EDITOR'S NOTE: The battle to preserve agricultural land in the State of New Jersey is fought farm by farm, acre by acre. Population pressure is intense, and thwarting indiscriminate housing development and urban sprawl requires an ongoing series of legal maneuvers in courtrooms across the state. From Judge dismissed builder's complaint against Springfield by Stephanie Prokop. November 29, 2007.
"The Burlington County Freeholders agreed to purchase 400 acres of farmland having more than a mile of frontage on New Jersey State Highway 206 from property owners BF&W Realty LLC for $4.8 milion dollars.County spokeswoman Loretta O'Donnell said: "county officials have not determined how much of the land would be resold, but the the property is deed restricted so that it will remain a farm forever. The size and prime location of this farm makes it a phenomenal acquisition for Burlington County, not only as a gateway property to the county farm belt, but for the multiple benefits of watershed protection..."
The property is located in Springfield Township opposite a 640 acre county-owned site that will have an 80 acre portion developed into county fairgrounds and become home to the Burlington County Farm Fair in the near future. The property will also provide access across Rt. 206, connecting with the Arney's Mount Regional Horse and Walking Trail and extending for miles from the trail head at the fairgrounds.
Burlington County Superior Court Judge John A. Sweeney dismissed Flynn-Tucker LLC's (Union County Developer) complaint after a six year battle to build 215 houses on 52 acres in Springfield Township at the Wrightstown end of the township. The parcel was all that remained — not in farmland preservation or industrial development — of a 275 acre zone, that had years before been designated as an area which could receive higher density building opportunity, to meet the Township's fair share of affordable housing (COAH).
The zone had been removed when the Township met its affordable housing obligation in other ways prior to the builder's purchase of the property. The zone density changed from one house per three acres to one house per ten acres in 2006...as part of a continuing Township Master Plan evolution to protect agraculture as an industry. This Township Master Plan began development in 1967 and has been re-examined and reiterated during the ensuing years.
The lengthy (6 year) lawsuit culminated with the passage of 10 acre down-zoning changes in Springfield Township, sustained by another state court for a different town in New Jersey, and now reinforced by Judge Sweeney. He concludes that the ordanance in question is valid as applied to the Plaintiff's property because the downzoning is necessary to serve the stated purposes of the ordinance to pereserve the rural character of the area as well as the entire Township and because it does reflect reasonable consideration of the chracter of the surrounding lands which do not include residential development.
The Springfield Township professionals defending were Dennis P. McInerney, esq.; Denis C. Germano, esq.; and Professional Planner Carl E. Hintz. The decision is filed in the Burlington County Court House, Mt. Holly, N.J. RE: FLYNN-TUCKER v. SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP DOCKET 3 BUR-L-108-06."
Richard S. Toone
Springfield Township Council & Planning Board
Comments