Public scrutinizes proposed residential changes in U.F.
UPPER FREEHOLD
BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer

UPPER FREEHOLD - The public has its own ideas when it comes to changing the township's master plan.

Although the Planning Board had not scheduled a formal public hearing Oct. 12, some members of the public had questions and comments for the board after hearing a proposed draft of the residential component of the master plan.

Former Mayor Bob Abrams told the board that during his 23-year tenure from the 1970s to early 1990s, the Township Committee came to the same conclusion that the current Planning Board did. Both, he said, agreed that a transfer of development rights (TDR) program is not right for Upper Freehold.

Abrams also said that a recent nitrate dilution study compiled by Township Planner Mark Remsa and his associate, Robert Kull, would eliminate the 1-acre cluster option.

Resident Marc Covitz said the board's discussion about the residential component of the master plan upset him because it did not reference the nitrate dilution study, which he considers "the best piece of science." Covitz said the town should not wait for the state to enact stricter nitrate dilution requirements, which are currently 5.2 mg per liter. He said the master plan should note that the state has proposed a 2-mg-perliter nitrate limit.

Remsa said that the new nitrate dilution rules are not in effect yet.

"When they do come into effect, they will be a heavy hand on any subdivision," he said. "We can't just trample on a landowner's equity."

Resident Mike McCormick had concerns about a proposal the board unveiled last month in discussions regarding the commercial component of the master plan. The proposal would change the zoning of the area near his home on Route 526 from agricultural/ residential to a general industrial.

McCormick said Upper Freehold's country code played a large part in his family's decision to move into the township.

"We wanted to live in a municipality committed to preserving open space," he said. "It seems like the country code may apply to certain areas of the township, but not ours."

Former Mayor Richard Osborn gave board members information regarding the right of first refusal, which is an alternative means of preserving open space and farmland that he had mentioned at previous meetings. Under the provisions of a right of first refusal ordinance, property owners selling parcels over 20 acres in size who are not selling

the land to a family member or putting it into preservation must first offer the property to the township, the county, the state or a nonprofit conservation organization before attempting to sell it to other buyers. The program gives the property owner the option of selling the ownership rights to the land or the development rights. The entity purchasing the property could then extinguish the development rights and auction the property to get it back on the tax roles, according to Osborn.

Osborn said right of first refusal would take the pressure to sell land off property owners, some of whom feel pressured by neighbors to preserve now.

"Most farmers don't want to see their land developed but also don't want to feel pressured into selling right now," according to Osborn.

He cited other advantages of the program and said that land purchases would be spread out over a period of time, as would the need for funding. Osborn also said that land purchases in such a program could rely on multiple funding sources including municipal, county, state and federal programs as well as nonprofits, national grant programs and other endowments.