U.F. officials answer development questions

BY JANE MEGGITT Staff Writer

BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

UPPER FREEHOLD — The results are in.

During the May 24 Planning Board meeting, Township Planner Mark Remsa revealed the board’s responses to a questionnaire he presented regarding development in the community.

Remsa said the responses from individual members had been thorough and detailed, and that they helped him to better understand the community. He said that overwhelmingly, board members think their town is unique due to its large amount of agricultural lands, scenic vistas, country roads, woodlands, wildlife and water features.

“There is almost 100 percent agreement on that,” Remsa said.

The information Remsa collected will build on earlier work set forth by the township’s master plan. According to Remsa, it will help to refine the master plan’s goals and objectives.

Board members also said Upper Freehold is special because of the low amount of traffic on its roads, and for its villages and hamlets that are surrounded by open space.

In an effort to preserve the town’s character, the board noted that commercial architecture should reflect a country style.

Remsa said the township can retain its rural atmosphere by clustering development to provide for open space and farming.

“The key is not to allow low-density sprawl, but to allow large blocks to remain as open space,” he said.

From the results of the questionnaire, Remsa said he also learned that preserving farmland and protecting the environment are critical concerns in the township.

“We need to be pro-farming and not just pro-rural,” Remsa said, “because farming is an industry.”

Protecting the landowners’ equity and having more flexible zoning are paramount as well to board members, Remsa said.

To help keep farmers in the township, Remsa suggested allowing certain uses for supplementing incomes, such as cell towers or windmills. Minimizing conflicts between farms and residential areas is also important to the township, which Remsa said is why officials developed a country code.

In addition, answers provided by board members revealed that they want to implement innovative land development techniques. Most members said they would like to create active and passive recreation areas for all ages, with some advocating fee-based recreation facilities in individual housing developments.

Remsa said board members also wish to contain sprawl by placing new development on county roads and at intersections, and by preserving large amounts of contiguous land. He said members feel that putting new development on back roads would affect how the roads operate.

Furthermore, members made it clear that they did not want to implement transfer of development rights (TDR).

Remsa said the Planning Board also wants to protect stream corridors from future development and to address existing and future affordable housing needs. Some members, according to Remsa, advocate age-restricted units or accessory apartments spread throughout the township.

Since the local economy is heavily rooted in agriculture, members want to encourage more agriculturally related businesses. More retail and personal service businesses, such as those that will be located at the new business park at Cox’s Corner, make up the vision some members have, Remsa said. The board would like to see new businesses located on county roads, at intersections or in adjoining villages and hamlets.

Remsa said the answers to his questionnaire provided him with direction for the next step in planning. A build-out analysis will be done, which will determine the development potential of the remaining open land. Then, according to Remsa, Planning Board members must decide what they want in terms of residential and commercial development, and where they want it.

The build-out analysis would be completed by the end of July, Remsa said. This analysis would factor in the amount of affordable housing required by the next round of Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) regulations.

Remsa said he wants members to concentrate on the location of nonresidential development as the next step in the process. Once again, board members will send their individual views to Remsa by the June 15 deadline. After Remsa receives those opinions, the board will hold a workshop meeting with maps to decide nonresidential zoning.

“It may turn out that what you want may not be able to go where you want it,” Remsa told the board.

Mayor Sal Diecidue asked that the township’s Economic Development Committee (EDC) discuss the issue of nonresidential zoning at its next meeting on June 6.

Township Committeeman Stephen Alexander, who was in the audience and is the EDC liaison, said the agenda for June 6 was full. Another EDC meeting, he said, could be scheduled for the end of the month, but sufficient time must be allotted in order for it to be noticed as per the Open Public Meetings Act.

Alexander asked whether land would be zoned for community uses, such as another school, and Remsa agreed that it was an aspect of nonresidential development that needs to be looked at.

When Alexander asked if the goal would be to reduce the yield of the build-out analysis, Remsa said that was a decision for the Planning Board.