Ordinance tabled to allow advisory
group’s recommendations to be added
By:Beth Kressel
The Township Committee tabled an agricultural zoning ordinance July 8 to review possible changes in response to concerns of the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the township’s Planning Board.
The new proposal will be similar to the previous one, according to Township Planner Bob Ringelheim; however, it now will include measures to "enable farmers to get a little bit more out of their farms" than under the original ordinance.
Two proposed changes would allow for more lenient farm stand specifications and for larger driveways, from 24 to 30 feet, to give large farm vehicles easier access.
Tom Everett, a member of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, says that the group met in May and June to discuss how the original ordinance "adversely affected agriculture" and how the restrictions in it were "contrary to the state’s Right to Farm law." Mr. Everett said that some definitions in the ordinance did not comply with the state law.
Sam Conard, a fifth-generation Hillsborough farmer and fellow committee member, discussed other ordinance issues that troubled the committee and that he said also clashed with federal farm laws.
"If you want to have housing for farm hands," he said, referring to the current township ordinance. "You needed a 20-acre farm. There are no minimum acreage for farmers under federal standards."
The ordinance was originally redrafted after a local property owner filed a lawsuit against the township in January. The ordinance was challenged under "procedural grounds," Mr. Ringelheim said. A property owner alleged that proper notice about the ordinance was not given.
The Township Committee then readopted the ordinance, this time with the proper notice. They also reached out to the Agricultural Advisory Committee and the Planning Board for their comments, Mr. Ringelheim said. According to Mr. Everett, his committee sent a letter with their recommendations at the end of June.
"We are still debating acreage and some definitions have to be clarified," said Sam Van Nest, chairman of the Planning Board. "We are trying to balance the conception that large-acreage zoning accomplishes the goals of the town to preserve farmland and the farmer’s contention that it’s counterproductive."
The ordinance introduced inDecember called for a 10-acre minimum lot plan for the agricultural zone. It also allowed farmers decide how to apportion their land so that it complied with the zoning specifications. For example, the lot-size averaging option gives farmers the ability to develop lots less than 10-acres as long as larger plots remain undeveloped.
The open lands ratio subdivision says that 65 percent of the land must remain farmland, but the rest of the land can be subdivided into plots as small as two acres.
But Mr. Everett says that the zoning laws are only a temporary solution for preserving farmland.
"Down the road a new Township Committee can come in a few years from now and decide they want to develop more than the 10-acre minimum," he said.
The latest version of the ordinance will be reintroduced July 22 with the new public hearing date set for Sept. 9.