County-Level Land Conservation
Conservancy Land Conservation Projects
Smart Conservation Projects
Lessons Learned
Recipe for Planning & Defense of Resource Management Zoning

• Land preservation is overly opportunistic, reacting to development pressure:
• Less than half of New Jersey's counties advise regulatory measures along with land acquisition to assist natural resource preservation.
• The role of counties in land preservation vary tremendously from proactive to uninvolved
• Communication between state-county-municipal decision makers is often inadequate:
• Conservation plans throughout the state are being evaluated.

Muckshaw Ponds Preserve - The Nature Conservancy
nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/newjersey/work/art8499.html
The Muckshaw Ponds Preserve is a major Nature Conservancy holding in Fredon and Andover Townships, Sussex County. It adjoins the Town of Newton, a growing exurban center in the ecologically distinct and sensitive Ridge and Valley province of Northwestern New Jersey. The Preserve, and its environs, according to the Nature Conservancy, provide critical habitat for numerous globally rare plant species and natural communities. The Preserve, surrounding lands, and extensive areas to the South and East are ranked by the NJDEP for their ecological value as "Heritage Priority Areas" and are delineated on the State Plan map as PA5, Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area.

Two high-density housing developments totaling 420 units were proposed in the Town of Fredon, upstream and in close proximity to the Muckshaw Ponds Preserve. Beyond their ecological significance, local leaders are reported to have feared that development of this magnitude would accelerate a change in their rural quality of life, stress local services - especially schools - and increase taxes.

The 135-acre "PMI" tract, from Nature Conservancy reports, consists of wooded uplands, limestone ridges, and agricultural fields, serving as a major groundwater source for the nearby Muckshaw Ponds. While the tract is located in an "AR-6 Agricultural-Residential Zone," Planned Recreational/ Residential Development" is permitted as a conditional use anywhere in the zone on tracts of 30 acres or more. Previous owners of PMI had applied to the Township for approval to construct 183 patio homes and 18 single-family residences and a wastewater treatment facility. The development plan apparently conformed to the requirements of the conditional use and would also have served Fredon's Mount Laurel housing requirements. The Nature Conservancy acquired the property in June, 2001 for about $11,000/acre.

Nearby Valley View Farms is a 198-acre property with similar characteristics. The zoning here is "PD Planned Development," providing for a mix of attached and detached housing types and, significantly, providing an opportunity for the town to meet its "Mount Laurel" affordable housing obligation. Indeed, the preamble to the zone description states: "The purpose of the PD district is to encourage the development of certain large vacant tracts Š" for various reasons, including the realistic opportunity for affordable housing. TNC purchased the property in October, 2000, for approximately $14,000/acre.

These two projects "permanently" secured - permanently significant and sensitive natural areas valued by science and so designated in regional planning policy. They add significantly to a greenbelt of rural land around the growing center of Newton. Because it was the first non-profit application to the State farmland preservation program, Valley View Farms established an important precedent.

The Krischer Tract - Trust for Public Land
The Krischer property, 1,063 acres, is in Berkeley Township, Ocean County, at the northeastern edge of the New Jersey Pinelands. It contains white cedar and sedge swamps and important bird breeding areas in the headwaters of the Toms River. There is development pressure from the burgeoning town of Toms River, a major Jersey Shore hub to the East, and the vicinity of Whiting, fast becoming a frontier of retirement communities. The Krischer property lies within the jurisdiction of the Pinelands Commission and is designated by the Comprehensive Management Plan as a Forest Management Area. Residential units in this zone are restricted to one unit to 15.8 acres, and strict environmental performance requirements apply for any construction.

The Krischer owners had challenged the Forest Management Area designation, claiming that the character of their property was better defined by the retirement and resort communities on three sides than by the Forest designation. The Pinelands Commission wished to defend the scientific planning standards by which they had delineated this area and others throughout the Pinelands region. TPL, recognizing the ecological value of the property and, with the Commission, wishing to settle a potentially disastrous lawsuit, purchased the property in December 2001 for $1.5 million, or $1,411 per acre. Another important secondary effect: The town of Berkeley completed the process of bringing its comprehensive plan and zoning into conformance with the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan, after 20 years, one of the last Pinelands Towns to do so.

The Pinelands Area was delineated by state legislation in 1979, and the Pinelands Management Areas were designated by the Pinelands Commission in 1981. While one might dispute these designations - and many certainly have - they carry with them the well-established authority of government to draw boundaries and enforce within them regulations that may differ by area. To designate an area of forest between growing population centers is entirely appropriate. The Pinelands Area delineation (a legislative act) and the Forest designation (an administrative act) may, to be sure, be changed. The Krischer property is now afforded permanent protection. But the restrictive provisions of the Pinelands Commission surely had several critical effects:

• A low per acre cost of $1,411/acre, based on restrictive zoning provisions
• Leverage in the settlement of in important lawsuit
• A level of predictability - to most property-owners (though perhaps not Krischer) as to what they can do with their property
• A high, albeit not certain, level of protection for property surrounding the Krischer tract.

• Plans strategically to protect green infrastructure,
• Targets land acquisitions to priority areas,
• Coordinates planning, zoning, spending,
• Complements affordable housing plans,
• Creates a nexus between state & local actions, and
• Balances public interest with that of property owners.

Township of Chesterfield, Burlington County
Chesterfield is poised to become the state's first municipality outside of the Pinelands to add significantly to its already impressive farmland preserve, at little public cost, using a TDR program.

A sparsely developed agricultural community in Burlington County, Chesterfield has 2,614 residents in its 21.61 square miles. The entire township is designated in the State Plan as Planning Area 4 - Rural. 73 percent of the town's land area is enrolled in the farmland assessment program. 4,264 acres (31 percent of the land area) of farmland has been permanently preserved. The township has spent over ten years planning a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program to direct all of the township's future growth to a designated "receiving area" while limiting development elsewhere. The 1997 Master Plan envisioned a neo-traditional town center in the receiving area with a variety of housing types (including affordable housing), neighborhood shops and services, a school and other civic uses and recreational open space. Preserved farmland would surround the "planned village" and Chesterfield's three historic hamlets.

Chesterfield's well-defined vision has allowed it make regulatory changes, garner state grants, make strategic infrastructure investments, and attract private participation. In 1998, the Township adopted a new Land Development Ordinance enabling TDR and changing the underlying zoning in the agricultural districts from 3.3-acre lots to 10-acre lots. A clustering option was added, giving a density bonus in exchange for preserving 50% of the property as open space. The planned village is unique in New Jersey in that it requires TDR credits transferred from the surrounding farmland, and is sized (at 1,300 dwelling units) and zoned to accommodate all of the Township's remaining development capacity. The State Planning Commission awarded "Center Designation" to Chesterfield's planned village, and the Township received a Smart Growth Planning Grant with which it commissioned the village's conceptual design and architectural design standards. Sewer capacity was secured from a nearby facility, and a force main and pump station were built with township funds.

Chesterfield's vision will soon become reality. Fully 85% of the land in the Receiving Area is either controlled by major residential developers or in active contract negotiations. And, developers have already purchased development credits that will preserve 243 acres. Developers are to provide affordable housing through a mandatory set-aside, and contribute to the new road system and recreational facilities through cost sharing programs.

Plainsboro Township, Middlesex County
www.plainsboronj.com/
During a 30-year period of rapid growth that transformed it from a small farming community, Plainsboro Township preserved 45% of its land through creative regulations, negotiations and acquisition. Now home to some 20,215 residents on 12 square miles in Middlesex County, Plainsboro had no long-range plans for its future until the early 1970s, when over 7,000 housing units were approved in a few years' time. In 1977, Peter Cantu became mayor and helped focus the direction of the township, and in 1979, the first master plan with land preservation goals was adopted. Since then, the Township has pursued a variety of means to concentrate development while preserving the surrounding land to "manage growth and provide passive recreational opportunities". By 2000, 45% of the township's land area had been preserved, including 540 acres of contiguous farmland and an 850-acre natural area encompassing the Plainsboro Preserve.

Plainsboro's master plan conforms to the State Plan, which specifies a rural planning area in the south, suburban planning area in the mid-section, and environmentally sensitive land to the north. The township's open space plan targets specific parcels for acquisition, and sewer service has deliberately been kept out of preservation areas.

Plainsboro employs innovative acquisition and regulatory strategies to redirect growth and reduce the cost of land conservation. On 19 percent of the town's land, farmland zoning limited development to 6-acre lots with a clustering provision that grants higher densities in exchange for preservation of 75% of the tract. A more recent "Internal Zone Clustering Ordinance" permits density transfer between non-contiguous properties if 75% of the area is dedicated as open space. To date, over 500 acres of open space have been acquired via these provisions, at no cost to taxpayers. Plainsboro has also benefited from a zoning ordinance with defined open space requirements and successful negotiations with developers, which have led to the preservation of 442 acres of privately held land at a large office park, as well as other significant open space set-asides.

Plainsboro's residential development is concentrated in a mix of large multi-family and single-family residential developments. The Township has been certified by COAH as in compliance with state affordable housing requirements and maintains extra credits, while pursuing additional affordable housing opportunities. Although the compact nature of its residential developments complements land conservation, they lack the walkable, mixed-use character promoted in the State Plan. In 1999, the township adopted a Village Area Master Plan to create a pedestrian-oriented focal point for the community that would include a "downtown" type of area and two residential areas.

Plumsted Township, Ocean County
www.plumsted.org/
Contact: Mayor Ronald Dancer, 609.758.2241
Plumsted Township is located in the geographic center of New Jersey, and in the northwestern most corner of Ocean County. The southern 45% of the township is within the Fort Dix Military Reservation, with a small portion in the southeast in the Pinelands Management Area. Plumsted is the most agriculturally rich township in Ocean County. The State Plan map shows that the town (outside of Fort Dix and the Pinelands) is entirely within the Rural Planning Area (PA4). The northeast quadrant is also in the coastal divide area, which serves as an aquifer recharge area and headwaters of streams in both the Barnegat Bay watershed and the Delaware River basin.

Plumsted's efforts in farmland preservation began in the mid-1980s along with the creation of the Ocean County Agricultural Development Board (CADB), part of the State Agricultural Development Committee's (SADC) preservation initiative. Due to the fact that Plumsted had the bulk of the County's farmland, the CADB focused their efforts in the township. In 1992 the first farm was preserved - the Hallock property - an important piece of the township's farmbelt. Since that time, using state, county, and local funds, Plumsted has succeeded in permanently preserving over 2,500 acres.

The township used comprehensive planning as another tool for its preservation efforts. In 1995, Plumsted received a Smart Growth Grant from the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC) that was used to create a new Master Plan consistent with the SDRP. The document set a preservation goal of 2000 acres by the year 2000, and resulted in the designation of New Egypt as a town center by the State Planning Commission. Also worth noting is the creation of an economic development authority charged with encouraging growth in New Egypt. The township is investigating the feasibility of sewering the town center to facilitate growth, and has established a Municipal Utility Authority to do so.

By July 2000, Plumsted had created and adopted an Open Space and Recreation Element to complement its Master Plan. The accompanying map shows how the farmland preservation areas form a greenbelt around the town center at New Egypt. Three other preservation target areas, including one in the coastal divide portion of the township, were established as well. In 2001, Plumsted's applied to the SADC for a Planning Incentive Grant (PIG) to preserve these three target areas. The application was approved, despite the relative small size of the areas to be preserved, because of the comprehensive, combined open space and farmland preservation strategy created by the township.

Plumsted made a few regulatory changes along with its planning efforts. Prior to the 1995 Master Plan, the entire township was zoned for 1-acre lots, with a nitrate dilution model that would increase or decrease allowed density depending upon soil conditions. The prime farmland in the township often had the highest quality soils for development, so in order to protect these parcels, 2, 3, and 5-acre zoning was enacted. As the properties in farmland preservation grew, so did the 5-acre zone.

In addition to this gradual downzoning, the township enacted a few flexibility provisions within its land development ordinance. Cluster development is permitted in the RA-5, 3, and 2-acre zones, offering a Farmland Preservation Bonus for clustering on tracts greater than 50 acres. Lot averaging is provided for soley in the RA-5 district for tract sizes of 25 plus acres.

A great deal of Plumsted's farmland preservation success can be attributed to its stable and committed governing body. The local leadership had to work closely with the public, especially farmers, to alleviate the initial apprehension to government involvement in the preservation effort. Leaders had to cultivate an understanding of and relationships with county and state programs/agencies. Plumsted has worked with the SADC, CADB, the Office of State Planning (OSP) and the State Planning Commission (SPC) to name just a few. The township has taken advantage of numerous grant program offered by these as well as other organizations.

While the township has excelled in its navigation of various funding sources and acquisition programs, it has not been as aggressive in the pursuit of regulatory change. The 5-acre minimum lot size is not sufficient to protect the viability of agriculture in the long run. The flexibility provisions, such as clustering, are optional and are based on the 3 to 5 acre minimum lot size that is still an inadequate means of protecting farmland. The reluctance to downzone and implement more stringent regulations stems largely from a desire to avoid political turmoil and legal challenges. Plumsted is currently being sued for downzoning an area in the coastal divide region to 5 acre minimum lot sizes.

The best programs combine regulatory efforts with acquisition programs.

East Amwell Township, Hunterdon County
www.eastamwell.hunterdon.nj.us/
East Amwell has translated a long-held commitment to agriculture into a multi-pronged strategy to preserve its farming region from suburban sprawl. East Amwell is home to 4800 residents on 28 square miles in rural Hunterdon County. The southern part of the Township covers part of the Sourland Mountain, a rocky, wooded area, while the small village of Ringoes sits along the northern border, bisecting the fertile Amwell Valley, an agricultural area designated in the State Plan as a rural planning area. Dominated by productive agricultural soils, the Amwell Valley District experienced an increase in the value of farm products from $2.7m in 1989 to $4.1m in 1995, despite modest declines in total cropland harvested.

East Amwell's Master Plans have long valued farmland and agriculture. The Township began acquiring land through the farmland preservation program in 1989, and by 1997, nearly 1,500 acres had been preserved. In 1997, the Planning Board recognized that its three-acre zoning would not protect farmland, and chose to develop a "diversified agricultural retention strategy", rather than allow suburban sprawl to dominate its landscape. This three-pronged approach included:

• Planning and zoning
• Stepped up acquisition through the farmland preservation program, and
• Pro-farming regulations.

An Agricultural Base Study was conducted in 1997, followed by a Land Use Plan Amendment in 1998 and a new zoning ordinance in 1999. The ordinance reduced by two-thirds the amount of development allowed on some 11,000 acres of open space, or about 60% of the town's land. Three options for development are now allowed there: 1) conventional development on 10-acre lots; 2) lot averaging, which permits lots as small as 1.5 acres, provided average densities do not exceed one unit per 10 acres; and 3) "open lands" subdivision, which provides developers with a 50% density bonus if they cluster the development and preserve 75% of the land in farmland.

East Amwell created an "equity protection program" to buy development rights at prices based on the 3-acre zoning in effect under the prior ordinance. As of January 2003, 3,334 acres of farmland had been preserved. To support agricultural viability, the township adopted pro-farming regulations including a right-to-farm ordinance, permitting the established of farm markets, permitting farm based businesses and other uses such as golf courses and cellular towers, and creating a family farm subdivision option.

East Amwell's zoning ordinance was challenged by a number of plaintiffs including landowners and the NJ Farm Bureau, but was upheld in Superior Court in August 2002 as consistent with local, county and state planning goals. The decision is considered significant, as it is the first to uphold the right of municipalities to protect farmland from sprawl by low-density zoning. In the In the East Amwell ruling, the court echoed a previous court decision, Kirby v. Bedminster, which concluded that zoning changes are valid if they are consistent with the New Jersey State Plan and local and county planning goals. Judge Helen Hoens asserted that while the State Plan has a regional approach, "it is one which in the end tolerates the choice of a particular community to safeguard its environs."

East Amwell is also working to protect the environmentally sensitive Sourland Mountain and Stony Brook areas, with a proposed zoning ordinance requiring 15-acre minimum lot sizes, a forest protection ordinance, and limits on road improvements.

Because most of the Township's soils suffer from severe or moderate to severe septic limitations and there is no public water or sewer, East Amwell has not planned for significant residential development. The Township claims to be the state's first to be certified by COAH as meeting state affordable housing obligations, and retains extra credits. Its affordable housing plan includes alternatives to new construction, such as subsidized accessory apartments and a program that provides down payment assistance to qualifying families.

1. Preparation of an adequate record. The town had well-documented planning rationale in their master plan that was supported by underlying studies and analyses and competent expert opinion. The town had already articulated public policy objectives to conserve countryside, rural character, natural resources, scenic resources, agriculture, and open space.
2. Compliance with Riggs v. Long Beach Township. The town's zoning ordinance advanced one of the zoning purposes in the Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL), and was consistent with the Land Use and Housing Plan elements in the master plan. The town was in accordance constitutional constraints on the zoning power, which states that as long as the zoning ordinance advances a legitimate state interest based on sound planning and does not deny the property owner of all economically beneficial use of the land, a regulatory taking does not occur. The property owner is not necessarily entitled to the most profitable use of the land.
3. Advancement of one of the purposes of the Municipal Land Use Law as set forth in N.J.S.A. 40:55D-2, including:
   1. Guiding appropriate land use to promote public health and welfare
   2. Providing open space
   3. Ensuring that development does not conflict with neighboring towns, county, or State
   4. Establishing appropriate population densities
   5. Providing sufficient space for agricultural, residential, and open space uses
   6. Promoting desirable visual environment
   7. Promoting conservation of open space and valuable natural resources and prevents sprawl and environmental degradation
4. Defined growth areas, showing balanced zoning with both development and preservation opportunities.
5. Compliance with New Jersey's affordable housing requirements. Once a municipality has satisfied its affordable housing obligation, it may engage in measures such as "large lot zoning" to "maintain its beauty and communal character." Mt. Laurel "is not designed to sweep away all land use restrictions or leave our open spaces and natural resources prey to speculators_municipalities consisting largely of conservation, agricultural, or environmentally-sensitive land will not be required to grow because of Mt. Laurel." (Mt. Laurel II 92 N.J. 158 (1983))
6. Consistency with the State Plan. The State Plan is not a regulatory instrument, but consistency with State Plan goals and objectives can be used to support the reasonableness of zoning ordinances.
7. A relationship between zoning and sewers. Sewer service should follow zoning and planning - not vice versa. (N.J.S.A. 7:15-15:18)
8. Integration of the public and other stakeholders into the planning process. Address and accommodate their concerns, when possible, without sacrificing significant resource management goals and objectives.
9. Putting it all together.
   1. Engage appropriate consultants and experts to fortify records (planners, engineers, appraisers, economists, wastewater management planning experts, traffic engineers, ecologists, hydrologists, soil scientists, etc.)
   2. Use demonstrative exhibits to tell the story, such as photographs, maps, etc.