Master plan changes could hinder creation of farmettes
U.F. still pitching village centers, density transfers, downzoning
BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

UPPER FREEHOLD - Township Planner Mark Remsa presented a rough draft of the new land use element of the master plan last week.

There was no public comment portion at the Jan. 23 Planning Board meeting regarding the suggested zoning changes. Chairman Richard Stern said there will be a meeting for public comment in February or March.

The Planning Board began discussing master plan revisions in March 2005. Remsa said he based his proposed revisions on the 1995 land use element's foundation, which indicates that the township has a five-part mission.

The mission is to maintain the rural and country atmosphere that prevails throughout most of Upper Freehold Township; to preserve farmland to the maximum extent possible in a reasonable manner that is achievable and equitable to the farmer; to provide sufficient open space and facilities for passive and active recreation as part of all residential developments; to prevent the homogeneous spread of suburban-type development; and to consider a responsible approach to addressing the mandate of the Mount Laurel II New Jersey Supreme Court decision and the requirements of the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH).

Remsa also noted that the Planning Board adopted a vision statement in 2004, which recommends formulating and refining a zoning strategy that maximizes open space preservation, retaining farmland, preserving woodlands and historic districts and structures, designating and protecting scenic vistas, promoting future land use development commensurate with the land's carrying capacity, and preventing overdevelopment.

The vision statement also notes that the town should promote commercial development that is consistent with its rural character. The development should emphasize active farming in the town such as crop farming, horse breeding, environmentally sensitive and organic farming and commercial tree and flower production. In addition, the statement advocates fostering working relationships with municipal, regional, county, state and federal offices in order to promote and protect the township's unique position as a historically valuable, environmentally sensitive and culturally rich farming community.

Remsa said a 2003 amendment to the master plan states that the township should follow the recommendation of the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP) and focus on its rural planning areas designated by the state as Planning Areas 4 and 5.

Remsa explained that there are three key provisions in the SDRP. The first is to encourage development and redevelopment in locations situated to anticipated public sewerage, he said.

"This provision really speaks to the process you are using to preserve the rural character of the community," he said.

The second provision is to reduce sprawl, he said, and the third is to encourage public/private partnerships to make the plan work.

Remsa said that in Upper Freehold agriculture should be considered the land's final use rather than its interim use.

"It is not to be thought of as a temporary use," he said. "It is often thought of that way in planning, but rural farmland defines Upper Freehold."

Remsa said it is also important to preserve the equity of the farmer. He cited the Agricultural Smart Growth Plan, which warns communities that are fed up with sprawl against zoning for large-lot, low-density-type units.

He said that such zoning results in lots that are too large to mow and too small to plow.

According to Remsa, the results of questionnaires that board members have answered since 2005 show that their vision for the township retains the rural, country atmosphere with preserved farmland, low traffic and villages surrounded by open space. Remsa said the results of the members' surveys show that farmland preservation is not only paramount for the agricultural industry in the township, but also for protecting landowner equity.

According to Remsa, the township can retain its rural atmosphere by allowing villages and hamlets to grow in a limited degree while surrounding them with open space and farmland. He said the township could use cluster developing to preserve large, contiguous areas of farmland.

Remsa said the township should transfer development from its rural areas to village centers located on county roads, highways or crossroads. The transfers would reduce large-lot suburban sprawl, he said. Remsa added that he is not proposing a strict transfer of development rights (TDR) program at this time.

While the local economy is primarily composed of agricultural businesses and businesses that support the agricultural industry, Remsa said the township needs more personal and business services. In 1970, there were 2,500 people living in the township. By the 2000 Census, the population had increased to 4,200, he said.

Remsa said 47 percent of the township is either currently preserved or developed. Two-thirds of the remaining acreage can be developed, as one-third is environmentally sensitive, according to Remsa. A build-out analysis indicated that with the township's current 3-acre zoning and its relatively small area with 5-acre zoning, there is potential to create approximately 3,000 more housing units in Upper Freehold. Since 570 units have already been approved, he said there will be approximately 3,500 more housing units at build-out.

Remsa said that if all the large landowners were to preserve their property, the build-out analysis would be "out the window."

Remsa's draft of revisions to the master plan includes doubling the township's base zoning to 6-acre and 10-acre zoning. However, landowners who participate in the proposed density transfer program would receive housing credits under 3-acre zoning with a 25 percent bonus density.

Board Attorney Frank Armenante explained that when appraisals for preserved properties in the density transfer program come in, the township would consider those properties as having 3-acre zoning for the purposes of calculating what could be built on them.

Under Remsa's plan, the township would require mandatory cluster zoning for tracts greater than 20 acres. As an example, he said a 100-acre parcel could yield 16 1-acre lots while the rest of the property is preserved as farmland and open space.

When Stern asked what would happen if the landowner wants to develop the property with 6-acre lots, Remsa said the landowner would need a variance.

Vice Chairman Barry Wright asked if someone who wanted to construct a 6-acre or 10-acre farmette to keep a few horses would need a variance in order to do so. Remsa said that would be the case under his plan but added that the board could include a provision for a farmette option. However, he said the farmette would have to measure more than 6 acres.

Remsa also suggested that a homeowners association could maintain barns and paddocks in the preserved area of a cluster development.

Landowners with properties fewer than 20 acres would have the option of clustering development on their land or creating a 6-acre subdivision, he said.

Under his plan, Remsa said the township would create sending and receiving areas to put development in key places. The landowner whose property is in the receiving area would get the same bonus density as the sending area landowner, he said.

Remsa is still refining his definition of a receiving area. While he said a receiving area should be a 50-acre parcel, he said it could also be a 30-acre site.

"Nothing is cast in stone," he said.

The receiving area would be a designated center, not a hamlet. While hamlets could have houses on 1-acre lots with wells and septics, receiving areas would have units on smaller lots, he said.

According to Remsa, the value of a 1-acre rural lot and a .5-acre receiving area would be about equal because the public improvements on the smaller lot would contribute to its value.

If there is more than one unit per acre in the receiving area, there must be some sort of community-based wastewater and potable water supply that could serve that center, he said.

In commenting on Remsa's proposal, board member Bob Freiberger said that large-lot sprawl was not always a bad thing. He noted the Perretti subdivision of farmettes along Meirs and Harvey roads, which he called beautiful properties in a country atmosphere.

Freiberger also suggested a fee schedule for developers, with higher densities requiring higher fees for subdivisions.

According to Mayor Stephen Fleischacker, the state pays 60 percent of farmland preservation funding while the county pays 24 percent and the township pays 16 percent. He said he would like to have the township portion increased. He said the incremental cost would be returned by the long-term reduction of costs of capital improvements and services. However, he said there may not be enough money to do that and that it depends on the "whim of the state budget."

Fleischacker said if a landowner needs to sell property and there is no money for preservation, rather than go to large-lot sprawl he or she could use the density transfer concept. Fleischacker said that if a landowner can wait for preservation, the individual would get a higher yield.

"It incentivizes the landowner to sit back and wait," he said, adding that the proposed structured formula reduces the fear of loss of equity.

"The idea is to calm fear so we don't have the development we are all so fearful of," he said.