Planning to consolidate development, preserve equity U.F. offers draft of revisions to master plan BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer UPPER FREEHOLD - At their Feb. 20 workshop meeting, Planning Board members discussed the bonus density percentages landowners would get under the proposed revisions to the master plan. According to the preliminary draft of the master plan, nearly half, or 46.7 percent, of the township is unavailable for future development because the lands are already developed or preserved. The balance, which is 53.3 percent, is undeveloped farmland and open space. A build-out analysis of the township found that a significant amount of the undeveloped lands are encumbered by freshwater wetlands, steep slopes and 100-year flood plains, which leaves the township with 5,254 undevelopable acres and 10,816 developable ones. The results of the build-out analysis yielded 2,988 future residential lots. With an additional 573 lots either already approved or pending, the township has a potential for a total of 3,561 units. The potential number of new residents is 10,335 people, which the analysis calculates by multiplying the number of potential residential units by three people per household. The 2000 U.S. Census listed 4,282 residents in the township, but several large developments have been built since then. The draft of the new master plan contains a section regarding the creation of an economic incentive to transfer development density into designated areas in town. The draft states, "It has become evident to the Township Committee, the Planning Board and the public that the current method for encouraging an economic benefit that provides a 35 percent bonus density for clustering residential development and setting aside the balance of undeveloped land of parcels does not achieve the public benefit of preserving significant amounts of large contiguous tracts of land for agriculture and open space that was envisioned when the master plan and zoning ordinance was changed in 2003." It continues, "Most of the clustered residential developments produced under the revised agricultural/residential (AR) zone have set aside and preserved the environmentally sensitive portions of parcels that result in open space areas that are carved up and fragmented, yielding little to no agricultural value and having the appearance of large-lot suburban sprawl, which conflict with the mission and goals of Upper Freehold Township." Under the new land-use strategy presented by Township Planner Mark Remsa, the township's current 3-acre and 5-acre base zoning would change to 6-acre and 10-acre zoning. The township would also create designated centers for development. Under Remsa's proposed plan, township landowners who chose to preserve their properties by sending their potential development densities to the township's receiving areas would get a density bonus that would give them a development density based on the original 3-acre and 5-acre zoning. The draft states that "the creation of these strategically located centers provides public benefits by preserving the rural landscaping and achieving Smart Growth for rural areas, as identified by the State Development and Redevelopment Plan (SDRP)." The draft of the new master plan also states that the centers have the ability to absorb a substantial amount of development potential from sending-area parcels due to the higher levels of housing mixed with nonresidential development and intensive infrastructure provided for in the centers. Board members discussed whether a 35 percent bonus density is still a viable option for landowners choosing to send their developable units to a center. Mayor Stephen Fleischacker suggested a dollar and cents evaluation of what the various development scenarios mean to taxpayers based on the number of students they create. Fleischacker said 1,400 units could be built in the township by downzoning to 6-acre or 10-acre lots. Assuming that there are two children per household, Fleischacker said there would be a tax deficit. If landowners put their property into preservation and housing units aren't built, taxpayers would benefit, he said, because they would not have to pay taxes every year for those students. Under a preservation scenario, Remsa said the municipality's share of preservation money is bonded for 30 years. He said the difference between the preservation scenario and the development scenario is huge. "You borrow a little today and save for the future," he said. The board also discussed the bonus density for a floating hamlet. Landowners with several properties could designate one of their parcels as a receiving area (floating hamlet) for the potential development that could go on their other tracts. Remsa said he spoke to board member Richard Bullock, who was not at the meeting, about the floating hamlet concept. According to Remsa, Bullock said landowners who opt to create floating hamlets should not get a bonus density, but instead should simply get a reversion to 3-acre zoning and perhaps a 20 percent deduction in density. For example, Remsa said if there are two 100-acre parcels and both generate 30 lots under the required schematic test plan, the development potential to combine/cluster the lots would be 48 lots, not 60. Chairman Richard Stern objected to such a plan, saying, "If you don't put in an economic incentive and you now need two landowners thinking the same, we're just going to 6-acre zoning." Board member David Reed said every landowner's situation is different. He said the board should not narrow choices too much in one direction. "It's more and more difficult to rent farmland," Reed said. "Maybe this area is not where a farmer can make a living." Reed said the cost of land is driven by the number of lots that it can produce. Fleischacker said the township's goal is to address land equity issues and not have development. "That's in a perfect world," Reed said. "In any scenario, there will be development." Reed continued, "Every one of these numbers we're considering is lower than we have today." Fleischacker questioned the floating hamlet option. "When you think about it from a planning perspective, you could have a floating hamlet on some rural road that can't handle the traffic and we'd lose that rural road." He continued, "From that perspective, the floating hamlet could do the opposite of what we are all striving for." Fleischacker said he did not want to see a community of 48 or 60 houses in a remote location away from major roads. He cited the approved 60-house Galloping Hills development on Emley's Hill Road as an example of a subdivision in an inappropriate location. Stern said the floating hamlet concept is more likely to be considered than other development scenarios, since it only takes two landowners to accomplish it. With regard to centers, Stern said that "the more people you get involved, the more complicated it gets." Remsa said he thought the difference between the floating hamlet and center-based bonus density should be between 10 and 15 percent. He said there could be a 35 percent bonus for preservation, 15 percent for center-based development and no bonus for the floating hamlet. Reed said the center-based development should get a 20 percent bonus density, calling it the second best development option and a method to putting houses where the master plan wants them. Fleischacker asked Remsa about the basis of the numbers. Remsa said that in his experience, landowners should get a 15 percent bonus if they go with a developer. He said landowners receive their money when the units are being built, whereas someone opting for preservation gets their money upfront sooner. "It's a time and balance difference," he said. Board member Jennifer Coffey asked why the master plan should offer a floating hamlet option if the township would prefer to move people into a center. Remsa said the township needs the floating hamlet option because if the master plan looks like a transfer of development rights (TDR) program but is not a formal TDR, the township's zoning could be invalidated. Fleischacker said that one of the reasons the township decided against a formal TDR is because such a program could take a couple of years and the community does not want to wait that long. Remsa said the best option would be to pursue a TDR program, which the state's Office of Smart Growth encourages. However, because such a plan would take three to five years to create, he said, "more sprawl has eaten up the landscape in the meantime." Board member Bob Freiberger said that the board must look at the whole picture. "Every time a piece of land in Upper Freehold goes into preservation," he said, "it adds to the quality of life of every homeowner in town."