Buck must stop somewhere Committee vents over what it will take to finish master plan revisions BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer Cox's Corner developer Doug Walsh is making his statement regarding commercial development in Upper Freehold via this truck on his property off Route 524. UPPER FREEHOLD - Members of the township's Economic Development Committee are frustrated over the lack of progress with the master plan revisions. The Planning Board has been trying to revise the township's master plan since early 2005. The board has not had a formal meeting about the ongoing revision process since April, when the Economic Development Committee (EDC) proposed changes to the commercial aspect of the plan at a Planning Board meeting. Mayor Stephen Fleischacker has said that the Planning Board will resume discussions regarding the master plan in September. At the July 24 Planning Board meeting, Township Planner Mark Remsa and his associate, Robert Kull, unveiled the results of a nitrate dilution study of the township, which could affect township zoning and plan revisions. The report notes that proposed Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Water Quality Management Planning (WQMP) rules could reduce the amount of nitrates that can be discharged into the ground from the current 5.2 milligrams (mg) per liter to a limit of 2 mg per liter. Meeting that limit in Upper Freehold could mean having to increase lot sizes from 3 acres to between 4.6 and 6.4 acres, or typically 5.3 acres, Kull said. The township currently has 3-acre zoning, with a 35 percent density bonus for developers who opt to cluster their developments in order to preserve other portions of the property they are building on. The Township Committee recently introduced an ordinance that, if passed, would eliminate the bonus density option. A public hearing on the proposed ordinance is scheduled for Sept. 6. The nitrate dilution study report suggests that the township use the DEP's Nitrate Dilution Model, which sets a target rate of 5.2 mg of nitrates per liter of groundwater in combination with reducing the capacity for new development under current zoning by two-thirds, to 949 dwelling units. "Build-out of existing zoning would contribute 2,019 dwelling units above the development capacity that would most likely result in groundwater quality contamination, at least in some study areas, substantially above the 5.2 mg-per-liter target standard," the report states. EDC Vice Chairman Thomas Frascella, who ran the committee's Aug. 2 meeting in the absence of Chairman Tim Lizura, said if the Planning Board takes its planning cues from the nitrate dilution study, commercial zoning issues that the EDC discussed may be affected. Frascella said that the EDC had spoken to the Planning Board about creating a balance between commercial ratables and the township's population. "The Planning Board said [it was] moving on with the master plan on the commercial side, without getting a handle on the residential," he said. Dr. S. Perrine Dey, an EDC member and the Board of Health chairman, said the problem in Upper Freehold is its glauconitic soils, particularly in the Hornerstown area. He said that according to 1976 nitrate dilution methods to determine ground permeability, two-thirds of the township does not have the standard permeability to support the development of houses. He said that the DEP later created different methods to determine permeability, which resulted in more development in Upper Freehold than what was permitted under the previous standard. Dey said that Monmouth County gave a presentation to the township's Board of Health several years ago on nitrate dilution and its effect on land use. At that time, he said, the consensus for areas like Upper Freehold, which rely on the use of septic systems and well water, was to have 4- to 6-acre zoning. Dey said that the Planning Board should have known to eliminate the township's bonus density option without a nitrate dilution study. EDC member Bryan Scheff said that while the new nitrate dilution study appears to recommend larger-lot zoning, the town could use the results to justify the installation of public sewers. Frascella said the results of the nitrate dilution study could also mean that the Upper Freehold Regional School District, which is currently in the process of building a new middle school, is constructing the school based on outdated population projections. "The Board of Education may have based tens of millions of dollars in school construction costs on numbers they have no reason to rely on," he said. "We may be creating an economic problem for all of us if the town is building schools based on 3,000 houses and the nitrate dilution study recommends 500." EDC member Patrick Nolan said that by law, the Board of Education is only allowed to base its decisions on growth projections five years into the future. Nolan said he believes the board relied on data that accurately reflects the number of current residents. Nolan said if the projections change due to the nitrate dilution study, the district may only need the new middle school and not another elementary school. Dey said part of the answer to the riddle on the township's zoning will be revealed in November, when elections results come in. Republicans Stanley Moslowski and Lori Horsnall Mount and independent candidates Fleischacker and Jennifer Coffey are all running for the two available seats on the Township Committee. Depending on who wins the election, changes could be made to the direction of the master plan and to who serves as township planner, according to Dey. Dey said he would bet that no matter who wins the election, changes would not be made to the land use element of the master plan other than eliminating the bonus density. The Planning Board has considered revising the master plan by designating receiving areas for development in certain areas of town. "It is so difficult to [create] a receiving area," Dey said, adding that residents do not want the areas around them to increase in density. Nolan said that the EDC is trying to guess what direction the Planning Board may take with the revisions. Dey said, "Not to be brazen, but I think we know as much about [the direction of the master plan] as most people on the Planning Board."