Land use laws gain approval

Changes include lot downzoning

By Geoffrey Wertime, Staff Writer
   UPPER FREEHOLD — Township Committee has passed four related ordinances that affect the municipality’s residential land uses in a number of ways, including increasing the lot size required to build a residence, also called downzoning.
   The ordinances were last seen during their public hearings at the committee’s Aug. 7 meeting, but were pushed back due to a need for amendments to correct errors in wording and math.
   The committee passed the first of the ordinances, upon which the following three hinged, by a vote of 3-2 at its Sept. 4 meeting.
   Committeemen Stanley Moslowski Jr. and David Reed voted “no” on the measure, which increased lot sizes in the agricultural residential (AR) and rural agricultural (RA-5) zones from 3- and 5-acre zoning to 6- and 10-acre zoning, respectively, and added noncontiguous clustering and equine community development options as permitted uses in the AR zone.
   Noncontiguous clustering establishes sending and receiving areas wherein large, uninterrupted parcels of farmland and open space (the sending area) can be preserved by transferring development rights to a different, noncontiguous parcel (the receiving area) to be developed at a higher density.
   One of the amendments added a clause, which grandfathers in existing parcels smaller than 6 acres, which was accidentally left unchanged from an earlier clause upgrading properties to 3 acres. Without the clause, the ordinance would have disallowed residents from building single-family houses and additions on their existing smaller properties, Township Planner Charles Newcomb said previously.
   Lot averaging also is an option under the ordinance, which allows developers to subdivide properties down to 2 acres per residential lot as long as other lots are larger and the average lot is 6 acres. An amendment fixed an error in the previous proposed measure indicating any area over 6 acres would not be counted, which would have made it mathematically impossible for a developer to use smaller lots since they could never offset them with larger ones. The maximum lot size was amended to 10 acres, and lots larger than that will now still be considered 10 acres for averaging purposes.
   Language also was changed in the ordinance so landowners are permitted to use the noncontiguous and equine community development options, and the word “Freehold” was added into the phrase “Upper Township Planning Board.” An Upper Township does exist in New Jersey, in Cape May County.
   Finally, the ordinance removed freshwater wetlands and flood plains from consideration of the lot average calculation, and introduced mandatory clustering for all major subdivisions within the AR district to preserve the township’s rural character.
   Mr. Reed raised objections to the push to downzone, saying it would hurt the very people who provide that character. He said many farmers invest most of their money in their land and then mortgage or sell off parts of it in bad years, when crop prices are low. Increasing the area it takes for a single house devalues their land, he continued.
   Committeeman Robert Faber said he saw the issue differently.
   ”To keep this township as rural as possible, we need to do something like this,” he said. “Yes, it’s going to hurt some of the individuals, but… they’ve got to sacrifice a little bit.”
   Mr. Reed disagreed, saying, “You’re talking about sacrificing, and you’re hitting a handful of people instead of hitting the majority of the people a little.”
   Committeewoman LoriSue H. Mount called the issue of growth in the township a fine balancing act.
   ”It’s about everybody that lives in this community and maintaining a balanced atmosphere or affordable atmosphere for everyone,” she said. “I think that there’s been lots of writing on the wall through the years that has indicated that things are going to change.”
   Mr. Moslowski voiced his concern that increased lot sizes would replace farmland with large houses, without giving any incentive to preserve the ground.
   ”You can spread the lots out, but they’re still there,” he said. “The farm’s gone.”
   Mr. Newcomb acknowledged that some landowners would be hurt by the ordinances, and said items in the four ordinances were meant to give them options.
   The other three land use measures passed unanimously.
   The second ordinance established noncontiguous clustering as a special provision in the AR district, describing it as a way to “provide and encourage a method of creating single-family residential environments” while still preserving open space and environmentally sensitive areas.
   An amendment fixed errors in wording which would have allowed developers to build only if they owned the area to be developed and the portion to be left open at the time of the ordinance’s adoption. Mr. Newcomb previously explained that the amendment allows developers to buy land afterward, as well. Another amendment removes the stipulations about environmentally sensitive areas, as such protection is enforced through other ordinances.
   The third ordinance added the equine community option as a conditional use in the AR district and established standards. The ordinance requires a mix of clustered minimum 1-acre residential lots and an equine center for residents on tracts of at least 100 acres. An amendment gave the center 1 percent of the property instead of the original 5 percent in order to keep the building at a reasonable size.
   The last ordinance established farmland/open space conservation clusters as permitted optional development alternatives within the AR district, and eliminated size requirements for the provision. Additionally, at least 70 percent of the overall tract of land now has to be set aside for farmland preservation, according to the ordinance. While this last measure did not require any amendments, it was previously held due to its contingency on the first three ordinances.