Between preservation and growth

Upper Freehold Planning Board weighs town’s development alternatives

By: Cara Latham
   UPPER FREEHOLD — The Planning Board on March 13 discussed options for a density transfer technique that would allow increased flexibility to balance preservation and growth.
   The township Economic Development Committee also approached the board to offer advise about how the Master Plan may affect economic development in the future.
   In a preliminary Master Plan draft, one of the techniques listed for protecting the municipality’s agricultural roots is density transfer. This would allow landowners in a specific region to transfer density to another region for development at a higher density than would be permitted by the underlying zoning in that area. In turn, it would preserve the land of the sending region.
   However, in order for this technique to be successful, there must be incentives for landowners.
   Township planner Mark Remsa summarized two of the approaches to establishing density transfers:
   • A "center-based" approach would create strategically located centers to absorb a substantial amount of development from sending area parcels. It would be a "more intensive" approach and "would require some sort of centralized community wastewater system."
   • A "floating hamlet approach" would result in residential clusters that are created from the transfer of density and would offer the highest degree of flexibility for the landowners and developers because it can create clusters almost anywhere in the community. It would not require a wastewater management system, but it absorbs the least amount of development potential from sending area parcels.
   Still, the Planning Board has to determine density bonuses — or how much more dense the receiving areas would be built — offered to landowners for either method, Mr. Remsa said.
   "In terms of the center-based, we talked as high as 25 percent bonus density, and then we talked about floating hamlets," where the density would only be 80 percent of the previous zoning, in effect, reducing the build-out potential for that option, Mr. Remsa said.
   The option available to developers who do not want to transfer density at all would be a mandatory cluster, which would change the zoning from 3-acre zoning to 6-acre zoning for the most part, he said.
   "Under the mandatory cluster, we would require folks of certain tract sizes to cluster their properties," he said. "In effect, you would have what is called agriculture clustering," where a majority of the property would be left in agriculture or open spaces.
   And "the base zoning is the other part of the economic incentive equations," he said, adding that the Planning Board could either hold base zoning in the receiving areas at certain levels and then add the bonus density on top, creating more units in town.
   The other approach is to literally drop base zoning, which in this case, would be cutting it by 50 percent, and then give the density bonuses, bringing the total density toward the original base zoning, he said.
   The end result would be a 20 percent basic point difference between the floating hamlet and center-based approaches.
   However, board members said they were worried about maintaining landowners’ equity and that they needed more information before making a determination on the density bonuses.
   Board member Robert Frascella said he wanted to see examples of how each option would affect landowners. He said he would like Mr. Remsa to take examples of tracts and determine how much of that land could be developed, determine the value of current land sales or preservation values, and then look at it in terms of what the farmer would get for his preservation in terms of dollars and not percentages.
   Mayor Steve Fleischacker echoed the sentiment.
   "What we’re trying to understand is what is the net difference among the different options so that we can say, ‘Yeah, we agree the bonuses should be this,’" he said. "We’re trying to get a handle on what does that really mean to landowners. The other side of the equation is what does that mean to the community?"
   Residents said they didn’t want to see floating hamlets or town centers as part of the Master Plan.
   Township resident Bob Abrams blasted the board, saying, "We are going in the wrong direction," because allowing sewer service, even if it is in a town center or in commercial zone, would ultimately lead to a massive sewer system for everyone, he said.
   Township Committeeman Bill Miscoski said that preservation of farmland is the best ratable for the township, but asked what was wrong with the current zoning that it needs to be changed.
   "Damn it, we worked hard to preserve this town," he said. "We’ve all done one hell of a job…and I’ll stick to that until he day I die."
   Meanwhile, while the Planning Board works on its Master Plan, members of the EDC they wanted to offer input that they gathered from business owners and community members. They also have done surveys and analyzed current zoning maps and would like to make some suggestions to bring in ratables, said EDC member Tom Frascella.
   "We’re an advisory group," he said. "Our first and foremost thing to do is tell you we’re here, we exist, we want to help. We’re all in this to make the township better."
   The board should look at keeping commercial zones together, instead of separating them into islands, he said. Also, some businesses have turned elsewhere because definitions of permitted uses in certain commercial areas are not specific to their types of businesses. They do not want to risk losing money to go through the process of applying for variances, he said.
   "If there’s an underlying need to what we hear most, it’s that businesses just want some level of certainty that at least they’re talking about something" that would probably be allowed in the area, he said.
   In the future, the Planning Board might want to look into zoning for lodging or restaurants near the horse communities like The Horse Park of New Jersey because people who travel to attend events there have to drive to Hightstown and Bordentown to find lodging after coming to Upper Freehold, Mr. Frascella said. Establishments like that would require wastewater management systems or sewer services, he said.
   Mayor Fleischacker said that perhaps the Planning Board can restrict sewer service to just those commercial areas.
   He said businesses like restaurants would be good for the community "from a social gathering perspective. We don’t have a place to go."
   Board members encouraged Mr. Frascella to bring specifics about the EDC’s analyses to the board as soon as possible, and to let them know what kind of businesses are interested in coming to the township.