Six-acre zoning controversy here to stay

BY JANE MEGGITT
Staff Writer

Tensions between the pro- and anti-6-acre zoning factions on the Upper Freehold Planning Board spilled over at the May 25 board meeting.

Board members in a split vote approved longtime Planning Board member William Search’s application for a minor subdivision of a 6-acre parcel.

Search voted in favor of having Township Planner Richard Coppola prepare a document to consider 6-acre zoning at the April 27 meeting.

Search’s application called for subdividing, as he wants to subdivide the 6-acre parcel into two lots, using lot averaging, said Geoff Bron, his engineer.

Search owns a 130-acre parcel on Holmes Mill Road that is in farmland preservation, except for a small, 6-acre strip on Holmes Mill Road, Bron said.

His application for a subdivision of the 6-acre lot called for one 4-acre lot and one 2-acre lot, according to Bron.

One lot would require a variance, since it is 10 feet short of the lot depth requirement. And there is an existing house on one lot, Bron said.

"We’ve been doing estate planning," Search said. "It’s hard to pass land from one generation to the next, when you have one son who wants to farm and another who doesn’t want anything to do with it."

The 6-acre lot, which was created in 1983, is still being farmed, according to Search.

"In my lifetime, it will be farmed," he said.

"Is this the same man who voted to go to 6 acres and then took a 6-acre lot and busted it down to [a] 2[-acre lot]?" asked board member Joseph Toscano, who opposes 6-acre zoning. "Why are you doing this now?"

"I’m trying to do a little estate planning," Search said. "I have 550 acres in farmland preservation. It does make it difficult to pass the farm along and keep it a continuously farm[ing] application."

Chairman Daniel VanVoorhis said Search was a "great asset" to Upper Freehold’s farmland preservation efforts.

"It’s one of the reasons we lead the state in farmland preservation," he stated.

"I know the timing is bad," Search said. "I know how it looks. The person who lives in the house now can’t afford 6 acres. To me, the value is the same. It’s just a matter of estate planning."

Resident Lenny Yanchar, a critic of 6-acre zoning, said he found the proposal "ironic."

"I agree he should be able to do it," Yanchar said. "It’s an ethics question. He voted for the [6-acre] ordinance. I heard the applicant say the person who wants to buy it can’t afford 6 acres. I think you will send a message out."

There is no 6-acre zoning in town right now, VanVoorhis said.

He’s using lot averaging, he told Yanchar. "You are not being factual."

Former Committeeman Charles Faber, who was in the audience, said Search had a right to make the request.

"I see no reason he should be ridiculed by anyone when he’s asking for something he’s got a right to," Faber said.

Board member Barry Wright, who opposes 6-acre zoning, asked why the board was making exceptions if it is making it a policy not to grant waivers.

Board member Richard Bullock, who also opposes 6-acre zoning, said he thought Search had a right to subdivide the property.

"I think other people should have the right also," Bullock added.

The minor subdivision was granted. Wright and Toscano voted no on the application.