solution to ills
Variety of opinions voiced
at master plan hearing
Preservation programs top rezoning as a
solution to ills
By jane meggitt
Staff Writer
UPPER FREEHOLD — Although the meeting room was filled, only about a dozen people opted to speak at the public hearing on amendments to the township’s master plan.
The first amendment concerned the incorporation of a farmland preservation plan and an open space and recreation plan as part of the master plan; expansion of parks, education and conservation (PEC) zoning; rezoning of the current PEC zone into an agricultural/residential zoning district; and rezoning the existing "village neighborhood" area to a community commercial designation.
Resident Sue Kozel protested the possible inclusion of hotels, motels and drive-through restaurants and vehicle repair shops as permitted uses in the highway development (HD) zone. The new amendment to the master plan would allow these uses. The HD zone includes parts of Route 537 and the interchange of exit 8 on Route 195.
Township Planner Richard Coppola explained to Kozel that the HD zone does not have sewers, and that the necessity of having septic tanks will limit the density of growth there.
Also, the height requirement in the ordinance would limit the size of buildings to two and one-half stories.
Vice Chairman Daniel Van Voorhis asked Coppola if the current master plan in place will limit any development in these areas, to which Coppola responded in the affirmative.
Some residents, however, still feared the traffic impact that further development could have. John Fabiano, president of the Allentown/Upper Freehold Historical Society, wanted to remind the Planning Board of "the historic resource that Allentown represents. Any additional development will impact negatively on the historic district in terms of traffic."
The Planning Board voted unanimously to pass the first amendment to the master plan.
The second amendment, which would change the current zoning from 2 to 4 acres with a cluster option, generated more public comment. Resident Randall Bean said, "Those of us who were raised in the country would love to see Upper Freehold remain as it is — [however] that’s impossible.
"Developers have to come in; people have to sell land. The ideal situation is 4 acres in some parts, 2 in others.
"What is beautiful about Upper Freehold is the fields. Once you take that away, you can never get it back. I think we ought to take more opportunity for farmland preservation," he said.
He inquired whether, when developers purchase land, a one or two percent tax per acre could go into effect that could be dedicated to preservation.
"We can build a fund. Farmland preservation takes money. Everyone will be better off for not losing beautiful sites forever," Bean added.
Dr. David Meirs, the president of Walnridge Farm, noted, "This could be an historic time for Upper Freehold. I think you on the Planning Board have the power to alter the course of development and perhaps slow it down a little bit.
Meirs said that Upper Freehold has neither the roads nor the water resources to permit what he termed as "rampant residential development."
"My family has been in Upper Freehold for 300 years; I have children and grandchildren living here now," Meirs said. "If we don’t do something to slow down the overwhelming tide, it won’t be worth living in.
"I hope you would consider quality of life to be more important than the wishes of developers and their allies. We all know that developers and their allies have little concern for an area once it is developed. Their concern is the bottom line," added Meirs.
Kristin Schamloeffel, a lifelong Cream Ridge resident and a recent graduate of Rutgers University, New Brunswick, said she would like to continue to live in Upper Freehold but "4-acre zoning is exclusionary to young people who might want to live here."
She said that her family farms and said "the existing master plan has been supportive to my family’s lifestyle."
Resident Jack Minchin thought a change to 4-acre zoning was "a punitive reaction to those who have chosen not to develop their land."
He said that 20 percent of Upper Freehold is in farmland preservation and that if the zoning ordinance is amended, the loss of equity is roughly half the value of the land.
He explained that he did not think money could be relied on from the state for preservation and gave an example of a farm where a portion was preserved and a portion developed.
"It gave the owners development, gave [land to] farmland preservation and that’s what I’d like to focus on. Create greater equity for the owner who can then put land in farmland preservation."
He also suggested more use of the transfer of development rights.
David Holmes, a farmer and alternate member of the Planning Board who recused himself from the hearings, remarked, "Mandating a 171,000-square-foot lot excludes seniors and children from ever living in a development. If we want to slow down development, going from 2- to 4-acre zoning just uses up farmland at twice the rate."
The United Landowners of Upper Freehold was represented by their planner, David Hojsak. "The United Landowners feel the master plan [amendment] should be rejected. The land values will be reduced, and it’s a disincentive to participate in the farmland preservation program.
"Zoning will not save the agricultural industry," he said, and encouraged farmland acquisition.
Douglas Totten, president of the United Landowners, said, "The agricultural industry’s financial future will be compromised if families must live on 4 acres of ground. Farmers rely on land for capital for loans. Water and air can be recycled with modern technology. Land, our most precious resource, cannot be recycled. We must be careful not to create lawns too large to mow and fields too small to plow."
He pointed out that 5,800 acres in Upper Freehold are in farmland preservation, and another 2,700 are conserved as park land or similarly restricted from development.
The Planning Board, by a 5-4 vote, voted to reject the 2- to 4-acre zoning amendment to the master plan.