Area residents clash over future use of Martin tract

Delaware and Raritan Greenway to do in-depth study of the tract

By John Tredrea
   As residents continue to debate what the future of the a township-owned property known as the Martin tract should be, the Hopewell Township Committee has agreed that the Delaware and Raritan Greenway can do an in-depth study of the tract.
   The study will focus on what resources the tract has and how they might best be managed. It will take about two months to complete the study, said D&R naturalist and director of land preservation Bill Rawlik.
   It was in June 2003 that the township passed a $5.4million bond ordinance to buy the 250-acre Martin tract, located near Bayberry Road and the Elm Ridge Park development in the eastern section of the townhip. Since then, the township and the State Agricultural Development Commission (SADC) of New Jersey have negotiated an agreement under which the township would sell development rights to the SADC, for $2.2 million, for a 165-acre portion of the Martin tract. That portion has been farmed in the past, for hay. The remaining 85 acres are to remain as woodlands.
   The township and SADC have yet to close the deal on the 185 acres, under which that land could be farmed. They could close quite soon, however, officials say.
   At Monday night’s committee meeting, residents of the Elm Ridge Park and Bayberry Road area urged the committee to make sure a farming use of the 185 acres would not be incompatible with their area.
   Nick Antoun, a Beech Tree Lane resident and an officer of ERANA (Elm Ridge Park Neighborhood Association,) said he and many of his neighbors are concerned about what effect farming might have on the wildlife and on the visual appearance of the land.
   Alta Vista Drive resident Ted Petrie agreed. He asked the Township Committee "to approve a plan that permits farming compatible with the land and its neighbors. Good planning does not necessarily mean getting the best market value for the property." About 10 other residents made similar comments.
   SADC staff member Dan Knox said the agreement between the SACC and the township could be jeopardized if farming were restricted. He said the township would likely have to file a new application if it still wanted SADC funding but wanted to restrict farming. He added that, if farming were restricted, the land "would probably be worth less."
   Under the all-but-finalized agreement between the township and the SADC, a maximum of 6 percent of the 165 acres may be covered with impervious surface. That includes buildings. Allowed on the 165 acres would be one house, no bigger than 2,500 square feet.
   Unrestricted agricultural use of the land also had its backers during Monday night’s meeting, though they were considerably fewer in number than those who favored some kind of restriction, or at least investigating whether it is advisable.
   Lucia Stout Huebner, chair of the township’s Agricultural Advisory Committee, said: "We have a little clash here between rural and suburban. We need to support local agriculture and get good, healthy local food so we can get away from factory farming, that uses fossil fuels, and stockyards." She said private owners of farms, in the township and elsewhere, typically "take excellent care of their land."
   John Hart, also of the Agricultural Advisory Committee, agreed with her. "You can’t put a lot of restrictions on that land, because no one will want it if you do," he said. "Most likely it will end up as a horse farm. New Jersey is the third-ranked state in the country in the number of horses per square mile."