin Oaks Road, Foothill Road and Steele Gap Road—into 18 lots.

The application was postponed until May 8 because the engineer for the applicant was unavailable for the meeting date.

But residents are concerned about the plans.

“The big concern is that everyone was living under the belief that this is a nice and beautiful place, and it would always be that way,” said Bob Vaucher, who lives next door to the property on Foothill Road, and is part of the Foothill Civic Association. “Somehow that was abridged. The folks here know it will be impacted in a way they never expected it to be.”

Vaucher himself was a close confident of the Wemple family for many years, particularly the son, John, who was the last owner of the property before he died in 2002.

The property on Foothill Road, Vaucher said, was in the hands of the Wemple family for many years, and, after John Wemple’s father and mother died, he inherited it with his sister.

“They lived there, neither got married and they spent their whole lives there,” Vaucher said. “John became very attached to that property. It originally was a farm, his father was a noted lawyer in New York City and this was a summer retreat.”

Vaucher said John Wemple was determined that the property should never be developed.

“He watched Bridgewater from his childhood when it was nothing but farms, or almost all farms,” Vaucher said. “John never was completely comfortable with the development that took place as a result of the central location of the town.”

But Wemple, Vaucher said, wanted to ensure that the property would not be developed so he started by willing it to the Nature Conservancy, a national organization that preserves property.

“But then he learned that the Nature Conservancy was not living up to its claims, and it was being sued by a number of states for not doing so,” Vaucher said. “He got one of the top lawyers in the area to represent him, and he confronted the Nature Conservancy.”

“They admitted they were planning to turn the property into cash when he died because it was not a piece of property they wanted to invest in,” he added. “They maintained that if John had read the fine print, he would have known. He said he would sue.”

In the end, Vaucher said, Wemple negotiated a deal with the Nature Conservancy so that when they sold the property after his death, they would get 20 percent of the proceeds.

“So they have had a 20 percent interest in the property since the early 1990s,” Vaucher said.

Vaucher said Wemple’s original will was changed in 1998, saying that the property would be willed to his 11 nieces and nephews, and that the property would be sold as one hole and not ever developed.

“It became well-known around the neighborhood that this was better than green acres and better than dedicated land because you never knew what the town would do with those,” Vaucher said. “It couldn’t ever be developed.”

“And that is the reason the neighborhood is in an uproar because they were always under the impression it was preserved,” he added. “It was under the will of a neighbor, and it was great that he did that for the community. That’s part of the reason there is such turmoil because no one ever thought anything could happen to it.”

Basically, Vaucher said, they learned Wemple’s will had been broken on the property, which was valued at between $4 million and $5 million when John Wemple died.

“The will being broken meant that the 11 nieces and nephews had signed off,” he said. “There’s been rumors about them saying John was senile when he signed the will.”

“I guarantee he wasn’t because I was involved in it, and he was very clear for many years before he got sick that he wouldn’t develop the property,” he added. “If that was the reason for the will being broken, it wasn’t a good reason, and someone claimed something that wasn’t true.”

Vaucher said the Foothill Civic Association currently has lawyers looking into the breaking of the will.

“They do know that the 11 nieces and nephews signed off on the breaking of the will, which they had to do for it to be broken,” he said. “They were apparently convinced it was worth more with the will broken versus selling all the land together.”

“Theoretically, it is worth a lot more broken up than in one piece because who wants to buy a house with 35 acres,” he added.

After John Wemple died, Vaucher said, the land was sold for only $975,000 to the Lang family, which has put in the application for the 18-lot subdivision.

“That is the biggest puzzlement, how it went for so little money,” Vaucher said. “The puzzling thing is that at least three people came along during this period and claimed they wanted to buy the property, and were willing to buy it as one piece with the idea they would have to pay several million dollars.”

“I can attest to that because some of them came to directly, and I expressed to them that maybe they wouldn’t be interested when they learned how much it was worth and that it couldn’t be subdivided,” he added.

Vaucher said he and his neighbors got the notice about the application, and were concerned about the local issue.

“I am affected by it because it’s next door to me, and my biggest concern is that they are developing the property that the owner had no intention of being developed,” he said. “It seems like an injustice, seems like it makes the will immaterial if you can break it to that extent.”

As for the application itself, according to resident Dana Caparoso, the Langs are proposing a cul-de-sac off Steele Gap Road and another off Twin Oaks Road across from Berrywood Drive. There are wetlands on the area, she said, and three detention basins are being proposed.

But, Vaucher said, he understands that there is little chance the application itself can be stopped. Instead, he said, the residents are hoping to make sure the property is still protected.

That, Vaucher said, would include putting in proper sidewalks, taking care of drainage and avoiding taking down all trees.

“We will have to be ever vigilant that the developer is doing what he is supposed to,” he said. “We want to be sure the development has as little impact on the neighborhood as possible.”

The application will be before the planning board May 8 at 7 p.m. at the municipal complex.