Planner suggests split
for farmland property
Proposal could allow
mix of preservation &
development on tracts
By clare m. masi
Staff Writer
The Manalapan Planning Board appears to be moving toward acting on a planner’s proposal that will allow portions of large tracts of farmland to remain undeveloped under a new type of zoning called "farmland preservation subdivision."
Recommendations regarding the zoning of farmland were the subject of a special meeting of the Planning Board Aug. 9. Any recommendations the board makes will be taken up by the Township Committee as part of a review of Manalapan’s master plan.
The proposed recommendations were presented as conceptual ideas by Township Planner Richard Cramer, who said this plan was presented to the board in March as a draft and modified since that time.
The first recommendation is the formation of a farmers advisory committee to advise the Township Committee on farm-related issues and concerns.
"The first order of business for the advisory committee will be to prepare (applications for) planning incentive grants for the preservation of farmland in Manalapan," Cramer said.
Working on financial plans to allow the town to buy development rights from farmers, hold those rights and later apply for reimbursement when the state takes the land for preservation was another recommendation.
"This way the farmer would not have to be held up waiting for the money," Cramer said.
Another function of the farmers advisory committee would be to work with the recommendations suggested by the New Jersey Farm Bureau.
The last recommendation presented by Cramer was the one most anticipated by members of the audience, which consisted of many farmers — farmers who had come to hear the board’s new proposed zoning requirements.
The proposed zoning, called "farmland preservation subdivision," will provide for a 70 percent preservation, 30 percent development split on certain farmland properties in the community. Cramer explained that a land-owner would be allowed to sell 30 percent of his land for development while preserving the remaining 70 percent.
"The idea has been tried in Freehold Township, and this is a concept the Farm Bureau supports," Cramer said.
With this type of preservation zoning, a farmer would not stand to lose as much land equity as he might under a stricter plan that could rezone land up to as much as 6 acres per residential building lot, according to Cramer.
Under this proposal, a farmer would place 70 percent of his land in the Farmland Preservation Program and the development rights would be sold to the state. Farmers would be compensated based on the property’s current zoning and present fair market prices.
The town will allow for the development of houses on the remaining 30 percent of the property up to half the number that would be permitted on the entire tract under the revised zoning regulations.
The density is based on 3-, 5- or 6-acre zoning, depending on the specific piece of property.
Cramer explained that municipal officials have tried to be flexible in the ways property can be used, looking at developing "with an eye toward preserving farms and open space. The loss of our farmland over the last 15 years has been enormous. If we don’t do something soon, we’ll lose everything."
Board member Herbert Lazar wanted to know the likelihood of farmers actually getting their property into the farmland preservation program.
"I thought it was relatively easy to get into this program, but now I’m hearing rumors that this is not exactly true," Lazar said. "What actual assurance do we have that the money will be there for them? I just have this nagging feeling that there will not be enough money when the time comes for it to be due."
Cramer responded to Lazar’s question by referring to the state Planning Incentive Grant program, for which Manalapan plans to apply, and explained that $1.5 million will be available on an annual basis to be used for buying farmland in Manalapan.
Cramer previously told the Township Committee that the money for the Planning Incentive Grants would be available for as long as the state open space trust is funded.
There are currently 11 Manalapan farm owners who have submitted applications to the farmland preservation program, totaling 870 acres, according to Cramer.
"The applications for these farms are in the pipeline," he said.
Cramer also said municipal officials would be looking into issuing bonds as a means of accelerating the process of preserving land. Bonding would allow Manalapan officials to buy the land up front and then wait for the state reimbursement, he said.
Stephen Pine, who chaired a Planning Board subcommittee that was created to look into the concerns of the farmers, said that out of the 870 acres applied for under farmland preservation, 206 acres are under contract to be preserved, but only 6 acres have actually been closed on.
Mayor Mary Cozzolino, who sits on the board, said there was not a single study done that proved that lower density properties will decrease land values.
One resident asked if an equity study had ever been done in town.
Cramer said there had not been an equity study done on this plan.
Board Chairman Howard Benkov informed the audience that the town’s proposal had been rejected by a committee of farmers.
"They said they like the plan, but yet they proceeded to reject it," Benkov said, adding that the Planning Board subcommittee that had been formed to look into the farmers’ concerns had been dissolved.
Property owner Donald Holland said he didn’t believe the board had given the farmers as much of a chance as they could have.
"We agreed your plan was good," Holland said, "but the group had a problem with the density the board was offering."
Benkov said he was disturbed because the farmers rejected the board’s offer. He said the discussions over the last several meetings had been going well.
"The bottom line," Benkov said, "is that we asked (the farmers) to give us a counterproposal, something we could work with. You couldn’t come up with anything. You’ve just stonewalled us. You came back with a rejection and gave us no room to move forward. We needed you to come back to us at this meeting with something we could work with."
Planning Board Vice Chairwoman Beth Ward told Holland the board members wanted the farmers to give them some idea of where they wanted to go as far as the density was concerned.
After Cramer presented his recommendations, public comment was heard.
Jim Wikoff, Gordons Corner Road, told the board he submitted an application for farmland preservation for 233 acres.
"It hasn’t been accepted yet. It’s been over three years and I still haven’t heard from them. I love farming. My family loves farming. That’s why we put our land with the farmland preservation but it’s not signed yet, you know?"
Wikoff told the board he had a plan mapped out for his family that included developing a 90-acre parcel he owns and preserving the 233 acres where he and his family would be able to continue farming.
"If this zoning change goes through it changes my plan altogether," Wikoff said, referring to a reduction in building lots on the 90-acre parcel that would result from a rezoning plan. "I don’t want to pull the 233 acres out of the preservation program. My father doesn’t want to do that, but we can change our minds. We’re already so strapped now."
Michael Sherman, who owns Restive Acres, McCaffrey Road, told board member he has already given "a lot." He said when he bought his 34 acres in 1972 the area was zoned for 1 acre per residential building lot (approximately 30 homes). Municipal officials subsequently rezoned the land and now require 3 acres per residential building lot on his property (approximately 10 homes).
"I’ve already given up 20 building lots and now you want to make it 25?" Sherman said.
In a conversation with Taylor Palmer, the owner of Boxwood Farms, Iron Ore Road, the veteran farmer said he thought it was a shame the Planning Board subcommittee that had been formed to hear the concerns of the farmers had been dissolved. Palmer, who sat on the subcommittee, said he believed the two sides had been making progress over the last few weeks. He maintained his position that he is not giving up.
"The subcommittee is dissolved now," Palmer said. "Mr. Benkov ended it abruptly. They wanted us to put something on the table and we were not prepared at that time to do that. We still had many questions and loose ends that needed to be addressed. We needed to bring answers back to our group. I thought we’d be having more talks with the town officials."
Palmer said there were still issues that needed to be worked out such as questions about state funding, as well as serious concerns about farmers with smaller tracts of land. He said the 70/30 percent farmland preservation subdivision split would not work the same way for the owners of smaller properties as it would for those with more land. These farmers would stand to lose a great deal more, he said.
"Our talks never reached that issue," Palmer said. "We were shot down before we got to that part."
Palmer said placing a property with farmland preservation is not easy. He revealed that his own application was recently turned down.
"I have two sons ready to take over the farm when it’s time," Palmer said. "This farm has been here for generations and hopefully with my sons taking over it will continue to be here for a very long time."
Palmer said he was disheartened at the fact that his farm, which he said is one of the prettiest and most well maintained farms around, was turned down for the farmland preservation program.
"What kind of picture does this paint? What does this say? What feeling do I have today that this town wants me here? They’re stripping people of what we’ve worked so hard for all our lives. They (the town) are ruling my destiny when I’ve been here all these years when they could be gone tomorrow."
Palmer quoted Cozzolino as saying that "the farmers are acting out of fear."
"The mayor was right," Palmer said. "We are acting out of fear, but we have facts to support our fears. They are not unfounded."
The presentation of the proposed plan and a continuation of the public hearing on this amendment to the master plan has been scheduled for Sept. 20.

