FINAL Farmland Preservation Plan

HUNTERDON COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD

Peter Melick, Chair William Bowlby, Vice Chair Robert Hoffman, Jr. Susan Blew Wayne Hunt Dave Bond Paul Dahan John Van Nuys Robert Zelley

Ex-Officio Members: Win Cowgill, County Agricultural Agent William Engisch, Soil Conservation District Bob Mickel, County Agricultural Agent Matthew Holt, Freeholder Advisor

CADB STAFF

G. Sue Dziamara, Planning Director Bill Millette, Program Administrator Rick Steffey, PIG Program Administrator Ken Bogen, Principal Planner Crystal Barnes, Senior Planner Brian Appezzato, Assistant Planner Kyle Zenlea, Assistant Planner Gaetano M. DeSapio, Esq., County Counsel

BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

Eric Peterson, Freeholder Director William Mennen, Deputy Freeholder Director George B. Melick Matthew Holt Ron Sworen

Hunterdon County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan 2008

- 1 -

Hunterdon County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan 2008

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Introduction 3 Why Preserve Farmland 3

I. County’s Agricultural Land Base 5 County’s Agricultural Industry – Overview 5

II. Land Use Planning Context 19

III. County’s Farmland Preservation Program – Overview 44

IV. Future Farmland Preservation Program 56

V. Economic Development 70

VI. Natural Resource Conservation 78

VII. Agricultural Industry Sustainability, Retention and Promotion 83

Appendix 93

Tables: 1. Preserved Farms 2. Preserved Farms - Cost Shares 3. Targeted Farms 4. County Planning Incentive Grant Application 5. County Planning Incentive Grant Criteria

Maps: 1. County Farmland Soils Map 2. Highlands Areas Map 3. Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Area (ADA) Map 4. Preserved and Pending Farmland Preservation Map 5. Hunterdon County Project Area Map 6. Active Agriculture 7. Highlands Agriculture Priority Areas 8. Sewer Service Areas 9. Areas Served by Public Water

- 2 -

Introduction

Through various public forums and public opinion surveys, Hunterdon County residents have clearly stated their desire to preserve the County's rural character, its farmland and open space. County residents have overwhelmingly approved farmland preservation bond issues since the first referendum in 1980 and the participation of landowners in the farmland preservation program has increased since its inception in 1985. The interest of residents and landowners in preserving farmland, however, is countered by development pressure in the County and the concurrent decline of full time farmers. This has made farmland preservation a challenging task.

Hunterdon County is situated in northwestern New Jersey on the fringe of the New York metropolitan area. As a result of its proximity to the New York metropolitan area, Hunterdon County has undergone rapid growth during the past few decades. The population from 1980 to 1990 increased by 23.4% and according to the 1990 U.S. Census, Hunterdon County was the second fastest growing county in New Jersey. The latest Hunterdon County Planning Board estimate indicates a 40% population increase from 1980 to present day.

Farmers and non-farmers concerned about Hunterdon County’s transformation from a rural to a suburban county started a farmland preservation effort in 1981. The farmland preservation program has grown tremendously since then and will continue to evolve to meet the needs of the ever changing agricultural economy. This Plan provides an overview of Hunterdon County’s farmland preservation program, offers recommendations for meeting future demands as well as improving the current program, and satisfies State requirements for a county comprehensive farmland preservation plan.

"Why preserve farmland?"

Farmland is a non-renewable natural resource - when it's gone, it's gone forever. With the current rate of development in Hunterdon County, farmland is diminishing at a rapid pace. It is expected that Hunterdon County's growth rate - which has been one of the fastest in the State for the past two decades – will continue. Unfortunately, however, the land that is best for development is also best for agriculture.

The most important and obvious reason for preserving farmland is to permanently preserve quality farmland that can provide food and fiber products for both present and future generations. Local farm operations can offer a variety of fresh local produce and animal fiber through farm markets or other types of direct marketing initiatives. Fresh produce is typically healthier, more convenient, and often offers varieties that are not otherwise available locally. Local fiber offers similar advantages.

Preserved farmland also offers property tax benefits. It helps stabilize property taxes because - 3 - farms require less governmental services. The largest category of property taxes is the cost of schools. Although new residential development pays its share of property taxes, it does not cover the entire cost of educating its children. The annual costs are therefore distributed to other existing homes and properties. Studies have shown that even considering the cost of bonding money for farmland preservation, the overall cost to the taxpayer is less with one-time investments in farmland (preservation) than with a new residential development.

Preserving farmland offers other benefits. It maintains clean air and generates little traffic. Farmland often offers attractive views and provides land for groundwater recharge so that rainwater can filter back into the ground. Farmland can contribute to an eco-tourism program, benefiting area towns and businesses. Finally, farmland contributes to the rural quality of life that has been enjoyed in Hunterdon County for centuries. It is for all of these reasons that a farmland preservation program is important to Hunterdon County residents and local officials.

- 4 - CHAPTER 1: AGRICULTURAL LAND BASE AND INDUSTRY OVERVIEW IN HUNTERDON COUNTY

Hunterdon County's agriculture is marked by certain characteristics that have remained consistent over the past couple of decades - if not more. These characteristics include a diversity in agriculture, including hay, feed corn, horses, cattle, specialty crops and animals; an abundance of small to moderately sized farms; and a large percentage of part-time farmers. The most significant agricultural issues in Hunterdon County are the costs of farming, continued development pressure, and competition from other agricultural areas. These issues, combined with the rising age of the average farmer, have resulted in the decline of agriculture as a full-time business.

Agriculture in Hunterdon County

Agricultural Land Base Hunterdon County has a total of approximately 280,450 acres of which approximately 127,043 acres is farmland assessed according to the 2005 NJ Farmland Assessment. This amounts to 38.95% of the total acreage of the County and 13.6% of the New Jersey’s total farmland. Much of Hunterdon County’s farmland is located through the center as well as the easterly and southern portions of the County. The productive farms closely follow the locations of the Statewide and Prime soils that are classified for farming.

Hunterdon County is comprised of about 106,150 acres or 38% of Statewide important soils, 76,280 acres or 27% of Prime soils, 85,660 acres or 31% of soils that are not important to farming as well as 12,357 acres or about 4% of soils that were not rated by the National Resource Conservation Service. The Prime and Statewide soils are mainly located along the center of the County as well as toward the west and eastern boarders providing a good agricultural soil base for farmers to utilize.

(Please see Map 1, located in the appendix.)

Of the over 82,000 acres of total active agricultural lands as defined by the 2002 NJ Department of Environmental protection Land Use Land Cover data, 35,318 acres are comprised of Statewide soils. About 33,569 acres are comprised of Prime soils. The remaining acreage was either not rated or comprised of other, not important soils. The following chart indicates, by municipality, the amount of active agriculture acreage in Hunterdon County.

- 5 - Municipality Active Ag Acreage Alexandria Township 7232 Bethlehem Township 3010 Bloomsbury Boro 162 Califon Boro 31 Clinton Town 120 Clinton Township 4025 Delaware Township 9680 East Amwell Township 7996 Flemington Boro 4 Franklin Township 6953 Frenchtown Boro 64 Glen Gardener Boro 80 Hampton Boro 245 High Bridge Boro 30 Holland Township 4238 Kingwood Township 7797 Lambertville City 3 Lebanon Boro 36 Lebanon Township 3621 Milford Boro 92 Raritan Township 5534 Readington Township 8127 Stockton Boro 50 Tewksbury Township 5896 Union Township 3030 West Amwell Township 4024

Almost as important, if not more so, to farming as soils is water resources. About 1514 farms were utilizing the county soils in 2002 and 114 of those farms were irrigated totaling approximately 1058 acres of irrigated farmland in Hunterdon County according to the 2002 Census of Agriculture. The water sources that are currently tapped for irrigation include local wells, the Delaware River, the South Branch of the Raritan River, and various other water sources throughout the County. The Highlands Act has worked toward protecting the water resources of that very important region. In order to address the requirements and goals of the Highlands Act, the Highlands Council analyzed the natural water sustainability of the Highlands Region to determine the amount of water required to protect aquatic ecological integrity and the amount “available” for water supply, and commercial, industrial, or agricultural uses. Where net water availability is negative, the sub-watershed is deemed a Current Deficit Area, meaning existing uses are exceeding sustainable supplies.

The physical infrastructure defines the limits for water delivery that are inherent to the system, while the NJDEP water allocation permits and associated limitations in water availability define the limits for water supply that are inherent to the water resources (e.g., aquifer, reservoir system).

The technical approach used by the Highlands Council for the Draft RMP (the Low Flow Margin (LFM) method, the calculation of consumptive and depletive water uses, and the use of the EcoFlow Goals approach to provide a basis for certain thresholds) is consistent with the methods being used by the NJDEP for the next New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan.

- 6 -

The Highlands Council is proposing the following water availability policy:

1. Assign water availability thresholds to entire HUC14 sub-watersheds rather than zones within sub-watersheds, based on the dominant Land Use Capability Zone (>75% of the sub-watershed) or on the Watershed Condition Indicator (High corresponding to the Protection Zone policy, Moderate to the Conservation Zone policy, Low to the Existing Community Zone policy). 2. Protect water supply safe yields from new consumptive and depletive water uses through a cross-reference to NJDEP water allocation regulations. 3. Provide limited, conditional water availability in deficit sub-watersheds. Realization of this availability would be conditioned upon 125% mitigation 4. For HUC14 sub-watersheds upstream of deficit sub-watersheds a policy of a 5% LFM, above current consumptive and depletive water uses (but not to exceed the standard thresholds). 5. Distribute available water within a HUC14 sub-watershed on the basis of RMP development and redevelopment potential.

There are currently no guidelines in the Highlands proposed policy for water allocation that specifically addresses water allocation policies for agricultural purposes in the Highlands. These policies, as noted above are strictly based on general HUC14 sub-watershed thresholds and deficit areas. There is no mention in these policies, for example, how agricultural water permit requests will be prioritized versus permit requests for residential development.

Hunterdon County's Farmland Soil Acreage Other

76281, 27% Not rated

Prime

Statewide

106153, 38%

12357, 4%

85659, 31%

Source: NRCS SSURGO Version 2 soils

- 7 -

Diverse Agriculture

Agriculture in Hunterdon County has traditionally been diverse. In an interview, a N.J. Farm Bureau staff person explained how, for example, Cumberland County was largely vegetables, Salem County was corn and Hunterdon County was "very diverse". The diversity ranges from hay production, feed corn, horses, and cattle, to sheep, nurseries, grapes, and specialty crops and animals. The agricultural diversity is largely due to the above average soils that accommodate a variety of agricultural uses, the relatively good climate, and the combination of part-time and full-time farmers that are interested in various types of agriculture.

Of the approximately 280,000 acres that make up Hunterdon County, 131,572 acres or 47.8% of the land is farmland assessed according to the 2004 NJ Farmland Assessment. The majority of the farmland assessed acres are in active agriculture with a total of 84,844 acres. Harvested Cropland took up the greatest amount of active agriculture land with 59,113 acres, followed by Permanent Pasture with 16,888 acres and Cropland Pastured with 8,843 acres. This total number is down from the 1983 total of 102,449 acres in active agriculture.

The total amount of land available for agricultural use including woodland and equine acreage is also down from the 142,240 acre figure in 1983 with a total 131,572 acres for agricultural use according to the 2004 NJ Farmland Assessment. The total woodland figure for agricultural use is 45,983 acres, about 35% of the total amount of land for agricultural use in the County. This amount of woodlands is equal to the figure from the 1990 NJ Farmland Assessment; however the proportion of unattached woodland to attached woodland has evened out as of 2004. Equine acreage is up sharply from the 2000 figure of 542 acres to 745 acres in 2004.

Field crops dominate the land in active agriculture as the type of farming done in the county in 2004 with 49,430 acres; however the remaining acreage is divided among various other diverse forms of agriculture. Nursery operations used the second greatest amount of acreage for farming in 2004 with 3,681 acres. Vegetables were ranked third in the amount of acreage used with 1,006 acres. The remaining acreage was divided among cover crops, fruit, berries and grapes. The top five agricultural commodities of Hunterdon County reflect this diversity as well. The top commodity is nursery stock followed by hay and similar crops. The third commodity is horses, followed by grains and finally vegetables.

Value of Crops for Hunterdon County:

The Hunterdon County market value for all products sold in 2002 was $ 42,267,000 dollars. The average amount of product sold per farm in Hunterdon County was $27,917 dollars.

The breakdown for crops yields only was $34,707,000 dollars. The breakdown for livestock and poultry products was $7,560,000 dollars.

- 8 - Farms by Value of Sales

1000 800 600 400 200 0 Number Farms of Less than $2,500$2,5 $ $ $2 $5 $10 5 1 , 0,000 5,00 0 00 ,0 0 00 t 0 0 to $ 0 t 0 t ,000 or more o to $2 o o $9 $4 $ 4 99,99 ,9 ,9 4, 9,99 99 99 9 9 9 9 9

Value of Sales (USD)

Source: 2002 USDA Census of Agriculture

Snapshot of farming production in Hunterdon County:

Production Type Number of Farms Grain Corn 90 Silage Corn 25 Wheat for Grain 56 Winter Wheat 56 Oats for Grain 23 Barley for Grain 7 Sorghum for Grain 8 Soybeans 58 Vegetables harvested for sale 101 Potatoes 8 Chickens 26 Cattle and Calves 295 Hogs and Pigs 67 Sheep and Lambs 235

Source: USDA 2002 Census of Agriculture

Hunterdon County as compared to other counties in NJ: Hunterdon County leads the state in many agricultural areas. Hunterdon ranks number 1 for total farms with 1,514. Sussex County ranks second with 1,029 farms. According to the 2002 census of agriculture, Hunterdon was number 1 in the state for total acreage in farming with 109,241 acres. Warren County was ranked second with 78,042 acres.

- 9 -

Top Crop Items (in acres planted)

35000 30000 25000 20000 15000 Acres 10000 5000 0 Forage land Soybeans Grain Corn Silage Corn use Crops

Source: 2004 NJ Farmland Assessment

Crop Production and Market Value Trends over the Last 20 Years As indicated in the tables below, the statistics for the top crops that were in production over the last 20 years show a rise in market value as production has fallen.

Crop Production

50000

45000

40000

35000

30000

Wheat All 25000 Corn-Sweet

Acres Harvested Acres 20000

15000

10000

5000

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

- 10 - Crop Production

160000

140000

120000

100000

Corn For Grain Hay All (Dry) 80000 Soybeans Acres harvested 60000

40000

20000

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Sweet Corn Prices

10 DollarsHundred per Weight

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

- 11 - Wheat (all) Prices

3 Dollars per Bushel 2

0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

All Hay (dry) Prices

160

140

120

100

80 Dollars per Ton per Dollars 60

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

- 12 - Corn for Grain Prices

4.5

3.5

2.5

2 Dollars per bushel per Dollars 1.5

0.5

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Soybean Prices

6 Dollars perBushel 4

0 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Year

Source: National Agriculture Statistics Service – New Jersey

Livestock trends are also telling of the shift in agriculture within the county over the years. Where in 1997, there were 8,095 farms in Hunterdon County that sold livestock, poultry and their associated products, that number has dropped to 7,560 farms in 2002 according to the Census of Agriculture. Statewide, the number of livestock farms was stable compared to Hunterdon County, with 3,825 farms in 1987, 3,605 in 1992 and 3,228 farms in 1997.

- 13 -

When these figures are broken down by type, it is more telling as to where this shift in livestock has occurred. The number of dairy farms in Hunterdon County has decreased from 30 in 1997 to only 10 dairy farms in 2002 while the number of poultry and egg farms has increased from 107 in 1997 to 151 farms in 2002. The amount of pig and hog farms has remained stable from 1997 with 66 farms with only a loss of 1 farm in 2002.

The value amount of dairy products has dropped along with the loss of local Hunterdon County dairy farms. In 1997 there were $2,802,000 in sales of dairy products and only $1,520,000 in 2002 according to the Census of Agriculture. This number is in sharp contract to the value amount seen in 1987 with $6,484,000. The value amount for hogs and pigs sold has likewise fallen, with $516,000 in 1987 and only $255,000 in 1997, dropping further to $113,000 in 2002.

This shift in farming practices also has an impact on the land needed for the type of production.

Small to Moderately Sized Farms There are 109,241 acres of active farmland that comprise the 1514 farms in the county. The number of farms has grown since 1982 when the number of farms totaled 1180. The total acreage has been reduced however, shrinking from greater than 120,000 acres to the current 109,241 acres. This supports Hunterdon County's agricultural diversity and how it has been accomplished on relatively small to moderately sized farms. Contrary to the current national trend in agriculture towards larger, consolidated farms, the trend in Hunterdon County and throughout most of New Jersey is the reverse.

In 1982, the average size of a farm in the County was 102 acres, which dropped to 72 acres in 2002, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture. More telling of the typical farm is the median size which, in 2002 was 24 acres down from 27 acres in 1997. This number is reflected in the breakdown of Hunterdon County farms by size: 341 farms between 1 - 9 acres, 722 farms between 10 – 49 acres, 328 farms between 50 – 17acres, 86 acres between 180 – 499 acres, 28 farms between 500 – 999 acres, 9 farms between 1000 – 1999 acres and 2 farms that are greater than 2000 acres. The decreasing average farm size is due to the loss of large farms and the significant increase in small, "part-time" farms.

Fa r ms by Size

722 800 600 341 328 400

Farms 86 200 28 9 0 1 to 9 10 to 49 50 to 179 180 to 500 to 1,000 499 999 acres or mor e Acres/Farm

- 14 -

Part-time Farmers The increase in the number of small farms can largely be attributed to two reasons. One, in Hunterdon County there has historically been a large number of part-time farmers - people who derive the majority of their income from non-farm related work. A combination of the rural and scenic qualities of Hunterdon County and interstate access to major employment areas has made it a popular place to farm "a few acres" for enjoyment. People who enjoy the rural lifestyle are able to commute to work and come home and enjoy their "part-time farms". Part-time farmers do not need a minimum farm size for income and large farms tend to be too much to manage - thus, the smaller farm. The predominance of part-time farmers is also a result of farmers not being able to make enough profits for a full time occupation.

Whereas the ratio in other New Jersey counties of full-time farm operators to part-time farmers is 1:1 or 2:1, in 1997 Hunterdon County had a full-time to part-time ratio of 1:2, meaning there were half as many full-time farmers as part-time farmers. In recent years, according to the 2002 US Census of Agriculture, that ratio has leveled off to more echo the statewide numbers that are closer to a 1:1 ratio. In 2002, of the 1514 farm operators in Hunterdon, 52.8% do not claim farming to be their principal occupation, according to the U.S. Census of Agriculture. In fact, since 1974, the majority of Hunterdon County's farms were farmed by part-time farmers, however this most recent survey in 2002 shows a significant increase in the amount of full-time farm operators than the Census of Agriculture has shown historically.

The Cost of Farming Large farm operations, particularly dairy and grain operations, have been declining in Hunterdon County for several decades. The price of dairy and grain commodities has been relatively low over these years and contributes to low and/or unpredictable farm incomes. Over the last two decades, milk and grain prices fluctuated but never increased in proportion with the cost of living in Hunterdon County until recently. In 1980, the price paid to farmers for milk was $13.38/cwt; in 1990 it was $15.30/cwt and in 1995, it was $13.30/cwt. In June of 2007, the price received for milk showed significant increase up to $20.20/cwt. For feed corn, farmers received $3.59/bushel in 1980; $3.00/bushel in 1990 (June) and $2.50/bushel in 1995 (June). In June of 2007 the price per bushel has skyrocketed to $3.51. This rise has closely followed the rise in corn used for ethanol production for addition to gasoline. This change in the market is felt throughout various agricultural products, as some farmers are abandoning previously profitable crops to take advantage of the high prices for others. Some farmers adopted new farming strategies that either increased crop yields or profit margins; others shifted directions in farming and chose new, more profitable products as a result of the new price increases for different products. Typically the latter requires investments and risks that many farmers, unfortunately, can not afford because of either retirement or financial needs.

While farm income has been relatively low, farm production costs continue to be high for farmers. New Jersey has been described as having the highest cost of farming in the country. In 1997, the average farm production expenses were $24,601, which represents a sizeable portion of - 15 - the $27,461 average dollar amount of agricultural products sold. That number has not changed much according to the 2002 US Census of Agriculture with a $27,917 average dollar amount of agricultural products sold. The largest category of production expenses in Hunterdon County is property taxes, due to high property values. Other large categories of farm production expenses include the cost of hired labor, feed for livestock, and repair and maintenance of buildings and equipment.

Agricultural Support Services Due to the rural nature of Hunterdon County and the intensity of agriculture in the region, there are a number of businesses that have located themselves within easy reach of the local farmers. Various farm equipment dealers are located in the area to sell new equipment and service existing as well, such as 4-T’s Farm, Powerco, Inc., and D&R Equipment Inc. There are also used equipment dealers located in the area that provide a lower cost alternative to buying new equipment.

Along with the equipment dealers, seed suppliers are also located within the area to provide farmers with close support for their planting needs. Alliance Seed Incorporated, Farmer’s Brokerage & Supply, Inc., National Seed Co. of NJ, Inc, United Horticultural Supply are some of the seed suppliers in the area. Closely associated with the seed suppliers are the suppliers of products that help protect the crops such as pesticides. There are various companies that provide pesticides as well as aerial applications of such. Much of these businesses are moving toward more nationally based outfits with the ease of transport and ordering through the internet. This creates and opportunity for greater diversity in products made available to local farmers that normally would not be exposed to such a wide array of products.

Local auctions are also a great service that allows for the sale and trade of agricultural goods at the local level. Many are held in the area that allow for local products to be concentrated within the area to the benefit of neighboring farmers. In addition to the available auctions, farm markets are also a great outlet for local farmers and their use is on the rise in Hunterdon County.

Many farmers would like to see more support services in the area, however they recognize the change in the business and the trend toward a more internet-based industry. With the continued growth of internet only businesses and the ease of shipping through major companies, as needs expand farmers will look more toward businesses that may not be located nearby. Rutgers Cooperative Extension of Salem County has put together a document listing those service providers that are available to New Jersey farmers. This can be found at the following address: http://salem.rutgers.edu/greenpages/service.pdf

Supplemental on-farm income Many farmers are supplementing their farm incomes with farm-related and non-farm related businesses and activities. This is happening not only in Hunterdon County, but throughout the country. According to the FARMs Commission report, November, 1994, supplemental farm- related income on New Jersey farms includes hunting/fishing; leaf composting; farmstand marketing; picnic facilities; pick-your-own operations; petting zoos; hay rides; farm tours; and bed and breakfasts. Hunterdon County farmers are including many of these activities in their farm operations, particularly hay rides, pick-your-own operations, corn mazes, and farmstands. Non-farm businesses are an additional source of income for farmers. In Hunterdon County, non- farm businesses include school bus drivers, vehicle repair shops, arbor businesses and construction and excavating companies.

- 16 - Development pressure Development pressure continues to be a problem for Hunterdon County farmers. Hunterdon County has had the second fastest rate of residential growth in the State since 1980. According to the US Census for the period 1980 to 1990, the average annualized growth rate for Hunterdon County was 2.1%, second only to Ocean County. For the period from 1990 to 1995, the County's average annualized growth rate was 1.5%, which was second only to Somerset County. Similarly, the statewide average annualized growth rate was .5% for both periods. During this period, real estate developers aggressively solicited the interest of farmers to sell their land through letters, phone calls and door-to door visits. This is still true today. Many large developers offer down-payments to landowners in exchange for contracts to sell their farmland after subdivision approvals have been secured. This process can take up to several years, but the money initially paid to the landowner makes the offer attractive. Such offers are difficult for some farmers to resist if profit margins have been low or retirement is near.

New residential development also presents other problems. Residences and farms are not ideal neighbors. Nuisance suits, trespassing, noise and pollution complaints, and liability issues are all common problems when farms are surrounded by residential developments. The population of Hunterdon County has almost doubled in size in 25 years with a population of just over 130,000 in 2005 as compared to approximately 87,000 people residing in the county in 1980. Right-to-farm laws have attempted to address this issue and these laws have been recently strengthened. Municipalities have attempted to curb this trend as well by introducing zoning that requires larger lot sizes or encourages cluster developments.

Aging farmer The average age of Hunterdon County's farmers has been increasing for the last 25 years. In 1969, the average age of the County's farmers was 52.7. Although it decreased slightly over the next 10-12 years, it has increased since then. As of 2002, the average age of the farmer was 56. The aging farmer contributes to the agricultural picture in Hunterdon County. With the average farmer close to retirement, there is little room for taking risks and making investments to adapt to a changing industry. Therefore, if profit margins are minimal, the path of least resistance is often the sale of the farm. Some farmers hold on to the land and bequeath it to their children. However, with the current estate tax laws, even this can be a costly endeavor. Farmers’ children are also losing interest in farming as an occupation as they leave the farm to pursue more profitable jobs.

- 17 -

- 18 - CHAPTER 2: LAND USE PLANNING IN HUNTERDON COUNTY

State Development and Redevelopment Plan Planning Areas The New Jersey State Plan has designated planning areas for all of Hunterdon County, pursuant to the New Jersey State Planning Act. The purpose of the Plan is to establish statewide planning objectives regarding land use and related planning issues. The Hunterdon CADB has worked closely with the Hunterdon County Planning Board and the NJ State Planning Commission to ensure that State planning efforts and the CADB’s farmland preservation plan are compatible. The State Plan recommends a pattern of development in Planning Area 4 that promotes a strong rural economy and supports the agricultural land base. In Hunterdon County, the Agricultural Developments Areas (ADA’s) map was the principal tool used to designate Planning Areas 4 and 4B.

The New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (or State Plan), was first adopted in 1992 by the New Jersey State Planning Commission. The State Plan creates a framework for directing the location and intensity of future growth. According to the plan, growth should occur primarily in the state’s urban and suburban areas and designated centers, where infrastructure exists or is planned to accommodate more intensive growth. The plan acknowledges that rural and environmentally sensitive areas will invariably grow; however, in these areas, it recommends that development occur principally in the form of centers.

Centers are existing or planned communities with distinct characteristics that differentiate them from conventional subdivisions. Centers define compact, mixed-use communities that incorporate a variety of transportation modes (most notably pedestrian and bicycle travel) and house a variety of land uses and architectural styles. The benefits of focusing growth in centers include the protection of rural and environmentally sensitive areas and the reduction of sprawling large lot development. Although new developments can qualify as centers, they must contain the infrastructure, densities, diversity of uses, pedestrian orientation and physical features that reflect the characteristics of our historic towns and villages. Centers range in size and composition from large urban centers to towns, villages and hamlets. Hunterdon County contains numerous places that qualify as centers; however, only those centers that have received official state recognition by the Office of Smart Growth through a formal application process (now known as Plan Endorsement) receive benefits. Benefits may take the form of prioritization for certain grant programs, technical assistance for projects involving state agencies, or expedited permits for select infrastructure needs.

There are currently no designated centers in Hunterdon County.

Plan Endorsement is the official determination that a municipal, county or regional plan is consistent with the State Plan. Once a plan is endorsed, the petitioner receives a variety of technical, planning and financial benefits from the State. Also, it gives the plan greater legal standing. Municipal land use decisions have been upheld in the past, in part based on consistency with the State Plan. Plan Endorsement requires submission of local planning documentation. In October, 2007, the State Planning Commission adopted new Plan Endorsement Guidelines The new Plan Endorsement includes greater benefits and establishes a phased approach for undertaking Plan Endorsement and relaxes the tight review deadlines that currently make the process difficult for state and local agencies. The new Plan Endorsement process allows for all types of municipalities to have their master plans endorsed by the State Planning Commission, - 19 - provided that local governments identify areas for center-based development in their municipalities.

Within Hunterdon County, West Amwell and Holland Township have submitted petitions for Plan Endorsement. Lebanon Borough is currently in the Pre-Petition phase of the Plan Endorsement process.

The Hunterdon County Planning Board is available to provide technical assistance to interested municipalities including data support and build out analyses required as part of Plan Endorsement submissions and assistance with filing of Plan Endorsement application.

Planning areas are large geographic areas (at least one square mile) distinguished by different development patterns and physical features. According to the 2001 State Plan, Hunterdon County falls into five planning areas in New Jersey. The current State Plan policies call for the bulk of new growth to occur in the Metropolitan and Suburban Planning Areas. While most growth in Hunterdon County has occurred in the Suburban and Fringe Planning Areas, a significant amount of development has occurred in the Rural and Environmentally Sensitive Planning Areas in recent years (Map 3). Nonetheless, the absence of infrastructure in remote areas precludes the intensity and densities that are typical of Suburban Planning Areas and sewered portions of Fringe Planning Areas.

Planning Areas in Hunterdon County: Definitions and Associated Planning Policies Listed below are the definitions of each planning areas that are present in Hunterdon County as defined in the 2001 State Plan:

Urban Planning Area (PA 1) – densely populated urban areas associated with a high degree of development. There are no areas of PA 1 within Hunterdon County.

Suburban Planning Area (PA 2) - located adjacent to densely developed urban areas of the state, however characterized by a more dispersed and fragmented pattern of predominantly low- density, automobile-oriented development. Infrastructure, including water, sewer, transportation systems, etc. are in place or planned for in PA 2. Municipalities should guide the bulk of future growth into PA 2 and minimize development in Planning Areas 3, 4, 4B and 5. Development should occur in more compact forms as centers and/or as infill, rather than continuing to spread out as low-density, land consuming sprawl.

Fringe Planning Area (PA 3) - adjacent to PA 2, but a predominantly rural landscape, though scattered development is also evident. Generally, lacks the major infrastructure systems characterizing PA 2. Water and sewer may be available; however, it is primarily in centers. Municipalities should accommodate future growth in centers and protect rural and environmentally sensitive areas around them. Fringe Planning Area serves as a buffer between PA 2 and the Rural or Environmentally Sensitive Planning Areas.

Rural Planning Area (PA 4) - Large areas of undeveloped land including farmland, woodlands and other vacant property, along with scattered development served by rural roads, wells and septic systems. Future growth patterns should protect the rural features of the Rural Planning Area and locate predominantly in centers.

- 20 - Rural/Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA 4B) - shares traits and planning policies appropriate to the Rural Planning Area and the Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area. New growth that is accommodated in PA 4B should ensure that natural resources are protected. This planning area is listed as 42 in the chart below.

Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA 5) - contains large contiguous areas of valuable ecosystems, geological features and wildlife habitats. Future growth that is accommodated in PA 5 should be confined primarily to centers and natural resources should be protected.

Parks (PA 6, 8) – Planning Area 6 denotes municipal and county owned parks while Planning Area 8 denotes state owned parks.

Water (PA 11) – is reserved for water bodies.

The following chart indicates the amount of acreage in each planning area in Hunterdon County as well as the amount of active agriculture within each planning area.

Active 2001 State Plan Total Agriculture Planning Areas Acreage Acreage 1 00 2 13,359 2,536 3 21,704 3,153 4 54,318 25,296 5 59,295 8,242 6 1,564 71 7 00 8 6,626 843 9 00 10 00 11 3,551 2 12 00 42 118,213 41,947 52 00 99 00 278,630 82,089

Please see the map below for Planning Area designations as set forth in the 2001 State Plan Map.

- 21 -

The 2001 State Plan Map

- 22 - Cross-Acceptance III

On April 28, 2004, the New Jersey State Planning Commission released its new Preliminary State Development and Redevelopment Plan (State Plan), along with a State Plan Policy Map. This marked the beginning of Cross-Acceptance in New Jersey.

Cross-Acceptance is a process that must occur every three years by State statute. During Cross- Acceptance, public and private interests and residents in Hunterdon County had the opportunity to review and comment on the State Plan and to suggest changes to the Plan. The County held meetings, workshops and other venues to discuss the State Plan and solicit comments from the public and from specially appointed municipal Cross-Acceptance committees. This process offered an opportunity to compare municipal and county master plans with the State Plan, determine where consistencies and inconsistencies lie, and recommend changes that should be made.

The Hunterdon County Planning Board and Board of Chosen Freeholders adopted a Cross- Acceptance Report in February, 2005. The Cross-Acceptance Report is a two-volume document. Volume I contains policy and planning area mapping change recommendations as well as population projects to the year 2020 and maximum residential build out potential based on current zoning, environmental constraints and other assumptions. Volume II includes numerous appendices with information, municipal resolutions, public and municipal comments and meeting summaries, with additional background materials. .

Initially during the Cross-Acceptance process, the majority of municipalities that contained large areas of PA4 designations on the Preliminary State Plan map requested that these areas be changed to PA4B designations. The initial decision to remove Planning Area 4 and replace it with Planning Area 4B emerged from an analysis of GIS data. This analysis showed extensive overlap between agricultural areas and one or more environmental features. However, further research and responses from the Farm Community generated enough concern among farmers that the BOCF and Planning Board voted to restore Planning Area 4 as reflected on the Preliminary State Plan map as well as to allow municipalities to request the change from PA4B areas as designated in the Preliminary State Plan map to a PA4 designation after the adoption and submission of the County’s Cross-Acceptance report. These concerns were created by the uncertainty of future DEP regulations and impacts on the Farmland Preservation programs within PA4B areas. Although there is no historical precedence, the State Plan contains a policy statement calling for higher priority for farmland preservation funding in Planning Area 4, followed by Planning Areas 3 and 5 and finally PA1 and 2. The policy statement is silent on PA4B.

The County has requested that the SADC, the NJ Department of Agriculture and the NJDEP clarify their positions in regard to farmland preservation priority funding and regulations concerning PA4 and PA4B designated areas.

- 23 -

- 24 - State Preliminary (2006) and County Proposed (2005) Maps

From the Hunterdon County Cross-Acceptance Report

- 25 -

- 26 - Special Resource Areas

The Highlands Special Resource Area The State Plan acknowledges regions called Special Resource Areas (SRA), which are large contiguous lands that contain unique characteristics or resources of statewide importance. One SRA, the New Jersey Highlands, includes approximately one-third of Hunterdon County. The 880,000 acre Highlands region provides drinking water for more than 3.5 million people. Fifteen municipalities in Hunterdon County fall within the Highlands region, although a total of eighteen county municipalities rely on this area for part, if not most, of their drinking water. The Highlands SRA hosts over 30 of the state’s threatened and endangered species, contains cultural and historic amenities and habitats of national importance. The importance of this region as host to an extensive system of natural, recreational and agricultural resources has gained national attention in recent years, including federal studies and funding.

Consequently, State Plan policies call for planning among local, county, regional, state and federal entities to protect Highlands’s resources. In 2004, legislation was adopted in New Jersey to oversee the planning and protection of New Jersey’s Highlands. The legislation requires municipalities and counties to create master plans and regulations that conform to a regional plan that will be adopted by the Highlands Council. The legislation creates two policy areas in the Highlands. In the Preservation Area, new development must conform to very stringent environmental standards and zoning restrictions. This area contains zones that permit very limited development. It is likely that there will be opportunities for properties to be purchased outright or preserved with Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The Preservation Area consists of approximately 100 square miles or 25% of Hunterdon County’s total land area although the legislation designating the Highlands Special Resource Area will contribute to the preservation of important natural resources, it could produce significant growth pressures in Hunterdon County if not properly implemented. This would undermine the intent of the State Plan, since growth would be occurring away from existing urban and suburban areas significant growth has occurred in the Highlands of Hunterdon County. Highways, sewers and public water supplies have made more intensive development possible; however much of the new development in recent years has spread beyond areas with existing infrastructure, into agricultural lands, forested tracts and stream headwaters The County Board of Freeholders is currently providing the County’s Cost-Share portion for the preservation of farms in both the County and Municipal PIG programs in the Highlands Preservation Area.

Large portions of Hunterdon County have been placed in the Agricultural Priority Areas in the Preservation area of the Highlands. (See Map 3 in the appendix.) There are 103,266 acres designated as the Agriculture Resource Area of the Highlands region in Hunterdon County. This figure makes up 33% of the 314,287 total Agriculture Resource Area acres for the entire highlands region. Within the Agriculture Resource Areas the Highlands Council designated areas as Agriculture Priority Areas. There is a total of 77,158 acres of designated ag priority areas within Hunterdon County. Of this total acreage 23,650 acres were designated as high priority, 31,984 acres designated as moderate priority and 21,524 acres were designated as low priority within the Agricultural Priority Areas.

- 27 -

Agricultural Land in the Highlands (In Acres) Municipality Planning Preservation Total Area Area Alexandria Township 7,149.21 483.59 7,632.80 Bethlehem Township 931.60 2,200.54 3,132.14 Bloomsbury Borough 165.21 165.21 Califon Borough 31.24 31.24 Clinton Town 93.63 26.65 120.28 Clinton Township 4,099.05 49.78 4,148.83 Glen Gardner Borough 83.84 83.84 Hampton Borough 64.20 187.45 251.66 High Bridge Borough 30.43 30.43 Holland Township 4,040.89 315.58 4,356.47 Lebanon Borough 43.04 43.04 Lebanon Township 3,760.56 3,760.56 Milford Borough 92.67 92.67 Tewksbury Township 2,692.81 3,340.98 6,033.79 Union Township 860.79 2,278.24 3,139.03

15 Municipalities 20,098.32 12,923.66 33,021.98 (Please see the Map 2 and 3 in the appendix)

- 28 -

Highlands Land Use Capability Map Zones in Hunterdon County Communities

Municipality LUCM Zone Acres

Alexandria Township Conservation 14,713 Existing community 43 Protection 2,996 Bethlehem Township Conservation 4,309 Existing community 166 Protection 8,885 Bloomsbury Boro Conservation 138 Existing community 179 Protection 308 Califon Boro Conservation 74 Existing community 378 Protection 279 Clinton Town Conservation 0 Existing community 179 Protection 202 Clinton Township Conservation 6,860 Existing community 5,225 Protection 9,596 Glen Gardener Boro Conservation 107 Existing community 388 Protection 503 Hampton Boro Conservation 271 Existing community 463 Protection 223 High Bridge Boro Conservation 0 Existing community 1,380 Protection 177 Holland Township Conservation 7,805 Existing community 877 Protection 6,636 Lebanon Boro Conservation 57 Existing community 471 Protection 48 Lebanon Township Conservation 6,073 Existing community 854 Protection 13,331 Milford Boro Conservation 68 Existing community 475 Protection 267 Tewksbury Township Conservation 12,443 Existing community 248 Protection 7,627 Union Township conservation 6,344 existing community 374 protection 6,424

- 29 - Impact of Regulations The Highlands Act includes a special review process for agricultural and horticultural activities and related development in the Highlands Preservation Area. The New Jersey Department of Agriculture was charged with drafting and implementing rules for agricultural and horticultural development that would result in an increase of three percent or more of new impervious cover.

Any agricultural or horticultural development in the Preservation Area that would result in the increase of three percent or more of new agricultural impervious cover to the total land area of a Farm Management Unit (either individually or cumulatively) since enactment of the Highlands Act (August 10, 2004) will require the farm owner or operator to develop and obtain Soil Conservation District (SCD) approval of a Farm Conservation Plan, prior to the start of the proposed agricultural or horticultural development. Any agricultural or horticultural development in the Preservation Area that would result in the increase of nine percent or more of agricultural impervious cover to the total land area of a Farm Management Unit (either individually or cumulatively) since enactment of the Highlands Act (August 10, 2004) will require the farm owner or operator to develop and obtain Soil Conservation District (SCD) approval of a Resource Management System Plan (RMS), prior to the start of the proposed agricultural or horticultural development.

The proposed new rules will have an economic impact on farmers in the Highlands preservation area who are looking to construct agricultural or horticultural buildings, structures or facilities that will result in three percent or more of new agricultural impervious cover to the total land area of the farm management unit, as Farm Conservation Plans or Resource Management System Plans will be required. It is anticipated that there will be little or no costs associated with plan development. Technical assistance for developing Farm Conservation Plans or Resource Management System Plans will be available from the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the NJDA at no cost to the landowner.

There may be costs associated with the implementation of the required site-specific Farm Conservation Plans or Resource Management System plans. The rules should have a net positive economic impact as they do provide an overall benefit to the agricultural industry since agricultural development activities are not subject to the stringent rules that other activities, projects, residential and non-residential development are subject to in the Highlands preservation area.

The NJDEP regulations associated with the Highlands Act also have an economic impact to farmers located within this area. The regulations severely limit the subdivision potential of large tracts of land, and therefore limit the value that farmers can borrow against. Since the equity that was available through the land for farmers to utilize has been diminished, farmers may find it harder to obtain loans to keep up with their farm operations.

County Master Plan and Development Regulations Hunterdon County has written a draft Growth Management Plan to replace the last version of this plan which was adopted in 1986. In preparing for the new Plan, the County Planning Board has dedicated several years to the solicitation of public input on planning issues in the County . This Plan is currently undergoing Public Comment review. This Strategic Planning document is a visionary document that includes a long range plan for future development regulations within the county. This vision is based on the premise that significant planning and policy changes need to be implemented, at both local and state levels, in - 30 - order to effectively reduce development pressures and provide opportunities for creative planning solutions in outlying areas such as Hunterdon County. In preparing for the new Plan, the County Planning Board has dedicated several years to the solicitation of public input on planning issues in the County.

The Plan recommends the following steps to implement the county’s vision: • Establishment of Community Goals • Balancing the Preservation of Rural Character with Population Growth: • Land Preservation. • Various zoning strategies • Green design and Practices • Green practices for Roadways • Historic Preservation • Innovative Planning and Design • Redeveloping Suburban areas • Development of Rural Clusters • Establishment of Community Design Standards • Thinking Regionally

Preserving Agriculture as a viable Land Use is a priority for Hunterdon County. To maintain this goal the Draft plan recommends:

• Land use regulations should permit farmers to establish profitable spin-off businesses, such as fresh food markets, bed and breakfast inns and light industrial uses related to local food production. • A simplified process for obtaining building and zoning permits which allows farmers to make timely repairs and additions, keeping their businesses modern and competitive. • Right to Farm policies which protect agricultural businesses from nuisance complaints, keeping agriculture a viable business option in rural areas fragmented by residential subdivisions. • Notices of Right to Farm policies, possible areas of no-disturbance to provide buffers and other information about the agriculture industry should be described in the property deeds of new non-farm residences.

Current Land Use and Trends Once a community of forests, farms, small villages and towns, Hunterdon County has undergone a dramatic transformation. In recent decades, development has occurred with great rapidity, spreading throughout the County. Improved highway systems, sewers, increased access to employment centers in nearby counties, and a desirable quality of life have all contributed to the volume and pattern of growth that has occurred in recent decades. Even so, the County is still considered one of the most rural parts of New Jersey. In fact, the 2000 Census reports that Hunterdon County has more population in rural areas than any other county in the State. In 1972, only 4.5% of the County was developed. By 2001, nearly 24% was developed resulting in great losses of farmland, woodlands and other natural resources. Despite the loss of undeveloped land, land preservation efforts have become more aggressive as significant state funding opportunities have arisen. As of 2006, the County has preserved 31,629 acres of County parkland, open space, and preserved farms; over 20,000 acres of which are preserved farms.

- 31 - During the 1970s and 1980s, a number of higher-density residential developments were built in communities throughout the County, including Raritan Township, Union Township, Glen Gardner, Lambertville, Clinton Township, Clinton Town and Readington Township. Some of these developments contained several hundred units with single-family homes on small lots as well as townhouses, apartments and/or condominiums. Some developments also integrated limited commercial uses. Several high-density developments constructed in the 1980s and 1990s are inclusionary, meaning a small percentage of the housing units were built as low- or moderate-income units. Today, large single-family homes on expansive lots-typically 3 to 15acres-dominate new residential construction.

While this type of development generates fewer homes than the residential developments described above, it removes a comparable amount of land from agricultural use and/or passive environmental use as these expansive lots become lawns. Some communities have attempted to retain open space and/or farmland by encouraging open space subdivisions (also called natural resource protection and cluster developments), which are subdivisions with reduced minimum lot sizes in exchange for large contiguous areas of preserved land. Most municipal cluster subdivision ordinances in Hunterdon County still require relatively large lot sizes (1-1.5 acres) in order to accommodate individual septic systems. Far fewer allow community wastewater treatment systems, which would permit a further reduction in lot sizes. In one such development of 39 units built in Union Township, homes are sited on 7,000 square foot lots, allowing the preservation of over 80% of the property.

Changes in Land Use

140000 120000 100000 80000 1984 1995 60000 Acres 2001 40000 20000 0 Developed Cultivated/Grassland Upland Forest Wetland Land Use

Source: Rutgers LULC

Sewer Service Areas / Public Water Supply Service Areas By and large, the vast majority of the County still relies on individual septic systems. As a result, growth has not been dependent upon the expansion of sewer service areas, a factor that has contributed to the decentralized growth patterns seen throughout the County. Local WMPs in Hunterdon County show very few future sewer areas. Nearly 80% of the county households rely on individual, on-site septic disposal fields for sewage treatment. These systems are designed to - 32 - treat wastewater and allow infiltration back into the ground. In recent years several Hunterdon County municipalities have downzoned significantly, arguing that larger minimum lot sizes are required to prevent groundwater contamination. This approach allows municipalities to monitor and affect the amount of development in their communities. However, this approach also has a possible negative impact to farmers within the zones that rely on the land equity to borrow against. As the zoning of the area is changed to larger lots, it is possible that land values are reduced for those landowners with large tracts of lands.

Municipal Master Plan and Zoning – Overview Preserved farmland also offers property tax benefits. It helps stabilize property taxes because farms require less governmental services. The largest category of property taxes is the cost of schools. Although new residential development pays its share of property taxes, it does not cover the entire cost of educating its children. The costs are therefore distributed to other existing homes and properties. Studies have shown that even considering the cost of bonding money for farmland preservation, the overall cost to the community for preservation is less than if the land was developed.

General lot size categories and distribution by municipality The following chart indicates municipal zoning categories and the acreage contained in those zones broken down by municipality. Small lots are categorized as zoning with a less than 1 acre minimum lot size. Medium lot zoning has greater than 1 acre but less than or equal to five acres as a minimum. Large lot zoning has greater than five but less than or equal to 10 acres as a minimum. Very large lot zoning is categorized as greater than a 10 acre minimum lot size.

Acreage within Municipal Zones

Municipality Small Medium Lots Large Lots Very Large Total Lots Lots Acreage acres % acres % acres % acres % Alexandria Twp - 392 2% 17365 98% - 17758 Bethlehem Twp 365 3% 11205 84% 1740 13% - 13310 Bloomsbury 359 57 266 43% - - 625 % Califon 258 41 374 59% - - 631 % Clinton 697 76 186 20% - 39 4% 922 % Clinton Twp 837 4% 18830 87% 47 0% 1979 9% 21693 Delaware Twp 384 2% 13922 59% 9400 40% - 23707 East Amwell Twp 350 2% 126 1% 11109 61% 6702 37% 18288 Flemington 533 74 183 26% - - 716 % Franklin Twp - 5587 38% 9239 62% - 14826 Frenchtown 248 32 539 68% - - 787 % Glen Gardner 211 21 787 79% - - 998 % Hampton 250 26 707 74% - - 957 % High Bridge 1081 69 477 31% - - 1558 %

- 33 - Holland Twp 34 0% 15009 98% - 280 2% 15322 Kingwood Twp 24 0% 22812 100% - - 22836 Lambertville 493 61 310 39% - - 803 % Lebanon 253 44 324 56% - - 577 % Lebanon Twp 193 1% 6832 34% 13242 65% - 20267 Milford 563 69 250 31% - - 812 % Raritan Twp 1239 5% 15285 64% 7530 31% - 24055 Readington Twp 653 2% 12863 42% 17149 56% - 30666 Stockton 390 100 - - - 390 % Tewksbury Twp 129 1% 2497 12% 3815 19% 13884 68% 20324 Union Twp 793 6% 1900 14% 7299 56% 3154 24% 13146 West Amwell Twp 292 2% 5458 39% 8213 59% - 13963

Hunterdon County municipalities have employed down-zoning as a technique to curb development within their townships. This has had a mixed effect on the communities as a whole. While down-zoning seems to have the desired affect of discouraging large scale development as a result of the larger lot sizes, it also has a negative side effect. The trend of development in those areas with large lot sizes has been toward large scale homes, typically referred to as “McMansions”. This creates mini-estates that are less affordable. The decrease in value of large tracts of land is also a side affect of down-zoning that is mostly felt by farmers. As farmers use the equity in the land that they won as collateral for loans, down-zoning makes it increasingly difficult for farmers to utilize the land equity if it is valued at a lower price compared to the high prices typically seen in small lot subdivisions.

However, the trend toward larger lot sizes allows for the land to remain in agriculture as many landowners look toward agriculture as a way to save money on taxes through Farmland Assessment. This opens up land for leasing opportunities that farmers may utilize that may not have been available with small lot sizes.

Description of Municipal Innovative Planning Techniques Employed Environmental conditions, the amount of undeveloped land, public support and other factors unique to each municipality can help determine the most appropriate strategy in zoning changes with land preservation in mind. In some cases, a combination of strategies may be more suitable, particularly for municipalities that do not participate in a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. Many Hunterdon County municipalities have implemented innovative zoning and land use regulations that further their preservation goals. The Municipal Land Use Law recognizes open space zoning as an important planning tool, as well as more ambitious planning tools, such as noncontiguous open space zoning and Transfer of Development Rights (TDR). The latter tools allow development to be transferred between non- adjacent parcels as a creative means of preserving land. In Hunterdon County, most density transfer techniques applied by municipalities involve single properties with the optional aspects of preserving land on site and clustering on the remaining portion.

Cluster zoning Farmland retention can and should be accomplished using appropriate land use patterns. Residential development is likely to continue in or near many agricultural areas. And since residents are not the ideal neighbor for the farmer (see the Right to Farm section for more details), the idea of clustering homes away from farmland not only prevents a potential nuisance - 34 - suit, but it also can protect and preserve farmland. This type of open space zoning (a/k/a clustering,) is ideal for suburbanizing areas with prime farmland. It also minimizes public expenditure of funds since the preservation of the farmland is achieved by the private sector.

Onsite clustering, where the remaining open space can be managed by a homeowner association as open space, leased for farming or deeded to a public or non-profit entity, and lot size averaging, where the remaining open space is retained by a private landowner with easement restrictions are other tools that can be used to achieve preservation goals. Few municipalities in Hunterdon County have taken full advantage of open space zoning, despite the opportunities it presents for preserving land, creating more compact development patterns and offering more diverse housing options (most notably by creating opportunities for affordable housing construction). The decision to cluster is affected largely by the concern over septic systems. Typically, the minimum required lot size for use of an individual septic system is one acre. Lot sizes that are less than one acre - high density by Hunterdon County standards - require a community wastewater treatment system in the absence of existing sewers. Community wastewater systems are viewed as invitations for more growth. Community systems are also viewed negatively in Hunterdon County because of the issue of oversight. Municipalities have concerns as to whose responsibility it is to take care of the system in the long term as well as who takes care of the system if it fails.

Despite some of the problems involved with implementing Cluster zoning, eighteen Municipalities within Hunterdon have some sort of Cluster development option available. Readington Township, in fact, has had a mandatory cluster ordinance in effect for many years. The use of clustering can be a great tool toward creating a network of linked open space if the community uses pre-planning in how clustering and the remaining open space is designed.

Non-contiguous cluster zoning Non-contiguous clustering allows for the movement of development rights from certain parcels onto another parcel slotted for a cluster development. In effect, it allows for the preservation of undeveloped parcels as well as the focusing of development into a specific area. This can potentially create areas of focused development and hinder or eliminate the problem of development sprawl.

This type of zoning must be implemented through planned development or between properties otherwise under common ownership. Unlike TDR, development within this type of zoning cannot be focused in designated receiving areas except if done within a planned development. This technique works well on a small scale as it lacks overall planning guidance to be effective over a large geographic area.

When used in conjunction with traditional preservation ideas such as purchase of development rights, large tracts of preserved land are obtainable at a lower cost to the municipality and the County.

Currently, only West Amwell Township has adopted Non-Contiguous cluster zoning provisions.

Lot size averaging Lot size averaging is a planning technique similar to cluster zoning where the amount of smaller lots is increased to allow for more than one large tract to remain. Other variations result in the open space being divided into several farmettes and a few units reserved for farming as well as where the remaining open space is retained by a private landowner with easement restrictions. - 35 - This planning technique allows for landowners the flexibility to divide their property in configurations that would not normally be permissible under the current zoning. This allows for slightly smaller lots, as long as the remainder of the lots have easement restrictions put in place. In an area such as Hunterdon County where municipalities have taken steps to downzone and create areas of large lot sizes, lot size averaging may be a viable development tool for municipalities to encourage. By allowing a lot size averaging provision in the zoning, the resulting parcels may not conform to the single lot zoning of the area and would result in the creation of open space that is commonly one of the justifications for downzoning. In cooperation with traditional preservation techniques such as purchase of development rights, municipalities will be better able to preserve the rural character that Hunterdon County residents enjoy by retaining larger tracts of land while still allowing for controlled population and development growth. Currently, eight municipalities within the County have some form of Lot size averaging available as a land use development option.

Transfer of Development Rights Under a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program new units are transferred to growth areas that are designated by the municipality. TDR banks are established to facilitate expedient, ongoing transactions.

TDR applies the clustering concept to a larger area. This zoning technique is based on the principle that the right to develop land can be severed (as in an easement) from ownership of the land itself, and transferred to another property. Development is shifted from one area within the community to another that is deemed more suitable for development. In order to utilize TDR, a municipality must establish a sending area, where land resources are to be preserved, and a receiving area, where development rights are to be transferred. Using a formula that considers existing zoning and environmental constraints, the development potential of the land in the sending area is calculated. This potential can be marketed or sold to developers as credits for increased density in the determined receiving area. One advantage to TDR is that private, rather than public, funds are used to permanently preserve land. The marketability of rights is critical to TDR success. Towns must plan carefully to ensure receiving areas have the zoning and infrastructure to handle all rights transferable from the sending areas.

Currently there are not any municipalities in Hunterdon County that have an active TDR program, although Delaware Township is currently considering the implementation of a TDR program. Please see the section below titled “Municipal and Regional TDR Opportunities” for expansion of the topic of TDR in Hunterdon County.

Use of mandatory vs. voluntary options Very few of Hunterdon County’s municipalities currently have mandatory density transfer ordinances. Mandatory TDR involves the allocation of credits in the sending area based on the zoning prior to TDR enactment. Once the ordinance is in place, the sending area is downzoned to encourage TDR participation and discourage new sending area development. Under a voluntary TDR program, there is no associated downzoning. TDR then becomes an additional preservation option for landowners. The lack of a receiving area in a voluntary program would result in development occurring in the sending area just as before and with little land being protected.

The Highlands Act mandates the creation and implementation of a voluntary TDR program within the Highlands Preservation area. As components of the TDR program, the Highlands Council must identify sending zones in the Preservation Area and voluntary receiving zones in - 36 - the Planning Area within Hunterdon County. Currently there are 12 municipalities that have been identified as potential receiving zones within the County.

Development Pressures and Land Value Trends Hunterdon County is situated within commuting distance of several major metropolitan areas, such as Trenton, New Brunswick, Camden and Newark, producing significant growth pressures in outlying areas throughout the County. Additional public expenditures in existing urban and suburban areas are needed before a considerable number of people will move back to these locations. Monies must be invested in our urban transit systems, roads, bridges and schools. Until then, the pressure to develop outside of our cities will continue. Places like Hunterdon County are the ecological and agricultural support systems for our urban areas, providing water, farm products, open space and recreation. We need relief from the tremendous growth pressures we face. Otherwise, development will saturate the county and transform us into another sprawling suburb. According to US Census data, with a population growth rate of 13% between 1990 and 2000, Hunterdon County ranked third in population growth among counties in New Jersey. By 2020, the County’s population is projected to reach 152,889, a 25.3% increase from 2000. Along with this development pressure, land values have risen dramatically. In conjunction, easement values have seen a rise as well. Preserved farms have been selling for higher and higher prices, allowing for the rise in easement values to slow, however the overall trend seen in the preservation program has been increasingly higher property and easement values.

See the tables below for data on population and building permits in Hunterdon County.

- 37 -

CHANGES IN MUNICIPAL, COUNTY, AND STATE POPULATION

MUNICIPALITY 1990 2000 CHANGE PERCENT Alexandria 3,594 4,698 1,104 30.72 Bethlehem 3,104 3,820 716 23.07 Bloomsbury 890 886 -4 -0.45 Califon 1,073 1,055 -18 -1.68 Clinton Town 2,054 2,632 578 28.14 Clinton Twp 10,816 12,957 2,141 19.79 Delaware 4,512 4,478 -34 -0.75 East Amwell 4,332 4,455 123 2.84 Flemington 4,047 4,200 153 3.78 Franklin 2,851 2,990 139 4.88 Frenchtown 1,528 1,488 -40 -2.62 Glen Gardner 1,665 1,902 237 14.23 Hampton 1,515 1,546 31 2.05 High Bridge 3,886 3,776 -110 -2.83 Holland 4,892 5,122 230 4.70 Kingwood 3,325 3,782 457 13.74 Lambertville 3,927 3,868 -59 -1.50 Lebanon Boro 1,036 1,065 29 2.80 Lebanon Twp 5,679 5,816 137 2.41 Milford 1,273 1,195 -78 -6.13 Raritan 15,616 19,809 4,193 26.85 Readington 13,400 15,803 2,403 17.93 Stockton 629 560 -69 -10.97 Tewksbury 4,803 5,541 738 15.37 Union 5,078 6,160 1,082 21.31 West Amwell 2,251 2,383 132 5.86

Hunterdon 107,776 121,987 14,211 13.19 New Jersey 7,730,188 8,414,350 684,162 8.85 Source: 1990, 2000 U.S. Census; Prepared by Hunterdon County Planning Board, July 2003

- 38 -

Estimates of Resident Population by Municipality: Hunterdon County, 2000-2006

MUNICIPALITY 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Alexandria 4,725 4,828 4,885 4,935 4,957 5,000 5,089 Bethlehem 3,841 3,921 3,955 3,987 3,987 3,982 4,008 Bloomsbury 888 892 893 898 890 883 881 Califon 1,057 1,063 1,061 1,058 1,052 1,052 1,052 Clinton Town 2,638 2,656 2,654 2,649 2,629 2,614 2,605 Clinton Township 13,039 13,349 13,567 13,766 13,812 13,951 14,082 Delaware 4,500 4,583 4,618 4,655 4,682 4,706 4,730 East Amwell 4,469 4,520 4,541 4,554 4,546 4,543 4,557 Flemington 4,208 4,231 4,233 4,224 4,189 4,159 4,267 Franklin 3,008 3,075 3,120 3,129 3,120 3,146 3,152 Frenchtown 1,493 1,509 1,513 1,517 1,506 1,499 1,491 Glen Gardner 1,912 1,948 1,972 1,989 1,990 1,994 1,992 Hampton 1,551 1,566 1,577 1,587 1,585 1,604 1,658 High Bridge 3,786 3,817 3,814 3,808 3,778 3,759 3,763 Holland 5,140 5,193 5,234 5,271 5,287 5,298 5,310 Kingwood 3,802 3,874 3,924 3,971 3,995 4,010 4,043 Lambertville 3,875 3,893 3,887 3,879 3,857 3,829 3,808 Lebanon Borough 1,074 1,106 1,134 1,160 1,560 1,744 1,830 Lebanon Township 5,858 6,019 6,096 6,222 6,259 6,296 6,292 Milford 1,197 1,204 1,202 1,199 1,204 1,212 1,219 Raritan 19,978 20,625 21,204 21,724 22,275 22,604 22,720 Readington 15,871 16,117 16,349 16,399 16,337 16,310 16,295 Stockton 561 564 565 563 560 558 555 Tewksbury 5,573 5,692 5,785 5,844 5,974 6,033 6,088 Union 6,183 6,266 6,348 6,352 6,352 6,333 6,352 West Amwell 2,402 2,472 2,609 2,761 2,836 2,923 2,944 Hunterdon County 122,629 124,983 126,740 128,101 129,219 130,042 130,783 Source: US Census Bureau, Population Division, 6/28/07. Esitmates are as of July 1, 2000-2006

- 39 -

Hunterdon County Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits for New Construction, 2006 1&2 Multi- Mixed Municipality Total family family use Alexandria Township 36 36 0 0 Bethlehem Township 2200 Bloomsbury Borough0000 Califon Borough 0000 Clinton Town 0000 Clinton Township 12 12 0 0 Delaware Township 12 12 0 0 East Amwell Township3300 Flemington Borough 44 32 12 0 Franklin Township9900 Frenchtown Borough 1100 Glen Gardner Borough 0000 Hampton Borough 5500 High Bridge Borough 0000 Holland Township 10 10 0 0 Kingwood Township 18909 Lambertville City 22 16 6 0 Lebanon Borough 0000 Lebanon Township 9900 Milford Borough 0000 Raritan Township 50 50 0 0 Readington Township 17 17 0 0 Stockton Borough 2200 Tewksbury Township 26 7 19 0 Union Township 32 32 0 0 West Amwell Township 112 112 0 0 HUNTERDON TOTAL 422 376 37 9 Source: New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 4/09/07

- 40 - Hunterdon County Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits, 2006

1&2 Multi- Mixed Municipality Total family family use Alexandria Township 36 36 0 0 Bethlehem Township 3 3 0 0 Bloomsbury Borough 0 0 0 0 Califon Borough 0 0 0 0 Clinton Town 0 0 0 0 Clinton Township 12 12 0 0 Delaware Township 12 12 0 0 East Amwell Township 3 3 0 0 Flemington Borough 44 32 12 0 Franklin Township 9 9 0 0 Frenchtown Borough 1 1 0 0 Glen Gardner Borough 0 0 0 0 Hampton Borough 5 5 0 0 High Bridge Borough 0 0 0 0 Holland Township 10 10 0 0 Kingwood Township 20 11 0 9 Lambertville City 24 18 6 0 Lebanon Borough 0 0 0 0 Lebanon Township 9 9 0 0 Milford Borough 0 0 0 0 Raritan Township 50 50 0 0 Readington Township 17 17 0 0 Stockton Borough 2 2 0 0 Tewksbury Township 26 7 19 0 Union Township 32 32 0 0 West Amwell Township 112 112 0 0 HUNTERDON TOTAL 427 381 37 9 Source: New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, 4/09/07

Municipal and Regional TDR Opportunities Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) is a land use planning tool that shifts development from one location to another, allowing preservation in certain areas and designating other areas for growth and the receipt of additional development potential. Development should be transferred to areas that a community or communities determine to be optimal growth areas where infrastructure can be provided while simultaneously preserving open space or farmland elsewhere.. In New Jersey, the success of the Pinelands TDR program (over 49,962 acres preserved) and more recently Chesterfield Township (over 4,500 acres preserved) and Lumberton Township (over 850 acres preserved) emphasizes the potential TDR has as an planning tool to preserve farmland and open space and to direct development into those areas that can accommodate additional growth density.

In 2004, TDR became available on a statewide basis through the State TDR Act. This legislation made New Jersey the first state in the nation to authorize statewide comprehensive TDR enabling legislation. Municipalities can transfer development from one area to another; alternatively, they can send development to other communities through mutually agreed upon arrangements.

- 41 - Requirements of the State TDR Act include: • A Development Transfer Plan Element for adoption into the Master Plan • Adoption of a Capital Improvement Program for Receiving zone • Adoption of a Utility Service Plan Element in the Master Plan for Receiving zone • Preparation of a Real Estate Analysis • A TDR Ordinance designating Sending and Receiving zones

For TDR to be effective in Hunterdon County, several steps must be taken. Communities must first commit to using this tool. With this commitment comes the responsibility to prepare the required background studies, including a real estate market analysis, growth projections, and determination of needed infrastructure for the receiving areas. Additionally, communities must complete a development transfer plan for inclusion in its master plan, a development transfer ordinance, and adopt several otherwise optional elements of the master plan. Background analysis and plan preparation is a time consuming and costly undertaking. Where Hunterdon County has the technical and financial resources available, it should assist interested municipalities in carrying forward a TDR program. This can be achieved by allowing for County guidance in potential sending and receiving zones within the municipality or perhaps the county as a region.

Currently, Delaware Township is the only municipality within the County that is currently exploring the possibility of integrating TDR into their Land Use planning. Since this process is in the initial exploratory stages, it is not currently known if this program will be implemented within the township.

As part of the 2004 Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, municipalities within the Highlands Region have the option to send and receive development rights within each of the Highlands counties.

The TDR Program guides new growth and development away from lands with little or no capacity to accommodate human development without adversely affecting the integrity of the Highlands ecosystems. This program establishes procedures and standards by which eligible property owners may apply for an allocation of Highlands Development Credits (HDCs). The program provides for the designation of Receiving Zones where HDCs may be transferred and used for development purposes. The program also creates a Highlands Development Credit Bank to serve as the administrator of the Highlands TDR Program.

As part of the Highlands TDR program, the Council is to identify areas within the Highlands Region that may be suitable for locating receiving zones. The Highlands Act precludes the Highlands Council from requiring conforming municipalities to accept its recommendations concerning the location of voluntary receiving zones. The Final Regional Master Plan includes a regional analysis of the potential voluntary receiving zones in the Highlands. Whether the potential voluntary receiving zone areas identified by the Council, as well as areas outside of the Highlands Region but within the seven counties, serve as voluntary receiving zones is left to the determination of the municipalities themselves. Given the voluntary nature of the TDR program’s receiving zones, the Council must work cooperatively with municipalities to identify what areas, if any, are appropriate to serve as receiving zones.

As specified by the Highlands Act, receiving zones under the Highlands TDR Program are voluntary. To encourage municipalities to designate voluntary receiving zones, the Highlands

- 42 - Act provides a number of incentives to municipalities in the Planning Area that conform to the Regional Master Plan and establish a receiving zone which provides for a minimum density of five dwelling units per acre for the residential portion of the receiving zone. These incentives include: • The ability to charge up to $15,000 per unit impact fee for development projects within the voluntary planning area; • Up to $250,000 in an enhanced planning grant to offset the planning and other costs of designating and accommodating voluntary receiving zones • A grant to reimburse the reasonable costs of amending municipal development regulations to accommodate voluntary receiving zones • Legal representation by the State in actions challenging municipal decisions regarding TDR, provided that certain pre-requisites are met • Assignment of priority status in for any State capital or infrastructure programs.

For municipalities outside of the Region but within the seven Highlands counties, they are entitled to the same benefits above except for legal representation and priority status. All 12 Hunterdon County Municipalities that reside in the Highlands Planning area have areas that have been identified as potential voluntary receiving zones by the Highlands Council.

- 43 - CHAPTER 3: HUNTERDON COUNTY’S FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM – AN OVERVIEW

The Role of the County The State Agriculture Retention and Development Act of 1983, created a statewide farmland preservation program and authorized the creation of county agriculture development boards to administer several programs and participate in farmland preservation matters. Many of the elements of this legislation were patterned after Hunterdon County’s already existing CADB program. The CADB was created by the Hunterdon County Board of Chosen Freeholders in 1981 and is comprised of 12 voting members, an alternate and four ex-officio members. By law, a simple majority of the voting members are farmers. In Hunterdon County, a simple majority is seven members. The Agriculture Retention and Development Act enumerates the duties and responsibilities of the CADB. These include:

Develop a purchase of development rights (PDR) program Develop minimum acreage and guidelines for the MAFPP (eight year program) Review and approve applications to the MAFPP Review and approve applications to the PDR program Monitor and make recommendations to municipal and county governing bodies and boards concerning their actions that negatively impact agriculture By municipal request, require a report on agricultural impacts of nonagricultural development proposals within the agricultural development area. Develop educational programs and distribute literature to promote farmland preservation.

The overall role of the CADB is to administer the State farmland preservation program at the local level. Final approval of applications rests with the County Board of Chosen Freeholders who have the sole authority to authorize county funding. The CADB works closely with the Freeholders so that their goals are synonymous and the approval process is predictable.

The Hunterdon County Board of Chosen Freeholders is responsible for the appointment of CADB members and the final approval and funding of farmland preservation applications. The Freeholders have historically supported agriculture and farmland preservation. They have cost- shared on farmland preservation applications since the first program in 1983. The Freeholders budget for two CADB full time employees – offices are within the Hunterdon County Planning Board.

The Role of the Municipality Municipalities play an important role in Hunterdon County’s farmland preservation program by educating landowners about the program, providing a regulatory climate that is suitable for agriculture, and by cost-sharing on PDR applications. If desired, the municipality may develop its own farmland preservation program and target specific areas for farmland preservation efforts. Municipal programs can include easement acquisitions, option contracts, farm markets, and various other programs that support agriculture.

A municipality must determine the extent of its involvement in farmland preservation. While the - 44 - County accepts and reviews applications, it looks towards the municipality for input as to which individual farms are the best candidates for preservation. Therefore, the program is essentially “bottoms-up”. A municipality can play a pivotal role in the success of its program by targeting areas most suitable for farmland preservation, soliciting applications that meet program criteria, educating farmers about the program and following-through with the application process.

The most important links between the County’s Farmland Preservation Program and the municipality are the designated municipal liaisons. Each participating municipality is required to designate a liaison that attends CADB meetings, understands the program, and conveys information from the CADB to his/her municipal officials. The liaison also assists landowners in preparing applications for the County program, communicating the needs and/or concerns of farmers to the CADB, and offering recommendations to municipal officials for improving local planning policies to protect agricultural interests.

More municipalities are becoming proactive in the farmland preservation program. An increasing number of municipalities have acquired development easements on local farmland and, in turn, submitted easement purchase applications to the CADB for reimbursement. This technique is attractive to landowners because the municipality is able to purchase the easement more quickly than the County and State. Thus, the landowner receives compensation faster. This is also advantageous for applications that would otherwise not score as high because municipalities are able to bid down the cost of the easement. The drawback of this technique is that if municipalities do bid down, they have to absorb the difference in cost between the landowner’s asking price and the bid down easement value. Also, there is no guarantee that the County and State will approve the municipality’s easement purchase application.

The Planning Incentive Grant Program (PIG) greatly expands the municipality’s role in farmland preservation planning. The PIG program permits the assemblage of core areas of farmland for preservation. These large preservation areas may be eligible for State (and County) funds if the municipality has satisfied the planning requirements of the PIG program. The requirements include a farmland inventory, an Agriculture Advisory Committee, an adopted Right to Farm ordinance, a dedicated funding source and an adopted farmland preservation element in the municipal master plan.

The Role of the State In 1983, the State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) was formed to administer a statewide farmland preservation program, pursuant to the Right to Farm Act and the Agriculture Retention and Development Act. The statewide program includes the following major programs: a purchase of development rights program (PDR) – the acquisition of development easements; a fee simple program - the purchase of farms that are later deed restricted and sold at auction; and the municipally approved farmland preservation program - land deed-restricted for an eight year period in exchange for water/soil conservation grants, protection from eminent domain and exclusive agricultural zoning.

The State Agriculture Development Committee is responsible for the rules and policies that govern the farmland preservation program. Counties are largely responsible for administering many of the programs, but the final approval of the SADC is required for every application receiving state funding.

- 45 - Agricultural Development Areas The Hunterdon CADB adopted Agricultural Development Areas (ADAs) in 1983 to satisfy minimum eligibility requirements for the statewide farmland preservation program, pursuant to the State Agriculture Retention and Development Act. The purpose of the ADAs is to identify where agricultural operations are likely to continue in the future and therefore be eligible for the farmland preservation program. The ADA is also used to identify areas in which agriculture is the preferred land use.

Delineation Criteria The state statutory criteria and purpose for designating an Agricultural Development Area are to encompass productive agricultural land which are currently in production or have a strong potential for future production in agriculture and in which agriculture is a permitted use under the current municipal zoning ordinance or in which agriculture is permitted as a non-conforming use, identify an area that is reasonably free of suburban conflicting development and comprises not greater than 90 percent of the agricultural land mass of the county as well as incorporate any other characteristics deems appropriate by the County Agriculture Development Board. (§ 2:76- 1.3)

The statute § 2:76-1.4 indicates factors that shall be considered by the board in developing individual county ADA criteria. These factors include soils, current and anticipated local and use plans and regulations, farmland assessment status, anticipated approvals for non-agricultural development, accessibility to publicly funded water and sewer systems, compatibility with comprehensive and special purpose county and state plans, proximity and accessibility to major highways and interchanges, minimum size of and ADA, landowner sign-up, land within boroughs, towns or cities, inclusion of entire or partial lots and blocks, land ownership, natural and special features, as well as type and distribution of agriculture.

In Hunterdon County, the county’s ADA criteria and map were based on a study of agriculture in the County prepared by the Middlesex-Somerset-Mercer Regional Study Council. Key components of the study were the mapping of productive agricultural operations and the location of prime and statewide important soils. Based upon the study, the CADB adopted criteria for the designation of ADAs and mapped them along physical boundaries or property lines.

In 1988, the basic building block of the County ADA criteria was changed from property lines and physical boundaries to tax blocks, making it easier to evaluate and maintain the database with the computer software available at that time. The 1988 ADA changes also reflected the new construction throughout the County; consequently, the land area in the ADA was reduced. The county ADA criteria have changed little over the years and therefore the boundary has remained relatively unchanged. The county requirements are a minimum contiguous area of at least 250 acres; the predominance of prime or statewide important soils; land use that is reasonably free of non-farm development; and the absence of public sewers. Landowner consent is also required for a parcel to be included within the Hunterdon County ADA. This is a county requirement for all amendments to the ADA as well. The township first has to solicit landowner consent for an ADA amendment and bring that request before the

- 46 - County Agriculture Development Board.

The Hunterdon County ADA map has recently been amended at the request of several municipalities. This recent interest in ADAs is likely the result of increased public awareness of the farmland preservation. It may also be due to the severe loss of farmland that several municipalities are experiencing as a result of development activity. The CADB has approved most of the ADA requests; the changes are pending certification from the State Agriculture Development Committee. Most of these changes are from municipalities that are experiencing intense development pressure. Consequently, the contiguity of farmland in these new areas is sometimes less than in other ADAs. In some cases, the CADB has waived certain ADA criteria in these suburbanizing areas because the farmland preservation program is critically important to the farmers, landowners and local officials who want to retain what little farmland remains. Please see the County ADA map (Map 3) in the Appendix.

Farmland preserved to date by program and municipality Earlier this year, The Hunterdon County Farmland Preservation program celebrated the preservation of over 20,000 acres of farmland within the County. Hunterdon County is the fasted growing County program in New Jersey mostly due to Municipal PIG programs and expediting of County Easement Purchase applications. See Table 1 in the appendix for a complete listing of all farms preserved in the County as of August 24, 2007.

County Easement Purchase The County Easement Purchase Program in Hunterdon County has been offered to landowners for the past 24 years. Also known as the PDR or Traditional program, it was developed in accordance with the enabling legislation - the State Agriculture Retention and Development Act of 1983. The program involves the sale of development rights on a farm in exchange for a permanent restriction on the land that requires it to be available for agriculture in perpetuity. The county minimum eligibility requirements for the PDR program is that the farm is located in an Agricultural Development Area (ADA) and an agricultural district, is a minimum of 40 acres and is predominantly tillable farmland - farms with more than 50% woodlands are ineligible. The CADB reserved the right to review those applications that are less than the 40 acre minimum when they are close to or adjacent to other preserved farms. This county policy has resulted in applications that are for larger tracts of land that are at the greatest risk of development. The policy also tried to assemble large tracts of preserved land by considering all applications that are adjacent to already preserved farms, or those farms that have active applications in the Farmland Preservation Program.

Hunterdon County has been a leader statewide in this program in terms of the number of farms and acreage preserved. PDR applications are reviewed on an annual basis, unless otherwise noted. The PDR program is being phased out with the implementation of the new County PIG program which will begin in 2008. Over 120 farms and 13,000 acres have been preserved in the County through this program. See Table 1 in the Appendix for a list of all farms preserved through the County Easement Purchase Program.

- 47 - County Planning Incentive Grants The goal of County Planning Incentive Grants (PIGs) is to protect and preserve large pieces of contiguous farmland through the purchase of development easements. This program was introduced in 1999 but was recently revamped with newly amended regulations concerning this program that took effect on July 2, 2007 in an effort to overhaul the process of preserving farms at the county level. The State Agricultural Development Committee (SADC) has updated their rules (N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.3 through 2:76-17A.17) to promote County PIGs to streamline and expand the farmland preservation program throughout the state. This program is operated in a similar way to the Municipal Planning Incentive Grant Program in that it gives the county more flexibility to preserve those farms that meet the specific preservation needs and goals of the county.

In order to qualify for PIGs, an agricultural advisory committee, as which the County Agricultural Development Board (CADB) functions for the county, is necessary. Additionally, the county must maintain a “dedicated source of funding or alternative means for funding farmland preservation.” Both county and municipal applications should correlate with county comprehensive farmland preservation plans. Hunterdon County has developed this Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan in order to comply with the newly adopted guidelines and qualify for the County Planning Incentive Grant program.

In addition, a separate application for the County PIG program has been developed and included as part of the appendix of this plan.

Municipal Planning Incentive Grant (PIG) Program The SADC established the Planning Incentive Grant Program to provide grants to eligible municipalities to purchase agricultural easements to protect concentrations of farmland in identified project areas. The local municipality and county cover the remainder of the acquisition costs. The PIG program places an emphasis on planning for farmland preservation. To qualify for a Planning Incentive Grant, municipalities must adopt a farmland preservation plan element in their municipal master plan pursuant to the Municipal Land Use Law, a right to farm ordinance, establish an Agricultural Advisory Committee as well as maintain a dedicated source of funding for farmland preservation. Grant recipients have to delineate project areas and develop a list of target farms. The SADC’s new rules for all farmland preservation programs will mean that some farms on existing municipal target farms lists will no longer be eligible for the state cost share. Currently there are 10 municipalities that are participating in the Municipal Planning Incentive Grant program; Alexandria Township, Delaware Township, East Amwell Township, Franklin Township, Holland Township, Kingwood Township, Raritan Township, Readington Township, Tewksbury Township and West Amwell Township.

See Table 1 in the Appendix for a list of all Municipal PIG farms preserved.

SADC Direct Easement Purchase The State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC) purchases development rights or farmland outright for preservation purposes under its state acquisition program. Under the Direct Easement Purchase program landowners sell the development rights to their land and continue to own and farm the land. This land is permanently deed-restricted for agricultural use. Landowners do not have to be within an ADA if they are making an application directly to the State. In most cases, the State will pay up to 100% of the certified appraised easement value in the direct easement purchase program based on negotiations with the landowner regarding that price. By participating in this program, the landowner still retains ownership of their land, but - 48 - agrees to restrict land use to agricultural purposes. The Direct Easement Program does not ordinarily receive monetary contributions from the County. Over 40 farms and 3,400 acres have been preserved in the County through this program. See Table 1 in the Appendix for a list of all farms preserved through the SADC Direct Easement Program

SADC Fee Simple The SADC also administers fee simple acquisitions through the State Direct Program. A fee simple acquisition involves an entire property being purchased at a price not to exceed the certified market value of the property. In this type of acquisition, the landowner does not retain any rights. The land becomes restricted so that it becomes permanently preserved for agriculture. The property is then resold at auction; the SADC does not retain ownership of the farm. To qualify to participate in this program, the farmland must be within an ADA, eligible for Farmland Assessment and meet SADC minimum standards. Farms are then categorized for prioritization based on farm size and quality score. There have been 11 farms and over 1,500 acres preserved in the County through this program. See Table 1 in the Appendix for a list of all farms preserved through the SADC Fee Simple program

Non-Profit Programs There are various non profit organizations that are active within the county and take advantage of this opportunity from the SADC. The grants fund up to 50% of the fee simple or development easement purchase on project farms. These grants are obtained through a specific application to the non profit grant program and administered through the SADC. Currently the HCADB is working with various nonprofit programs, such as Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance and the New Jersey Conservation Foundation to develop a system for county involvement and contribution to make up some of the 50% shortfall from State funds. The D & R Greenway as well as the American Land Trust are also non-profit groups that work within the County.

According to the SADC as of March 31, 2008 there have been 2 farms for a total of 78.11 acres preserved with state funding by non-profit agencies. This number is not indicative of the amount of work and preservation that the non-profit groups do within the county as much of their funding comes from private sources as well as through open space and the NJDEP Green Acres program. Non-profit organizations have the ability to gather funding from various non traditional sources in order to work with landowners toward preservation.

Transfer of Development Rights There has not been any Farmland preserved in Hunterdon County through a TDR program to date. Please note the section above regarding the basics of what a TDR program consists of and how it can be used in conjunction with other preservation techniques.

Other Preservation Methods Landowners may benefit financially by donating the development easement on part or their entire farm to the SADC or the County. Landowners that donate their easement may realize significant Federal income tax benefits and a reduction in their estate tax. Such farms are also eligible for State soil and water conservation grants. Five Hunterdon County landowners have donated their development easements for agricultural purposes. Three landowners have donated their easements to the SADC, totaling 245 acres. Two landowners have donated their easements to the County, totaling 209 acres. Donations are processed by either the County or State and take just a few months before they are finalized. - 49 - While this program is not for everyone, it can offer an attractive benefit for the right applicant.

Consistency with the SADC Strategic Targeting project: The SADC’s 2003 Strategic Targeting Project was intended to help prioritize farmland preservation investments and secure a “bright future” for the agricultural industry. The primary goals of the SADC’s strategic targeting project are:

• To coordinate farmland preservation/agricultural retention efforts with proactive planning initiatives. • To update and create maps to target preservation efforts • To coordinate with open space, recreation and historic preservation efforts.

In keeping with the project’s goal of focusing on prime and statewide agricultural soils outside of sewer service areas, the Hunterdon County CADB has long emphasized soil quality in its screening of County Easement Purchase Program and now Countywide PIG applications. The county also places a strong emphasize on planning, mapping, and coordination with municipalities and open space agencies. Since 2000, the County has had an adopted Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan. It has helped a number of municipalities obtain Planning Incentive Grants. These municipalities have their own agricultural advisory committees which send liaisons to the monthly Hunterdon County CADB staff status meetings and otherwise track the county’s work and relevant agricultural issues while keeping the Board apprised of their efforts. The various agricultural advisory committees provide a body to which municipalities look toward for decisions regarding farmland preservation on a township level. Hunterdon County also has an extensive GIS database which staff used not only to prepare this plan but also rely upon for daily planning tasks and parcel analysis. Finally, as described above, the Farmland Program partners with many nonprofits and state and county open space departments.

Eight Year Programs: Eight Year and Municipally Approved Eight Year Farmland Preservation Program (MAFPP)

Eight Year program and the Municipally Approved Eight Year Farmland Preservation Programs, or MAFPP program are programs in which the farmer receives 50% cost sharing for soil and water conservation projects as well as protection against emergency energy and water restrictions and eminent domain. These programs require land to be actively farmed for a period of eight years. The landowner receives no cash compensation for the restrictions but is eligible for state soil and water conservation cost share grants. After the eight year term expires, the landowner may renew the program for another eight years.

Landowners elect to enroll in the MAFPP for a variety of reasons. Some landowners enter the MAFPP because they want to take advantage of the cost-sharing grant program. Others enroll to help a neighboring farm apply to the PDR program. (A farm in the MAFPP within one half mile of a PDR applicant entitles a farmland preservation applicant an additional point in the evaluation of its application.) Many landowners feel the need to enroll as a gesture of support for farmland preservation and to stave off development inquires. Other benefits of the program include protections from eminent domain and exclusive agricultural zoning. This program is ideal for the farm that is too small to qualify for the PDR program. It helps fill in the gaps of an agricultural area and may reduce potential conflicting uses.

- 50 -

There are currently 4 farms enrolled in the 8 year program for a total of over 412 acres.

Coordination with Open Space Preservation Initiatives A comprehensive farmland preservation program also relies on partnerships between governmental and non-profit organizations. The CADB coordinates its preservation efforts with the County Parks System to complement County acquisition programs when joint farmland preservation/parkland projects are proposed. In most other cases, open space initiatives are kept separate due to the public access provision associated with open space as opposed to farmland preservation. Any parkland that maybe preserved through the parks department that also involves active agricultural lands are managed solely by the parks department however, most commonly through leasing out the agricultural acreage to local farmers.

Partnerships with other organizations have been coordinated by the CADB that have resulted in the preservation of large and/or significant parcels of farmland that the CADB could not have been able to fund by itself. Each of these projects varies in how the individual properties are restricted, if at all and as such are not included in the overall easement purchase acreage total. Farmland preservation partners include the New Jersey Conservation Foundation, the Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance and the County Parks System, among others. Recently, the CADB has taken a more active role in coordinating with non-profit organizations’ farmland and open space acquisitions. The CADB is most interested in helping promote alternative ways for farmers to preserve their land, other than the traditional easement purchase programs, such as the County and Municipal Planning Incentive Grant Programs.

Please see the Garden State Greenways map below developed by the New Jersey Conservation Foundation.

- 51 -

- 52 - Farmland Preservation Program Funding Expended by Source Through various public forums and public opinion surveys, Hunterdon County residents have clearly stated their desire to preserve the County's rural character, its farmland and open space. County residents have overwhelmingly approved farmland preservation bond issues since the first referendum in 1980 and the participation of landowners in the farmland preservation program has increased since its inception in 1985.

As of August, 2007 the County has expended over $20 Million, the State over $119 Million, Municipalities over $19 Million and Non-Profits over $900,000 in Cost-Share contributions since the beginning of the Farmland Preservation program.

See Table 2 in the Appendix for the Cost-Share Breakdown for all Preserved Farms in the County.

Cost-Share Percentages for Farmland Preservation

12%

13%

STATE COUNTY MUNICIPALITY

75%

*Non Profit contributions = <1% of total

Monitoring of Preserved Farmland Every farm that is permanently preserved through the farmland preservation program must abide by the restrictions set forth in the deed of easement. The easement requires that the property be inspected once a year, during the business week and daylight hours by the easement holder, either the County for those farms preserved through the traditional program or the Municipal PIG program, or by the State for those farms preserved via the SADC Easement Purchase or Fee Simple Program. All preserved landowners are to be given at least 24 hours notice of the inspection. The Hunterdon CADB has made a practice of sending letters to all landowners at the start of the monitoring season and then making appointments as far in advance as possible.

The inspection of a preserved farm usually involves walking the farm, interviewing the landowner, and taking photographs of all buildings, property lines, and suspicious activities. The inspection report is recorded in the CADB’s farmland preservation database and stored as hard - 53 - copy in the property’s inspection file. A copy of the report is sent to the landowner for review and verification, the acknowledgment of which is also filed with the hard copy of the inspection report.

If the inspector finds that there have been violations to the Deed of Easement, a letter is drafted to the landowner’s attention, directing him or her to cease the activity. Examples of such infractions have been the use of biosolid (sludge) fertilizer, the expansion or establishment of a non-agricultural use, and the obvious neglect of a farm field (the HCADB requires all fields be mowed once a year for weed control and to keep fields available for agriculture). When the infraction involves soil or water management, the Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District (SCD) may be contacted for assistance.

Monitoring is not intended to be a punitive program. The restrictions of the Deed of Easement are applied reasonably and fairly. For example, if there has been a drought and the farmer explains that is the reason that nothing has grown on a field, there will not be a report of negligence to maintain the fields. In those cases where there has been a real violation of the Deed of Easement, CADB staff and the SCD are committed to working cooperatively with the landowner to remedy the situation. Only in the most extreme cases would such situations be remanded to the courts.

Violations As the easement holder, the County is required by the SADC to monitor its preserved farms on a yearly basis. Until recently, the CADB encountered only few minor easement violations. In most cases the landowner was asked to mow an uncultivated area so the land will continue to be available for agriculture. Recently there have been two instances where more extensive action was required.

A Franklin Township preserved farm was acquired by a family in the early 1990's. The farm had numerous large holes that had resulted from excavated nursery stock. Multiflora rose and other weeds were common in some fields. Reclaiming this land was an onerous task but the CADB worked with the landowner to implement a comprehensive plan to restore the farm to its original condition.

A more recent violation involved a nursery and horticulture operation, also in Franklin Township. The Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District cited the landowner for sedimentation and flooding violations. The violations were not corrected and the District filed charges against the landowner in Superior Court. After inspecting the farm operation, the CADB confirmed that many of the District’s violations were also violations of the CADB’s Deed of Easement. However, since the District and the CADB’s concerns were similar, the CADB decided to withhold action until the outcome of the District’s lawsuit against the landowner. Ultimately, the District’s charges were upheld and the soil and water conservation improvements were completed in Spring, 2000.

Landowner Responses to Monitoring The inspections have proved to be valuable opportunities to receive feedback on the preservation program and the state of the agricultural business from the people who live it every day. Overall, the farmers have reported that they appreciate the one-on-one contact with the CADB, and are happy for the opportunity to express their concerns in a manner that allows them to be heard. A copy of the landowner comments and concerns section of the inspection monitoring reports is now sent to every member of the HCADB and the State Agriculture Development Committee. - 54 -

Coordination with TDR Programs The success of the Pinelands TDR program, which has preserved over 20,409 acres in their Agricultural Production Area and over 16,611 acres in their Special Agricultural Production Area, as well as the more recent TDR programs in Chesterfield and Lumberton Townships demonstrate that TDR can be used successfully to preserve farmland, both on a regional and a municipal level.

There are currently no active TDR programs being used for Farmland Preservation within the County.

Hunterdon County should assist interested municipalities in carrying forward a comprehensive Farmland preservation program that includes the use of TDR and other innovative planning techniques in conjunction with Farmland Preservation programs. These tools can potentially provide a landowner another option for the preservation of their farm without the use of public funds from the existing State, County and Municipal Farmland Preservation programs which although hugely successful, have limited funding. The use of TDR and other techniques would greatly expand the potential amount of Farmland acreage that could be preserved within the County.

- 55 -

CHAPTER 4: FUTURE FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM

Preservation Goals In 2007, the CADB established yearly preservation goals of 1500 acres per year up to the year 2018. Compared to previous years when 1,000 preserved acres in one year would be unimaginable, these yearly acreage goals may seem high. However, the substantial acreage amounts reflect the increased interest in the program as shown by 2007 in which the county has preserved the greatest amount of farms in a given year. The goals are helpful for planning purposes and are a State required component of this Farmland Preservation Plan.

Hunterdon County Farmland Preservation Goals

Preserved Farmland Year (Acreage) January, 2008 23,000 January, 2009 24,500 January, 2010 26,000 January, 2011 27,500 January, 2012 29,000 January, 2013 30,500 January, 2014 32,000 January, 2015 33,500 January, 2016 35,000 January, 2017 36,500

To define the CADB’s role in farmland preservation and to help guide future policies, the following mission statement and program objectives were adopted by the CADB:

Hunterdon CADB Mission Statement “Promote the present and future of Hunterdon County agriculture by preserving agricultural land and by promoting public education and agricultural viability.”

Program Objectives Create critical masses of preserved farmland Preserve farms characterized by soils of prime and statewide importance Give priority to farms with implemented soil conservation plans - 56 - Coordinate CADB preservation efforts with State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC), municipal, and nonprofit organization farmland preservation efforts Promote the education of farmers, government officials, and the public about farmland preservation, the Right to Farm Act, and other pertinent agricultural matters Work with municipal, county, and state agencies and nonprofit organizations to encourage tourism Promote agribusiness opportunities through education and advocacy Promote soil and water stewardship on preserved farms by requiring an implemented soil conservation plan that is periodically updated

Achieving CADB Program Goals and Objectives The CADB has developed ambitious goals to preserve farmland through its farmland retention programs. Achieving the acreage goals for farmland retention is the CADBs most challenging task. To achieve this goal, the CADB will have to be more aggressive in soliciting new applications that meet the SADC and County minimum requirements for the County PIG program. This can be accomplished using the GIS project area maps and the various brochures and slide presentations that have been prepared by the SADC and CADB. Donations should also be solicited, using a planned and comprehensive approach.

Project Areas In developing the goals and objectives of the County of Hunterdon, project areas were the ideal way to focus preservation efforts into specific locales. Many factors were considered when developing the projects areas for Hunterdon County. The areas were developed using the results of past preservation efforts as well as thoughts of where preservation should go in the future. In many cases, those areas are outside of the ADA in Hunterdon County. With this approach, it allows for the inclusion of those farms that were not previously in the ADA to be considered for preservation. However they will only be eligible for state cost sharing after the ADA is amended to contain them.

Already preserved farms were the foundation that laid the base for the general areas as the preservation of large tracts of agricultural land. Added to the preserved farms as a criterion were the farms that have already received final approval from the SADC for preservation. After those farms were added to the base layer, farms that are enrolled into the 8-year program were brought in as well. The purpose of focusing on areas in which farms were already preserved is to preserve farms to allow for a more consistent and seamless agriculture land base. This process was an effort to center on farmable soils and the location of permanent agriculture. The locations of parcels that are deed restricted for agriculture as well as Open Space that is compatible with agriculture was also brought in as a factor to adjust the boundary lines to further develop the project areas around land uses that allow for more of an agriculturally friendly atmosphere and environment.

Finally, public input was sought on the development on the project areas to determine the areas in which the farming community feels is valuable in the contexts of agriculture. Through this course of action, seven projects areas were identified. The seven areas are as follows:

1. North 2. South 3. East 4. West 5. Lebanon - 57 - 6. Bethlehem East 7. Bethlehem West

Because agricultural land in Hunterdon County is so widespread in some areas, project areas were designed to reflect that aspect. In other parts of the county, where agricultural areas are more defined, the project areas are more closely tailored. This provides a better focus to coordinate preservation efforts with municipalities as well as provide flexibility for Hunterdon County landowners that may have previously been disinterested in preservation. As a prerequisite for inclusion in the ADA is landowner consent, those landowners that are new to the area or perhaps were not interested in inclusion in the ADA previously, with project areas that encompass more area than the previously defined ADA it allows for preservation opportunities that would not normally be available to those landowners located outside of the ADA. In order to be eligible for state cost sharing, the ADA must still be amended however.

For each project area, an analysis was completed to identify the amount and density of preserved farmland, pending applications, and publicly owned open space within the area. Given the small amount of areas actually accessed by public sewer and the limited about of capacity that those areas have, sewer service areas were not a significant factor in determining the project areas. A soils analysis was done as well to determine the exact soils make up. The tables below represent those figures.

Total Total Acres, Open Total Total Area Acres Applications Space Acres Acreage: Preserved: Pending: Acreage: Remaining: 13019, North 16164 1093 220 1832 80% 70739, South 88235 10389 1647 5460 80% East 14030 3234 674 1315 8807, 63% 46156, West 54085 4558 627 2744 85% Lebanon 1450 44 162 - 1244, 86% Bethlehem East 2482 799 - 569 1114, 45% Bethlehem West 1389 178 214 34 963, 69% 142043, Totals: 177835 20294 3544 11954 80%

- 58 - Project Area Soils

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0% North East West South Lebanon Bethlehem Bethlehem East West

Prime Soils Statewide Soils Other Soils Not Rated

Soils Breakdown Chart

Bethlehem Bethlehem Total: North East West South Lebanon East West 177715 Prime 6281 5279 17373 19967 378 1527 471 51276 Soils: Percentage of total 39% 37% 32% 23% 26% 62% 34% 29% Acreage: Statewide 4715 5621 19095 49139 152 381 447 79553 Soils: Percentage of total 29% 40% 35% 56% 10% 15% 32% 45% Acreage: Other Soils: 5023 2921 15536 16130 917 544 468 41539 Percentage of total 31% 21% 29 % 18% 63% 22% 33% 23% Acreage: Not Rated: 132 202 2057 2922 1 22 2 5338 Percentage of total <1% 1.5% 4% 3 % <1% <1% <1% 3% Acreage: Source: NRCS SSURGO Version 2 Soils

A map of the Hunterdon County Project Areas may be found in the appendix (Map 5). - 59 -

Project Area Soils in Active Agricultural Lands

Bethlehem Bethlehem North East West South Lebanon West East Prime 3976 3170 10388 11489 288 1397 266 Soils: Precentage of total 67% 48% 46% 33% 36% 66% 38% Acreage: Statewide 207 2373 8326 20345 198 430 295 Soils: Precentage of total 3% 36% 37% 58% 25% 20% 42% Acreage: 1730 962 3465 2830 316 274 135 Other Soils: Precentage of total 29% 15% 15% 8% 39% 13% 19% Acreage: Not rated: 6 42 215 197 0 2 0 Precentage of total 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% Acreage: Total: 5919 6548 22394 34860 803 2104 696 Source: 2002 DEP LULC

Minimum Eligibility Criteria The SADC has created minimum criteria to designate what qualifications a parcel need to adhere to in order to be considered for a cost share by the SADC. The SADC has split the qualifications up into two general land sizes: farms that are 10 acres and less and farms that are greater than 10 acres.

For farms that are Less than or equal to 10 Acres • Farm must Produce $2,500 worth of agricultural or horticultural products annually • At least 75% of the property, or a minimum of 5 acres tillable, which ever is less • That tillable acreage must consist of soils that are capable of supporting agricultural or horticultural production such as Prime and Statewide soils • Further, the land must have development potential. To determine development potential: o The municipal zoning ordinance for the property as it is appraised must allow additional development (at least one residential site beyond what is the sites potential) o There must be access to the property that allows further development. If that access is only available through an easement, that easement must specify that further subdivision is possible. o If access is through an easement, and it is subject to ordinances governing allowable subdivisions, common driveways and shared access, it must be confirmed in writing by a municipal zoning officer or planner.

- 60 - • 80% or more of the soils cannot be classified as freshwater or modified agricultural wetlands according to the DEP. • 80% or more of the land cannot have slopes greater than 15% as identified by the NRCS soils map 2.2 OR • If the farm does not meet the previous criteria, BUT the land is eligible for allocation of development credits from a transfer of development potential program that has been authorized and adopted by law, then it is eligible to enter the preservation process.

For Farms that are Greater than 10 acres • At least 50% of the property or a minimum of 25 acres tillable, which ever is less • That tillable acreage must consist of soils that are capable of supporting agricultural or horticultural production • The land must have development potential. To determine development potential: o Municipal zoning ordinance for the property as it is appraised must allow additional development (at least one residential site beyond what is the sites potential) o There must be access to the property that allows further development. In the case that access is only available through an easement, that easement must specify that further subdivision is possible. o If access is through an easement, and it is subject to ordinances governing allowable subdivisions, common driveways and shared access, it must be confirmed in writing by a municipal zoning officer • Land that is less than 25 acres must not contain more than 80% soils that are classified as freshwater or modified agriculture wetlands according to the DEP • Land that is less than 25 acres, 80% or more of the land cannot have slopes greater than 15% as identified by the NRCS soils map 2.2 OR

• The land is eligible for allocation of development credits from a transfer of development potential program that has been authorized and adopted by law

Lands that do not meet the minimum requirements are not eligible for a State cost share grant for farmland preservation purposes.

The CADB has adopted their own criteria in addition the state’s minimums in an effort to tailor down the applications to those that represent productive farms that are an asset to Hunterdon County’s agriculture community, and will continue to be once preserved. The criteria for the County PIG program can be found in the Appendix. The CADB has approved a policy in regards to the minimum acreage for County Planning Incentive Grant applications. This policy requires that the minimum size of a County PIG application be 40 acres unless the application directly adjoins a preserved farm. The CADB will also examine each application that is less than 40 acres on a case by case basis. These criteria are used to score all perspective farms in order to place each farm in an overall ranking to determine which farms will be preserved. The amount of funding available in a given year will determine how many farms on the ending ranked list get funded and thereby preserved.

An outline of the Hunterdon CADB scoring criteria can be found in the appendix. - 61 -

County Targeted Farms In keeping with Hunterdon County’s Farmland Preservation Plan and planning for future preservation, a list of targeted farms has been developed. This list has been compiled as a result of farmer’s inquiries and interest in farmland preservation as well as coordination with Municipal PIG programs. This outreach to municipalities has been instrumental in targeting those farms that will fit well into the previous preservation efforts of the County and the municipalities. With over 23,000 acres preserved, the focus has been to fill in contiguous blocks of preserved farms along with making preserving large tracts a priority. The targeted farms are listed as potential applications within the designated County Project Areas. The eligibility of the specific farms have yet to be determined, and will be addressed at the time an application is submitted to the Hunterdon CADB.

Please see the Targeted Farms list located in the appendix.

CADB Policies

Housing Residential opportunities on permanently preserved farmland are severely limited because the developments rights on the farm have been purchased. However, there are special situations where a new residence may be warranted given the size of the farm and the nature of the operation. For these reasons, the CADB and the SADC permit housing on preserved farmland provided they meet the stringent criteria for “residential dwelling site opportunities”, agricultural labor housing, or are located on exception areas. Although, there is one area in regards to housing where the views of the Hunterdon CADB and the SADC differ. The SADC does not permit on-site housing for family members on preserved farms; conversely the CADB feels that this is detrimental to the farming family, as it leaves no opportunity for children to stay on the property to continue farming. The CADB is bound by the state regulations however and is only permitted to approve housing opportunities as allowed by the deed of easement.

RDSO’s SADC regulations permit up to one dwelling unit per one hundred acres of vacant farmland including existing dwellings, referred to as a Residual Dwelling Site Opportunity (RDSO). The allocation of an RDSO must be approved by the CADB and the SADC. The value of an RDSO is evaluated at the time that the property is appraised, early on in the process. After the farm is preserved, the landowner may apply to exercise the RDSO. For RDSO approval, CADB and SADC criteria must be satisfied which generally requires that the RDSO has a minimal impact on the existing agricultural operation.

When farms apply to programs that are governed by CADB oversight and are eligible for an RDSO, the CADB generally tries to discourage RDSO use, but is accepting of those applications that choose that option as long as the applicant understands that the location must be approved by the CADB when the applicant chooses to exercise the RDSO option.

Agricultural Labor Housing The requirements for constructing agricultural labor housing are much less stringent than RDSOs, provided the house is for non-family related farm labor. Any number of agricultural units may be constructed on permanently preserved farmland provided at least one tenant/resident actively works on the farm and there are no blood relatives to the landowner

- 62 - residing in the house. Any existing agricultural labor housing that is destroyed may be reconstructed. Once an agricultural labor unit is no longer inhabited by an agricultural laborer, the unit must be vacated. This policy prevents abuse of the program where the units could be rented out to non farm related tenants. When agriculture labor housing issues are brought up before the CADB, the board is extremely scrutinizing of the application because of the high potential for abuse.

House replacement The CADB is understanding when it comes to housing replacement as long as the applicant is not excessive in the choice for a replacement house. The Board feels that the house should meet the needs for the farm and not create an estate-like situation with an excessively larger footprint that what was there previously. The need for expansion is realized; however the board feels that it should be within reason. The CADB review each application in a case by case basis and has no maximum square footage percentage standard.

Divisions

Due to the agricultural trends over the last few decades towards smaller, more productive farms, there are opportunities for a landowner to divide a permanently preserved farm provided the division is for agricultural purposes and both parcels result in agriculturally viable tracts. An agriculturally viable parcel has been defined as a farm that is of sufficient size and soil quality such that it can accommodate a variety of agricultural uses suitable for the County. The CADB follows the State rules when taking into consideration agricultural subdivision applications and adheres to the criteria as it pertains to the purpose of the subdivision and the resulting parcels remaining agriculturally viable.

Exceptions

An exception allows a landowner to remove a portion of the farm from the deed restrictions prior to closing. There are severable and non-severable exceptions. Some landowners may prefer to remove the land immediately under the existing house so that there is no confusion in the future about possible additions or permitted uses in the house. These requests are considered on a case by case basis. This is a type of a non-severable exception. Another type of non-severable exception is the location for a future house. The CADB typically approves this type of nonseverable exception when a farm is vacant and is less than 100 acres (and therefore not eligible for an RDSO). This reflects the CADB’s belief that a farm with a residence will be better managed than a vacant farm parcel. In both cases, the excepted land cannot be severed or subdivided from the farm. Non-agricultural uses are also reasons for the granting of exception areas, both severable and non-severable, as the CADB recognizes the landowners ability to enjoy their own property. This also applies to proposed or future non-agricultural uses that may occur on the property.

The other reason for an exception is to locate a buildable lot upon which a home might be constructed in the future. In this case, the land may be severed from the farm with the necessary local planning approvals, and is therefore referred to as a severable exception. The size of the exception is typically the minimum lot size for that zoning district. The severable exception can present a problem because it introduces a new housing unit to the farm area that is not related to the farm itself. The CADB has specific criteria for approving an exception, including the size of the exception, its impact on the existing agricultural operation, and the number of existing housing units already existing on the farm. Each application if reviewed differently as the layout - 63 - of the property demands different treatment. Right to Farm language is also included on all deeds, should the exception be severed from the farm. In all of the above cases, the acreage of the exception is deducted from the final purchase price of the easement.

The CADB looks at all applications individually, however, they do encourage all applicants to take a non-severable exception area around the dwelling or existing structures on the property. This is due to the potential for future conflicts if left under the easement. Severable Exceptions are generally discouraged by the CADB as this breaks up large tracts of farmland and provides an opportunity for conflicts between farmers and non-farmers.

Funding Plan The Agriculture Retention and Development Act of 1983 established New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Program. Even earlier, Hunterdon County had begun what would become one of the most successful farmland preservation efforts statewide. In 1980, voters approved a $2.2 million bond referendum for farmland preservation.

Recognizing the need for a stable source of funding, the Hunterdon County Board of Chosen Freeholders asked County voters in November 1999, whether the County should have a dedicated open space/farmland preservation tax of up to $0.03 per $100 assessed valuation to fund the preservation programs. County voters approved this tax by a two to one margin.

For the first five-year period, commencing January 1, 2000 and ending December 31, 2004, Hunterdon County has collected a total of $23,718,415.72, which has been successfully used and leveraged by the County to acquire approximately 2,430 acres of additional parkland and open space and preserver another 7,384 acres of farmland. Of the total collected, Hunterdon County allocated $2,371,841.57 each to its municipalities and to area nonprofit organizations for additional open space preservation. Thus far, nineteen (19) municipalities have received a total of $1,949,572.89 from their respective allocation of County funds to preserve approximately 3,211 acres for farmland and open space preservation including the preparation of relevant plan elements of municipal master plan and other eligible project expenses. Seven (7) municipalities have requested their allocation of funds be reserved and banked for future year considerations. Similarly, six (6) nonprofit organizations have individually applied and submitted fourteen (14) applications, in the total amount of $2,097,069.88, to preserve approximately 1,103 acres of more land for open space preservation and conservation purposes. The lands that have been preserved by nonprofit organizations constitute a total market value of $10,501,858.18. Generally speaking, the County and municipalities split 40% of the cost. The remaining 60% is paid by the State.

Hunterdon County allocated an additional $1,984,500.00 in 2006 for its municipalities and area nonprofit organizations for continued open space preservation purposes. This amount constitutes 15% of the total tax collected in 2005, which was previously authorized in the amount of $6,315,000.00 during the beginning of 2004, and as part of the second five-year Open space Tax Referendum and approved Question. The remainder of Hunterdon County's Open Space Tax revenue will be used to continue funding the County Farmland Preservation Program acquiring lands for the Hunterdon County Park System and to preserve, renovate and restore County- owned historic structures, sites and facilities.

For Historic Preservation, The Hunterdon County Open Space Trust Fund may be used for the “historic preservation of County historic properties, structures, facilities, sites, areas or objects.” - 64 - Since the Trust Fund accrues a limited amount each year, the expenditure of these funds must be considered. The following criteria ensure that the facilities are “historic and that the expenditure of County monies is an efficient and appropriate use of public dollars.

• County owned historic facilities may be considered for the Trust Fund if they are listed, eligible or potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. • Projects that are unlikely to receive funding through any other program should be given priority. • Projects that may leverage monies for other program, i.e. matching grants, should be given priority. • Properties that need to replace or repair structure elements that will contribute to their historical significance should be given priority

Source: 2007 Hunterdon County Growth Management Plan 2000 Hunterdon County Open Space, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund Plan

Thus far, a total of $37 million has been collected for the preservation of over 22,203 acres of farmland, 2939 acres of County parkland, and 5622 total acres of municipal and nonprofit land acquisitions. Prior to the passage of the Hunterdon County Open Space, Recreation, Farmland and Historic Preservation Trust Fund in 1999, the County spent over $23.5 million from capital funds on the purchase of approximately 5,400 acres of parkland. Most of these purchases were fee simple, rather than easements, and averaged $4000 per acre in County contributions.

As of August 24, 2007, there have been 252 farms preserved in Hunterdon County. Since the first farm was preserved in 1985, the County has invested an estimated $27 million in total costs to preserve a total of over 22,203 acres of farmland. This can be seen geographically in Map 4 in the appendix. This success has been made possible through partnerships with municipalities and the state who have contributed over $26 million and $118 million respectively.

Many municipalities have adopted municipal dedicated taxes to fund preservation programs. While this is a positive commitment towards the farmland preservation program, many of the municipalities have a low tax base and the tax revenue will not cover the entire municipal cost share of easements. Many municipalities have seen the need to bond monies in order to match the tax revenue. A few municipalities have also used bonding as a way to be proactive in acquiring farmland parcels that are in immanent danger of being developed. Because a municipality has greater flexibility when giving payouts, this becomes an attractive solution to the landowner looking for a fast payout and at the same time looking to preserve their farm. The municipality then has the option to enter the farm into a preservation program in order to recoup approximately 80% of the upfront easement cost associated with buying a development easement without the state or county cost share. The table below illustrates the municipal tax information that is available in regards to open space and farmland dedicated tax dollars.

- 65 - Municipal Specific Open Space And Farmland Taxes Open Space or 2007 Percent Farmland 2007 Tax dedicated to Dedicated 2007 Revenue farmland Municipality Tax Tax Rate Collected preservation Comment

Alexandria Township Yes$ 0.04 $323,471.00 35% Twp data incomplete

Bethlehem Township Yes$ 0.05 $263,531.00 N/A

Clinton Township No data from Twp

Delaware Township Yes$ 0.06 $537,000.00 100%

East Amwell Township Yes$ 0.04 $314,523.00 49%

Franklin Township N/A

Holland Township Yes$ 0.02 $600,000 95%

Kingwood Township Yes$ 0.03 Twp data incomplete

Lebanon Township No data from Twp.

Raritan Township No data from Twp

Readington Township Yes$ 0.02 $564,182.00 60%

Those municipalities not listed above do not have a dedicated open space for farmland tax; however residents to contribute significantly to the County open space tax.

Based on a formula that commits the state to pay a higher percentage of lower cost per acre easements, the SADC provides between 60% and 80% of the funds to acquire a development easement on a farm. Hunterdon County and the municipality, in years past, have equally split the difference, typically 20% municipal and 20% county funds. The County now employs a modified cost share formula based on the appraised value of the farm to determine how the cost share amount is split between the county and the municipality. The formula is shown below:

Appraisal value in $/acre % Increase in municipal cost share

5,000 or less 0 5,001 to 7,000 1 7,001 to 9,000 2 9,001 to 11,000 3 11,001 and greater 4

This allows for a more even distribution of county dollars so that municipalities that garner a higher per acre value do not absorb the majority of county money available. The reverse of this is also true; municipalities with lower per acre prices will not suffer under this sliding scale system.

- 66 - With the CADB goals for preservation on the 1, 5 and 10 year horizons, it is estimated that it will take a total of $14,400,000.00 to preserve 1500 acres within one year. To preserve 7500 acres at the 5 year mark, it will take a total of $72,000,000.00. At the 10 year horizon $144,000,000.00 will be needed from all funding partners to preserve the goal of 15,000 acres.

Hunterdon County’s Participation The overall role of the CADB is to administer the State farmland preservation program at the local level. Final approval of applications rests with the County Board of Chosen Freeholders who have the sole authority to authorize county funding. The CADB works closely with the Freeholders so that their goals are synonymous and the approval process is predictable.

County Counsel is appointed as counsel for the CADB and provides all legal support for all matters that come before the Board. County Counsel’s office also provides legal support for all matters concerning specific farmland applications and closings. Hunterdon County has set up monthly meeting with the municipalities with County Counsel present to discuss all farmland applications and facilitate communication between all contributors to the farmland process. These status meetings have been an invaluable tool in maintaining order and momentum within the program.

A further step that was implemented by the County was the creation of a database to allow for the tracking of files through the preservation process. This database allows for multiple users to easily access the data, organized in a central location. From this central location, file information is able to be updated continuously as it comes in, allowing for up to date information available instantly to all users. Status reports on each farm are then able to be printed out and sorted. Closing costs are also easily tracked with survey information input and exact cost share amounts for all parties involved. This prevents errors when calculating the costs involved, especially when there are multiple partners and types of funding scales involved.

GIS Mapping

General Uses of GIS Mapping The farmland preservation program is fortunate to have at its disposal a seamless parcel map detailing every tax lot in Hunterdon County. The parcel map was developed by the Hunterdon County Division of Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and is widely employed by various County agencies. The parcel map has revolutionized the way the program communicates to the public its current activities and goals.

The maps generated from the parcel map are a tremendous benefit in describing the progress of the Hunterdon County farmland preservation program. In general, the public responds better to graphical representations than tables of statistics, and as a rule, the maps elicit a favorable

- 67 - response from an audience. The greatest feedback usually comes from preserved landowners or their neighbors, who observe the amount of preservation activity going on in their neighborhood. It has been the experience of CADB staff that following a township meeting at which the map was displayed, prospective applicants contact the CADB office to inquire about the program, usually referencing where their property is located on the map.

Geospatially referenced mapping has also streamlined the application evaluation process and reduced the potential of human error in the scoring process. The new GIS method has changed a hand-drawn calculation of farm boundaries to a computer generated map with supporting data. Each bordering property use is measured digitally and entered into a digital form that calculates the score and saves it in a database. Soils data is also computed digitally to find the percentages of different soils coverage types. This provides an accurate tool to rate the assets that are inherent to the land. There still exists an opportunity for errors, even with the assistance of GIS technology; nevertheless, it is a significant improvement on the former method. As the farmland preservation program continues to grow, the need for rapid and accurate evaluations of farm properties as well as the need for accurate maps will be critical.

GIS Mapping of Project Areas GIS technology has also proven beneficial in identifying regions of particular importance to agriculture. Geospatial analysis has helped the farmland preservation process in the development of “project areas” as spoken about earlier in this plan to consider for the County Planning Incentive Grant program. The resulting map showed all properties that have been preserved, have pending applications, have current enrollment in the 8 year program and publicly owned open space. A buffer of 1 mile around these parcels was created to better help identify close knit areas of prior preservation activity. These maps were presented to the public the better guide input into the development of the project areas. While the maps were helpful in developing areas in which the County will focus its interest, applications from individual landowners in areas not indicated will not be turned away. These applications will be addressed as the necessary changes in either the ADA or the project areas are made. The county ADA will also serve as a guide as to where agriculture in encouraged within the county. The project areas were developed to help focus resources and develop more complete clusters of preserved farmland.

Please see the Project Area map located in the appendix as Map 5.

Factors Limiting Farmland Preservation Implementation

There are obstacles that can make it difficult to attain the projected goals for farmland preservation, the biggest of which is funding. The county and municipal funding sources have been constant; however land prices have continued to regularly go up. This will create a discrepancy if current trend of the amount of preservation per year is kept up and the funding sources are not raised to relative levels. Regular annual adjustments as well as revaluations do not compensate fully for the jump in land prices seen recently. Public support for farmland preservation is essential to increasing the flow of funding into preservation programs at all levels, the local level especially. Local support for preservation also drives municipalities to pass ordinances and change zoning in order to slow development in areas where the agriculture community is prevalent. These measures are also a response to high development pressures as the population of the county grows.

- 68 - Hunterdon County is under very high development pressure and will continue to be as families seek bedroom communities that are relatively close to urban centers. Major transportation arteries such as highways and rail lines contribute to the suburbanization trend. The rural nature of the county is also a big draw for families looking for a quiet place to settle down. This development pressure has reduced the amount of available farmland as farmers decide sell to developers. In the past this decision was fueled by the difficulties farmers were having making a living wage. The current upswing in farm commodities making farming more profitable will likely slow this trend, along with the current downswing in the housing market.

Another limiting factor in how farmland preservation is handled within the county is administrative resources. Given the fact that the County Planning Department is a small department made up of an eight person staff and the issues needed to be covered by staff are vast, administrative resources for farmland preservation are very limited. The amount of time available to focus on Farmland Preservation must be divided among other county planning responsibilities.

- 69 - CHAPTER 5: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRY RETENTION, EXPANSION AND RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES

NJ Department of Agriculture – Economic Development Strategies Each year, the NJ Department of Agriculture (NJDA) releases economic strategies that are outlined for specific groups of agricultural industries such as produce, seafood, dairy, equine and organic farming among others. They also release general strategies as they pertain to the agriculture industry as a whole. A well known example of one of these strategies is the Jersey Fresh brand of goods developed to help better market goods produced within the state of New Jersey. The NJDA has worked with the Department of Corrections as well as the School Lunch Program to ensure government purchases of Jersey Fresh produces to better utilize New Jersey’s agricultural produce base.

This idea of identifying New Jersey agriculture products has been expended to include one of the biggest parts of New Jersey agriculture: ornamental horticulture. In 2005, NJDA introduced the Jersey Grown brand to allow consumers to identify horticulture products grown locally. Jersey Seafood as well as the proposed Jersey Organic labels further expand this idea to allow better marketing and exposure for New Jersey Agriculture. Milk and wine produced in New Jersey also enjoy the same benefits as they are labeled Jersey Fresh Milk and Jersey Fresh Wine. A large drive by the NJDA to promote the brand and entice local restaurants to use New Jersey products has allowed for the proliferation of the Jersey brand. Hunterdon County farmers reap the benefits of this as local products are marketed more directly and therefore earn more interest from buyers looking for Jersey Fresh products.

Institutional Farmers Support As a program of the New Jersey State Agriculture Development Committee, the Farm Link Program is a resource and referral center for new farmers, farmers seeking access to land and farming opportunities, landowners seeking farmers and a farmers working on estate and farm transfer plans. It also works to connect farmland owners with farmers seeking access to land and farming opportunities. (http://www.state.nj.us/agriculture/sadc/farmlink.htm)

Marketing / Public Relation Support Agritourism promotes the use of agricultural amenities and resources, such as open fields farm houses, live stock and other scenic components of the farm for the purpose of offering fee-based recreational opportunities. Agritourism can benefit local communities by attracting tourists to the area who not only spend time at participating farms, but spend money in other local businesses. Farmers benefit by supplementing their income from those added activities. Agritourism may be a valuable means of supplementing farm income and may increase the sale of products produced on-site. People residing in suburban and city environments are attracted to rural areas with active farm operations. Given Hunterdon County’s close proximity to New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas, farmers have a large urban population to market an agritourism program uniquely tailored to their farm operations.

- 70 - There are many Agritourism attractions and activities in Hunterdon County such as the Holcombe-Jimison Farmstead Museum, the Skylands, Wineries, etc.

• The Holcombe-Jimison Farmstead Museum, located in Lambertville, is an educational institution, restored, maintained and staffed by volunteers. It features the oldest remaining stone house in Hunterdon County and many outbuildings. Museum-barn displays include early farming and homemaking devices.

• In New Jersey’s Great Northwest Skylands, agriculture and tourism are two important economic components to the Skylands’ region. In Hunterdon County, there are various agricultural enterprises that offer services to the public such as seasonal farm fresh produce, horseback rides, pick your own vegetables and fruits and cut our own Christmas tree.

• In New Jersey, the wine industry is a growing industry that has a variety of wines form dry and semi-dry to sparkling, fruit and dessert wines. In Hunterdon County, there are three wineries: Alba Vineyard, Amwell Valley Vineyard and Unionville Vineyards. These wineries provide festivals and wine tasting events.

Community Farmers Markets

Eliminating the need for distributors, farmers are selling at farmstands and farmer markets and to nearby rural and suburban markets. There are four community farmers markets in Hunterdon County. These markets are located in Flemington, High Bridge and Sergeantsville and are open for business on Saturday or Sunday. (NJDA Jersey Fresh) Efforts to market a county agricultural tourism program may increase the profits in local direct marketing. The urban markets offer even more substantial opportunities. The close proximity to one of the largest metropolitan markets in the world presents farmers in Hunterdon County with tremendous possibilities.

Community Supported Agriculture Hunterdon County’s oldest business is agriculture. Yet, over the past few decades, businesses that have located in the county have tended to be nonagricultural in nature. Municipalities should take the appropriate steps to attract businesses that use local agricultural products. At the same time that this gains the community a ratable, it also supports area farmers.

The New Jersey Department of Agriculture, Division of Marketing and Development, is host of the Jersey Fresh campaign and is also responsible for other initiatives that promote and support New Jersey agriculture. The division offers free advertising materials to farmers to use for direct marketing. The division is a resource that can be used to identify opportunities that are helpful to agricultural businesses. For instance, the division has identified an opportunity for New Jersey farmers to sell over-produced or under-valued product to the New Jersey Department of

- 71 - Corrections. This opportunity would be beneficial to framers when market conditions are very poor and regaining only production costs is an appealing alternative to suffering a financial loss. Hunterdon County farmers are eligible to take advantage of this safety net if they register with the New Jersey State Treasury. Opportunities like this should be identified and information should be made available to local farmers to help support agricultural businesses in the county. Ways the CADB can help include:

• The CADB supports Rutgers Cooperative Extension and the Hunterdon Economic Partnership in efforts to maintain existing agricultural businesses and encourage new business opportunities via training and other programs. • The CADB works with Rutgers Cooperative Extension to explore new and profitable agricultural opportunities and products, and disseminates relative information to farmers. • The CADB investigates opportunities for farmers can sell their produce to local institutions such as schools, corporations, jails, and restaurants and takes actions to promote any such opportunities.

A CSA as a business model is generally a method for small scale farmers and gardeners to market their goods. This type of business commonly attracts ecological or organic farmers. This type of farming and marketing operates with consumers as stakeholders taking an active role in the success of the market in general. A core consumer group is developed that provides the funds for the production of goods to be shared by the stakeholders. This ensures a quality product for all those that contribute. Each stakeholder receives a portion of what products are generated as the season progresses. This approach eliminates the marketing risk to the producers as well as provides seasonally ripe produce for the stakeholders.

Currently there are no CSA’s within Hunterdon County, however there are opportunities available outside of the county given the geographic location of the county and it’s proximity to other agricultural areas as well as New York City.

Agricultural Education and Market Research Coordination The CADB can play a strong role in dissemination information and sponsoring seminars and workshop to benefit landowners, farmers and local officials. Agriculture is changing in New Jersey and farmers need to keep apprised of these changes. Agricultural organization, such as the Hunterdon County Board of Agriculture or the Rutgers Cooperative Extension may suggest seminars that the CADB can sponsor or cosponsor on new and potentially profitable ideas that may improve agricultural productivity. Marketability is particularly important in today’s agriculture and workshops can be held to better understand new and existing markets. By partnering with other organizations, the CADB can sponsor and/or assist in the dissemination of this important information.

Rutgers Cooperative Extension Service is a leading program on new use agriculture. This is defined as agriculture where traditional agricultural crops and live stock are used for new purposes other than food. For example, plants are grown for medicinal purposes and corn is grown for bio-diesel and other types of fuel. It is anticipated that many of these types of new-use agriculture will require large areas of farmland due to economies of scale. The potential for the farm community to benefit from alternative fuels, both as consumers of energy in their farm operations and as producers of the feed stocks needed to create alternative fuels, such as corn for ethanol and soybeans for bio-diesel. An aggressive program encompassing solar, wind and bio- - 72 - fuels energy was undertaken to help interested farmers pursue these avenues for both cutting their costs and broadening the market for their commodities.

The New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station is the way in which Rutgers and the state of New Jersey fulfill a joint mission to provide solutions to residents. As a land-grant university, Rutgers is committed to teaching, research, and outreach. The work that NJAES does is carried out by 4-H agents, Extension specialists, Family & Community Health Sciences educators, and Agricultural and Resource Management agents. They are the ones who provide continuing- education opportunities and certification programs, work with at-risk youth, educate parents and restaurant owners about food allergies, teach proper nutrition to combat obesity and diabetes, identify invasive species, reduce pesticide use, improve soil fertility, and more.

The Rutgers School of Environment and Biological Sciences are based on the foundation of the physical and social sciences but also focus on the social and human dimensions of scientific practice in majors such as environmental and business economics or environmental policy, institutions and behavior. The CADB can use there services regarding any opportunities for farm research and testing.

The Hunterdon CADB should continue to work closely with other groups and organizations to form partners for farmland preservation. Future partners may include the Hunterdon County Chamber of Commerce, Hunterdon Economic Partnership, County Board of Agriculture and the New Jersey Farm Bureau. Working with these groups could result in such benefits as improved marketing of agricultural products, developing educational programs for farmers to be more competitive in today’s economy, reducing crop damage caused by wildlife, introducing agribusiness that would use locally grown produce and ensuring the compatibility of local regulations with the needs of the farmer.

Businesses Input Suppliers and Services

Hunterdon County farmers have indicated that there are very few farm equipment dealers within the county. There are two Agways located in Clinton and Flemington. Most farmers travel to Pennsylvania in order to buy equipment. Many of the dairy farmers are looking for specialized equipment that is unavailable in the County. Those farmers that are looking for specialized equipment now look toward the internet to find those products. The growth of internet based businesses has allowed farmers to look further beyond their immediate region to find products that would not normally be available to them. With the coverage that shipping services such as UPS and FedEx have, it gives farmers another option when looking for agricultural inputs.

For equipment repairs, most farmers “do it themselves” and try to maintain their existing equipment but there are two repair services available. There is dealer in Ringoes (East Amwell) that does repairs and sells used machinery. A farmer in Jugtown (Bethlehem Township) also

- 73 - does repairs and will make on -site visits.

Product Distributors and Processors

Hunterdon County will continue to host a variety of agriculture but there will probably be a continued loss of large farms –as in previous years- due to lower profit margins of grains and loss of local feed mills. There are no major grain processing facilities in Hunterdon County. However, many farmers who continue to farm grains will likely grind their own feed and sell locally.

Anticipated Agricultural Trends

Agriculture in Hunterdon County is likely to continue its trend towards smaller, more intensive use farms. Innovative marketing techniques will be sought by many farmers to meet production needs. Part-time farmers will continue to dominate the industry. And the diversity of farming that has traditionally characterized Hunterdon County will also continue. Given these trends, the future of farming in Hunterdon County looks promising, though it may not be the romantically held notion of wide-open fields of dairy cattle and field corn. Part-time farmers, particularly those with horses and other livestock, will continue to be important players in the County's agricultural industry and their continued existence should be nurtured. Part-time farmers often do not have the time or the land to plant enough hay or other feed for their livestock and therefore create a market for hay and grain farmers. Part-time farmers are also important because they keep land in farming and out of the hands of developers, minimizing the intrusion of residential developments on neighboring farm operations. Additionally, they often provide farmland for others to farm by leasing their land. This is particularly important for grain farming which has a low per acre value and requires a considerable amount of land to be profitable. The number of small part-time farms has stabilized over the last few years, but will continue to be a large percentage of the County's agricultural complexion, assuming the rural character of the area is preserved and there are no major regulatory changes such as significant changes in the Farmland Assessment Act.

Small farms in the County will continue to be the trend in the County. Profits may well increase as agriculture in the County enters a new phase towards smaller, more intensive types of farming, including high value crops. Whereas grains and field crops have the lowest per acre value of products ($200-$500 per acre), high value crops such as vegetables and horticulture tend to have a much higher per acre value ($1,000-$5,000 per acre). For this reason, large farms are no longer necessary for comfortable profit margins. While Hunterdon County’s climate and soils are not as conducive to vegetable growing as are New Jersey’s southern counties, greenhouses do not demand the climate and soil conditions and may become more popular in the County.

Market Location Hunterdon County has a great market location due to its close proximity to New York and Philadelphia metropolitan areas. The median household income for Hunterdon County, according to the 2000 census data is $79,888. This is well above the statewide average of $55,146. Hunterdon has the highest median household income in the state, followed by Morris County and Somerset County. Hunterdon County had a population of 121,989 persons, according to the 2000 census. This location and population base allows for Hunterdon County farmers to market to the local populations as well as travel a short distance to tap into the large populations of the New York and Pennsylvania metropolitan areas. - 74 -

Product Demand Hay comprises 30% of agricultural lands in Hunterdon County, and it’s the leading crop countywide and statewide. Corn and other grains crops, soybeans, specialty crops, nurseries, cattle, milk cows and horses also characterize the county’s agricultural base. In 2004, Hunterdon County ranked first in New Jersey for hay, fourth for corn and grain and also for cattle and calves and fifth for soybeans for beans, wheat for grain, and nursery stock acreage. With this large product base, Hunterdon County enjoys large demand for it’s products as the population looks more toward locally grown products. The proximity to New York and Philadelphia markets also ensure a large demand for products grown close so that they arrive fresh. This trend will continue as the need for agriculture products will always be present and more agriculture lands are preserved to ensure the industry remains in close proximity to the major metro areas.

Agricultural Support Needs As part of the process of planning future farmland preservation within the County of Hunterdon, a public meeting was held in order to garner information from the agricultural community on specific topics for inclusion in this plan. Below are the comments regarding agricultural support needs from the attendees of the first public meeting that was held.

Comments from our County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan Public Meeting:

• Technical support needs to be less generic and more specific • NRCS not helpful due to lack of manpower • Environmental Issues (stream buffers) need to be more specific, not broad brush • Farm credit – good but needs expansion • More local financial participation • Access and affordability of farm labor is an issue • Local kids are not interested in farm labor • Landscaping is biggest competitor for labor, can’t meet the price • Not enough farmers to lease acreage • No ability to entice young farmers – cost, opportunity • SADC – more flexible on housing on preserved farms o Need housing for children that want to work on the farm • NJ Farm Bureau - most read • NJ Farmer paper • Lancaster Farming Paper – referred to as bible • Tax impacts of preserving land, assessment should freeze at time of preservation, disincentive to improve the farm buildings • Local Board of Ag. needs more teeth • Deer issues need to be addressed: fencing, hunting, control • Community kitchen to support local baked goods. Full time market needed. County and municipal support • There was no mention of the need for value added processors within the County.

Flexible Land Use Regulations A positive regulatory climate, such as ordinances and policies supporting agriculture, is essential for the future of framing, particularly for full-time farmers whose income relies largely, if not

- 75 - entirely, on the farm operation. Regulations supporting agriculture should include ordinances that give farmers flexibility to pursue agricultural uses and recognize the need for farmers to supplement their operations with on-farm and off-farm activities and businesses. Development regulations should streamline the review process for new farm buildings and minimize the cost of the reviews. Equity protection is important to full-time farmers because a large part of their retirement security rests in the value of their farmland. This challenges the municipality to be creative and use innovative regulatory mechanisms that both achieve community goals and protect the farmer’s nest.

The requirements for constructing agricultural labor housing are much less stringent than Residual Dwelling Site Opportunity (RDSO), provided the house is for non-family related farm labor. Any number of agricultural units may be constructed on permanently preserved farmland provided at least one tenant/resident actively works on the farm and there are no blood relatives to the landowner residing in the house. Any existing agricultural labor housing that is destroyed may be reconstructed. Once an agricultural labor unit is no longer inhabited by an agricultural laborer, the unit must be vacated. This policy prevents abuse of the program where the units could be rented out to non farm related tenants

Agriculture Representation in Economic Development Organizations The following Hunterdon County organizations support the agricultural community:

Hunterdon Chamber of Commerce is an action-oriented business organization that promotes a favorable business climate for its membership and community; works with other interested organizations to develop effective mechanisms for taking action on issues of community interest; and provides business leadership for improvement of the economy and quality of life in Hunterdon County, New Jersey.

Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board (CADB) takes the lead role in farmland preservation and to help guide future policies. Their mission statement is to "Promote the present and future of Hunterdon County agriculture by preserving agricultural land and by promoting public education and agricultural viability."

Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension Service is a grassroots organization where the needs of the community take precedence over programs designed at other levels of government. The programs offered by Rutgers Cooperative Extension are often the first step that farmers take when in need of help and advice on developing programs to help economically.

Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District is are special purpose subdivisions of the State. In cooperation with the State Soil Conservation Committee, they are empowered to conserve and manage soil and water resources and address stormwater, soil erosion, and sedimentation problems that result from land disturbance activities. They assist farmers with implementing soil and water conservation plans to add value to their operations.

Municipal Agriculture Boards play an important role in Hunterdon County’s farmland preservation program by educating landowners about the program, providing a regulatory climate that is suitable for agriculture and by cost sharing.

All of the above organizations provide support for farmers in Hunterdon County, allowing them to advance their livelihood economically and continue to thrive in the agriculture industry.

- 76 -

Agricultural Support Implementation In order to continue the viability of farming in Hunterdon County, the needs of the agriculture industry need to me met. One of the largest parts of support for the agriculture industry that needs improvement in the county is the technical support that is available. NRCS has been indentified as a good resource; however they lack staff persons to allow for greater interactions with farmers. Tied in with this aspect, is the fact that the support given needs to be more specific. If further staff was available, there could be more specialized care given to farmers on an individual basis. The cost of the additional manpower would have to be provided by the federal government if NRCS is to be expanded.

Further help from the federal as well as state government is needed to ease the burden on farmers. Environmental restrictions such as stream buffers cut into the already limited acreage available for farming. A more detailed approach needs to be taken to ensure that farmers are not unduly penalized under broad brush regulations. Further action at the state level to resolve issues regarding agriculture industry support can come directly from the state Agriculture Development Committee. Currently there are tight restrictions preventing family members from building houses on preserved farms. The agricultural industry in Hunterdon County has called for a reform of this restriction to allow for children of farmers to be able to live on the farm in order to make provisions for children that want to continue the family farming business.

At the local level, interest in farming as an occupation has slowed creating a need for industry support at the most basic level. If there are no farmers to farm the land, the industry will suffer. Since local kids are not interested in farm labor and there are not enough farmers to lease all the land available, there needs to be more done to entice farmers and their children into the industry. Public education and outreach is one step that can be taken to show the benefits of local farms. The 4-H Fair does a good job of this type of outreach and participation is growing each year the fair is held.

The County is looking into the possibility of developing a community kitchen in order to make it available for local farms to take advantage of and sell local baked goods at farmers markets. As the popularity of “eating local” rises, there will be increasing opportunities for farmers to showcase their products and gain interest in farming as an industry. To further this goal, the county is also looking to change the way that open space funds are able to be used in order to better invest in the stewardship of the lands already acquired as well as the possibility to use the funds for community projects such as these. This will also allow municipalities greater range to use their portion of the county open space tax to better support the agriculture industry at the local level.

- 77 - CHAPTER 6: NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION

There are numerous entities, both public and private, which administer, fund, and provide technical guidance for Hunterdon County farmers relative to natural resource conservation. These entities are in place to assist farmers with natural resource conservation issues, and are assets for farmers to assist in the management of the land and water upon which their farms depend.

Natural Resources Conservation Service Farmers, Ranchers, and other conservation-minded agricultural producers, rely on the NRCS for assistance through conservation programs and technical information to help them protect the natural resources on their land. Since 1935, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (originally called the Soil Conservation Service) has provided leadership in a partnership effort to help America's private land owners and managers conserve their soil, water, and other natural resources. NRCS employees provide technical assistance based on sound science and suited to a customer's specific needs. They provide financial assistance for many conservation programs. Their science and technology activities provide technical expertise in such areas as animal husbandry and clean water, ecological sciences, engineering, resource economics, and social sciences. They also provide expertise in soil science and leadership for soil surveys and for the National Resources Inventory, which assesses natural resource conditions and trends in the United States. The local NRCS office serving Hunterdon County is located in Franklin Township. Hunterdon County farmers may utilize this local NRCS office for technical assistance with conservation issues. NRCS will also reach out directly to landowners if they know of a farmer who is in need of assistance, or can use the guidance of the NRCS staff. The local NRCS office also helps to prepare Conservation Plans for Hunterdon County farmers. An approved Conservation Plan is required to be in place within one year of signing the deed of easement for those farmers who sell a development easement via any state farmland preservation program, or apply for natural resource conservation program grants such as the WHIP and EQIP. The local NRCS office administers these conservation program grants, which offer financial incentives to support Conservation projects, including stream riparian buffers and wildlife habitat.

Soil Conservation Districts The Hunterdon County farm community is served by the Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District (SCD) located in Franklin Township. Some of the technical services that the SCD provides Hunterdon farmers include animal waste management, design and construction of erosion control structures and Intergrated Pest Management. Hunterdon County Farmers who are interested in developing farm conservation plans apply to local Soil Conservation Districts, which assist in developing farm conservation plans and ensure projects are necessary and feasible. Applications are forwarded to the N.J. State Soil Conservation Committee, which recommends projects to the SADC for funding approvals. The Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District gives final approval on all Conservation Plans and program contracts.

Within one year of the signing of the Deed of Easement on a Preserved Farm through the County Easement and Municipal PIG programs the landowner must obtain an approved Farm Conservation Plan from the Hunterdon County SCD. Although an approved Conservation Plans within a year of the preservation of a farm is

- 78 - required for all farmland preservation programs, implementation of the plan is not mandatory. According to the Hunterdon County SCD, approximately 25% of these plans are implemented. Although the services of the NRCS for the implementation of the Conservation Plan is cost free to the farmer, the services of the SCD may be needed to complete the implementation of the plan and this work is billable as the SCD is a separate entity from the NRCS. Funding for approved soil and water conservation projects are available from the SADC for up to 50% reimbursement. The farmland preservation program has an ongoing program that ensures annual monitoring of preserved farmland. In Hunterdon County, the Soil Conservation District handles this responsibility. The District routinely monitors the preserved farms once a year to ensure compliance with the deed of easement due to the manpower involved. The SCD then reports back annually to the CADB with the status of all property.

Natural Resource Protection Programs Listed below are several natural resource protection programs available for Hunterdon County farmers. Announcements are made during CADB meetings to discuss availability of funding for the below programs as money is made available.

SADC Soil and Water Conservation Grant Program This program provides grants to eligible landowners to fund up to 50 percent of the costs of approved soil and water conservation projects. There has been a lack of available funding for this program that has corresponded with the lack of funding

Federal Conservation Programs Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP): This program provides technical, financial, and educational assistance to farmers/producers for conservation practices that address natural resource concerns, such as water quality. Practices under this program include integrated crop management, grazing land management, well sealing, erosion control systems, agri- chemical handling facilities, vegetative filter strips/riparian buffers, animal waste management facilities and irrigation systems.

Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP): Under CREP, farmers voluntarily remove cropland along streams, lakes and wetlands from agricultural production and convert the land to native grasses, trees and other vegetation to provide buffers. These conservation buffers slow and absorb runoff, sediment, nutrients, and chemicals from cropland while also creating beneficial wildlife habitat for many species in need.

Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program (FRPP): The Farm and Ranch Land Protection Program provides matching funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farm and ranchland in agricultural uses. Working through existing programs, USDA partners with State, tribal, or local governments and non-governmental organizations to acquire conservation easements or other interests in land from landowners. USDA provides up to 50 percent of the fair market easement value of the conservation easement. The preservation of several Hunterdon County preserved farms have been partially funded through this program.

Other Programs The Rutgers Cooperative Extension Service continues to assist Hunterdon's farmers in facing the challenge of operating a business in a heavily regulated environment, while enhancing market potential and using integrated management systems that help provide for environmentally sound best management practices. - 79 -

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection administers the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). This program is designed to help landowners improve, manage and protect the habitat on their property for threatened and endangered species. This allows the NJDEP to ensure that some agricultural lands are utilized for the protection of threatened and endangered species. Many Hunterdon County farmers utilize delayed mowing schedules to allow for the creation of ideal habitat in the off-growing season.

Wildlife Habitate Incentives Program (WHIP) provides technical and financial assistance for creating, enhancing, and maintaining wildlife habitat. The State Technical Committee for WHIP in New Jersey awards project contracts for designated wildlife habitat categories. Since its inception in 1998, WHIP has been a popular program for non-federal landowners interested in wildlife habitat management in New Jersey. (NRCS Conservation Programs)

North Jersey Resource Conservation & Development Council (RC&D), in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, County Soil Conservation Districts, and the NJ Department of Agriculture has successfully leveraged federal monies to help farmers employ land management practices that reduce chemical inputs without compromising yields. Farmers in Hunterdon County have also received technical and financial assistance through provisions in Farm Bill Legislation and the Conservation Technical Assistance Program.

Water Resources

Supply Characteristics With the onset of prolonged periods of dry weather and reduced rainfall over the last decade, water supply conditions have become an increasingly important statewide concern. Hunterdon County’s drinking water supply comes from surface and ground water sources. More than 70% of the households in Hunterdon County depend on ground water from individual wells for their water supply. In addition to individual residential wells, there are permitted public-community wells as well as non-community wells (for example, schools, offices, restaurants, institutions, etc.).

According to the New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Plan (NJSWSP, August 1996), Hunterdon County has a total water supply availability of 117 million gallons per day (MGD). This includes 66.7 MGD from surface water supplies (most of which is transferred out of the county via the D&R Canal) and 50.3 MGD of ground water supplies for in-county use. New figures, both on availability and current and projected water use should be included with the release of the next statewide Water Supply Plan. The Round Valley and Spruce Run Reservoirs are two additional water supplies located in Hunterdon County, with a storage capacity of 55 and 11 billion gallons respectively, making them two of New Jersey’s largest reservoirs. New Jersey’s farmers face increasing water supply restrictions. The present water demands of

- 80 - agriculture represent approximately 6% of the total water demand in the state. Although residential water supply and potable water quality continue draw the attention of the media, the long-term water needs of New Jersey’s agricultural community must be equally considered during the Water Supply master planning process.

Agricultural Demand & Supply Limitations Recent agricultural trends in Hunterdon County tend towards higher water use for irrigation as well as increased use of temporary and permanent greenhouses. Both uses contribute to loss of ground water recharge. Water allocation is a rising problem as well within the county. With the increasing growth that the county is seeing there is potential for water resources to become scarce.

Conservation & Allocation Strategies The draft 2007 County Growth Management Plan recommends that the County Agriculture Development Board works with agricultural organizations and those that work with the farm community such as the Hunterdon County Board of Agriculture and North Jersey RC&D to promote funding opportunities for agricultural water conservation practices, such as the federally funded EQIP program and Conservation Reserve Program. In addition, Hunterdon farmers have worked with various agencies to help to improve water quality in our streams. North Jersey RC&D, in partnership with the Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rutgers Cooperative Extension, County Soil Conservation Districts, and the NJ Department of Agriculture has successfully leveraged federal monies to help farmers employ land management practices that reduce chemical inputs without compromising yields. By 1999, some 14,000 acres, including acreage in Hunterdon County, were using best management practices on their lands through this program, such as advocating water re-use where practical, the use of drip irrigation to minimize water waste, contour and no till farming and as well as other techniques designed to minimize pesticide use. The draft County Growth Management Plan recommends that these success stories need to be actively marketed.

Although in past years, Hunterdon County farmers had relatively few problems having their water allocation requests approved, recently there has been a trend towards reduced allocations. There have also been some additional delays in getting permits approved by the NJDEP. The trend in Hunterdon County is for more intensive, irrigation dependent such as Nursery and specialty crop operations. There are some recent concerns that farmland viability may be impacted by this recent pattern of reduced water allocation and additional delays of permit approval. With the increasing demand for irrigation farming in the County there is a concern that farmland viability may be impacted if the trend towards lower water allocations continue.

It is expected that this trend may continue when the New Jersey Water Supply Plan is expected to be adopted later this year. This plan is expected to propose base water allocation upon a calculation of consumptive and depletive water uses within HUC11 sub-watersheds. This approach will have to address the potential economic viability impacts on individual farms that have a need for additional water allocations due to their dependence on irrigation farming.

Waste Management Planning The NJ DEP has put out rules governing animal waste management that farmers must adhere to. The NJ Department of Agriculture also has guidelines that structure self-certified animal waste management plans. The Hunterdon County Soil Conservation District offers technical assistance for Hunterdon County farmers in the area of Animal Waste Management. - 81 - The County can provide farmers with technical assistance concerning the disposal of tires including locations for disposal and also other recycling opportunities. The County is looking for ways to expand its role in helping County residents and farmers alike recycle and handle recyclable materials.

Alternative energy planning Hunterdon County farmers have started to develop alternative energy sources for the operation of their farms. A notable example of this is the Blew Farm in Franklin Township which has recently installed a solar panel energy system to provide all of the energy requirements for their farm. There are various firms located in Hunterdon County that work directly with landowners to acquire funding to make the initial investment into alternative energy solutions less burdensome on the landowner. Sun Farm Network is one such business located in downtown Flemington. The State Agriculture Development Committee has taken the stance that alternative energy is an acceptable use on preserved farms, as long as the energy production does not adversely impact and is used to support the agriculture operation.

Outreach and Incentives The Draft Growth Management Plan recommends that the CADB reach out to agricultural organizations and those that work with the farm community to promote funding opportunities for agricultural water conservation practices such as through EQIP and the Conservation Reserve Program.

- 82 - CHAPTER 7: AGRICULTURE INDUSTRY SUSTAINABILITY, RETENTION AND PROMOTIONS

Existing Agricultural Industry Support

Right to Farm To ensure farmers have the ability to continue accepted agricultural operations, the Right to Farm Act was enacted by the State Legislature in 1983 and amended in 1998. The Act provides “protection of commercial farm operations from nuisance action, where recognized methods and techniques of agricultural production are applied, while, at the same time, acknowledging the need to provide a proper balance among the varied and conflicting interests of all lawful activities in New Jersey.” (Right to Farm Program) See the table below for municipalities with existing Right to Farm ordinances and their consistency with the State model ordinance.

RTF SADC Right to Farm RTF Date Modeled Municipality Ordinance Yes/No Enacted Yes/No Comment

Alexandria Township Yes 1983 Unknown

Bethlehem Township Yes 06/01/99 Unknown

Clinton Township No data from Twp

Delaware Township Yes Unknown Unknown Incomplete data from Twp.

East Amwell Township Yes 11/12/98 Yes

Franklin Township No data from Twp

Hampton Borough Yes Unknown Unknown

Holland Township Yes 08/02/83 Unknown

Kingwood Township Yes 09/21/89 Yes

Lebanon Township No data from Twp

Raritan Township No data from Twp

Readington Township Yes 02/02/00 Yes

Tewksbury Township Yes 01/01/87 Unknown Amended in 98'

Union Township No data from Twp

West Amwell Township Yes 10/19/89 Yes

Another critical piece of legislation to support agriculture was the 1983 Agriculture Retention and Development Act. This Act created the State Agriculture Development Committee (SADC), and eighteen County Agriculture Development Boards (CADB’s). Both the SADC and CADB implement the Right to Farm Act on the State and local levels. The - 83 - SADC works to maximize protections for commercial farmers under the Right to Farm Act by developing Agricultural Management Practices (AMPs), tracking right to farm cases, offering a conflict resolution process, and reviewing rules proposed by other state agencies for the impact they may have on agriculture. In order to qualify for Right to Farm protection a farm must meet the definition of a “commercial farm” in the Right to Farm Act; be operated in conformance with federal and state law; comply with AMPs recommended by the SADC, or site specific AMPs developed by the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board (CADB) at the request of a commercial farmer; must not be a direct threat to public health and safety; and, must be located in an area where agriculture was a permitted use under municipal zoning ordinances as of December 31, 1997, or thereafter; or, must have been an operating farm as of December 31, 1997.

It should be noted that the Hunterdon CADB has developed a “Policy for Development and Recommendation of Site Specific Agricultural Management Practices” that closely mirrors guidelines of the SADC. All Right to Farm complaints or issues that are brought before the Hunterdon CADB are first handled by CADB staff with fact finding, and efforts to resolve differences between the parties. The mediation can be informal or, if the parties agree, the SADC will provide mediation or conflict resolution at no cost to the participants through its Agricultural Mediation Program. If a formal complaint is filed with the Hunterdon CADB, it is sent to the SADC for a determination as to whether the farm falls within the parameters established by the Act for Right to Farm protection. Once the complaint is returned to the Hunterdon CADB from the SADC, additional fact finding and technical review occurs and the issue is given a public, quasi-judicial hearing at the county level. After all information has been considered, the Hunterdon CADB will make a determination as to whether the agricultural activity is protected by the Right to Farm Act or whether changes to the operation will be required. If the issue is not resolved by the Hunterdon CADB determination, either party in the dispute may take the matter for a subsequent appeal and determination to the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law. It should be noted that the Hunterdon CADB has developed a “Policy for Public Hearings Involving Right to Farm Conflicts”, which was developed through guidance offered by the SADC. Municipalities can and should limit the number of right to farm complaints and encourage farming as an industry by:

• Adopting comprehensive Right to Farm ordinances as outlined by the SADC. • Making agriculture a permitted use in all appropriate zones. • Requiring notification of homeowners purchasing a home in a new subdivision where active agriculture occurs on adjacent property.

Right to Farm Ordinances are a necessary item if a municipality, or property owner, wishes to enter into the farmland preservation program. Therefore, all municipalities within Hunterdon County with commercial farms are encouraged to adopt a Right to Farm Ordinance, and to update their existing ordinances to be consistent with the SADC model ordinance.

Farmland Assessment

The Farmland Assessment program is a tax incentive which reduces property taxes on active commercial farmed land, thereby assisting farmers with a critical financial aspect in helping to keep land in farms. This tax incentive is made possible by the Farmland Assessment Act of 1964, N.J.S.A. 54:4-23.1 et seq. Basic eligibility requirements include:

- 84 - • The applicant must own the land; • The property owner must apply annually for Farmland Assessment on or before August 1 of the year immediately preceding the tax year; • Land must be devoted to agricultural and/or horticultural uses for at least two years prior to the tax year; • Land must consist of at least five contiguous farmed and/or woodland management plan acres. Land under or adjoining a farmhouse is not counted towards the minimum five acres; • Gross sales of products from the land must average at least $500 per year for the first five acres, plus an average of $5.00 per acre for each acre over five. In the case of woodland or wetland, the income requirement is $.50 per acre for any acreage over five. Dependent on the agricultural or horticultural products being produced, the farmer can also offer clear evidence of anticipated yearly gross sales, payments, or fees within a reasonable period of time; and, • The property owner must represent that the land will continue in agricultural or horticultural use to the end of the tax year.

The Farmland Assessment program does not, however, apply to farm structures, such as barns and storage facilities. It has been proposed that additional tax incentives are necessary which encourage farmers to maintain their buildings in good working order as part of active farm operations, and which do not financially penalize them for renovating, or replacing, old or unsafe structures. Maintained buildings are not only critical to the farmer but also add to farm “aesthetics” for the larger community, helping to support agritourism, an important element of agricultural sustainability in Hunterdon County.

It is important to sustain and expand tax incentives such as Farmland Assessment to keep land in farms, and to encourage the development or extension of other tax incentives for the agricultural industry. By making agriculture more profitable and viable, tax incentives will help ensure a steady, permanent source of agricultural lands for the County’s farmland sustainability efforts.

Additional Strategies to Sustain, Retain, and Promote Agriculture in Hunterdon County

Public outreach Over the last 50 years, Hunterdon County and New Jersey have transformed from a largely rural and agricultural landscape, to a more urban and suburban landscape. However, farming remains strong and viable in many portions of the state, including Hunterdon County. If the County’s remaining agricultural areas are to survive and prosper, the non-farming public needs to be aware of, and be financially supportive of, the continuing economic, cultural, scenic and agricultural contributions made by Hunterdon County’s farmers. Public education and outreach will increase the recognition of the farm industry importance to the non-agriculture resident, and should be continued and expanded whenever possible. Agritourism is one form of public outreach that exists in Hunterdon County, as is the annual 4-H Fair, and educational programs at schools. These should all be expanded wherever possible, and other public outreach mechanisms should be explored and instituted when feasible.

Regulatory Flexibility Municipalities play a key role in the preservation of farming as an industry. Without strong and active support from municipal governments, farming can be too costly and burdensome to be profitable or worthwhile. In towns with a sizable acreage of assessed farmland, zoning powers - 85 - can be utilized to require buffers between agriculture and other uses to minimize conflict. The aforementioned Right to Farm Ordinances are an active example of municipalities’ commitment and support for agriculture. However, the support of municipal governments must not only be on paper, but also be actively practiced so that agriculture is seen as an important and permanent part of the community and County as a whole. An example are ordinances to support farmers’ rights to move slow moving farm vehicles on town roads, which assists farmers in running their agriculture business. Such actions create an atmosphere favorable to agriculture, and its economics and profitability.

The viability of farming in New Jersey is impacted by many issues, including government regulation, development pressures and the economics of the marketplace. While land preservation is vital for maintaining a sufficient land base suitable for farming, sustaining Hunterdon County’s strong agricultural base requires support on many fronts, one of which is flexibility in government regulation. The Hunterdon County Planning Board, CADB, Board of Agriculture, County Freeholders, Soil Conservation District, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Rutgers Cooperative Research & Extension, municipal planning and zoning boards, chambers of commerce, Non- profit farm preservation groups, and other interested entities and individuals, can work together to present a united front in issues regarding government regulation and permits.

The 2006 Agricultural Smart Growth Plan for New Jersey identified the following as important relative to regulatory flexibility and priority, and which the aforementioned entities can work towards ensuring proper advantage for agriculture in Hunterdon County:

Positive and supportive public policy: This includes legal protection (right to farm), priority in decisions on taxation (farmland assessment), regulation exemptions, and financial incentives (Planning Incentive Grants). These need to be strengthened and modified if, and when, necessary;

Exemptions: State, county and municipal regulations must be responsive to the needs of farmers. Minor changes to, or exemptions from, certain local and state regulations, rules, and ordinances help to buffer agricultural operations from burdensome costs, thereby creating a farmer-friendly environment. Pertinent examples are the strong Right to Farm Ordinances in seven of the twenty one municipalities within the County. At a state level, the Department of Environmental Protection’s “Freshwater Wetlands Protection Act Rules” (N.J.A.C. 7:7A-et. seq.), and the “Flood Hazard Area Control Act Rules” (N.J.A.C. 7:13), grant exemptions, permits-by-rule, or general permits for agricultural activities. The Hunterdon County agriculture community must work to ensure that exemptions are adequate and reasonable.

Flexibility: State agencies such as the Department of Environmental Protection, Department of Transportation, Department of Community Affairs, Department of Labor, and New Jersey Commerce Commission, should consider the NJDA 2006 Agricultural Smart Growth Plan for New Jersey when making important decisions regarding existing and proposed infrastructure, developing and amending regulations and programs, and protecting environmental and historic resources. These agencies should coordinate with NJDA to ensure that regulations and programs are attuned to the needs of Hunterdon County farmers;

Agriculture-Friendly Zoning: This refers to a comprehensive land use practice that coordinates zoning and land use policy in a proactive way. The desired result is that it encourages - 86 - agribusiness, while at the same time reducing the incidence of farmer / homeowner nuisance issues. In other words, it seeks to harmonize potentially conflicting land use policies.

Agriculture vehicle movement In recent years, as many portions of the rural New Jersey landscape have become developed with residential subdivisions and shopping malls, the sometimes conflicting lifestyles of farmers and suburban residents clash. Hunterdon County farmers need to move heavy, slow moving agricultural equipment over local, county and sometimes state roads to access unconnected fields, barns, etc. The County’s residents also need to commute to workplaces, or drive to area destinations for shopping, town sports and social activities, at a pace much faster than the slow moving agricultural equipment. These different paces can, and do, cause conflict between Hunterdon County’s farmers and suburban dwellers. They can also create unsafe road conditions as residents and farmers “compete” for road space. Since many farm vehicles travel over local municipal roads, municipalities should continue to support local agricultural business’ right to do so. The SADC model Right to Farm ordinance recognizes as a specific right the operation and transportation of large, slow moving equipment over roads.

Signage alerting faster moving cars as to the possible movement, and road crossing of slower moving farm vehicles is an additional effective tool to protect farmer and automobile passenger safety. Signage also informs the public at large that agriculture is an important, equal and permanent fixture of Hunterdon County life. Where absent or inadequate, appropriate signage can be posted. Hunterdon County municipalities may consult with farmers as to what adequate signage is, and where it should be posted. If local non-agriculture residents are to enjoy the scenic vistas, fresh produce, clean air and limited traffic congestion that Hunterdon County’s agriculture provides, they must be more tolerant of the farming community. Local, county and state government can advertise the contributions of the farming community via public outreach at local schools and various community activities. The annual 4-H Fair, held yearly, is a prime example of advertising the importance and permanence of agriculture in Hunterdon County.

Farm Labor An adequate labor supply is integral to not only produce farming, but also for operating equine businesses, a growing and thriving segment of the Hunterdon County farming community. Measured in farmed acreage, Hunterdon County has a relatively small industry for produce products compared with field crops such as corn, soybeans, and hay, and nursery products. Harvesting of the latter farm products is more mechanized, and/or not as labor intensive as produce or equine. As an example, produce (fruits, berries and vegetables) occupy far less land in Hunterdon County than field crops and nursery products.

Rising farm labor costs in Hunterdon County overall are not currently impacting agriculture - 87 - sustainability, which is due at least in part to the continued strong trend of mechanized, non- labor intensive crop farming in the county. However, as this trend may change over time especially with the growing equine industry in the County, a brief discussion of the topic is warranted.

The New Jersey Department of Labor recommends the following to address farm labor issues at the state and local levels:

• Work with the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural Development program to reexamine program criteria to enable New Jersey’s rural communities to qualify for more programs related to farm labor. The current focus of the program, such as rural area infrastructure, is not applicable to Hunterdon County (and New Jersey). • Link neighborhood revitalization efforts with housing opportunities for farm workers and, where appropriate, establish on-site housing, to ensure a safe and stable workforce. • Develop and promote comprehensive and ongoing training opportunities for farm workers. • Work with the New Jersey Department of Labor, Rutgers Cooperative Extension and others to provide farm safety training. • Join other agricultural stakeholders in supporting ongoing efforts at the federal level to streamline and modernize the immigration process.

The cost of labor in New Jersey is a material issue for some farming sectors such as produce, and one that needs further consideration for its effect on agriculture in Hunterdon County and New Jersey. This is because as labor costs increase, so does the cost to farmers producing commodities. Though a farmer may wish to raise his/her prices to cover increased production costs, this is many times not feasible due to competition from neighboring states with lower production (i.e. labor) costs. The result is lower profits for Hunterdon County and New Jersey farmers, making the business of farming less profitable, and therefore more difficult. The New Jersey Department of Agriculture has specified the identification and posting of new markets as a specific strategy in its 2007 Economic Development Strategies report. This effort is a necessary outgrowth of the report’s finding that due to the State’s high labor rates (in addition to high land values and property taxes) production costs in New Jersey are higher than in most other areas. With commodity prices based on national production costs, yields and demand, it is less profitable to produce commodity items in New Jersey than elsewhere

Agriculture Education and Training To sustain a modern, diverse and stable food and agricultural industry, education and progressive, ongoing training for farmers will promote a more efficient and productive business environment. This includes programs covering “farmer risk management education, labor education including worker safety, agricultural leadership training, secondary school and college agricultural education.”

One educational link for Hunterdon County agricultural land owners and operators is to collaborate with the Rutgers Cooperative Research and Extension (RCRE) of Hunterdon County (associated with Cook College, Rutgers University). There is not a minimum or maximum size farm to which the RCRE will lend assistance, so long as it is farmland assessed. During the growing season, RCRE of Hunterdon County can provide one on one, on-site consultations with farmers to assist with control of insect infestations and plant diseases for fruits, vegetables, greenhouse nurseries and ornamentals, Christmas trees, and also for field crops. Similar farm animal consultation can be provided on a year round basis. During these one on one consultations, technical scientific research is relayed to the farmer in a useful and - 88 - applicable manner. However, it is reported that these on-site consultations have become infrequent. This is due, in part, to more farm visits by chemical company representatives that supply herbicides and pesticides, and the decline in the dairy industry to only several Hunterdon County dairy farms. Also during the growing season, RCRE of Hunterdon County coordinates with other RCRE offices in northwest New Jersey to conduct on-site farm meetings regarding a range of agricultural issues including vegetable growing, safe operation of farm equipment, and programs to certify and recertify farmers for pesticide application licenses. Hunterdon County farmers are invited, and do attend.

In the winter months, regional and local classes are conducted by RCRE of Warren and Hunterdon Counties on a diverse set of agriculture topics. Two of special significance are conducted with the North Jersey Vegetable and Fruit Growers Association. A class on vegetable growing is conducted at the Snyder Farm in Pittstown, Hunterdon County, while a similar class on fruit growing is held at the Warren Grange in Franklin Township, Warren County. Hunterdon County farmers and the RCRE of Hunterdon County participate in these classes. RCRE of Hunterdon County also provides practical assistance to farmers.

Examples include: • Assistance in obtaining water certification and registration permits from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, for groundwater and/or surface water allocations; • Soil testing for fields and pastures; • Assistance with obtaining farmer certificates for N.J. Division of Motor Vehicle registrations; • Assistance with applications for “Outstanding Young Farmer” (OYF) nominations. OYF is a state award given annually by the NJDA which “recognizes the outstanding achievements of a young person engaged in farming in New Jersey • Assistance with grant applications to the NJDA for various types of economic assistance. Examples include “Jersey Fresh” grants to advertise; • Distribution of “Jersey Fresh” and “Jersey Grown” promotional material such as bumper stickers, banners and t-shirts; • Assistance to connect owners of farmland with tenant farmers, so that land may stay in farmland assessment; • Assist new farmers with various regulatory requirements, and acquaintance with various farmer organizations; • Provide outreach through the RCRE of Hunterdon County Website, and at the annual 4-H Fair

Through its Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources’ Natural Resource Conservation Program, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture offers technical, financial and regulatory assistance, and provides educational outreach to landowners throughout the state. The Department also offers, in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, farm risk management and crop insurance education programs to assist farmers in understanding what assistance is available to reduce agricultural risks Hired farm workers continue to be one of the most economically disadvantaged groups in the United States due to low wages, seasonal employment and limited participation in the non-farm labor market. Therefore, as an important statewide resource to the agricultural industry, the New Jersey Department of Labor recommends that more must be done to ensure a well-trained, educated farm labor workforce, that has adequate living and working conditions, and is trained in worker safety. Agriculture labor education and training funding may be available through the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development programs. These programs can - 89 - help to assist in upgrading the skills and productivity of the agricultural workforce. Some of the programs which may be applicable include Customized Training Initiative, Basic Skills Program, and Occupational Safety and Health Training Program. Finally, as a form of “education”, government agencies at the state and county level can provide continuous outreach information to farmers, to ensure they take full advantage of all federal and state loan, grant, education, and technical assistance programs. This is especially important since these programs are meant to aide the farming business to thrive and survive. Due to the complexity and vast array of the programs, they may be unknown to many farmers.

Youth Farmer Education Programs Due to the aging farmer population in Hunterdon County (52.7 years in 1969, as compared to 56 years in 2002) the next generation of the County’s farmers needs to become interested in, and exposed to the business of agriculture, and be prepared to enter the industry. The National Future Farmers of America (FFA) Organization “operates under a Federal Charter granted by the 81st Congress of the United States, and is an integral part of public instruction in agriculture. The National FFA Organization was founded in 1928, and currently has 7,242 chapters and nearly 500,000 members. The Hunterdon County Agriculture Community can look to expand agriculture education beyond the Vocational Technical School so that more youth are exposed to agriculture, and may become interested in it as a future career. Youth agriculture education classes or programs are not offered at any elementary schools within the County, but are an opportunity to cultivate young people’s interest in the field of agriculture. The National Agriculture in the Classroom program helps K- 12 students become aware of the importance of agriculture. 4-H is an informal, practical educational program for youth, which assists young people interested in farm animals through livestock projects. The New Jersey Agricultural Society’s Agriculture Leadership Program provides young professionals in agriculture with leadership development skills and opportunities. In addition, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture offers an “Agricultural Education” program. This is “a systematic program of instruction available to students desiring to learn about the science, business, and technology of plant and animal production and/or about the environmental and natural resources systems. A complete Agricultural Education program is composed of three components: class/lab instruction, supervised agricultural experience (SAE), and FFA, which provide a well-rounded and practical approach to student learning

Management of nuisance and crop damaging wildlife

Management of nuisance and crop damaging wildlife is critical to the short and long term sustainability of Hunterdon County’s agriculture industry. Crop damage from wildlife leads to economic loss for the farmer and/or land owner, and is a serious problem in Hunterdon County, with “large” losses reported in certain instances. Most damage is caused by a multitude of insects, as well as deer, turkey, Canada Geese and other wildlife. It is imperative to not only control and manage damage to crops, but also to do it in a manner which creates the least amount of collateral natural resource damage (i.e. limit pesticide use to the greatest extent possible, using natural pest control). State, county, and local government units must be sensitive to the negative economic impacts caused by crop damage, and support efforts to control it through education, technical and financial assistance, and regulatory flexibility.

Deer exclusion fencing may be effective for protecting produce, since produce is grown on relatively small plots of land. However, it is not cost effective to erect deer fencing on very large tracts of land where, for example, corn may be grown. One key way for Hunterdon County

- 90 - farmers to control damage from deer is through hunting of crop damaging animals. This hunting is allowed on private lands through depredation permits, issued by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s (NJDEP) Fish and Wildlife Program. In many instances, this is the only short term solution to control damage of crops by what is widely considered an excessive deer population in the County. Hunterdon County farmers continue to work with the NJDEP and NJDA, as well as counties and municipalities, to implement wildlife control strategies on privately and publicly owned land. One example of this cooperation is coordinated hunting of nuisance animals on county owned lands. Municipalities may approach the Hunterdon County Parks Commission with a request to stage a hunt on county owned lands, typically when such lands are adjacent to other publicly owned lands. The Parks Commission works with the town on details of a proposed hunt, but the township generally is the lead implementing entity. Hunting Clubs or professional hunting companies may be brought in to perform an approved hunt. This cooperative program between municipalities and the Hunterdon County has been successful in controlling nuisance wildlife, especially deer.

The New Jersey Department of Agriculture’s Division of Plant Industry works to safeguard New Jersey's plant resources from injurious insect and disease pests. The Division implements several programs for detection, inspection, eradication and control of insect pests, which helps to ensure that the public can enjoy high quality, pest-free agricultural products. In addition, “the Division oversees programs that certify plant stock for interstate and international shipments, protects forested communities from tree loss caused by the gypsy moth and Asian longhorned beetle, inspects honeybees for harmful bee diseases and pests, regulates the quality of plant seeds, and produces and releases beneficial insects to reduce crop and environmental damage and decrease dependence on chemical pesticides. Protection of forest resources is important to Hunterdon County farmers who harvest wood as part of woodland management plans on their farmland assessed properties. One important example of the Division of Plant Industry’s work is in control of the gypsy moth. The gypsy moth is considered the most destructive defoliation forest insect pest in New Jersey. The Division's Gypsy Moth Suppression Program is a voluntary cooperative program involving local governments, county and state agencies, as well as the USDA Forest Service. The Division promotes an integrated pest management approach, which “encourages natural controls to reduce gypsy moth feeding and subsequent tree loss.” However, aerial spray treatments of the chemical insecticide Bacillus Thuringiensis are utilized when gypsy moth cycles are at a peak and natural controls are not sufficient to control defoliation.

The federal government is a key partner in supporting Hunterdon County agriculture. There are several federal programs that support, or could support, the agricultural industry in Hunterdon County. As such a discussion of each is warranted, and follows below.

USDA Rural Development Program Known as the Rural Development Program, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has an extensive array of loans and grants to assist residents in rural areas of the country to support essential public facilities and services such as water and sewer systems, housing, health clinics, emergency service facilities, and electric and telephone service. Through the program, the USDA offers technical assistance and information to agricultural cooperatives, as well as to communities for empowerment programs. With a multi-billion dollar portfolio of loans, loan guarantees, and grants, the USDA is an effective partner to assist the agricultural community. Grants and loans are available in three key areas: Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, and Rural Utilities Service. Unfortunately, many of New Jersey’s rural municipalities may not qualify for many of the program’s loans and grants because - 91 - most are unavailable to cities with more than 50,000 residents, or municipalities with more than 10,000 residents. While the population criteria for these programs may make sense in a large portion of the country, they do not make sense for New Jersey. The New Jersey Department of Agriculture, State Agriculture Development Committee, and Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board, along with other relevant Hunterdon County agriculture entities, should work with and lobby the USDA to reexamine program criteria to enable New Jersey’s rural communities to qualify for more program dollars.

Income Averaging for Farmers The U.S. Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, administered by the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service, is meant to smooth out economic disparities that farmers experience from year to year due to the cyclical nature of agriculture. Known as Farm Income Averaging, qualified farmers can average all or part of their current year farm income over the previous three years. Substantial tax dollars can be saved by income averaging. In the New Jersey Legislature, New Jersey Senate Bill 1425 is presently being considered by the Senate Economic Growth Committee, while Assembly Bill 1692 is being considered by the Assembly’s Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Appropriations Committees. These bills would provide income averaging similar to the federal program described above. The New Jersey Department of Agriculture, State Agriculture Development Committee, Hunterdon County Freeholders, and Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board should work with, and encourage, the New Jersey Legislature to adopt income averaging legislation. This would greatly assist Hunterdon County farmers, and farmers statewide, to remain economically viable.

USDA Farm Service Agriculture Program Farming is a business which can be cyclical and unpredictable, with factors such as weather and market conditions affecting crops and profitability, both out of the farmer’s control. As such, farmers often need assistance to make ends meet, to stay profitable, and to stay in business. Many times federal government loan programs are available, and Hunterdon County farmers can take advantage of these loans as a tool in running their farm business. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Farm Service Agency (FSA) makes: “ … guaranteed farm ownership and operating loans to (beginning farmers), family-size farmers and ranchers who cannot obtain commercial credit from a bank, Farm Credit System institution, or other lender”, often due to financial setbacks from natural disasters, or whose resources are too limited to maintain profitable farming operations. FSA loans can be used for most agriculture necessities such as purchasing land, livestock, equipment, feed, seed, supplies, and also for construction of buildings, or to make farm improvements.” The FSA also makes "Direct" farm loans. These loans include supervision and credit counseling for farmers so they have a better chance for success. Under this program, farm ownership, operating, emergency and youth loans are the main types of loans available, but there are also minority applicant and beginning farmer loans.

- 92 -

APPENDIX

- 93 - Hunterdon County Preserved Farms as of August 24, 2007 Table 1

Municipality Original Owner Acres East Amwell Inga Denton Estate 104.22 Readington Schley Farm 105.08 County Donated 2 Farms 209.30

Alexandria Alexandria Twp/Lauber 110.43 Alexandria Alexandria Twp/Lyness, T. & M. 105.25 Alexandria Alexandria Twp/Swift, H. & K. 92.36 Alexandria Alexandria Twp/Tucker 62.22 Alexandria Daley, F., Jr. & D. 30.69 Alexandria Estate of Frances Bogad 51.28 Alexandria Kappus, K. 124.47 Alexandria Kelly, R. & E. 14.31 Alexandria Niebuhr, A. & L. 44.82 Alexandria Wrede, H. & V. 78.29 Alexandria/Milford Boro Bush, E. & E. 43.27 Bethlehem Asbury Farms 123.46 Bethlehem Asbury Farms 84.69 Bethlehem Beatty, B. & S. 145.71 Bethlehem Canright, M. & Hansen, A. 36.04 Bethlehem Huff, E. & L. 119.19 Bethlehem Knigge, R. & C. 144.16 Bethlehem/Union Delaney, J. & M. 114.32 Clinton Clinton Twp/Muckelman 130.64 Clinton Clinton Twp/Smith 211.87 Clinton/Lebanon Boro Spencer, L. 80.93 Delaware Aron, R., Jr. & C. 37.01 Delaware Bodine, W. & P. 208.16 Delaware Connolly, J. & Ashby, I 71.50 Delaware Cramer, J. 43.50 Delaware Emmons, A. 141.73 Delaware Fisher, C. & R. 73.05 Delaware Fisher, H. & H. 92.21 Delaware Hilltop Farms, L.L.C. 135.81 Delaware Hilton, E. & E. 70.06 Delaware Koplowitz, L. & B. 39.32 Delaware Michalenko, H. & B. 135.55 Delaware NJCF 83.81 Delaware NJCF/Jones 215.67 Delaware Rading, B. & C. 207.85 Delaware Rigney & Teeter 92.20 Delaware Sayles, C. & P. 209.18 Delaware Schenck, R. & M. 61.26 Delaware Delaware Twp/Pauch 72.60 Delaware/Kingwood E. J. Foley, Inc. 213.54 Delaware/Kingwood Paulik, George Jr. 92.32 East Amwell du Fosse 130.98

East Amwell East Amwell/Amwell Valley Conservancy 337.03

East Amwell East Amwell/Batlle, M. 75.54

- 94 - Municipality Original Owner Acres East Amwell East Amwell/Kanach J. 49.23 East Amwell East Amwell/McLarty 90.40 East Amwell East Amwell/Mencheck 51.03 East Amwell East Amwell/Schwab, F.&M. 145.74 East Amwell East Amwell/Sowsian 148.81 East Amwell Garrett, R.&D./Mack, J.&L. 65.13 East Amwell Gulick, R. & E. 215.42 East Amwell Henssler, S. 123.39 East Amwell Hill, W. & P. 131.48 East Amwell Hun Cty/Kanach 133.47 East Amwell Kinderman 57.73 East Amwell Manners, E. 123.19 East Amwell Nemeth, E. & R. 59.64 East Amwell Nielsen, K. & Galloway, P. 87.77 East Amwell Peabody, R. & K./Manners B. & J. 46.05 East Amwell Russell, N. & V. 95.32 East Amwell Thompson (N) 123.59 East Amwell Thompson (S) 163.65 East Amwell Totten, R. & E. 136.72 East Amwell Weeden, M. 78.88 Franklin Blew, T. & S. 159.50 Franklin Dilts, G. & P. 200.19 Franklin Franklin Twp/Lawson 39.30 Franklin Gunther, J. & A. 64.61 Franklin Knispel 149.05 Franklin Mathews, H. & R. 119.65 Franklin Muehlbauer, H. & Tolley, F. 116.91 Franklin Panacek, H. & P. 256.43 Franklin Peterson, E, et al 153.25 Franklin Volk, L.F. Jr. 172.74 Franklin/Raritan Hilken, E. 35.17 Holland Borwegen, R., Jr. & B. 38.77 Holland Holland Twp/Kinnney 177.49 Holland Kozak, P. & E. 124.77 Holland Lafevre, R. & P. 58.98 Holland Milz, D. & P. 44.52 Holland Shire, C. & D. 113.72 Kingwood Gordeuk, J. 66.60 Kingwood Gordeuk, M. 330.27 Kingwood Kocsis, F. & M. 33.78 Kingwood Rozansky, E. 51.44 Kingwood/Alexandria Sargenti, D. 105.14 Lebanon Fentzlaff, E. & N. 39.59 Lebanon Grossman, N/Wolff, N. 51.70 Lebanon Weeks, J. & M. 105.47 Raritan Chwat, S. 109.73 Raritan Kulh Makarick Properties, LLC 44.29 Raritan Moreira Family, LLC 84.86 Raritan Quick River Farm 40.33

Raritan Raritan Twp/Adda, J. & A. 98.51

Raritan Raritan Twp/Balek 53.79

Raritan Raritan Twp/Maraspin 69.28

- 95 -

Municipality Original Owner Acres

Raritan Rogers, C. & J. 82.88 Raritan Zanetti, E. 51.41 Raritan Raritan Twp/Bond 112.30 Raritan Raritan Twp/Everitt 95.68 Readington Bauer/Cole 126.26 Readington Burjan, J. 105.35 Readington Readington Twp/Bartles 94.97 Readington Readington Twp/BLN, LLC 130.79 Readington Readington Twp/Burjan, J. 136.48 Readington Readington Twp/Hrubesh 79.71 Readington Readington Twp/Mason 242.11 Readington Readington Twp/Moore 67.60 Readington Readington Twp/Reno 49.54 Readington Readington Twp/Romano 108.52 Readington Readington Twp/Schaeffer C&C 93.65 Readington Readington Twp/Schaeffer C&W 127.73 Readington Readington Twp/Schley 1 100.07 Readington Readington Twp/Schley 2 60.19 Readington Readington Twp/Schley, J. 86.53 Readington Schardien, J. & Reynolds, R. 87.42 Readington Silver Bit & Spur Farm, LLC 40.03 Readington Wallenjack, P. 92.25 Tewksbury/Readington Emmet, C. & A. 123.86 Union Bowers, J. & D. 102.17 Union Union Twp/Geiler, D. 61.55 West Amwell Amwell Conservancy, Inc. 591.49 West Amwell West Amwell Township/Atchley 52.75

County Easement Program 126 Farms 13388.43

Alexandria NJCF/Buchholz 43.29

Delaware NJCF/Cline-Finkle 34.82 NPG 2 Farms 78.11

Alexandria DiSabatino, S. & P. 51.83 Alexandria Rounsavile, E. 68.47 Bethlehem Bethlehem Twp/Branche R. & L. 59.26 Bethlehem Bethlehem Twp/Bunting, G. & E. 118.86 Bethlehem Bethlehem Twp/Busch, A. 78.31 Delaware Cornerhouse Farm, LLC 31.99 Delaware Delaware Twp/BrodeenI 48.00 Delaware Delaware Twp/BrodeenII 59.16 Delaware Delaware Twp/Johnson,, E. & D. 58.28 Delaware Dugger, E. & H. 55.41 Delaware Gilde, D. 17.64 Delaware Guilloud, N. & D. (I) 29.40 Delaware Guilloud, N. & D. (II) 34.94 Delaware Guilloud, N. & D. (III) 15.53 Delaware Jurasek, E. & A. 54.35 Delaware Locandro, R. & M. 47.68

- 96 -

Municipality Original Owner Acres

Delaware Robichaud, S. 23.04 Delaware Spolar, W. 139.57 Delaware Zachar, S. & H. 42.69 East Amwell Cannelongo, K. 25.27 East Amwell East Amwell/Furst 62.23 East Amwell East Amwell/Halstead, R & D 109.58 East Amwell East Amwell/Harrison 58.75 East Amwell East Amwell/Hill 48.08 East Amwell East Amwell/Kanach J. 70.83 East Amwell Wielenta North 23.11 Franiklin Stephens, R. & L. 14.86 Franklin Passarello, J. & M. 64.21 Franklin Rodrigues, A., D. Jr, & L. 142.87 Franklin Vitale, M. & E. 52.89 Holland Jenness, W., III 16.97 Lebanon Rodigas, S. 58.42 Lebanon Trimmer Road Co., LLC 52.51 Raritan Kovi Family Farm Limited Partnership 129.82 Readington Readington Twp/Arnaudy, R. 26.37 Readington Readington Twp/Cuchiaro, P & D 25.47 Readington Readington Twp/Dabrowski 35.43 Readington Readington Twp/Dolan 20.55 Readington Readington Twp/D'Urso 78.07 Readington Readington Twp/Hamewith 81.95 Readington Readington Twp/Hanna 23.66 Readington Readington Twp/Jackson, J. & R. 33.05 Readington Readington Twp/Jones 52.33 Readington Readington Twp/Miller 40.57 Readington Readington Twp/Pagano 32.87 Readington Readington Twp/Pompliano 48.47 Readington Readington Twp/Reno 70.07 Readington Readington Twp/ScanlonI 41.38 Readington Readington Twp/ScanlonII 43.66 Readington Readington Twp/Staats 53.08 Readington Rica, Family Enterprises, LLC 38.97 Readington Triple D, LLC 44.65 Tewksbury Chandor, J. & M. 42.00 Tewksbury Emmet I, C. & A. 27.82 Tewksbury Emmet II, C. & A. 11.31 Tewksbury Tewksbury Twp/Turnquist 65.44 Tewksbury Tewksbury Twp/Young 67.10 Tewksbury Wade, C. & J. 103.47 Tewksbury Watts, M. 67.77 West Amwell W Amwell Twp/Fulper Home Farm 21.83 W Amwell Twp/Fulper Preservation West Amwell LLC/HeiferI 44.29 W Amwell Twp/Fulper Preservation West Amwell LLC/HeiferII 36.86 West Amwell W Amwell Twp/Fulper Stoy Farm 31.10 Municipal PIG 63 Farms 3280.62

- 97 -

Municipality Original Owner Acres

East Amwell SADC/Gardner 56.67 East Amwell/Delaware SADC/Rosenborg 47.04 Franklin SADC/Panacek 141.70

SADC Donated 3 Farms 245.41 Alexandria Cronce 123.45 Bethlehem Hagaman, E. 46.53 Bethlehem Hagaman, E. 51.70 Bethlehem Hajdu, M. E. 98.83 Bethlehem Parisi, J. 55.68 Clinton Teets, W. 50.91 Delaware Caffrey, E. & M. 77.78 Delaware Frank B. Cooper & Sons, LLC 43.31 Delaware Frank B. Cooper & Sons, LLC 47.77 Delaware Frank B. Cooper & Sons, LLC 36.59 Delaware Delaware Twp/Juniper III, LLC 61.30 Delaware Johnson, R. 37.95 Delaware Marion, W. & VanDoren, A. 46.49 Delaware Newbaker 17.52 Delaware Walker, L. 80.17 Delaware/Kingwood Kenney, J. & R. 148.16 Delware Ontario Limited 98.65 Delware Pyskaty, L. 74.02 East Amwell Colonial Sportsmen Club, Inc. 92.37 East Amwell Crater, S. 41.44 East Amwell East Amwell/Rieter 19.05 East Amwell East Amwell/Rieter 52.03 East Amwell NJCF/Baron 163.23 East Amwell We Beginnings Farm, LLC 62.92 Franklin Franklin Twp/Cherryville 104.57 Franklin Hodulik, T. 80.96 Holland Hun Cty/Hoffman A 123.34 Holland Hun Cty/Hoffman B 108.81 Holland Hun Cty/Hoffman C 86.59 Holland Phillips, R. & I. 64.81 Holland Phillips, R.,I.,M./Sciarello, K. 64.90 Holland Wydner, L. & D. 120.53 Holland Young, K. & Ryan, M. 91.77 Kingwood DeCroce, R. & A. 110.49 Kingwood DeSapio, S. & M. 73.95 Kingwood DeSapio, S. & M. 125.18 Lebanon Lebanon Twp/Stonegate 174.25 Lebanon Sekela, G. 78.48 Raritan Jannuzzi, J. 19.29 Raritan Lee, M. & H. 53.35 Raritan Teatzner, A. & L. 29.76 Readington Allen, R. & J. 124.48 Tewksbury Schenker, A. 74.44

Union/Bethlehem Ravenburg, R. T. & K. 37.52

SADC Easement 45 Farms 3454.67 - 98 -

Municipality Original Owner Acres

Alexandria Segreaves, M. 137.63 Delaware SADC/Fisher 82.40 Delaware SADC/Evans 162.07 Clinton/Lebanon Boro Romano, G. & A./Chivitti, J. & I. 128.84 East Amwell SADC/Cavalier 105.90 East Amwell SADC/Van Marter 147.99 Lebanon NJWSA/Riback 93.68 Readington SADC/Dobozynski 233.20 Readington SADC/Kanach 218.69 Union SADC/Barrett 149.77 West Amwell J. B. Case Family Partnership 87.18

SADC Fee Simple 11 Farms 1547.34

Totals: 252 Farms 22203.88

- 99 - Hunterdon County – Cost of Preserved Farms as of August 24, 2007 Table 2

Type County Municipal Original Cost Cost State Total of Municipality Owner Cost Cost Acquisi- tion Alexandria Alexandria Twp/Lauber 72,882 72,882 329,072 474,836 Cty EP Alexandria Alexandria Twp/Lyness, T. & M. 77,309 76,587 332,090 485,986 Cty EP Alexandria Alexandria/Nemeth 93,904 93,904 399,095 586,903 Cty EP Alexandria Twp/Swift, Alexandria H. & K. 62,340 62,340 290,921 415,602 Cty EP Alexandria Alexandria Twp/Tucker 15,555 15,555 93,330 124,440 Cty EP Alexandria/Mi lford Boro Bush, E. & E. 34,897 39,558 152,215 226,670 Cty EP Estate of Frances Alexandria Bogad 50,766 56,920 199,988 307,674 Cty EP SADC Alexandria Cronce 613,895 613,895 EP Alexandria Daley 27,343 30,750 113,334 171,427 Cty EP Alexandria DiSabatino, S. & P. 32,134 32,134 148,231 212,499 PIG Alexandria Kappus, K. 100,715 113,702 434,960 649,377 Cty EP Alexandria Kelly, R. & E. 9,160 9,160 41,791 60,110 Cty EP Alexandria Niebuhr 21,020 21,020 107,784 149,824 Cty EP Alexandria NJCF/Buchholz 125,390 125,390 NPG Alexandria Rounsaville 80,451 80,451 284,146 445,048 PIG SADC Alexandira Segreaves 2,384,970 2,384,970 FS Alexandria Wrede, H. & V. 28,965 28,965 161,267 219,198 Cty EP Bethlehem Asbury Farms 58,644 58,644 297,474 414,762 Cty EP Bethlehem Asbury Farms 36,668 36,668 192,591 265,927 Cty EP Bethlehem Beatty, B. & S. 57,134 57,134 314,776 429,043 Cty EP Bethlehem Bethlehem Twp/Branche R. & L. 36,345 36,936 135,214 208,494 PIG Bethlehem Bethlehem Twp/Busch, A. 75,869 101,159 328,767 505,795 PIG Bethlehem Bethlehem Twp/Bunting, G. & E. 146,203 234,163 594,324 974,690 PIG Canright, M. & Bethlehem Hansen, A. 50,280 45,234 125,879 221,393 Cty EP SADC Bethlehem Hagaman, E. 930,600 930,600 EP SADC Bethlehem Hagaman, E. 307,206 307,206 EP

- 100 - SADC Bethlehem Hajdu, M. E. 1,146,624 1,146,624 EP Bethlehem Huff, E. & L. 55,866 55,866 285,608 397,340 Cty EP Bethlehem Knigge, R. & C. 53,153 53,153 295,683 401,989 Cty EP SADC Bethlehem Parisi, J. 654,240 654,240 EP Bethlehem/U nion Delaney, J. & M. 19,878 19,878 130,629 170,385 Cty EP Clinton Clinton Twp/Muckelman 117,660 161,655 514,472 793,787 Cty EP Clinton Clinton Twp/Smith 167,372 167,372 844,706 1,179,449 Cty EP SADC Clinton Teets, W. 661,297 661,297 EP Clinton/Leba Romano, G. & SADC non Boro A./Chivitti, J. & I. 1,929,195 1,929,195 FS Clinton/Leba non Boro Spencer, L. 181,836 371,667 679,169 1,232,672 Cty EP Delaware Aron, R., Jr. & C. 39,309 43,972 149,907 233,188 Cty EP Delaware Bodine, W. & P. 183,871 165,921 547,744 897,536 Cty EP SADC Delaware Caffrey, E. & M. 557,532 557,532 EP Connolly, J. & Ashby, Delaware 344,611 I 96,734 119,184 560,529 Cty EP Cornerhouse Farm, 140,760 Delaware LLC 41,588 41,588 223,937 PIG Delaware Cramer, J. 41,107 41,107 160,511 242,724 Cty EP Delaware Delaware Twp/BrodeenI 36,802 73,605 196,812 307,219 PIG Delaware Delaware Twp/BrodeenII 45,358 90,715 242,564 378,637 PIG Delaware Twp/Johnson,, E. & Delaware D. 49,540 99,079 253,527 402,146 PIG Delaware Delaware Twp/Pauch 92,561 114,340 337,576 544,478 Cty EP Delaware Dugger 193,928 193,928 581,784 969,640 PIG Delaware Emmons, A. 113,381 113,381 481,871 708,633 Cty EP Delaware Fisher, C. & R. 76,701 76,701 153,403 Cty EP Delaware Fisher, H. & H. 96,825 96,825 193,649 Cty EP Frank B. Cooper & SADC Delaware Sons, LLC 346,504 346,504 EP Frank B. Cooper & SADC Delaware Sons, LLC 382,144 382,144 EP Frank B. Cooper & SADC Delaware Sons, LLC 292,752 292,752 EP Delaware Gilde, D. 42,326 42,326 126,979 211,632 PIG Delaware Guilloud, N. & D. (I) 30,133 30,133 113,182 173,448 PIG Delaware Guilloud, N. & D. (II) 25,041 50,082 138,017 213,140 PIG Delaware Guilloud, N. & D. (III) 9,574 19,154 56,685 85,412 PIG Delaware Hilltop Farms, L.L.C. 81,487 81,487 380,271 543,244 Cty EP Delaware Hilton, E. & E. 40,126 40,126 189,561 269,814 Cty EP SADC Delaware Horner, G. 531,685 531,685 EP SADC Delaware Johnson, R. 284,640 284,640 EP SADC Delaware Juniper III, LLC 711,022 711,022 EP - 101 - Delaware Jurasek, E. & A. 81,521 81,521 260,866 423,907 PIG Delaware Koplowitz, L. & B. 20,499 20,499 100,767 141,765 Cty EP Delaware Locandro, R. & M. 53,640 53,640 193,104 300,384 PIG Marion, W. & SADC Delaware VanDoren, A. 353,309 353,309 EP Delaware Michalenko, H. & B. 155,884 155,884 311,767 Cty EP SADC Delaware Newbaker 105,120 105,120 EP Delaware NJCF 87,998 87,998 175,996 Cty EP Delaware NJCF/Cline-Finkle 821,875 821,875 NPG Delaware NJCF/Jones 220,971 220,971 829,987 1,271,928 Cty EP SADC Delware Pyskaty, L. 388,627 388,627 EP Delaware Rading, B. & C. 157,962 473,887 631,849 Cty EP Delaware Rigney & Teeter 111,963 138,595 413,611 664,169 Cty EP Robichaud, S. 35,708 35,708 112,886 Delaware (Dodds) 184,302 PIG SADC Delaware SADC/Evans 1,944,888 1,944,888 EP SADC Delaware SADC/Fisher 1,198,616 1,198,616 FS Delaware Sayles, C. & P. 141,778 141,778 630,512 914,068 Cty EP Delaware Schenck, R. & M. 66,098 73,878 250,243 390,220 Cty EP Delaware Spolar, W. 122,124 122,124 495,474 739,721 PIG Delaware Zachar, S. & H. 41,264 82,528 200,629 324,421 PIG SADC Delaware Walker, L. 1,042,262 1,042,262 EP Delaware/Kin gwood E. J. Foley, Inc. 247,142 253,657 937,439 1,438,238 Cty EP Delaware/Kin SADC gwood Kenney, J. & R. 814,869 814,869 EP Delaware/Kin gwood Paulik, George Jr. 40,774 35,459 212,870 289,103 Cty EP SADC Delware Ontario Limited 503,992 503,992 EP East Amwell/Dela SADC ware SADC/Rosenborg 0 Don SADC East Amwell Crater, S. 290,087 290,087 EP Colonial Sportsmen SADC East Amwell Club, Inc. 686,798 686,798 EP East Amwell du Fosse 75,970 167,658 358,893 602,522 Cty EP East Amwell/Amwell East Amwell Valley Conservancy 288,460 288,460 1,161,964 1,738,884 Cty EP East Amwell/Batlle, East Amwell M. 81,203 81,203 298,375 460,782 Cty EP East Amwell/Engel, East Amwell T. & E. 53,239 53,239 193,596 300,074 Cty EP East Amwell East Amwell/Furst 77,535 77,535 267,095 422,165 PIG East Amwell/Halstead, R & East Amwell D 137,848 137,848 470,305 746,000 PIG East Amwell East Amwell/Harrison 74,200 74,200 253,167 401,566 PIG East Amwell East Amwell/Hill 44,473 44,473 175,488 264,435 PIG

- 102 - East Amwell/Kanach East Amwell J. 86,088 86,088 299,191 471,368 PIG East Amwell East Amwell/McLarty 92,660 92,660 348,040 533,360 Cty EP East East Amwell Amwell/Mencheck 53,586 53,586 199,033 306,204 Cty EP SADC East Amwell East Amwell/Rieter 102,843 102,843 EP SADC East Amwell East Amwell/Rieter 416,200 416,200 EP East Amwell/Schwab, East Amwell F.&M. 128,831 128,831 519,986 777,647 Cty EP East Amwell East Amwell/Sowsian 103,661 103,661 459,791 667,112 Cty EP Garrett, R.&D./Mack, East Amwell J.&L. 39,600 39,600 182,367 261,567 Cty EP East Amwell Gulick, R. & E. 203,274 203,274 609,822 1,016,371 Cty EP East Amwell Henssler, S. 136,958 152,999 512,052 802,009 Cty EP East Amwell Hill, W. & P. 44,473 44,473 971,078 1,060,024 Cty EP East Amwell Hun Cty/Kanach 497,586 463,410 960,996 Cty EP East Amwell Inga Denton Estate 0 Cty Don East Amwell Kinderman 91,283 74,686 165,969 Cty EP East Amwell Cannelongo, K. 60,646 60,646 181,937 303,228 Cty EP East Amwell Manners, E. 214,045 142,697 1,070,224 1,426,965 Cty EP East Amwell Nemeth, E. & R. 44,583 44,583 192,410 281,575 Cty EP Nielsen, K. & East Amwell Galloway, P. 103,830 128,756 390,568 623,153 Cty EP SADC East Amwell NJCF/Baron 1,126,294 1,126,294 EP Peabody, R. & East Amwell 66,015 81,340 221,035 K./Manners B. & J. 368,390 Cty EP East Amwell Russell, N. & V. 116,396 144,085 431,757 692,238 Cty EP SADC East Amwell SADC/Cavalier 1,539,982 1,539,982 FS SADC East Amwell SADC/Gardner 0 Don SADC East Amwell SADC/Van Marter 1,257,881 1,257,881 FS East Amwell Thompson (N) 135,470 101,603 440,279 677,352 Cty EP East Amwell Thompson (S) 166,958 125,219 542,614 834,790 Cty EP East Amwell Totten, R. & E. 286,573 134,720 925,907 1,347,200 Cty EP East Amwell Wielenta South 161,429 161,429 484,288 807,146 PIG East Amwell Wielenta North 54,065 54,065 162,197 270,327 PIG We Beginnings Farm, SADC East Amwell LLC 449,892 449,892 EP East Amwell Weeden, M. 26,898 100,966 151,450 279,314 Cty EP Franklin Blew, T. & S. 71,752 71,753 143,505 Cty EP Franklin Dilts, G. & P. 291,285 194,190 1,456,425 1,941,900 Cty EP Franklin SADC Franklin Twp/Cherryville 1,204,692 1,204,692 EP Franklin Franklin Twp/Lawson 48,298 59,774 178,810 286,883 Cty EP Franklin Gunther 51,503 58,215 225,890 335,608 Franklin Hilken 64,141 96,211 240,529 400,881 Cty EP SADC Franklin Hodulik, T. 647,640 647,640 EP Franklin Knispel 223,578 149,052 1,117,890 1,490,520 Cty EP - 103 - Franklin Mathews, H. & R. 80,536 80,536 241,608 402,680 Cty EP Muehlbauer, H. & Franklin Tolley, F. 205,175 277,659 724,251 1,207,085 Cty EP Franklin Panacek, H. & P. 372,642 248,428 1,863,210 2,484,280 Cty EP Franklin Passarello 107,462 107,462 330,408 545,332 Cty EP Franklin Peterson, E, et al 155,781 148,097 436,608 740,486 Cty EP Rodrigues, A., D. Jr, Franklin & L. 221,455 221,455 700,083 1,142,992 PIG SADC Franklin SADC/Panacek 0 Don Franklin Stephens 29,710 29,710 89,130 148,550 PIG Franklin Vitale, M. & E. 56,851 56,851 208,896 322,599 PIG Franklin Volk, L.F. Jr. 130,606 147,817 582,156 860,579 Cty EP Holland Borwegan 31,012 31,012 131,801 193,825 Cty EP Holland Jenness 26,297 26,297 83,133 135,727 PIG Holland Holland Twp/Kinnney 43,317 43,317 259,902 346,536 Cty EP SADC Holland Hun Cty/Hoffman A 0 EP SADC Holland Hun Cty/Hoffman B 0 EP SADC Holland Hun Cty/Hoffman C 0 EP Holland Kozak, P. & E. 62,384 62,384 311,918 436,686 Cty EP Holland Lafevre, R. & P. 49,131 55,435 210,725 315,291 Cty EP Holland Milz, D. & P. 59,829 73,718 213,677 347,224 Cty EP SADC Holland Phillips, R. & I. 259,240 259,240 EP Phillips, SADC Holland R.,I.,M./Sciarello, K. 194,706 194,706 EP Holland Shire, C. & D. 90,977 90,977 386,651 568,605 Cty EP SADC Holland Wydner, L. & D. 445,961 445,961 EP SADC Holland Young, K. & Ryan, M. 302,834 302,834 EP SADC Kingwood DeCroce, R. & A 883,920 883,920 EP SADC Kingwood DeSapio, S. & M. 369,760 369,760 EP SADC Kingwood DeSapio, S. & M. 625,895 625,895 EP Kingwood Gordeuk, J. 223,114 223,114 Cty EP 1,113,95 Kingwood Gordeuk, M. 9 1,113,959 Cty EP Kingwood Kocsis, F. & M. 35,067 39,256 135,132 209,455 Cty EP Kingwood Rozansky 60,797 67,792 221,174 349,763 Cty EP Kingwood/Ale xandria Sargenti, D. 97,595 109,663 396,152 603,410 Cty EP Lebanon Borough Spencer 81,275 23,000 307,500 411,775 Lebanon Fentzlaff 52,415 108,315 270,788 431,518 Cty EP Grossman, N/Wolff, Lebanon 360,351 N. 120,117 480,468 Cty EP Lebanon SADC Lebanon 1,742,490 Twp/Stonegate 1,742,490 EP Lebanon NJWSA/Riback 1,021,068 1,021,068 SADC

- 104 - FS Lebanon Rodigas, S. 371,558 371,558 PIG SADC Lebanon Sekela, G. 690,696 690,696 EP Trimmer Road Co., Lebanon 333,957 LLC 333,957 PIG Lebanon Weeks, J. & M. 202,495 303,742 759,355 1,265,592 Cty EP Raritan Chwat, S. 76,810 76,810 340,160 493,781 Cty EP SADC Raritan Jannuzzi, J. 135,058 135,058 EP Raritan Kovi 381,656 381,656 1,144,968 1,908,280 PIG Raritan Kuhl-Makarick 105,596 158,395 395,988 659,979 Cty EP SADC Raritan Lee, M. & H. 533,530 533,530 EP Raritan Moriera 276,979 415,469 1,038,674 1,731,122 Cty EP Raritan Quick River Farm 435,797 435,797 Cty EP Raritan Twp/Adda, J. Raritan & A. 159,095 215,246 561,513 935,854 Cty EP Raritan Raritan Twp/Balek 85,222 85,222 511,333 681,777 Cty EP Raritan Raritan Twp/Bond 176,655 176,655 736,465 1,089,775 Cty EP Raritan Raritan Twp/Everitt 127,980 203,820 616,200 948,000 Cty EP Raritan Raritan Twp/Maraspin 137,448 206,171 512,428 856,047 Cty EP Raritan Rogers, C. & J. 182,338 182,338 547,015 911,691 Cty EP SADC Raritan Teatzner, A. & L. 306,549 306,549 EP Raritan Zanetti, E. 95,411 143,117 357,793 596,321 Cty EP Raritan/Frank lin Michisk, R. 47,135 47,135 187,377 281,647 Cty EP SADC Readington Allen, R. & J. 1,307,051 1,307,051 EP Readington Bauer/Cole 144,994 144,994 434,981 724,969 Cty EP Readington Burjan, J. 147,487 147,487 484,601 779,575 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Arnaudy, R. 84,377 84,377 253,133 421,887 PIG Readington Readington / Bartles 64,876 64,876 289,605 419,357 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/BLN, LLC 175,191 175,191 650,708 1,001,090 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Burjan, J. 267,507 401,259 1,003,151 1,671,917 Cty EP Readington Readington/Cuchiaro 88,394 88,394 265,183 441,971 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Dabrowski 70,860 70,860 212,580 354,300 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Dolan 32,878 32,878 102,745 168,502 PIG Readington Readington Twp/D'Urso 265,438 265,438 796,314 1,327,190 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Hamewith 244,199 244,199 732,597 1,220,995 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Hanna 55,800 55,800 167,400 278,999 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Hrubesh 144,940 144,940 434,819 724,699 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Jackson, J. & R. 105,744 105,744 317,232 528,720 PIG Readington Readington 86,842 86,842 267,873 441,556 PIG - 105 - Twp/Jones Readington Readington Twp/Moore 90,347 90,347 335,574 516,267 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Mason 303,120 303,120 1,042,037 1,648,278 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Miller 57,817 57,817 188,664 304,298 PIG Readington Readington 204,264 Twp/Pagano 68,088 68,088 340,441 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Pompliano 83,602 83,602 254,441 421,645 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Reno 64,643 79,765 233,366 377,774 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Reno 130,332 130,332 390,997 651,662 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Romano 185,523 185,523 559,182 930,228 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/ScanlonI 71,337 71,337 217,114 359,789 PIG Readington Readington Twp/ScanlonII 66,648 81,459 224,339 372,447 PIG Readington Readington Twp/Schaeffer C&C 116,814 116,814 433,881 667,509 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Schaeffer C&W 151,433 151,433 562,464 865,329 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Schley 1 129,958 177,715 533,145 840,819 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Schley 2 92,315 110,397 331,191 533,904 Cty EP Readington Readington Twp/Schley, J. 145,207 196,457 512,500 854,164 Cty EP Readington Readington/Staats 180,475 180,475 541,426 902,376 PIG Rica, Family Readington Enterprises, LLC 77,942 77,942 233,826 389,710 PIG SADC Readington SADC/Dobozynski 1,982,498 1,982,498 FS SADC Readington SADC/Kanach 2,134,501 2,134,501 FS Readington Schley Farm 0 Cty Don Schardien, J. & Readington Reynolds, R. 768,231 768,231 Cty EP Silver Bit & Spur Readington Farm, LLC 66,668 90,197 235,298 392,164 Cty EP Readington Triple D, LLC 172,783 172,783 518,352 863,918 PIG Readington Wallenjack, P. 334,050 26,350 360,400 720,800 Cty EP SADC Tewksbury Chandor 1,008,000 1,008,000 EP Tewksbury/R Emmet, C. & A. 326,982 490,473 1,226,184 eadington 2,043,639 Cty EP SADC Tewksbury Emmet I, C. & A. 467,326 467,326 EP SADC Tewksbury Emmet II, C. & A. 251,060 251,060 EP SADC Tewksbury Schenker, A. 2,009,772 2,009,772 EP Tewksbury Tewksbury Twp/Turnquist 369,093 369,093 PIG Tewksbury Watts, M. 1,036,866 1,036,866 PIG - 106 - Union Bowers, J. & D. 61,303 61,303 286,079 408,684 Cty EP SADC Union SADC/Barrett 790,720 790,720 FS Union Union Twp/Geiler, D. 32,444 48,666 324,445 405,556 Cty EP Union/Bethle SADC hem Ravenburg 243,848 243,848 EP Amwell Conservancy, West Amwell Inc. 580,905 651,231 2,261,299 3,493,435 Cty EP West Amwell Atchley 95,674 129,441 337,673 562,788 Cty EP J.B. Case Family SADC West Amwell Partners 1,656,439 1,656,439 FS W Amwell Twp/Fulper Preservation West Amwell LLC/HeiferI 84,156 84,156 252,470 420,782 PIG W Amwell Twp/Fulper Preservation West Amwell LLC/HeiferII 91,410 91,410 274,231 457,051 PIG W Amwell Twp/Fulper Stoy West Amwell Farm 64,680 64,680 194,039 323,399 PIG W Amwell Twp/Fulper Home West Amwell Farm 55,875 55,875 167,624 279,373 PIG

Totals 20,588,720 19,503,506 119,287,109 159,379,335

*Total Cost does not include $947,714 in Non-Profit Contributions.

- 107 - Hunterdon County Planning Incentive Grant - Targeted Farms Number OWNERS NAME MUNICIPALITY MUNI CODE BLOCK LOT ACREAGE 1 Frick/Levick Alexandria Twsp 1001 15 13 42.41 2 Muhs Alexandria Twsp 1001 19 30 26.00 3 Muhs/Kelly Alexandria Twsp 1001 19 30.01 37.60 4 Harold Miller Alexandria Twsp 1001 10 74 68.00 5 Diocese Alexandria Twsp 1001 11 16 80.00 6 Weeast Alexandria Twsp 1001 13 15 72.00 7 Wilson Alexandria Twsp 1001 13 9 68.00 8 Frank Nemeth Alexandria Twsp 1001 14 15 102.00 9 Leone/Ri-Arm Alexandria Twsp 1001 16 13 46.00 10 Runge Alexandria Twsp 1001 24 19 119.00 11 Boesch Alexandria Twsp 1001 22 36 39.76 42 20 12 Reid, Norwood Alexandria Twsp 1001 12 6 221.95 12 10 13 Herr, Marilyn Clinton Twsp 1006 16 73 131.78 Readington Twsp 1022 44 18 44 50 44 54 25 7.03 25 7.04 25 7.05 14 Apostolis Delaware Twsp 1007 17 15 56.00 15 Kurzenberger Delaware Twsp 1007 25 13 116.00 16 Bond Delaware Twsp 1007 44 1 250.00 44 3 17 Fisher Delaware Twsp 1007 21 2 64.00 21 2.02 21 2.03 21 2.04 21 2.05 18 Bodine Delaware Twsp 1007 53 4 60.00 19 Cane Delaware Twsp 1007 30 6 88.00 20 Copeland Delaware Twsp 1007 39 3 83.00 21 Emmons Delaware Twsp 1007 38 8 44.00 22 Kohler Delaware Twsp 1007 62 12 101.00 23 Reimer Delaware Twsp 1007 42 3 75.00 24 Unfried Delaware Twsp 1007 57 8 93.00 25 Wheaton Delaware Twsp 1007 33 4 ? 33 4.03 26 Smith Delaware Twsp 1007 21 3 71.55 21 3.03 21 12.03 27 Befeler/Buchbinder Delaware Twsp 1007 58 8.02 54.37 28 Johnson Delaware Twsp 1007 21 4.03 47.54 29 Everitt, Roger and Alice East Amwell 1008 3 1 56.00 32.02 30 Hockenbury, Irvin and Vilma East Amwell 1008 18 3 64.00 31 Holcombe, Robert and Barbara Ann East Amwell 1008 34 34 97.00 32 Perehinys Farm East Amwell 1008 6 13 130.00 225 33 Perkovich, Edward and Sarah East Amwell 1008 3 4 113.00 35

- 108 - 34 Slivis, Salvatore and Margo East Amwell 1008 8.02 29 62.00 35 Jorgenson -Southwark Farm East Amwell 1008 11 3 63.00 36 Stahl, Chris East Amwell 1008 5 1.06 145.00 52 37 Thompson Realty East Amwell 1008 16.01 26 58.00 16.01 27 38 Thompson East Amwell 1008 25 2 88.00 39 VanDoren Family East Amwell 1008 20 16 144.00 20 16.01 20 30 40 Welisewitz, Nick and Robert East Amwell 1008 20 8 165.00 20 9 41 Wertsville Industries East Amwell 1008 35 3 97.00 42 Zuegner, Louis and Jeanne East Amwell 1008 17 34 82.00 43 Horoschak Franklin Twsp 1010 49 16 133.00 49 18 44 Racioppo, Steve Franklin Twsp 1010 30 3.01 97.76 30 3.02 30 3 30 8 45 Cain, Richard Holland Twsp 1015 25 28 59.56 46 Carroll, Carol Holland Twsp 1015 25 34 70.30 47 Phillips Holland Twsp 1015 26 19 44.70 26 17.01 26 20 48 Boss, Henry Holland Twsp 1015 15 7 135.00 49 Boss, Nelson Holland Twsp 1015 16 16 98.00 15 6 50 Brown, Charles and Lorraine Holland Twsp 1015 9 20 96.00 14 2 51 Cernecaro, Roger and Ralph Holland Twsp 1015 17 19 104.00 52 Clark, Olga Holland Twsp 1015 6 60 180.00 53 Dufek, Frank and Margaret Holland Twsp 1015 16 19 54.00 54 Gardener, Billie and Donna Holland Twsp 1015 6 48 52.00 55 Gombosi Holland Farms Holland Twsp 1015 25 30 151.00 17 24 56 Kerr/Gervas Holland Twsp 1015 15 1 58.00 15 1.02 57 Silva, Robert Holland Twsp 1015 10 43 97.00 58 Stamets Holland Twsp 1015 25 60 203.00 59 Silva, Anthony Holland Twsp 1015 22 56 81.97 60 Carlson Holland Twsp 1015 5 6 76.48 61 Oliver Holland Twsp 1015 2 4 86.34 62 Sanderson, Harvey and Judith Holland Twsp 1015 14 38 40.05 63 Harder Holland Twsp 1015 11 2 116.73 64 Braun Holland Twsp 1015 15 2 112.40 65 Townsquare Nursery Holland Twsp 1015 25 45 50.00 66 Kaufman Holland Twsp 1015 22 58 87.90 67 Dodds Holland Twsp 1015 21 4 48.80 21 4.03 21 4.02 68 Covalesky, Andrew and Patricia Kingwood Twsp 1016 12 26 59.94 69 Wydner, Elizabeth Kingwood Twsp 1016 14 20 92.23 70 Varela Kingwood Twsp 1016 33 12 91.00 32 5 32 2 71 Avila, Bennett Kingwood Twsp 1016 35 6 28.02 72 Pandy, Wesley Kingwood Twsp 1016 6 26 55.01 6 26.01

- 109 - 73 Burrell, Thomas & Eva Lebanon Twsp 1019 66 18 28.27 66 18.01 66 18.02 66 18.03 74 Bowlby Raritan 1021 71 19 174.49 71 19.02 72.07 81 75 Snyder Raritan 1021 82 2 50.37 76 Case Raritan 1021 77 7 76.13 77 Van Doren Raritan 1021 77 9 85.06 77 10.17 78 Holland Brook Realty, LLC. Readington Twsp 1022 53 5 23.00 79 Orlando Readington Twsp 1022 65 7 22.29 80 Rothpletz Tewksbury Twsp 1024 38 1 204.00 38 17 81 Roerig, Phil Union twsp 1025 30 8 63.73 82 Foran, (West Amwell Conservancy) West Amwell Twsp 1026 7 15 32.54 83 FULPER "C" West Amwell Twsp 1026 17 14 120.00 17 15 84 FULPER "E" West Amwell Twsp 1026 8 29.02 130.00 832 833 85 Hanover Shoe Farm West Amwell Twsp 1026 19 3.01 68.00 86 Nunn West Amwell Twsp 1026 8 29.01 30.00 87 Runkle West Amwell Twsp 1026 13 1.01 50.00 88 Amwell Chase West Amwell Twsp 1026 5 24 211.42 5 24.01 89 Amwell Hunt West Amwell Twsp 1026 8 20 130.36

Number of PROJECT Targeted Acreage AREA Farms Total East 3 177 South 47 4132 West 37 3256 Lebanon 1 28

- 110 -

Form: HC-PIG1 HUNTERDON COUNTY AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BOARD Application to Sell a Development Easement Pursuant to the State Agriculture Retention and Development Act

Hunterdon County Planning Incentive Grant Program County PIG Program

OPEN ENROLLMENT

Name: ______Mailing Address: ______

Phone Number: ______Municipality of Farm: ______Date of Application: ______

......

YOU MUST SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FORMS WITH THIS APPLICATION (Check off boxes):

ALL APPLICANTS:

HC-PIG1, Application to sell a Development Easement (this form) A tax map, showing: o the outline of your farm o locations of all dwellings and farm buildings o any EXCEPTIONS you have formally requested in section VI of this application o boundaries - classified by land use TYPE according to the list of choices in section XIII. A copy of your current farmland assessment form A copy of your deed If available, a copy of an existing survey and title insurance policy

FOR MUNICIPAL APPLICANTS AND/OR OWNERS OF A DEVELOPMENT EASEMENT

All of the above is required Deed of Easement Restrictive Covenant for annual mowing Any and all additional Restrictive Covenants Two (2) original surveys Title Insurance Policy County Right-of-Way Easements, or a written indication from the County Engineer that none were required

- 111 - I. PREREQUISITES:

A fundamental concept of the State Agriculture Retention and Development Program is to preserve farmland in “critical masses” or relatively large core areas. The reason for this is that large areas of preserved farms have a greater chance of survivability than isolated, pockets of farms. Therefore, to apply for this program you must be located in an Agriculture Development Area (ADA) that has been designated by the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board (CADB). Additionally, your farm must be located in an existing Project Area as designated in the Hunterdon County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Plan. NOTE: The CADB reserves the right to only consider parcels at least 40 acres or larger. The SADC reserves the right to only consider parcels that meet the State minimum eligibility criteria. (These criteria are available from the CADB office or directly from the SADC.)

The other prerequisite of the program is the commitment of your municipality to participate in the program and contribute funding. Your municipality must submit to the CADB a letter stating their interest in participating in the program and a resolution authorizing their local contribution. The CADB will solicit that letter; however, you and your CADB municipal liaison are responsible for obtaining the municipal support and making sure that the letter and resolution are received by the CADB prior to the review of your application. (The name of your CADB municipal liaison is available from the CADB office or your municipal clerk.)

Any landowner selling a development easement to the County is required to provide the County with a Restrictive Covenant. The Restrictive Covenant requires the landowner to cut or mow on an annual basis between July 15 and August 15.

II. ATTORNEY REVIEW:

This is an application to sell a development easement, pursuant to the State Agriculture Retention and Development Act. After a “development easement” has been sold on a piece of property, the use of the land becomes severely limited. You may wish to consult with an attorney about this program, prior to submitting an application. If you have an attorney or will be retaining one, kindly provide the following information:

Attorney’s Name: ______

Address: ______

Phone Number: ______

- 112 - III. AFFIDAVIT

I/We ______(please print your name(s) understand: a) I/we have the right to consult with an attorney; b) the required components of the application form; c) the prerequisites of the program; and d) how our application is evaluated.

I/We also understand that if the application requirements outlined on the first page of this application are not completed and submitted to the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board, my/our application my not be considered.

Signature(s): ______Date ______

IV. GENERAL INFORMATION

Name of record owners of farm: ______

Are you the record owner? Yes No

If not, are you a contract purchaser? Yes No (If not, you may not be eligible to submit an application)

Have you entered into a contract for sale for the property or the development easement? Yes No (If yes, please explain and submit a copy of your contract)______Any other provisions for the sale: ______Premises: Municipality ______Block _____ Lot(s) ______Municipality ______Block _____ Lot(s) ______Municipality ______Block _____ Lot(s) ______Municipality ______Block _____ Lot(s) ______Municipality ______Block _____ Lot(s) ______

Gross Acreage of Total Premises: ______tax map Please check source: survey deed

NOTE: THE CADB REQUIRES THE EXACT TAX MAP ACREAGE; IF THIS INFORMATION IS INCORRECT PLEASE PROVIDE US WITH DOCUMENTATION PROVING THE CORRECT ACREAGE TOTALS. Street Address of Premises: ______

NOTE: INCLUDE A TAX MAP WITH ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION AS OUTLINED ON PAGE 1.

113 V. RESIDUAL DWELLING SITE OPPORTUNITIES (RDSOs)

Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 2:76-6.17, applicants for easement purchase may be eligible for Residual Dwelling Site Opportunities (RDSOs) only if the premises to be preserved is 100 acres or greater. An RDSO is the right to construct a residential unit within a residual dwelling site for agricultural purposes. Applicants must determine how many RDSOs they wish to request prior to the CADB’s preliminary review. The number of RDSOs may not exceed an overall gross density of one residential unit per 100 acres, including existing residential buildings on the premises. In the event that the application is granted final approval, the value of all RDSOs approved in the application will be deducted from the final easement value in accordance with SADC Policy P-19, or other policies promulgated by the SADC.

How many RDSOs would you like to request? ______

VI. EXCEPTIONS AND NONSEVERABLE EXCEPTIONS

An “exception” is a portion of the farm that will be excluded from the development easement. A severable exception is an area that can be subdivided from the farm and may be sold to anyone. Severable exceptions are not usually encouraged and may be a negative consideration of your application; however in certain situations it may be permitted. You will need municipal planning board approval if you want to subdivide your excepted lot(s).

A nonseverable exception does not create a new tax lot or the need for subdivision approval and is typically around existing farm structures or a site for a future dwelling. The CADB generally favors a nonseverable exception for any parcel under 100 acres that currently has no dwelling. The CADB awards three points for one nonseverable exception that is placed around the dwelling and farm buildings.

The CADB and SADC reserve the right to impose restrictions on exception areas. You will not be paid for the acreage within them if they are approved.

Are you requesting any exceptions? Yes No If yes, please complete the following:

1. What is the acreage of the exception? ______2. What is your reason for the exception? ______3. Show the exception location on your attached tax map and write the lot number (if more than one lot is included in this application) where the exception is to be located: ______4. Will the exception be severable? Yes No 5. If severable, does the exception exceed the local zoning regulations? Yes No Minimum allowable lot size: ______6. Is the exception for a municipal farmland preservation and/or open space program? Yes No

VII. NET ACRES: Please calculate net acres to be considered for easement purchase below:

[Gross Acres] - [Acres in Exception(s)] = Net Acres to be Preserved

______- ______= ______

114 VIII. AGRICULTUREAL PRODUCTION:

Please describe all agricultural production currently taking place on the property using the appropriate Standard Industrial Code (SIC) found in Appendix A.

SIC#______Agricultural Production Type______Approximate Acreage______SIC#______Agricultural Production Type______Approximate Acreage______SIC#______Agricultural Production Type______Approximate Acreage______SIC#______Agricultural Production Type______Approximate Acreage______SIC#______Agricultural Production Type______Approximate Acreage______

VIII. EXISTING RESIDENTIAL/LABOR HOUSING:

Are there any residential housing, agricultural labor housing, or other housing on the premises? Yes No If no, skip to the next section. If yes, complete the following questions regarding housing units on the premises.

RESIDENCE A (CHECK ONE ONLY) DUPLICATE THIS SHEET AS NECESSARY.

( ) Standard Single Family Residence ( ) Single Family with apartment ( ) Duplex ( ) Apartment ( ) Other ______

Is the structure the Primary Residence? Yes No Is the structure for agricultural labor housing? Yes No Is the structure under a lease or rental agreement? Yes No Will the residence be within an exception on the preserved property? Yes No

RESIDENCE B (CHECK ONE ONLY)

( ) Standard Single Family Residence ( ) Single Family with apartment ( ) Duplex ( ) Apartment

( ) Other ______

IX. EXISTING STRUCTURES (Non-Residential):

Are there any non-residential structures on the premises? Yes No If no, skip to the next section. If yes, complete the following questions regarding structures on the premises.

STRUCTURE A (CHECK ONE ONLY) DUPLICATE THIS SHEET AS NECESSARY.

( ) Barn ( ) Shed ( ) Garage ( ) Silo ( ) Stable ( ) Other ______

Is the structure for an agricultural use? Yes No Is the structure under a lease or rental agreement? Yes No Will the structure be within an exception on the preserved property? Yes No

STRUCTURE B (CHECK ONE ONLY)

( ) Barn ( ) Shed ( ) Garage ( ) Silo ( ) Stable ( ) Other ______

Is the structure for an agricultural use? Yes No Is the structure under a lease or rental agreement? Yes N Will the structure be within an exception on the preserved property? Yes No

STRUCTURE C (CHECK ONE ONLY)

- 1 -

( ) Barn ( ) Shed ( ) Garage ( ) Silo ( ) Stable ( ) Other ______

Is the structure for an agricultural use? Yes No Is the structure under a lease or rental agreement? Yes No Will the structure be within an exception on the preserved property? Yes No

STRUCTURE D (CHECK ONE ONLY)

( ) Barn ( ) Shed ( ) Garage ( ) Silo ( ) Stable ( ) Other ______

Is the structure for an agricultural use? Yes No Is the structure under a lease or rental agreement? Yes No Will the structure be within an exception on the preserved property? Yes No

X. EASEMENTS / RIGHTS OF WAY:

Are there any Easements, Rights of Way, or restrictions of record, that affect the premises? (Failure to list all easements and restrictions of record may adversely affect your application at a subsequent time)

Yes No

If no, skip to the next section. If yes, complete the following questions regarding easements on the premises.

EASEMENT A: (CHECK ONE ONLY) DUPLICATE THIS SHEET AS NECESSARY. ( ) Power Lines ( ) Road Rights of Way ( ) Water Lines ( ) Stream Corridor ( ) Telephone Lines ( ) Sewer ( ) Gas Lines ( ) Drainage

- 2 - ( ) Other ( ) Conservation (e.g., steep slopes, critical areas, critical habitat, wetlands, drainage, no further subdivisions, etc.) Describe the easement and the effects:______

EASEMENT B: (CHECK ONE ONLY) ( ) Power Lines ( ) Road Rights of Way ( ) Water Lines ( ) Stream Corridor ( ) Telephone Lines ( ) Sewer ( ) Gas Lines ( ) Drainage ( ) Other ( ) Conservation (e.g., steep slopes, critical areas, critical habitat, wetlands, drainage, no further subdivisions, etc.) Describe the easement and the effects:______

EASEMENT C: (CHECK ONE ONLY)

( ) Power Lines ( ) Road Rights of Way ( ) Water Lines ( ) Stream Corridor ( ) Telephone Lines ( ) Sewer ( ) Gas Lines ( ) Drainage ( ) Other ( ) Conservation (e.g., steep slopes, critical areas, critical habitat, wetlands, drainage, no further subdivisions, etc.) Describe the easement and the effects:______

XI. PRE-EXISTING NON-AGRICULTURAL USES Are there non-agricultural uses on the Premises to be preserved? Yes No (Outside of an exception)

- 3 - Will non-agricultural use(s) occur within the exception area(s)? Yes No

NOTE: A NON-AGRICULTURAL USE ON THE PREMISES CANNOT BE EXPANDED OR INTENSIFIED AFTER THE FARM IS PRESERVED. List the type and frequency of any existing non-agricultural uses: ______Note the approximate dimensions and location of any structures and/or areas utilized for a non-agricultural use: ______In the event the non-agricultural use involves a lease with another party, identify the individual or entity leasing the structure and type of business or operation: ______If non-agricultural events are held on the premises, identify for what purpose and the frequency of the activity: ______

Describe how the non-agricultural use will be accessed on the parcel. ______

- 4 - *An identified non-agricultural use can NOT be expanded or intensified after the premises is preserved if located on the preserved farmland outside of an exception area.

XII. AGRICULTURAL USE AND PRODUCTION:

1. Identify the types of agricultural enterprises on the premises (e.g. dairy, field crops) by checking the appropriate column:

Primary Secondary

Dairy __ Nursery Field Crops Vegetables Orchard Swine Vineyard Equine Other ______

2. Identify the approximate percent (%) of land use of the acreage to be considered for easement purchase.

NOTE: THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION WILL BE VERIFIED AGAINST THE 2005 FARMLAND ASSESSMENT FORM SUBMITTED WITH THIS APPLICATION.

1. Cropland Harvested % 2. Cropland Pasture % 3. Permanent Pasture % 4. Woodlands % 5. Wetlands % 6. Other: ______%

TOTAL 100 %

- 5 -

3. Is the farm currently enrolled in an 8-year Municipally Approved Farmland Preservation Program? Yes No

XIII. BOUNDARIES AND BUFFERS

On the tax map included with this application, along your property’s boundaries you must write the number(s) of the appropriate land use listed below:

1. Deed restricted farmland (permanent) 2. Deed restricted wildlife areas, municipal, county or state owned parcels 3. Streams (perennial) and wetlands 4. Cemeteries 5. Parks (passive recreation) 6. Military installation 7. Golf course (public) 8. Eight year programs and EP applications 9. Highways (limited access), Railroads 10. Farmland (unrestricted) 11. Woodlands 12. Parks (high use) 13. Residential developments (less than six acre lots) 14. Commercial 15. Industrial 16. Schools 17. Other ______

NOTE: TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, THE ENTIRE BOUNDARY OF YOUR FARM MUST BE IDENTIFIED AS ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE LAND USES. BE SURE TO NOTE STREAMS AND WETLANDS THAT ARE LOCATED ALONG ANY PROPERTY BOUNDARY.

XIV. SOIL CONSERVATION AND FARM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

*It is important that you complete all of the following questions.

- 6 - NOTE: ALL PRESERVED FARM OWNERS ARE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A FARM CONSERVATION PLAN APPROVED BY THE LOCAL SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT WITHIN ONE YEAR AFTER YOU SELL THE DEVELOPMENT EASEMENT.

1. How many acres of your farm are actively cropped or grazed? ______

2. Do you have a Soil Conservation management plan on file with the Soil Conservation District? Yes No When was your plan filed or last updated? ______Is your management plan listed by a name other than your own? Yes No What percent of the plan do you feel has been implemented? ______

3. If you do not have a plan on file with the District, do you have conservation practices such as terracing, diversions, etc.? Yes No If yes, please give the date of installation and describe in detail the practices, i.e. type of crops rotated, widths of the strips, etc. Please be as specific as possible. ______

4. Is there any on-site evidence of good maintenance of installed soil conservation practices? Yes No If yes, please state specifically: ______

5. What good farm management practices are employed such as fertilizing, grazing, soil testing, liming, clipping, weed control and woodland management? Provide details: ______

6. Please specify all on-site investments that currently exist on your farm, such as permanent structures (include approximate size of buildings), liquid manure facilities, underground irrigation systems, and nursery stock. Do not include farm equipment. ______

- 7 -

XV. SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS

1. Have any percolation tests or soil logs been conducted in the last five years? Yes No If yes, please provide the results.

2. Has there been any sludge application on the farm? Yes No If yes, please answer a. and b. below: a. Are there monitoring wells to evaluate its impact on the groundwater? Yes No b. Please provide the test results.

3. Are you engaged in composting? Yes No If yes, please describe the extent of composting ______

4. Are you aware of any other testing, dumping or any other type of disposal activity on the property? Yes No If yes, please explain: ______

XV. SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS (continued)

Federal Funding Requirements for Farmland Preservation:

Certain farms may be eligible for Federal funding in addition to funds contributed by the State, County, and your municipality.

The Federal government imposes additional restrictions on farms which accept Federal funding. These restrictions go beyond those normally imposed by the State.

The additional restrictions required by the Federal Farm and Ranch Lands Protection Program are set forth in paragraphs 7(iii) and 25 in the Deed of Easement. A copy of this document is available upon request to the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board. The additional restrictions that property owners must agree to when federal funding is accepted are as follows:

A farm conservation plan prepared in consultation with both the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the local soil conservation

- 8 - district; The farm conservation plan would be developed utilizing the standards and specifications of the Natural Resource Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide and 7 C.F.R. Part 12 that are in effect as of the date of execution of the Deed of Easement (You are encouraged to contact the local field office to obtain copies of the current applicable standards and specifications); The Natural Resource Conservation Service shall have the right to enter the property with advance notice to monitor compliance with the conservation plan. If there is noncompliance with the conservation plan, the Natural Resource Conservation Service will work with the Grantor to explore methods of compliance and give the Grantor time to take corrective action which will not exceed twelve (12) months; and, If the Natural Resource Conservation Service informs the County of the Grantor’s noncompliance with the conservation plan, the County must take all reasonable steps to secure compliance, including legal action if necessary.

5. In the event that federal funds are available for the purchase of a Development Easement on your farm, are you willing to accept such funding with the understanding that this will demand a farm conservation plan to be enforced on your farm?

Yes No

XVI. SUBDIVISION OF THE PREMISES:

Has the landowner been granted any subdivision approvals or initiated any action to obtain subdivision approval on the premises?

Yes No

If YES, please fully describe the status of any subdivision approvals or actions taken to obtain subdivision approval: ______

- 9 - ______

Please return this application to:

Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board County Administration Building #1 Route 12, County Complex PO Box 2900 Flemington, New Jersey 08822-1200

(908) 788-1490

We have a website! This application form and other CADB information is available on the CADB website at www.co.hunterdon.nj/cadb.htm

H:\CADB\C_PIG\Application CPIG.doc

- 10 - Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board Farmland Preservation Program County Planning Incentive Grant (PIG) Easement Purchase Criteria 9/13/07

The Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board (CADB) adopted the following criteria on September 13, 2007 for reviewing County Planning Incentive Grant applications in accordance with the Agricultural Retention and Development Act N.J.S.A. 41C-11 et seq. The summary of the criteria with their relative weights is shown below. For more information on the rules and regulations governing County easement purchase criteria, please contact the CADB office at 908.788.1490.

Summary

Factors which determine the degree to which the purchase would encourage the survivability of the municipally approved program in productive agriculture. (N.J.S.A. 4:1C-31b.(3))

1.0 SOILS Weight 30 2.0 BOUNDARIES AND BUFFERS Weight 20 3.0 LOCAL COMMITMENT Weight 13 4.0 SIZE AND DENS Weight 24 5.0 SOIL CONSERVATION AND FARM PRACTICES MANAGEMENT Weight 18

Degree of imminence of change of the land from productive agriculture to nonagricultural use (N.J.S.A. 4:1C-31b.(3)) Weight 6

Ranking process for preliminary approval n/a

Exceptions Weight +3 to -25

Total Weight 89 to 114

County Planning Incentive Grant Criteria

Encouraging the Survivability of Productive Agriculture

1.0 SOILS - Weight 30

NOTE: Any application receiving a soil score less than 10.0, will be assessed a five point deduction from its soil score. Formula: % Prime soils x 30 = % Statewide soils x 20 = % Unique soils x (0 or 25*) = % Local Soils x 10 =

- 11 - Total weight = the sum of the categories

*If a designated unique soil is not being used for its unique purpose, no points will be assigned.

2.0 BOUNDARIES AND BUFFERS - Weight 20 The weights reflect differences in the permanence of agricultural buffers and the effectiveness of other buffers in reducing the negative impacts of nonagricultural development.

The following weights have been assigned: 1. Deed restricted farmland (permanent) 20 points 2. Deed restricted wildlife areas, municipal, county, or state owned parcels 18 points 3. Streams perennial) and wetlands 18 points 4. Cemeteries 16 points 5. Parks (passive recreation) 14 points 6. Military installation 14 points 7. Golf Course (public) 14 points 8. Eight year programs and EP applications 13 points 9. Highways (limited access)/Railroads 10 points 10. Farmland (unrestricted) 6 points 11. Woodlands 6 points 12. Parks (high use) 5 points 13. Residential developments (less than six acre lots) 0 points 14. Commercial 0 points 15. Industrial 0 points 16. Schools 0 points 17. Other (Value determined on a case by case basis) 0 points

Formula: The weight of each buffer is multiplied by its percentage of the entire perimeter of the farm. All of the individual scores are totaled for a final score.

3.0 LOCAL COMMITMENT - Weight 13 Priority will be given where municipal, county, regional and state policies support the long term viability of the agricultural industry. Factors indicating support:

3.1 Municipal actions that promote agricultural preservation and agricultural viability. a. Farm businesses/agritourism are promoted in the municipal master plan (1 point) b. Municipality has previously approved eight year programs. (1 point) c. Development easements have been purchased in the municipality. (1 point)

3.2 There is sewer or other growth leading infrastructure serving the premises. Yes (0 points) No (1 point)

3.3 Right to Farm Ordinances The Right to Farm Ordinance requires a developer and/or landowner who plans to build or sell a dwelling in an agricultural area to inform through their agent, prospective purchasers of the existence of the Right to Farm Ordinance and the protection it grants to agricultural operations. This notification is included in the deed and recorded. (4 points) (Liaisons are required to provide a copy of the ordinance).

3.4 The municipality actively supports the reduction of animal damage to farmland by having an animal damage control plan or other means to control wildlife damage.

- 12 - (0 to 5 points) The municipality shall identify all municipally owned parcels, greater than 5 acres, by block and lot number and explain the type of animal damage control plan for each parcel (if applicable).

4.0 SIZE AND DENSITY - Weight 24 Individual applications are scored on both size and density with a maximum score of 12 points awarded for size and a maximum of 12 points awarded for density for a maximum total combined score of 24.

4.1 Size (12 points) Points are based on the size of each individual application relative to average farm size in the respective county according to the latest U.S. Census of Agriculture. Points will be awarded for size up to a maximum of 12 as follows:

Points Size of individual application Awarded = 12 X (2 X county average farm size) The factor “2" encourages counties to enroll farms above average in size.

4.2 Density (12 points) The density score will be awarded based on the following: The application which is not reasonably contiguous (within one-half mile linear distance) with another development easement purchase application approved by the Board and received by the Committee, lands where development easement have already been purchased, other permanently deed restricted farmlands, farmland preservation programs and municipally approved farmland preservation programs in the project area will receive (0) points. One point (1) will be allocated for each reasonably contiguous (within one-half mile linear distance) farmland preservation program or municipally approved farmland preservation program. Two (2) points will be allocated for each of the other above noted lands in the project area which are determined to be reasonably contiguous (within one-half mile linear distance) with the subject application and each other not to exceed a maximum score of 12 points.

5.0 SOIL CONSERVATION AND FARM MANAGEMENT PRACTICES - Weight 18

5.1 Percent of total land actively cropped or actively used for grazing (Percentage X 2) (Max 2 points)

5.2 Soil conservation measures, other than having land in grass and hay a. S.C. Management Plan on file (must be filed or updated during the past 15 years up to the application deadline) (Maximum 1 point) b. Percent of Plan implemented, or if no plan on file with district, physical evidence of on-site S.C. practices such as: terracing, tiling waterways, diversions (Maximum 3 points) c. On-site evidence of good maintenance of installed S.C. practices (Maximum 2 points)

5.3 Good farm management practices employed Examples: Fertilizing, liming, crop rotation, contour farming, clipping and weed control cover cropping, woodland management. (Maximum 5 points)

5.4 On-site investments indicating a serious commitment to continue

- 13 - farming (includes permanent structures, liquid manure, nursery stock underground irrigation systems, etc. The conditions of the buildings will also be considered. Farm equipment will not be considered.) (Maximum 5 points)Degree of Imminence of Change - Weight 6

Although the CADB intends to avoid approving applications in areas where the likelihood of suburbanization is high; the likelihood that a farm (application) will be converted to a non-agricultural use will either receive additional points or lose points, according to its degree of imminence of change. The degree of imminence of change is measured as follows:

Farms with less than 50 feet of road frontage -5 points

Farms with difficult access, such as steep slopes, streams or any other -2 points environmental constraints that affect access to the parcel

Farms with preliminary subdivision approval +3 points

Farms owned by an estate or institution and/or filing for bankruptcy +3 points

Ranking Process for Preliminary Approval The CADB reserves the right to give special considerations to applications in order to accomplish program objectives. This may alter the numerical ranking of the applications. A copy of the program objectives are available at the CADB office.

Exceptions - Weight +3 to -25

Severable Exceptions Exceptions are portions of an applicant’s property not included in the easement purchase application. In general, the Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board discourages severable exceptions. Factors for determining if there is an adverse effect to the applicant’s agricultural operation are as follows:

$ severability potential from the premises $ number requested $ size $ percent of premises $ right to farm language $ negative impact on the agricultural operation

No negative points are assessed if the severable exception is for open space purposes.

Criteria for Severable Exceptions Points

Each severable exception requested -5 points

The severable exception exceeds the minimum lot size for a dwelling -1 point - each lot

The landowner restricts the severable exception to only one residential unit +1 point

Total severable exception acreage exceeds 5% of the tract acreage -1 point

- 14 -

Right to farm language required on the deed of the exception +1 point

Χ If the CADB determines that the severable exception has a significant negative impact on agricultural productivity, the CADB reserves the right to limit or deny the exception.

NONSEVERABLE EXCEPTIONS

Criteria for Nonseverable Exceptions

The CADB encourages nonseverable exceptions around existing dwellings and principal farm buildings. Nonseverable excepted areas are not separate lots but simply a designated area on the farm that does not receive farmland preservation funding and is not subject to the restrictions in the deed of easement. Nonagricultural uses, in accordance with municipal zoning, would be permitted within this area. The CADB will allow only one per application.

Nonseverable exception around dwelling and principal farm buildings +3 points

If the applicant requests a nonseverable exception on a property that has no 0 points dwelling and is not eligible for an RDSO, the CADB encourages such an exception. There is no effect on the applications score.

For more information, please contact:

Hunterdon County Agriculture Development Board County Administration Building #1 PO Box 2900 Flemington, New Jersey 08822-2900 908.788.1490 www.hunterdon.nj.us/cadb.htm

12.23.02

- 15 -

Appendix Maps

- 1 -

- 2 -

- 3 -

- 4 -

- 5 - - 6 - - 7 - - 8 -

- 9 -