More discussion expected on development issues
Planning Board asked to consider changes on Route 33
BY LARRY HLAVENKA JR.
Staff Writer

HOWELL - At the Sept. 21 meeting of the Planning Board, township planner Charles Newcomb led a presentation regarding the possible extension of the Freehold Regional Center boundary into Howell.

Newcomb said the extension of the boundary of this specific planning area has been recommended by the master plan subcommittee and would open the door to state funding for infrastructure in the area between an existing freight railroad line near the Route 33 bypass and business Route 33. The targeted area extends from the Freehold Township border to near Fairfield Road.

With that in mind, Newcomb is asking officials to consider an amendment to Howell's land use plan to include the extension of the planning area boundary.

No resolution was reached last week and the issue is expected to be continued at an upcoming meeting.

Newcomb described the merits and the purpose of the proposal. He said the objective is "developing community center boundaries and [deciding] where development should be concentrated ... to achieve a degree of consistency" with the state.

Newcomb said the area of Howell in question is zoned SED-1 (special economic development) and HD-2 (highway development).

A document distributed to board members from Newcomb's firm, Banisch Associates Inc., stated that the Monmouth County Planning Board applied to the State Planning Commission for initial plan endorsement of the Western Monmouth Development Plan which incorporates Englishtown, Farmingdale, Freehold Borough, Freehold Township, Howell, Manalapan and Marlboro.

Newcomb said representatives of Howell helped devise the Western Monmouth Development Plan.

Essentially, Newcomb said changing the boundary of the so-called Freehold Regional Center would help to create consistency with the state plan and will enable Howell to receive money from the state to provide future infrastructure. Goals to encourage planning that is specific to the municipality and county, but consistent with regional development, remain paramount, he said.

Board member Mark Corzine expressed skepticism about changing the boundary.

"There is an extensive amount of open space in that area [of business Route 33 between the Freehold Township border and Fairfield Road], farmed," Corzine said. "Why would we want to allow an infrastructure increase if we are looking at keeping open space?"

Newcomb told Corzine the area

is zoned for uses that need "higher infrastructure support."

"Maybe I'm missing the big picture," Corzine said. "I don't see how it benefits Howell."

Newcomb said, "It connects into Freehold and other communities. It is an area we have identified for development to take place and I think that's the benefit to Howell."

Without the board's approval, Newcomb said he believed state planning officials would question why it did not approve the boundary during the plan's review.

Board member Russell Bohlin said, "I don't really understand the point of this exercise."

Board member James Burgess said, "It does not give a developer any rights they didn't already have." He said it is part of a bigger plan for the county.

"Exactly," Newcomb responded.

When the board opened the hearing to the public, resident Pauline Smith emphatically objected to the plan, even breaking into tears at one point.

Smith, a former longtime member of the Planning Board, expressed concern that with increased development and infrastructure in this area of Howell, water runoff would overflow local waterways, harm the soil and create high-density buildings.

"It will change the whole integrity of the area," Smith said. "You have to understand, you're not changing [zoning], but the whole area will be destroyed. Why do it? Why take a chance? This is my home, please vote no."

Resident Ann Malsbury also objected to the idea of bringing more infrastructure to this undeveloped area of the municipality.

"What you are talking about is my property and I am very concerned," she said. "We must protect our waterways."

After Malsbury's testimony and with many more residents waiting for a chance to speak, the board said the hearing would be continued on a date to be determined.