Comments
of
The Association of
Agricultural Protection and
Sustainability Requirements Policy Paper (Sept 19, 2006)
Prepared
by David Peifer
Project
Director
Nov.
22, 2006
The Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions offers the following comments regarding the above referenced Policy Paper. These comments are made in the spirit of constructive criticism. The Association is a private, non-profit organization dedicated to the support of municipal environmental commissions. The Association makes these comments on its own volition and has received no compensation for their preparation.
The Association strongly supports the preservation of agriculture by appropriate planning, zoning, purchase of development rights and transfer of development rights. We offer the following comments with regard to the “outstanding issue” raised at the Nov 20 Council Hearing. The expressed position is stated on page three, Section 5 “Smart Design Standards” of the above referenced document.
The section states:
“The
following Smart Design Standards are required to support the goals and requirements
of the
·
Require ordinances, consistent with the “Right to Farm Act” which provide
protections for active farm owners or operators and allow flexibility in regulations
to accommodate the needs of agricultural operations to address issues such
as seasonal needs, parking, temporary signs and off site signs.
Comment
1
This
is appears to be a statutory provision of the Act.
ANJEC has no particular concern with this provision.
·
Require the adoption of compact development ordinances including mandatory
clustering provisions within the Agricultural Resource Area to adequately
protect farmland and sensitive environmental resources through the dedication
of at least 80 percent of the site to farmland and open space preservation.
The
Rationale for this section is:
“The
Comment
2: The proposed provision is not required by the Act.
A
thorough review of the sections cited reveals no particular statutory requirement
for the mandatory requirement of a mandatory clustering provision.
We believe that such an inclusion is at best, a judgment of the Council
and in no way is required by the Act.
Comment
3: The selection of one particular requirement
(mandatory clustering) is inadequate to protect farmland
effectively.
Established
farmland preservation techniques cover a broad range of fiscal, planning,
zoning, incentive and regulatory techniques that are worthy of consideration
in the complex task of protecting farmland;
for example, very large lot zoning, exclusive use zoning, raising the
threshold for roll back calculation from the current three years to ten years,
“current use” zoning, the use of TDR mechanisms, private land restrictions,
purchase of development rights, and fee purchase.
The Act and the RMP clearly envision a broader range of options than
reliance on a single and questionable land use regulatory technique.
Comment
4: Selection of this technique as a required element
may conflict with other objectives of the Act and the RMP
Scenic
Quality and “Cultural Landscapes”
The
Act clearly states that scenic qualities and cultural landscapes are to be
protected. Agricultural lands are important
components of both categories. With the possible exception of the removal of
the original forests by the charcoal iron industry in the 18th
century, agriculture has been responsible for the largest alteration of the
natural landscape. These alterations
are persistent components of the landscape of the
Wildlife
Habitat
Important
elements of wildlife habitat are contained in agricultural areas.
Specifically, grassland bird habitat.
These areas ore at least as sensitive to fragmentation as are contiguous
forests. The policy proposed has a very real potential
to fragment these habitats with pockets of development and roadways.
Protection
of Water Resources
Admittedly,
clustering has important design benefits as compared to large lot development.
Presumably, the Council has the authority and ability to create alternatives
to standard sprawl zoning. However,
tightly clustering development on self supplied wells and individual, on-site
septic systems will concentrate water demand and effluent in much smaller
spaces, in this case, 20% of the tract. Even in cases where the base zoning is now very
large lot zoning, development concentration may exceed carrying capacity within
the clustered area. For example, in
Bedminster Twp. The minimum lot size is 10 acres. This density was selected for a variety of reasons,
including application of the nitrate dilution model. Suppose we have a parcel of 10 unconstrained
acres. Clustering the total lot yield
of 10 units on 20 acres yields a density in the cluster, of 1unit per 2 acres
to be supported on wells and septics, presumably within the cluster. This density will expose the water supply wells
to nitrate concentrations well above acceptable limits. Thus, Bedminster
has clearly rejected this level of development as unsound environmentally
and has been sustained by the courts. Similar situations exist for water quantity,
stormwater run-off, and impervious coverage within the cluster.
Comment
5: Discussion of the actual technique(s) to be
used differ from the document.
In
discussion before the Council on Nov. 20, mandatory clustering, voluntary
clustering, lot averaging and conservation development were mentioned.
Each of these has various advantages and disadvantages.
What specifically, is the mechanism to be recommended?
