Washington Borough
Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant
January 2006
Town Center Redevelopment
Historic Preservation
Stream Corridor Protection &
Stormwater Management
Washington Borough MP3 Committee
Mayor Marianne Van Deursen
Richard Sheola – Borough Manager
William Miller – Planning Board Chairman
Andrew Turner – Councilman
Jim Sheldon – Exec. Dir. Washington BID
Barry Mueller – Washington BID Representative
Ann Hardiman – Resident
Rosemarie Hoover – Resident
Gary Pohorely – Resident
Jim Rimi – Resident
MP3 Historic Committee
Richard Sheola – Borough Manager
Jim Sheldon – Exec. Dir. Washington BID
Barry Mueller – Washington BID Representative
MP3 Stream Committee
Jim Sheldon – Exec. Dir. Washington BID
Rosemarie Hoover – Resident
MP3 Committee Professionals
Carl Hintz, ASLA, CLA, PP, AICP – Clarke Caton Hintz
Elizabeth McManus – Clarke Caton Hintz
John Hatch, AIA – Clarke Caton Hintz
Robert Miller, PE, CME – Studer and McEldowney
Richard Cushing, Esq. – Gebhardt & Kiefer
Christine Danis, PP, AICP – New Jersey Highland Council
Purpose & Introduction
Washington Borough, located in Warren County at the junction of State Highways Route 31
and Route 57, has for the past several years embarked on the exciting process of revitalizing
its downtown, located along Route 57, and the nearby surrounding residential
neighborhoods. The Borough is committed to using smart growth techniques to create a
safer, cleaner, and more attractive downtown area that is functional and convenient for
residents as well as visitors. The Borough wishes to pursue a working relationship with the
Highlands Council as well as other State agencies, such as the Department of Environmental
Protection, as they work toward downtown revitalization, historic preservation, the provision
of affordable housing, stream corridor protection, and stormwater management. Although
the Borough completed its Downtown Revitalization Plan in July 2002, additional planning
and implementation is needed before the vision for the downtown can be realized.
The New Jersey Highlands Council awarded Washington Borough, Warren County, a
Municipal Partnership Planning Grant (hereinafter “MP3”) for the completion of three (3)
tasks, as per the MP3 Study Scope of Work:
Task 1.
Develop vision and strategies for implementing town center redevelopment
initiatives; coordinate with DOT regarding the Route 57 Corridor Study;
Task 2.
Develop historic preservation guidelines and design standards; and
Task 3.
Identify stream corridor protection and stormwater management measures
appropriate within a town center.
To complete these tasks the Mayor appointed a committee, known as the MP3 Committee,
consisting of the following citizens, elected officials and professionals: Mayor Marianne Van
Deursen; Richard Sheola, Borough Manager; Carl Hintz of Clarke Caton Hintz (Borough
Planner); Robert Miller of Studer & McEldowney (Borough Engineer); Richard P. Cushing,
Esq. (Borough Attorney); Chris Danis of the Highlands Council; Jim Sheldon, Executive
Director of the Washington BID; William Miller, Planning Board Chairman; Andrew Turner,
Borough Councilman; Barry Mueller, Bid Board Representative; Gary Pohorely, resident;
Ann Hardiman, resident; Jim Rimi, resident; and Rosemarie Hoover, resident. In addition
to this MP3 Committee, Historic and Stream Committees were also created to focus
specifically on Tasks 2 and 3, respectively.
The MP3 Committee, as well as the Historic and Stream Committees met a number times to
discuss progress and timetables. Minutes for each meeting are included in the Appendix.
The following report contains a section on each Task. The section regarding Task 1 provides
an update to the Goals and Objectives in the Borough’s planning documents and indicates
how these Goals and Objectives are applicable to downtown revitalization. These updated
Goals and Objectives have already been adopted by the Washington Borough Planning
Board. This section also discusses the New Jersey Department of Transportation’s Route 57
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant
Page 1
Corridor Plan. The section regarding Task 2 provides a planning and architectural analysis
for all properties within a defined study area and a determination as to whether those
properties are appropriate for inclusion in a Downtown Development District and/or an
Historic District. Also provided as part of this section are recommendations for building
renovations, where applicable. The section regarding Task 3 provides a concept plans for the
upcoming Stream Corridor Protection Plan for the Shabbecong Creek and Stormwater
Management Plan.
Strategic Plan for Downtown Revitalization
The downtown redevelopment, historic preservation and stream corridor protection and
stormwater management activities will overlap; accordingly it is critical that the actions of
each task work in tandem with each other so as to avoid conflicts in upcoming plans and
policies. The below Strategic Plan provides actions to further the revitalization process and
recommendations for coordination between the tasks.
1) Adopt parking regulations that support more intense mixed use development in the
downtown. The current parking regulations require that developers provide on-site
parking. This may create small fragmented parking areas serving each individual lot.
Additionally, the regulations do not account for people walking or biking from their
homes or people parking once and walking to a variety of locations. New parking
regulations should encourage the use of shared parking ratios and should encourage
municipal and/or private parking areas utilized by a variety of lots, both commercial and
residential.
2) Enhance the Borough’s marketability and tourism opportunities. In conjunction with the
Business Improvement District and other interest groups, the Borough should explore
ways of attracting and orienting visitors and residents to the Borough’s tourism
opportunities, including but not limited to recreation along the Shabbecong Creek,
historic sites and retail shopping. Such mechanisms may consist of a welcome map that
highlights activities, historic sites, and shopping as well as useful information such as
parking areas and annual events.
3) Determine whether a Redevelopment Area is desirable and act accordingly. Adoption of a
redevelopment plan will provide significantly more control over development in the
downtown, or any area declared in need of redevelopment, than would be provided via
local land development ordinances. It is recommended that preparation of a
Redevelopment Plan and Stream Corridor Protection and Stormwater Management
Plans move forward in tandem, as development along and to the rear of West
Washington Avenue will be impacted by the extent of the buffer area required along the
Shabbecong Creek, as well as other stormwater management requirements. Additionally,
since parking is currently envisioned between the buildings located along West
Washington and the proposed recreation area along the Shabbecong Creek, the Stream
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant
Page 2
Corridor Protection Plan may impact the Borough’s parking plan and permitted building
intensity.
a. Create a Redevelopment Committee. The Borough should create a committee of
interested citizens, Borough Officials, and professionals who can devote time to
creating a redevelopment plan. This public participation is critical to creating a
redevelopment area and plan that is representative of the vision of a revitalized
Washington Borough held by all stakeholders.
b. Adopt a Redevelopment Plan for the Borough’s downtown. A downtown
redevelopment plan should build upon the guidelines and recommendations
contained in the future updated 2002 Downtown Revitalization Plan as well as the
historic preservation recommendations made as part of this MP3 Study. Adoption of
a redevelopment plan will provide significantly more control over development in the
downtown, or any area declared in need of redevelopment, than would be provided
via local land development ordinances.
4) Support and participate in New Jersey Department of Transportation Projects aimed at
improving State Highways Route 57 and 31. The New Jersey Department of
Transportation (hereinafter “DOT”) has completed the “Route 57 Conceptual Corridor
Plan” which recommends improvements to Route 57 through the Borough that will, for
example, “Reinforce Main Street with Pedestrian Improvements” and “Improve parking
access and efficiency behind buildings”. The Borough should have an active role in
planning improvements for these two State Highways since they play an intricate role in
the Borough’s vision for a revitalized downtown.
5) Investigate eligibility and desirability in participation in one or more programs that
support downtown improvement. At a minimum, the following programs should be
evaluated:
¾ Main Street New Jersey
¾ Transit Village Initiative
¾ Urban Enterprise Zone
6) Apply for additional monies to fund the adoption of Design Guidelines, as well as
historic, redevelopment, and revitalization activities. The Borough will have to seek
outside funding sources in order to complete the planning and improvements required
for realizing the vision of a revitalized downtown. Potential funding sources include, but
are not limited to the following:
¾ New Jersey Highland Council
¾ New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, such as but not limited to
Smart Future Grants, and Small Cities Grants
¾ New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Historic Preservation
Office; however, to be eligible for these funds the Borough must have an
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant
Page 3
¾
¾
¾
¾
¾
historic preservation commission and must participate in the Certified Local
Government Program.
New Jersey Historic Trust
New Jersey Redevelopment Authority
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Site Remediation
Program
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, including but not
limited to Green Acres funding
New Jersey Environmental Infrastructure Trust Fund
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant
Page 4
LO
UPPER SEREPTA RD
BELVIDERE TOWN
LR
QU
E
RD
IFT
ST
D
I-8
0
ALLAMUCHY TWP
WAR
RE
2
62
N CO
UNTY
612
TY
LIBERTY
NTY
WARREN COU
RY
DA
N
OU
WARREN COUNTY
N
CO
SE
LIBERTY TWP
WHITE TWP
19
R
ATH
F DE
ES O
RD
TY 611
NC
5
TE
D
SHA
COUN
WARREN
E
RR
WA
RIVER RD
U
RO
ST
0
I-8
U
FO
PE
ST
CU
613
ST
INDEPENDENCE TWP
LOCK ST
ST
RY
K
ER
R
RM
FOX FA
D
OU
NT
Y
WARREN
626
EC
HAP
EL
SPRING LN
A
AN
NT
RD
LB
MIL
O
RO
K
RD
US 22
R
WAR
EN C
TY
OUN
MANSFIELD TWP
628
C
EN
29
TY 6
OUN
46
US
RR
WA
WIL
LOW
RD
LE
Y
FRANKLIN TWP
M
CE
ST
I
LL
D
HO R
INSC
A
ET
RY
R
D
RD
VA
L
RD
R
WAR
WASHINGTON TWP
T
OUN
EN C
N
OU
652
TY
MISS
ION
RD
Y 632
NG
KI
PL
EA
D
643
HAMPTON BORO
RD
D
NR
CA
LIF
O
MT. LEBANON RD
NTY
AV
E
RR
U
CO
GR
OV
E
ANTHON
Y RD
E SPRINGTOWN
MIDDLE VAL
LEY
RD
RD
MORRIS COUNTY
WASHINGTON TWP
FAIRVIEW
B
EL
L
MYE
ON
RD
NTE
HU
RIVER RD
7
51
TY 63
9
Y
NAUGHRIGHT RD
3
O UN
BLOOMSBURY BORO
W
E
UT
RO
17
EN C
HG
HEATH LN
SA
NT
NJ
WAR
R
S
IS
RR
MO
BETHLEHEM TWP
D
RIVER RD
VAN SYCKEL
ER AV
PHILHOW
CALIFON BORO
ROU
TE
`S RD
OK RD
RD
OLD FARMERS
BLA
CK
BRO
OK
RD
RD
E. VALLEY BRO
E
512
D
RR
KE
CHESTER BORO
CHESTER TWP
ER
IV
R
RY
DA
SUTTON RD
R
PA
K
C
A
BL
ON
EC
LF
8S
YOR
K
I-7
OO
W
RD
RD
ST
579
HUNTERDON COUNTY
N
RU
KY
L
OO
RD
614
C
RO
H
SC
ROUTE
NTY
20
LR
HIL
HILL RD E.
RD
GOR
ITZ
OU
625
RO
UT
E5
13
N
CO
RD
RD
LEBANON TWP
GLEN GARDNER BORO
E
IN
M
LIS
EL
TUNNEL
HOLLAND TWP
ON
C
TY
UN
CO
U
S
HILL RD
A
BE
TURKEY
AVE
6
BELLIS RD
MT OLIVE RD
S
ING
N
O
O
GO
PR
DS
NC
D
NR
GREENWICH TWP
E
RR
WA
W
TO
GRO
VE R
D
M
RY
I-78
638
ES
AK
DR
WASHINGTON BORO
WARREN COUNTY
ONDARY
22
ALPHA BORO
ROU
TE 5
19
JOHNSON DR
RD
HACKETTSTOWN TOWN
31
NJ 57
US 22 SEC
NJ
1
TER
D
RD
VALLEY RD
NJ
HU
N
N
IE
MT BETHEL RD
O
M
RD
R
OB
JAN
RD
LOPATCONG TWP
PHILLIPSBURG TOWN
K
CREE
COUNTY
625
OXFORD TWP
51
7
NC
NS
BU
RY
RD
TE
647
COUNTY
TO
W
DR
RN
WARREN
WA
RR
E
RO
U
RD
MT RASCAL RD
HARMONY TWP
GE
RID
HO
CK
BU
MARBLE HILL RD
R
D
State of New Jersey, Office of Information Technology
New Jersey 2002 High Resolution Orthophotography
captured during February-April, 2002
Legend
Highlands Preservation Area
Washington Borough
Highlands Planning Area
Rail Lines
Regional Map
NJ Highlands Council Municipal Partnership Planning Grant (MP3)
Washington Borough, Warren County, NJ January 2006
This map was developed using Warren CountyPlanning
Department digital data, but this secondary product has
not been verified by Warren County and is not County-authorized.
3,500 1,750 0
3,500
7,000
10,500
Feet
Clarke Caton Hintz
Architects
Planners
Landscape Architects
°
Task 1.
Town Center Redevelopment
REVISED
WASHINGTON BOROUGH GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
One of the tasks outlined in the MP3 Study was the update of the Borough’s goals and
objectives affecting future development and redevelopment. The MP3 Committee reviewed
the past planning efforts and hereby incorporates these more relevant and current goals and
objectives.
Downtown Revitalization Plan, July 2002
Commercial Development & Redevelopment
¾ Expand retail space to capture market share through new construction, rehabilitation and
redevelopment
¾ Maintain / enhance the historic, older character of the downtown
¾ Create a street-sidewalk-building relationship that enhances the function and character of
the downtown
¾ Design of storefronts should result in a seamless edge that draws people throughout the
downtown
¾ Preserve the Victorian building character of the western end of the downtown while
ensuring continuity in the street character
¾ Create a “gateway” at the intersection of Routes 31 & 57 to create a contrasting node along
Route 31 that identifies the downtown
¾ New retail space should reinforce existing, viable businesses, not compete (add variety
and choice)
¾ Maintain the primary orientation of the downtown on Route 57
¾ Extend the dense, pedestrian-scaled commercial development of the commercial core to
Route 31
¾ Develop restaurant/cultural businesses (such as a farmers market) with access to a
Shabbecong Creek greenway
¾ Themes to be developed in the downtown should include the development of a Complete
Center for Convenience Goods & Services and a Restaurant and Entertainment Center,
as described in the market analysis
¾ Develop northern and southern village extensions per the market analysis
¾ Pursue development of restaurant businesses that do not require liquor licenses to serve
alcoholic beverages, such as brewpubs
¾ Replace frontage that is occupied by off-street parking, or other gaps in the storefronts,
with viable retail and mixed-use buildings
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Town Center Redevelopment
Page 1
¾ Zoning and design standards should reinforce pedestrian-scaled storefront design and
prohibit development that would intrude upon the unique pedestrian character of the
downtown
¾ Utilize area adjacent to Shabbecong Creek for public open space and enhanced resource
protection
Pedestrian Circulation
¾ Implement the mid-block pedestrian crossings on route 57
¾ Maximize pedestrian connections to the neighborhoods adjacent to the downtown and
within sub-areas of the downtown and its periphery
¾ Develop a pedestrian corridor along Shabbecong Creek that will act as a connector to the
residential neighborhood
¾ Reduce the perceived or actual width of the pedestrian crossing to the theater at the
intersection of Routes 31 & 57
Parking
¾ Enhance utilization of existing parking areas
¾ Redevelop parking areas to be pedestrian-friendly
¾ Centralize new parking facilities, but avoid the creation of a parking structure in the
short-term
¾ Maintain on-street parking where possible throughout the downtown
Vehicular Circulation
¾ Retain traffic along Route 57 to maintain commercial viability
¾ Reduce the negative impacts of vehicular traffic on the pedestrian environment to the
greatest extent possible
¾ Utilize Alleger Street and Vanatta Street to create a vehicular access loop to a southern
downtown extension
¾ Ensure adequate access for trucks on sites and provide rear access for loading and
deliveries
Neighborhoods
¾ Preserve existing viable residential neighborhoods that abut the downtown
¾ Target buildings or portions of neighborhoods in decline for redevelopment
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Town Center Redevelopment
Page 2
Open Space and Recreation Master Plan Element, August 2000, Recreation and Open Space
Goals and Objectives
¾ Provide a full range of recreational facilities to meet the needs of current and future
residents of Washington Borough, using the minimum guidelines of the New Jersey
Green Acres program and the National Recreation and Park Association, as augmented
by the input of the Washington Recreation Commission.
¾ Acquire additional land through dedication, purchase or other means to provide parks
and recreational opportunities.
¾ Create linkages between existing and proposed parks and open space areas to create
greenway corridors for active and passive recreational use.
¾ Coordinate with regional and local recreation and open space planning efforts including
those in Warren County and Washington Township, and coordinate planning with local
and regional school districts. Coordination with watershed management efforts should
also be pursued.
¾ Monitor trends in recreational needs and respond in programming and facility
development.
¾ Develop open space and recreational lands in a manner that will respond to the needs of
the residents while also maintaining the natural character of the individual sites. For
example, use open sites for recreational field development and wooded sites for trail
development.
¾ Respond to recreational needs of children in each of the four (4) quadrants of the
Township that are created by the NJSH Route 31 and Route 57. These highways create
distinct barriers that limit pedestrian and bicycle access, particularly by children.
¾ Consider the recommendations contained within the Conservation Plan Element in the
development of recreational lands and facilities.
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Town Center Redevelopment
Page 3
Task 2.
Historic Preservation
Photos courtesy of Washington Business Improvement District
Purpose & Introduction
An architectural and planning analysis for the Borough’s downtown and limited surrounding
residential neighborhoods was undertaken to determine the area’s appropriateness for
inclusion in a Downtown Development District and appropriateness for inclusion in a
potential Historic District, as per Task 2 of the MP3 Scope of Work. This study, in
conjunction with the July 2002 Downtown Revitalization Plan and the updated Goals and
Objectives completed as part of Task 1 of the MP3 Study, will provide the framework for the
Borough to base regulatory and further policy decisions aimed at improving the Borough’s
tax base and the downtown’s appearance, functionality and infrastructure. Additionally, the
Strategic Plan for Historic Preservation included as part of this document recommends
actions to be implemented that will advance efforts to improve the downtown, preserve the
Borough’s historic character and, potentially, create an Historic District.
The Downtown Development District is defined as the Borough’s downtown mixed use core
and supporting parking, recreation, and gateways. This is the area that the Borough derives
much of its identity and character from and where future revitalization efforts should be
focused.
The Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D, defines an Historic District as, “one or more
historic sites and intervening or surrounding property significantly affecting or affected by
the quality and character of the historic site or sites.” The architectural and planning analysis
will be used by Borough Officials to determine if an Historic District is desired.
The Process
The Historic Preservation Task of the MP-3 study was led by the six (6) person Historic
Committee consisting of Richard Sheola, Borough Manager; Jim Sheldon, Executive Director
of the Washington Borough Business Improvement District; Barry Mueller Business
Improvement District Representative; John Hatch, AIA, Clarke Caton Hintz, Architect; Carl
Hintz, ASLA, CLA, AICP, PP, Clarke Caton Hintz, Borough Planner; and Elizabeth
McManus Clarke, Caton Hintz Borough Planner. During the course of the study, Business
Improvement District representative Barry Mueller left the subcommittee due to his
discontinued membership in the organization. The historic analysis was completed by John
Hatch, Carl Hintz and Elizabeth McManus, with Elizabeth McManus conducting the
preponderance of the field work.
The Historic Committee met on September 14, 2005 to discuss the scope of the planning
and architectural analysis and the study area boundary. As part of this meeting the
subcommittee walked a portion of the study area and further discussed the scope of the
analysis. The MP3 committee, which includes the majority of the Historic Committee
members, met on December 7, 2005 and January 6, 2006 to discuss progress and timetables
for completing the required tasks. Minutes of these meetings are provided in the Appendix
to this report.
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 1
After determining the study area all primary buildings, visible from the public right-of-way,
in the study area were individually photographed and the architectural characteristics noted.
This field work was conducted in October 2005 with supplemental observations and
photographs completed in December 2005. The data from the field work was used to create a
database of property surveys that tracked the following information:
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
Block, Lot
Street address
Construction date
Current name and use
Historic name/use
Physical condition
Architectural style
9
9
9
9
9
9
Roof finish materials
Exterior finish materials
Exterior description
Recommendation
Priority
Photo(s)
The block, lot, and street address data are based on the Borough’s tax records. Construction
data and historic name/use, where provided, is based on the Warren County Cultural
Resources Survey, dated September 1991, and from observation. The current name and use,
physical condition, architectural style, roof finish materials, exterior finish materials, and
exterior description are based on field work conducted for this study and supplemented with
the Warren County Cultural Resources Survey, where applicable.
Priority is the site specific recommendation condensed into a code that may be translated as
stated below:
1.
This site is appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District and may
be appropriate for inclusion in an Historic District. The scale and configuration of the
building enhances the character of the street and should be maintained and restored
to its original character.
2. This site is appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District and may
be appropriate for inclusion in an Historic District. The scale and configuration of the
building are consistent with, but do not enhance, the character of the street.
3. This site is appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District and may
be appropriate for inclusion in an Historic District, based on its proximity to
historically significant buildings. The scale and configuration of the building detract
from the character of the street.
4. This site is not appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District or
an Historic District.
The recommendation made for each property provides the above priority description as well
as additional details about the building or property and its relationship to the character of the
area and recommendations as to how the building may be restored to its original character, if
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 2
applicable. Note that zero (0) properties in the study area were assigned a Priority of 4. The
property surveys are provided as an Appendix to this report.
Study Area Description
The study area consists of 215 lots totaling 50.4 acres. The study area delineation was
established using the study area of the 2002 Downtown Revitalization Plan, but was
expanded to better suit the scope of the MP3 Study. Those lots in the study area that were not
included in the 2002 Plan include lots south of East and West Church Street between North
Wandling Avenue and Jackson Street, as well as lots along Jackson Street south of its
intersection with East Church Street. Additional lots included are three (3) lots along West
Washington Avenue, to the west of North Wandling Avenue; all lots along East Washington
Avenue between State Highway Route 31 and the railroad; and all residential lots on Vannatta
Street north of the Shabbecong Creek. These additional lots were included in the study area
so that a buffer to the mixed use core could be created and utilized as a gateway to the
Borough’s downtown.
The character of the study area differs depending on the location. West Washington Avenue,
between Jackson Street and Lincoln Avenue has a mixed use character typical to the State’s
traditional downtowns with primarily retail and office mixed use buildings lining the
sidewalk with parallel parking along the street. West of Lincoln Avenue, West Washington
Avenue has a primarily single-family detached residential character with a limited number of
commercial uses, mostly consisting of office uses. The lots along State Highway 31 have a
highway commercial character as they consist of vehicle oriented uses, such as service
stations and restaurants with parking in the front and/or side yards. Those lots along East
Washington Avenue have a primarily residential character with a limited number of
commercial uses, such as the Washington Theater and doctor’s offices.
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 3
MCKINLEY AVE
N LINCOLN AVE
ALLEY
T
ADA
MS
TAYLOR ST
GIB
SO
N
ST
VAN
Y
E CH
URC
H ST
BU
RE N
ST
ST
MARB
LE
ST
WIL
LOW
ST
SCH
O
OL S
T
NISH
PL
GR
ANT
ST
BRO
WN
ALL
E
COR
T
ST
NNP
MADISON ST
ST
S BROAD ST
CHERRY ST
ALL
EY
NW
ADL
ING
HAHN
RE
S
T
EY
GRA
N
L
AL
D AV
E
ALL
EY
STA
TE S
T
FIL
MO
C
LE
EL
TT
CA
ALL
EY
E STEWART ST
O PH
ILIA
HILL
ST
ST
JE
FF
ER
SO
R
ALLEGA
R ST
MO N
RO E
ST
31
D
OA
J
N
ILR
RA
ST
WILLOW
NS
NJ 5
7
VAN
NAT
TA S
T
HANN TER
E
AV
YOUMAN
S AVE
LOWER PA
RK RD
RK
PA
NNP
Legend
Study Area
State of New Jersey, Office of Information Technology
New Jersey 2002 High Resolution Orthophotography
captured during February-April, 2002
This map was developed using Warren CountyPlanning
Department digital data, but this secondary product has
not been verified by Warren County and is not County-authorized.
Study Area
NJ Highlands Council Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant (MP3)
Washington Borough, Warren County, NJ January 2006
100
50
0
100
200
300
Feet
Clarke Caton Hintz
Architects
Planners
Landscape Architects
E
AV
°
T
ALLEY
CHERRY ST
HAH
N ST
TAYLOR ST
ADA
MS
T
PL
MADISON ST
G ST
T
ST
OB
VAN
BU
R EN
Y
ALL
E
PL
E CH
URC
H ST
ST
NIS
HS
T
WS
T
SCH
O
OL S
T
COR
GIB
SO
N
GR
ANT
BRO
WN
ST
N LINCOLN AVE
TAYLOR ST
CLEVELAND ST
AVE
GRA
ND
NW
ADL
IN
RE
S
Y
LE
AL
R-3
NNP
FIL
MO
T
ALL
EY
C
LE
EL
ALL
EY
STA
TE S
T
MCKINLEY AVE
TT
CA
E STEWART ST
NNP
NNP
W S
TEW
ART
ST
ST
R-3
O PH
ILIA
B-2
ST
JE
F
WILLOW
OAD
ST
S BR
MO N
RO E
OB
FE
RS
ON
S
T
NJ 5
7
VAN
NAT
TA S
T
R
ST
HANN TER
ALLEGA
R ST
PR
OS
PE
RW
AY
E ST
WIL
LO
MARB
L
HILL
ST
NJ
31
B-1
I
R-3
YOUMAN
S AVE
RA
ILR
OA
D
E
AV
LOWER PA
Legend
Study Area
Mountain
R-3 Residential
Age Restricted
Office Building
R-4 Residential
Highway Business
Public Lands
R-6 Attached Single Family
Central Business
R-1 Residential
Industrial
R-2 Residential
Zoning
NJ Highlands Council Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant (MP3)
Washington Borough, Warren County, NJ January 2006
RK RD
State of New Jersey, Office of Information Technology
New Jersey 2002 High Resolution Orthophotography
captured during February-April, 2002
This map was developed using Warren CountyPlanning
Department digital data, but this secondary product has
not been verified by Warren County and is not County-authorized.
100
50
0
100
200
300
Feet
Clarke Caton Hintz
Architects
Planners
Landscape Architects
°
MCKINLEY AVE
ALLEY
S BROAD ST
CHERRY ST
N LINCOLN AVE
T
ADA
MS
TAYLOR ST
BRO
WN
GIB
SO
N
ST
VAN
Y
ALL
E
E CH
URC
H ST
BU
RE N
ST
ST
MARB
LE
ST
WIL
LOW
ST
SCH
O
OL S
T
NISH
PL
GR
ANT
ST
ST
COR
T
ST
NNP
MADISON ST
ALL
EY
NW
ADL
ING
HAHN
RE
S
T
EY
GRA
N
L
AL
D AV
E
ALL
EY
STA
TE S
T
FIL
MO
C
LE
EL
TT
CA
ALL
EY
E STEWART ST
O PH
ILIA
HILL
ST
ST
JE
FF
ER
SO
R
ALLEGA
R ST
MO N
RO E
ST
31
D
OA
J
N
ILR
RA
ST
WILLOW
NS
NJ 5
7
VAN
NAT
TA S
T
HANN TER
E
AV
YOUMAN
S AVE
LOWER PA
RK RD
RK
PA
NNP
Legend
Study Area
Appropriate for Downtown Development District and Historic District
State of New Jersey, Office of Information Technology
New Jersey 2002 High Resolution Orthophotography
captured during February-April, 2002
This map was developed using Warren CountyPlanning
Department digital data, but this secondary product has
not been verified by Warren County and is not County-authorized.
Areas Appropriate for Downtown Development & Historic Districts
NJ Highlands Council Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant (MP3)
Washington Borough, Warren County, NJ January 2006
100
50
0
100
200
Clarke Caton Hintz
Architects
Planners
Landscape Architects
300
Feet
E
AV
°
T
TAYLOR ST
CLEVELAND ST
E
Y
ALL
E
HAHN
ALLEY
N LINCOLN AVE
ST
AD
AM
S
T
SCHOOL ST
TAYLOR ST
BRO
WN
ST
GIB
SO
N
PL
GR
ANT
ST
MADISON ST
ING
ST
NNP
NW
ADL
FIL
MO
RE
ST
T
STA
TE S
T
Y
LE
AL
CHERRY ST
Y
S BROAD ST
GRA
ND A
V
MCKINLEY AVE
E STEWART ST
C
LE
EL
TT
CA
ALL
E
NNP
NNP
W S
TEW
ART
ST
EY
NJ 5
7
VAN
BU
REN
ST
T
T
MARB
LE ST
WIL
LOW
ST
COR
NIS
HS
URC
HS
HILL
ST
ALL
E CH
OPH
ILIA
ST
JE
FF
ER
ALLEGA
R ST
SO
NS
T
VAN
NAT
TA S
T
PR
O
SP
ER
WA
Y
HANN TER
R
MON
ROE
ST
WILLOW ST
J
N
31
YOUMAN
S AVE
D
OA
ILR
RA
E
AV
LOWER PA
RK RD
Legend
Study Area
Priority 1- Appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District and Historic District; building enhances character and should be maintained/restored.
Priority 2- Appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District and Historic District; building is consistent with character but does not enhance.
90
45
0
90
Priority 3- Appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District and Historic District; building detracts from character.
Planning and Architectural Analysis
NJ Highlands Council Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant (MP3)
Washington Borough, Warren County, NJ January 2006
°
Source: State of New Jersey, Office of Information Technology
New Jersey 2002 High Resolution Orthophotography
captured during February-April, 2002
180
270
Feet
Clarke Caton Hintz
Architects
Planners
Landscape Architects
Analysis & Conclusions
All properties in the study area were found to be appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown
Development District and were appropriate for inclusion in a potential Historic District.
The Downtown Development District encompasses the entire study area, which includes the
Borough’s traditional downtown, as well as limited surrounding residential neighborhoods.
Those lots along West Washington Avenue between just west of the intersection with Lincoln
Avenue and just east of State Highway Route 31 were found to be the most critical for
inclusion since they form the mixed use core of the downtown, consisting primarily of retail,
office, and public uses, as well as residential uses. Those uses included in the Downtown
Development District outside of this core serve as support uses for the downtown, such as
parking, recreation, and gateways.
In addition to being appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development District, all lots
were found to be appropriate for inclusion in an historic district, should the Borough find the
creation of an historic district desirable. Many of the lots in the study area are fine
architectural examples of Victorian and Revival styles, which include, among others, Queen
Anne, Folk Victorian, Gothic Revival, and Italianate styles. Over the years, almost all of the
buildings have been renovated, altering some or all of their defining characteristics. This
being said, there are a number of excellent examples in the study area that exhibit original
historic characteristics either because they have not been modernized or they were previously
restored to their original historic character. The majority of the buildings in the study area,
particularly the residences, have significant potential to be renovated such that they would
enhance the Borough’s historic character.
Block 11.02, Lot 3
102 West Washington Avenue
Block 25.01, Lot 6
112-116 West Washington Avenue
There are a number of commercial buildings along State Highway Route 31 and West
Washington Avenue that were built in the last fifty years. Unfortunately, most of these
buildings were developed as single story structures that do not contribute to the historic
character of the Borough. Much of this more recent construction along West Washington
Avenue is a result of a fire that occurred in the downtown several decades ago. These
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 8
buildings play a significant role in damaging the Borough’s historic character and the
appearance of the downtown.
While all properties were found appropriate for inclusion in the Downtown Development
district and most for inclusion in an Historic District, the historic character differs among the
properties tremendously. Those lots with a Priority of 1 were found to be consistent with the
historic character of the Borough and have a scale and configuration that enhances the
character of the street. These lots are primarily responsible for the Borough’s remaining
historic character; as such, the buildings on these lots should be maintained and restored to
their original historic configuration. The buildings on each of these lots are important to the
historic character of the Borough and either have previously been restored or have the
potential for restoration of the building’s original historic character. To provide guidance for
future restoration, the property surveys include some recommendations for building
rehabilitation.
Priority 1
Block 23, Lots 14 & 15
21 Belvidere Avenue
Priority 1
Block 24, Lot 10
49 East Church Street
Because of alterations, those lots with a Priority of 2 do not necessarily contribute to the
historic character of the Borough. However, because of their proximity to historically
contributing buildings and to lots that are consistent with the Borough‘s historic character,
the treatment of these buildings is important to enhancing the Borough’s historic character.
It is preferable but not critical that these buildings be maintained and restored. However,
because of their location in the Downtown Development District and their proximity to
contributing and significant buildings, any rehabilitation or redevelopment should be
consistent with historic design guidelines. Some recommendations for building restoration
for each of these lots are included in the property surveys.
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 9
Priority 2
Block 94, Lot 3
57-59 West Washington Avenue
Priority 2
Block 81, Lot 5
25 South Jackson Street
Those lots with a Priority of 3 were found to detract from the appearance of the street and the
Borough’s historic character due to an out of character site design and/or architectural style.
The buildings should be redeveloped with a design consistent with historic design
guidelines.
Their location within the Downtown Development District and close to
significant historic structures makes their long-term treatment crucial to the character of the
Borough.
Priority 3
Block 94.01, Lots 1 & 2
49-51 West Washington Avenue
Priority 3
Block 94.01, Lot 5
25-27 West Washington Avenue
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 10
The recommendation for each lot, whether priority 1, 2 or 3, should be carefully considered
during the creation of future regulations and policies and when reviewing development
applications in the study area. The recommendations may be used in part to determine
eligibility of sites for the local, State, and/or National Register of Historic Places, the
boundary of an historic district, historic significance, and recommended building
rehabilitation.
Strategic Plan for Historic Preservation
While the property surveys provide a comprehensive analysis of the lots and buildings in the
study area, they do not provide the directives necessary for implementation of improvements
to the downtown. This strategic plan provides an outline of what actions the Borough should
proceed with in order to further the policy framework and create the regulatory framework
that will lead to improvement of the downtown, preservation of the Borough’s historic
character and, potentially, creation of an historic district and eligibility of sites for a local
district, or the State and National Registers of Historic Places. In order to continue to make
progress, the following steps should be taken:
1) Adopt design guidelines consistent with the Borough’s historic character: These
guidelines should reflect the prevalent architectural styles in the Borough, including
Greek Revival, Queen Anne, Gothic Revival and Italianate, etc. Design guidelines should
be tailored to specific building types, such as residential single family structures,
residential multi family structures, commercial buildings and mixed use buildings. This
differentiation is important due to the wide variety of building types currently
represented and anticipated in the downtown.
2) Adopt sign guidelines consistent with the Borough’s historic character: Commercial
signage in the downtown should reflect the building styles and the historic character of
the Borough, and be at a size and scale that is appropriate for the building size, speed of
vehicular movement, and presence of pedestrian traffic.
3) Determine whether an Historic District is desirable: Based on the planning and
architectural survey, this study concludes that an Historic District might be appropriate.
However, the Borough must determine if creation of an historic district is desirable for
furthering the Borough’s revitalization goals and objectives. In addition, it must decide if
the additional controls available with the designation of a local district are desirable, or if
the status and tax incentives available from State and National districts are desirable, or if
both levels of designation meet the Borough’s needs. If it is deemed desirable, the
Borough should take the following actions:
a. Adopt an Historic Preservation Master Plan Element. An Historic Preservation
Master Plan element should be used as the medium for creation of a locally
designated Historic District and designation of historic sites. It is at the local level
that communities can exert the most influence over the future of their historic
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 11
buildings. For instance, specific controls on exterior work can be adopted. The
Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning Board can then insure that new
work on locally designated properties meets these requirements. Preparation of the
Master Plan Element would involve further planning and architectural analysis to
complete such tasks as preparation of historic district and site policy and determining
historic district boundaries. Future historic studies should evaluate much of the
remaining residential neighborhoods in the Borough for historic significance and
potential for inclusion in an historic district. Additionally, future historic studies
should identify sites throughout the Borough as well as historic districts that may be
eligible for local designation, or inclusion in the State and National Registers of
Historic Places.
b. Create an Historic Preservation Commission. The Historic Preservation Commission
is created and defined by a local ordinance adopted by the governing body and would
review rehabilitation work in locally designated Historic Districts. The Municipal
Land Use Law allows for an Historic Preservation Commission to have either an
advisory or a regulatory role and it requires that the Commission consist of between
five (5) and nine (9) members, plus alternates, who have a variety of backgrounds
ranging from preservation professionals to citizen advocates. Also, creation of an
Historic Preservation Commission will provide greater opportunity to receive
funding for historic related projects, such as creation of an Historic District and other
preservation activities.
c. Submit a nomination to the State and National Registers of Historic Places: This is
crucial first step for the designation of a State and National Historic District. In order
to complete the application, additional research, surveying and photography will need
to be completed. If successful, designation at the State and National levels will
provide federal tax incentives for income producing properties to complete work that
is in compliance with the “Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties”, as well as additional historic reviews on projects receiving state
or federal funding.
4) Revise the July 2002 Downtown Revitalization Plan. This plan should be revised to
reflect the boundary of the Downtown Development District and more in depth building
survey completed as part of this study and it should also reflect the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection’s new regulations impacting development
surrounding the Shabbecong Creek. It is not anticipated that the plan will change
substantially; however, a current and accurate plan is critical so that the Borough may
plan for development and redevelopment appropriately, and so that developers may
formulate reasonable expectations of permissible development potential.
Washington Borough Municipal Partnership Planning Pilot Grant - Historic Preservation
Page 12
Task 3.
Stream Corridor Protection
& Stormwater Management
BOROUGH OF WASHINGTON
CONCEPTUAL STREAM CORRIDOR PROTECTION PLAN
PREPARED WITH THE ASISTANCE OF A GRANT
FROM THE
NEW JERSEY HIGHLANDS COUNCIL,
MUNICIPAL PARTNERSHIP PILOT PROJECTS (MP3) GRANT
JANUARY 16, 2006
PREPARED BY
________________________________
Robert Miller, P.E., P.P.
NJ License No. 25970, 2710
STUDER AND McELDOWNEY, P.A.
Civil Engineers, Land Surveyors, Planners
120 West Main Street
Clinton, New Jersey 08809
908-730-6000
Fax 908-730-6029
Borough of Washington
Conceptual Stream Corridor Protection Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction.........................................................................................................................................................2
Project Description .............................................................................................................................................2
Goals and Vision .................................................................................................................................................4
The Plan…………................................................................................................................................................... 5
APPENDIX I
List of Properties Identified for Restoration, Preservation, Easement, or Acquisition
PLATES
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Washington Borough Stream Corridors – Existing Features
Conceptual Stream Corridor Protection Plan
Conceptual Stream Corridor Stormwater Management Plan
Conceptual Stream Corridor Protection & Stormwater Management Plan –
Redevelopment Area
RM:smg
01/16/06
m:\wb\d09640\stream corridor protection report.doc
Introduction
This Conceptual Stream Corridor Protection Plan documents visions and strategies
developed by the Washington Borough MP3 Advisory Group. A subcommittee, MP3 Stream
Corridor Subcommittee, was set up to address stream corridor issues. The membership was
as follows:
Robert Miller, P.E.
Municipal Engineer, Coordinator
Gary Pohorely
Borough Resident
Carl Hintz, P.P.
Borough Planner
James Sheldon
Executive Director, B.I.D.
Rosemarie Hoover
Borough Resident
The subcommittee was assigned by the Highlands Council to identify stream corridor
protection and stormwater management measures appropriate within a town center and
develop a document that will serve as a concept plan for stream corridor protection and
stormwater management measures within Washington Borough.
The subcommittee met on October 20, 2005, and also on December 29, 2005, with NJDEP
officials to discuss the goals and requirements of the subcommittee. Minutes of these
meetings are attached to the entire MP3 report.
Project Description
The Borough of Washington is traversed by one (1) stream, the Shabbecong Creek. All land
area of Washington Borough is within the Delaware River Watershed. The main watershed
which encompasses most of the Borough is the Shabbecong Creek, which is a tributary to the
Pohatcong Creek. A small portion in the southwest area of the Borough is located in the
Musconetcong River Watershed (12.1 acres). A portion of the northwest area of the Borough
is located in the Pohatcong Creek Watershed. The Pohatcong Creek runs outside of, but near
the northwest corner of the Borough, but a portion of this floodplain is located in the
Borough.
Currently, the Shabbecong Creek is classified as a Category One stream, along with the
Pohatcong Creek. The Stormwater Management Rules, adopted in January 2004 by the
NJDEP (NJAC 7:8-5), are intended to protect and enhance water quality and to preserve the
integrity of drinking water supplies statewide. In addition, these Rules work to minimize the
impact on Category One streams by controlling major development within the 300-foot
buffer around these high quality watersheds. These efforts enhance the protection of water
quality and in-stream habitat from the negative effects of widespread development.
The NJDEP regulations require Special Water Resource Protection Areas (SWRPA) to be
established along the Shabbecong Creek and Pohatcong Creek, because of their Category
One designation. These areas are established for the protection of water quality, aesthetic
value, exceptional ecological significance, exceptional recreational significance, exceptional
water supply significance, and exceptional fisheries significance. These regulations require a
300-foot Special Water Resource Protection Area on each side of the stream, measured
perpendicular to the waterway from the top of the bank outwards. Encroachment within the
300-foot SWRPA is only allowed where previous development or disturbance has occurred.
In no case shall the remaining SWRPA be reduced to less than 150 feet from the stream
bank.
Additional requirements of the NJDEP regulations require stormwater to be discharged
outside of, but may flow through the SWRPA, but must comply with the Standards for OffSite Stability in the "Standards for Soil Erosion and Sediment Control in New Jersey." There
are other requirements that may apply, all indicated in the NJDEP regulations.
I.
Goals and Vision
Washington Borough is an older, densely populated town in the south center of Warren
County. Most of the development in the Borough occurred during the late 1800s and
early 1900s, especially along and near the Shabbecong Creek. Much of this development
encroaches on the floodplain and the newly created Special Water Resource Protection
Areas of the Shabbecong Creek.
Many of these existing encroachments can be seen on Plate 1, Washington Borough
Stream Corridors, Existing Features, and in the various photos attached to the ARC-GIS
mapping. Because of the numerous encroachments and in recognition of the various
NJDEP regulations regarding the SWRPA, and how these regulations may impact the
Downtown Redevelopment area of the Borough, the subcommittee discussed various
goals. These goals are listed below:
1.
The stream corridor plan should be consistent or coordinated with the Downtown
Redevelopment Plan.
2.
The C-1 requirements on the stream should be discussed with the NJDEP to allow
greater flexibility in development and preservation adjacent to the stream.
3.
Develop a recommended acquisition plan for green space adjacent to the stream.
4.
The Stream Corridor Plan should be coordinated with the Borough Stormwater
Management Plan.
5.
Organize an annual cleanup program for the stream corridor. Work with local
service organizations to assist in the cleanup.
6.
Discuss and recommend a riparian buffer installation along sections of the
stream.
7.
Discuss the possibility of a designated stage area near the stream corridor for
Borough musical events.
8.
Discuss the possibility of a Memorial Garden in or near the stream corridor to
help get trees and shrubs donated for planting.
9.
Look into setting up an educational program available to the local schools and the
public with markers and labels for trees and shrubs in the stream corridor
environment.
10.
The stream corridor plan should be consistent with the Conservation and
Recreation Master Plan element of the Borough.
11.
Discuss the possibility of installation of a pedestrian bridge to easily allow
pedestrian access to both sides of the stream.
12.
Maximize pervious areas, install riparian vegetation to support the stream
environment and enhance resource protection.
II. The Plan
As a result of the subcommittee discussions and especially from our discussions with
the NJDEP officials, it would seem that the development of a Stream Corridor Protection
Plan could be a major asset to the Borough, especially as it relates to the Redevelopment
Area of the Borough. It would appear that the goals listed above could be incorporated
in the plan and still meet the NJDEP regulations concerning the stream. It was clear
from the meeting with the NJDEP that there is much work needed to accomplish an
acceptable Stream Corridor Protection Plan that can be approved by the NJDEP.
The following were identified as next steps in support of a future Stream Corridor
Protection Plan by the NJDEP:
1.
Identify storm water inlets, outlets and laterals on the ARC-GIS parcel map of
Washington Borough, focusing on the proposed redevelopment area. These
locations are approximate and based on existing local knowledge.
2.
Identify and develop a photo log of potential stream corridor restoration areas that
coordinates with the GIS map.
3.
Identify and map existing properties within the 150-foot buffer that may serve as
opportunities for restoration, easements or acquisition. Use the GIS map to
identify properties and indicate appropriate potential end use with different colors
or hatch markings.
4.
Prepare a report to support the concept plan and indicate next steps that are
required in order to complete the stream corridor protection plan, and municipal
stormwater mitigation plan.
Step #1 has been partially accomplished in that outlets directly to the Shabbecong have
been identified in an approximate way (see Plate 1) on the ARC-GIS mapping. These
outlets shown are probably not all existing outlets, but are certainly the major ones.
Step #2 has also been partially accomplished. I have included photos of several areas
along the Shabbecong and these photos have been included in the mapping provided
(see Plate 1 in ARC-GIS).
Step #3 has been accomplished. I have identified and mapped properties within the 150foot buffer that may serve as opportunities for restoration, easements or acquisition (see
Plate 4). These properties have been identified as follows on the mapping:
1.
Existing Green Acres
2.
Existing Open Space/Conservation Area
3.
Park Acquisition
4.
Park Easement
5.
Preservation Acquisition
6.
Preservation Easement
7.
Restoration Acquisition
8.
Restoration Easement
Refer to Appendix I for the full list of mapped properties.
The result of Step #4 is this report. In order to complete the Stream Corridor Protection
Plan (see Plate 2 for the Conceptual Stream Corridor Protection Plan), it will be
necessary to focus on several areas of information and provide more detailed
information on the stream corridor. The following are recommended as next steps in
this process:
1.
Accurately map and identify all stormwater inlets and outlets in the stream corridor
area. Drainage areas associated with these outlets will also need to be analyzed for
size of the watershed, nature and percent of impervious area, and other factors to
determine if it is warranted to attempt modifying the outlet to increase water
quality from each specific outlet.
2.
Develop a detailed photo log of the Shabbecong Creek to help identify areas that
may need restoration, or stabilization. This will also serve as a historic record to
monitor the stream's integrity in the future.
3.
Focus on which properties that have already been identified for restoration,
preservation, or acquisition are feasible goals to attain. Sources of funding would
also need to be explored in detail to provide the necessary funding involved in the
acquisition and/or restoration of these properties. The property owned by the
Borough that currently houses the Borough DPW garage facilities is a potential site
for restoration. A portion of this property could be modified to remove fill that was
placed in the floodplain years ago. This would provide additional flood storage
volume and could possibly help reduce flooding upstream or downstream. A
detailed flood analysis would have to be performed to determine if this is a feasible
option.
4.
Part of the Stream Corridor Protection Plan should be the development of a
detailed Borough Stormwater Mitigation Plan. This plan would detail each site
where mitigation could be accomplished in relation to stormwater quantity and/or
quality (see Plate 3).
One of the first areas of mitigation to be analyzed would be moving stormwater
outlets out of the SWRPA. The piped outlets would be moved preferably 300 feet
from the stream bank, but at least 150 feet from the stream bank. Stormwater for
the outlet would then be directed through stabilized swales to the stream which
would help achieve an increase in water quality. Areas of potential stormwater
detention would also need to be investigated to help decrease stormwater quantity
and increase stormwater quality. This type of mitigation may be limited in the
Borough due to limited availability of suitable property.
Also, as part of the mitigation, additions of filtering devices in or as part of the
existing stormwater pipe system could be investigated. These filtering devices
would remove pollutants that enter the stormwater system from parking areas and
streets.
Non-structural stormwater management strategies should be used to the maximum
extent practicable, as outlined in the NJDEP Stormwater Management Rules.
Some of these strategies include:
a)
Protecting areas that provide water quality or susceptible to erosion;
b)
Minimize, break up and/or disconnect impervious surfaces;
c)
Maximize protection of natural drainage features and vegetation.
These strategies should be utilized first wherever possible. Areas that can utilize
these strategies need to be identified on the mitigation plan. The Borough
Redevelopment Plan offers at least one area that could be targeted for nonstructural strategies. The area designated as a future park will include a diversity of
property types. Some properties can be acquired, offering a residential or
commercial property that can be transformed into green space, especially along the
stream. In this area, there exist several stormwater outlets that discharge directly to
the stream (see Plate 3). These can be removed at least from the 150-foot SWRPA,
thereby providing additional increase in water quality in addition to the additional
green space. In addition, our goals recommend the installation of riparian buffer
along sections of the stream. One of the areas for the riparian buffer could be in a
portion of the park area. Also, the goals identify the possibility of a Memorial
Garden which could be used to populate the area with appropriate trees and shrubs,
thereby further offering additional protective vegetation. Both of these concepts
could be utilized with the establishment of an educational program available to the
local schools.
The final park plan for this area envisions removal of the southern portion of
Vannatta Street offering an opportunity to remove a significant portion of
pavement. Also, the existing culvert on Vannatta Street would be removed
providing additional flood storage and riparian buffer. Also, the park plan proposes
to acquire Block 81, Lot 1, the current Suzuki Dealership which encroaches on the
stream corridor. It is proposed to restore this lot to green area, removing all
pavement and buildings.
The NJDOT is in the planning stages for possible improvements to the Route 57
corridor, and a portion of Route 31 near the route 57 intersection. Currently, these
projects are candidates for feasibility assessment at NJDOT and would also depend
on funding from NJDOT, which is uncertain at this time. Certain of these projects,
if they proceed, may have impact on the stream corridor.
Detailed stormwater measures will need to be developed in conjunction with the
planned downtown redevelopment area in order to assure compliance with the
NJDEP regulations for the stream corridor. Costs for implementation of this plan
could be offset by contributions from developers. A legal method to accomplish
this contribution would have to be discussed with the Borough Attorney. Once this
plan is approved by the NJDEP, then the LURP (NJDEP Land Use Regulation
Program) would be able to look at the Borough as a "site" instead of each individual
lot developed as a separate "site" or application. Assistance from the Highlands
Council working with the NJDEP in an interagency effort to review and identify the
next steps in the process for the Borough regarding stream corridor protection and
storm water management regulation.
Timing of redevelopment and stream corridor protection is difficult. Completing
the stream corridor plan first provides an incentive for developers to follow the
revitalization plan until a redevelopment plan can be put in place. A huge benefit
can be gained by developers in time and money, since developers would not have to
go through the regulatory process individually with the NJDEP, but rather can
comply with the Borough Plan approved by the NJDEP.
APPENDIX I
LIST OF PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED FOR RESTORATION,
PRESERVATION, EASEMENT, OR ACQUISITION
BLOCK
LOT
USE
101
13.01
Public
101
13.03
Public
Existing Open Space
2.12
1
Vacant
Park Acquisition
94
21
Residential
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
Park Easement
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
39
33
36
28.01
28
27
23
10
47
37
46
31
38
39.01
40
45
41
44
29
43
32
34
35
38.01
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Preservation Acquisition
Preservation Acquisition
Preservation Acquisition
Preservation Acquisition
Preservation Acquisition
Preservation Acquisition
Preservation Acquisition
70
70
100
100
98
98
101
5.01
5.02
52
51
44
50
13.02
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Vacant
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
95
101
101
27
5
7
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Existing Green Acres
Property
Existing Green Acres
Property
BLOCK
LOT
USE
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
100
81
81
70
100
95
10
7
5
5
40
28
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
70
70
70
70
2.03
70
81
12
2
4
3
16
6
6
Residential
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Residential
Residential
Residential
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
Preservation Easement
80
70
72
2.03
12
11
26
17
Multi-Family
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
Restoration Acquisition
94
94
94
81
81
69
94
70
80
24
26
25
1
3
15
30
1
2.01
Residential
Commercial
Residential
Commercial
Residential
94
57
Public
72
80
94
94
98
98
94
Vannatta Street
94
24.04
13
9
48
24
24.01
42
Residential
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
Industrial
Vacant
48.01
Residential
Restoration Easement
Property
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
Restoration Easement
RM:smg
01/16/06
m:\wb\d09640\stream corridor protection report.doc
Residential
Commercial
Commercial