U.F. in search of a plan wiser than Smart Growth Board rejects transfer of development rights program BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer UPPER FREEHOLD - The phrase "Smart Growth" has caused a division in the community over the past few years. Some residents favor the concept as a landuse planning tool while others have deemed it inappropriate for the township. In its review of the township's master plan, which regulates land use in the community, the Planning Board has considered implementing Smart Growth principles. When the board discussed revisions to the residential component of the master plan at its meeting Oct. 12, Township Planner Mark Remsa said that the state is currently making Smart Growth efforts extraordinarily difficult for communities. Remsa told the board that some municipalities in New Jersey have been in the Smart Growth process for more than 10 years. "You don't have 10 years," he told the board. "You have to protect the rural agricultural nature [of Upper Freehold] today." The Smart Growth approach to land use planning has been used in larger New Jersey cities such as Elizabeth and Jersey City and in smaller towns like Red Bank and Hoboken, as well as in rural communities such as Chesterfield and Hope, according to the N.J. Office of Smart Growth (OSG). The OSG defines Smart Growth as a term used to describe well-planned, wellmanaged growth that adds new homes and new jobs to a community while preserving open space, farmland and environmental resources. "Smart Growth supports livable neighborhoods with a variety of housing types, price ranges and multimodal forms of transportation," the OSG Web site states. The OSG also describes Smart Growth as an approach to land use planning that targets the state's resources and funding in ways that enhance the quality of life for New Jersey residents. "Smart Growth principles include mixed-use development, walkable town centers and neighborhoods, mass transit accessibility, sustainable economic and social development, and preserved green space," according to the OSG Web site. Applying Smart Growth principles could require the implementation of a transfer of development rights (TDR) program. Remsa told the board that receiving areas in a TDR program require public water and sewer, which most of Upper Freehold does not have, with the exception of the Four Seasons and Heritage Green developments on Ellisdale Road. "I'm not recommending you pursue [a TDR program] at this point," he told the board. "You don't have the time or the money to pursue it." He noted that Woolrich Township in Gloucester County has been working on a TDR program for 10 years and has spent half a million dollars doing so with nothing to show for it yet. Remsa said Upper Freehold must keep moving forward with efforts to retain the community's rural character and agriculture. Planning Board Chairman Richard Stern asked Remsa why the state is fighting Smart Growth. Remsa called it a conundrum, saying, The state added another layer of bureaucracy to get there." As an example, Remsa said that being able to provide sewer service to rural areas requires state plan endorsement, but plan endorsement rules are still in flux. "The rules are not getting thinner, they're getting thicker," he said. Board member J. David Holmes said he has not been interested in the township embracing a formal TDR program. "We can accomplish the same thing without going through the program," he said. Holmes added, "The OSG has always been a moving target. It is difficult to zone in on a moving target." Board member Bob Freiberger said that the OSG forces towns into "so much added, undesirable development." "Look across our border at Washington Township and what they call Smart Growth," he said. "The cure is worse than the illness." Freiberger suggested removing several of the proposed TDR receiving areas, such as Ellisdale, New Sharon, Hornerstown and Imlaystown South, from the draft of the master plan revisions so the board "could home in on more important things." He also said that the township's master plan should note that the Planning Board reviewed TDR and decided against it. The board's vice chairman, Doug Raynor, agreed with Freiberger and said that leaving TDR as an option in the master plan could leave Upper Freehold open to town center-type development. "It leaves the door open for something we don't ultimately want in town," he said. Mayor Stephen Fleischacker, a Smart Growth advocate, said board members' comments about the concept sounded very different from previous discussions. "To me, the value of TDR has been to preserve more tracts of land," he said. "In theory, it's a great idea. In practicality, we can't get it to work." Fleischacker said TDR should be a long-term goal for the township. Remsa told the board that the new master plan could note that the board looked at TDR and rejected it. "At this point, it's not something I'm recommending for Upper Freehold Township," Remsa said. The next meeting on the master plan revisions has not yet been scheduled, but the earliest the board could discuss the plan again is at its Nov. 27 meeting, according to Land Use Administrator Susan Babbitt.