Cumberland County coastal zone an analysis of land use plans and regulations and its consistency with the State of New Jersey coastal management program

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

CUMBERLAND COUNTY
COASTAL ZONE

AN ANALYSIS OF LAND USE
PLANS AND REGULATIONS
AND ITS CONSISTENCY WITH
STATE OF N.J. COASTAL
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

HT
393
N5
@56
1978 CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COASTAL ZONE

An Analysis of Land Use Plans
and Regulations and its Consistency
with the State of New Jersey
Coastal Management Program
U.S.- DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
John J. Holland
Cumberland County Planning Board
Director

December, 1978

Prepared by: Czeslawa J. Zimolzak
Senior Planner

property of CSC Library

This report was prepared under the terms of contract to the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Marine Services,
Office of Coastal Zone Management, with financial assistance under the
provisions of Section 305 of P.L. 92-583, Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972.

INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

The importance of protecting the coastal zone of the United States was recognized in 1972,
when Congress passed the Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583), since amended in
1976 (P.L. 94-370). In accordance with the Act, states can plan coastal management programs
and obtain financial assistance from the federal government for their implementation. The program
is administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Direct responsibility for the States' coastal programs is invested in the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Management.

The State of New Jersey has been participating in the federal coastal management program
since 1974. As a result of this participation the New Jersey DEP/OCZM has finished its first
segment (Bay and Ocean Shore) of the Coastal Management Program. It was recently approved
by the Secretary of Commerce and the State received a federal grant for implementation of its
program. The Coastal Management Program (BOSS) is based on existing laws: Riparian (water-
front development), The Wetlands Act of 1970 and CAFRA (1973). The existing CAFRA area,
together with the wetlands extending landward of the CAFRA boundary, define the Coastal zone
as currently bounded.

In Cumberland County, the Coastal Zone encompasses 38% of the total area. Cumberland
has a total of fourteen municipalities, ten of which are affected by the DEP/0CZM management
program, (Greenwich, Stow Creek, Hopewell, Bridgeton, Fairfield, Lawrence, Downe, Com-
mercial, Maurice River and Millville). Only one municipality, Greenwich, is totally within
the Coastal Zone.

Now, the State is working on the preparation of the second segment of the coastal manage-
mqnt program; it should be ready (draft form) in June, 1979.

In 1977, DEP/OCZM initiated the State-County Coastal Coordination project, inviting the
twelve coastal counties (Hudson, Union, Middlesex, Monmouth, Ocean, Burlington, Atlantic,
Cape May, Cumberland, Salem, Gloucester and Camden) to study the possible onshore impact
from offshore drilling. The main purpose of this joint State-County cooperation project was to
identify sites potentially suitable for the location of energy facilities. In 1978, as a continuance
of the cooperative relationship between the State and the countiesIDEP invited the same coastal
counties to participate in a "State-County Coastal Coordination Project".

The purpose of this'study is: a) to review and comment on all state documents related to
coastal planning, addressing the accuracy and adequacy of the policies and management systems
proposed for the County; b) to analyze consistency between county and municipal plans and
zoning ordinances and their consistency or inconsistency with the State coastal policies; c) to
actively seek cooperation with county and municipal governments,and d) to encourage public
participation in the coastal planning process.

In this report are included both general and specific recommendation regarding coastal
management planning and its implementation.

ABSTRACT

This study includes a review and analysis of the county coastal municipalities'
future land use plans and regulations governing land and water uses.

The study attempts to discern differences between local land and water use policies
and regulations and the State of New Jersey's Coastal Management Program policies.
If an inconsistency were discovered, some recommendations were made to the municipalities
and/or were discussed at meetings with their representatives. Some municipalities
will probably be more aware of the important issues of this study after the report has
been released for public review.

Based on statements and opinions presented by coastal residents at public meetings,
recommendations for changes in the Wetlands and Riparian statutes have been made.
Recommendations of the Cumberland County Planning Board are also included in the
report.

Officials of both the coastal municipalities and the County are of the opinion
that this important program involving cooperation between State and local government
should be continued. Municipal land use plans and regulations, if they are consistent
with the State of New Jersey program, should be officially adopted by the State.
The establishment of offices of coastal zone management in each county would greatly
aid in implemenfling the State Coastal Management Program.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the people who helped in the preparation of this report.
The assistance of John J. Holland, Director of the Cumberland County Planning Board
and Andrea Topper of the DEP/OCZM staff were of great value in shaping the final
report.

Special thanks are extended to Howard Wolf, Student Intern of Rutgers University,
for his help in analyzing the coastal municipalities' Future Land Use Plans and zoning
ordinances and for his participation in the study using the CLAM methodology.

Thanks are also due to the staff of the Cumberland County Planning Board, in
particular to Kenneth W. Sheppard and Frank Puller for help with drafting of the
maps,

Finally, thanks are due to Diane May for her patience in typing the report
and attendent correspondence. For editing, I wish to thank my husband, Chester
Zimolzak, Chairman of the Department of Geography and Anthropology at Glassboro
State College.

Front cover: East Point Lighthouse on the Maurice River,. Sketch by Frank Puller.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Introduction and Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

Acknowledgement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . . . . .. iv

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi

COUNTY CHARACTER

A. Site and Situational Location of Cumberland County . . . . . . . 2
B. The Population Resource and Regional Variation in Economics 2
C. The Traditional Economic Bases of Cumberland 4
D. The Transportation Infrastructure 6
E. The Population: Growth, Distribution, Pattern and Change 6
F. The Problems of Growth and No Growth 10
G. Resources and Potential 11

STATE COASTAL PLANNING PROGRAM AND THE COUNTY

A. Implication of the Proposed State Coastal Program for the
County 14
B. Recommendation for Legislative Change of Existing CAFRA
Boundary in Cumberland County 18
C. Recommendation for Changes in the Coastal Policies 25

Ill, STATE -LOCAL COASTAL POLICY CONSISTENCY

A. Summary of County and Municipal Plans, Zoning and Maps 26
a. The 1966 Plan and the Cumberland County Coastal Zone 26
b. Review of the Coastal Municipalities Master Plans and
Zoning Ordinance: 28
City of Bridgeton 28
Commercial Township 34
Downe Township 36
Fairfield Township 40
Greenwich Township 43
Hopewell Township 49
Lawrence Township 52
Maurice. River Township 53
City of Millville 55
Stow Creek Township 58

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

B. Areas of Agreement, Conflict, Confusion Among Land Use
Plans and Policies 66 66
C. Recommendation for Administrative and Regulatory Changes . . . 67

IV. COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OFFICE AS COASTAL LEARNING
HOUSE

A. Contact with Coastal Municipalities: Providing Information
on the DEP/OCZM Planning Program . . . . . . . . . . 69
B. Summary of Experience Commenting on DEP Coastal Permit
Applications 70
C. Recommendations for Future State/County Relationships . . . . 70

APPENDICES

A. Greenwich Township Public Meeting

B. Lawrence Township Public Meeting

C. List of Publications - Cumberland County Planning Board

D. Cumberland County Utility Authority Expansion Plan

E. John Holland "Statement of the Cumberland County Planning
Board at the Department of Environmental Protection Public
Hearing" Held at the Cumberland County Court House,
June 13, 1978

F. CLAM Methodology Application to the Hypothetical Study Case

G. Proposal for the 1979 State- County Coastal Coordination Project

LIST OF TABLES

Number Page

I Unemployment Statistics for Cumberland County: Projections
for Fiscal 1979 . . . . . . . . 4

2 Population Shifts and Growth in Cumberland County . . . . . . . 8

3 Population Change Bay Shore Townships 8

4 Relative Share of County Population Living in the Bay Shore
Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

5 Cumberland County Coastal Municipalities, Legal Inventory . . . 30

6 Cumberland County Coastal Municipalities Legal Inventory -
Future Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinance 30

7 Municipal Land and Water Use Decision Making Authorities . . . 65

LIST OF FIGURES

1 Cumberland County Location Map . . . . . . . 3

2. Gradual Abandonment of Cumberlands Rail Lines, 1930-1938 7

3 Generalized Regions of Population Change 1960-70 . .
4 Generalized Area under the "Wetlands Act"of 1970 . . . . . . 16

5 Proposed Changes for CAFRA Boundary . . 19

6 Area Encompassed By Proposed Assembly Bill No. 1429 21

7 Generalized Soil Map . 0 23

8 Bridgeton Industrial Park . . . . . . . . . 31

9 Bridgeton Conservation Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

10 Downe Township Development Capabilities 37

11 Township of Hopewel I Land Use Plan 50

12 Millville Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . . . 56

1. COUNTY CHARACTER

A. Site and Situational Location of Cumberland County

Cumberland County is located in South Jersey along the Delaware Bay. In terms of County
character, it does not fit easily into any of the "standard" New Jersey categories (figure 1). It
is neither urban/industrial, nor suburban/white collar/commuter, nor shore/resort/retired. Like
Warren, Hunterdon and Salem counties, it is rather more reflective of the New Jersey landscape
of the past, than of New Jersey as it has developed to the present. Adjacent to megalopolis it
is not fully (nor typically) a part of it. Near to Philadelphia, it is not a part of that S,M.S.A.
While industry is the major employer, the county still has a large, well-developed agricultural
base. Its shore areas are only marginally developed for recreational boating and fishing; shell-
fish harvesting and crabbing activities have considerable local importance. Not part of the
pine barrens as officially conceived, nor developed for mountain resort (it is flat), it is in large
measure a forested area. The Delaware Bay shore has not been well developed for either recrea-
tional or industrial activity and much of it has been alocated to fish, game and wildlife
reserves. It is located too far from either the Delaware Valley industrial areas or the seashore to
have experienced growth from either of those two poles.

The resources of the County include a considerable acreage of good agricultural land, a
fair amount of decent grade, second-growth timber, an abundance of pure water, vast areas of
open, undeveloped space, large deposits of commercially valuable foundry and glass sands, and a
steadily improving transportation network. A major portion of the County has been assigned a
low-growth, low-development priority status by State agenc ies.

B. The Population Resource and Regional Variation in Economi'cs

The bulk of Cumberland's population is concentrated in its three cities: Vineland, Millville
and Bridgeton. The first two named contain enormous acreages of non-residential land within
generous corporate borders. Bridgeton, however occupies a tight corporate area with little
room for industrial or residential expansion. Alm, ost 75% of'the County's population live in these
three municip9lities.

The western townships (Hopewell, Stow Creek, Greenwich, Deerfield, Upper Deerfield,
Fairfield) and the Borough of Shiloh have sound agricultural economies based on good soil and
prudent management. The lightly popufated eastern townships (Lawrence, Downe, Commercial,
Maurice River), as well as the southern half of Fairfield Township, constitute a residual economic
area. Largely wooded and containing great areas of wetlands and coastal beach, they are not
well-developed economically. Sand mining (open pit), often marginal farming, and a depressed
fishing industry employ most of those who are employed. Perceived as an historical treasure, a
vast reserve of open space, a splendid ecological reserve, and a lush, attractive, quiet corner
of New Jersey by people outside the area, few have given serious thought to the economic
problems within Cumberland.

Its vast water resources (navigable rivers, *ihe Bay, groundwater, lakes) and sheer open space
make Cumberland potentially attractive to certain types of investment. Low real estate prices
in the coastal segment have attracted only a small amount of private, second home development.
These same low land prices, and plentiful water, have now attracted the interest of power compan-
ies in the form of potential sites for nuclear generating stations.

FIGURE
LOCATION MAP

CUMBERLAND COUNTY

N Q

N EW Y R K

0 IG 32 64

SCALE IN MILES

PREPARED BY THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

NEW Y 0-P

P E N N S Y L. V A N I A

HILADELPHIA

J4 E W JERSEY
%VILM@gGTO

MARYLAND
CUMBERLAND
COUN Y

BALTIMORE

ATLANTIC CITY

Q D E L..
'c'

W SHIN
GTON

APE MAY N.J.-LEw'ES.01L.
FERRY

Residents.of the area work largely within the County. Some 1000 people work outside the
state in Pennsylvania and Delaware; 3000 commute to surrounding counties, particularly Salem
County. The net inflow of commuters exceeds the outflow by a considerable rate. Over 7000
Fommuters complete the daily journey to work to Cumberland from surrounding counties (over
60C@O from Atlantic, Salem and Gloucester). This commuting is largely to Vineland,'reflecting
the location of that city peripheral to Cumberland County and immediately adjacent to Salem,
Gloucester and Atlantic. A major regional service center, Vineland concentrates many health,
detention, geriatric and other public institutions. With 37% of the County's population, it con-
centrates over one-half of ail the County's non-governmental administrators and managerial
employees, over one-half of salaried employees, and 46% of its retail employees and sales
personnel. The city is ringed with suburbs (eg. Newfield, Malaga, Buena) and exurban sprawl
located outside the County's limits, but within its economic and commuting spheres.

C. The Traditional Economic Bases of Curoberland

The County's industrial base is dominated by light industrial types: glass, food processing,
clothing, and textiles. Of these, the food, clothing and textile industries depend largely on
unskilled or semi-skilled labor paid at low rates. The local industrial base has not been stable
in recent years. Unemployment rates (12.5%) are very high and job opportunities are limited.
The recent layoff of 300 persons at a glass firm in Bridgeton has been a harsh blow to an
already-sagging regional economy. (Three hundred more layoffs are planned). A large
printing and lithography firm also closed (1978) with a layoff of 250 persons. These are only
the latest additions to a long list of plants and employers who have curtailed or reduced operations
si nce 1972.

The County has suffered a net loss of some 2500 factory jobs since 1973. Increases in non-
manufacturing employment have effectively countered this loss, but just barely. Of the 2600
jobs added since 1976 in the non-manufacturing categories, some 1300 are CETA jobs. Minority
groups and teenage unemployment rates are even higher than County averages.

TABLE I

Unemployment Statistics for Cumberland County-
Projections for Fiscal 1979

Unemployment Rates for:
White male 6%
White females 11%
Male/female white teenage group 13%
Non-white males 13%
Non-white females 24%
Male/female non-white teenage 19.5%

Source: Overall Economic Development Progress Report for 1977,
Cumberland County, N.J., Bridgeton, Cumberland
County Economic Development Board, 1978.

Because of these difficult economic conditions directly affecting many of Cumberland's
households., economic redevelopment, not ecologic conservation, is uppermost in the public
mind at this time. Mindful of their valuable environment, however, it is a selective desire for
development. Labor-intensive types are preferred. Capital-inte'nsive and/or environmentally
destructive types cre feared or considered less desirable. Their low employment potential, in
the light of implied environmental deterioration, is viewed as no bargain. Nuclear generating
facilitiesf for example, are a permitted use (as a water-oriented industry) in the wetlands portion
of the coastal zone; other less destructive, non-water-oriented industries are not. Industry is
discouraged from location in agricultural areas, regardless of type. Such apparent logical
discrepancies are a source of confusion and dismay to local residents, - in particular in those
areas which are dominated by coastal wetlands and/or cgricultural uses. - with 38% of the
County in the CAFRA zone as now defined, many coastal residents see no hope for future de-
velopment and employment. Tax benefits to be obtained from large capital investment facilities
(capital intensive units with few employees' are seen, quite properly, as the only local benefit.
Employment potential is so low (other than that of temporarily employed labor in construction),
that they are seen as virtually of no benefit at all. Such communities as historic Greenwich
found it difficult to understand the-reasoning behind coastal area and wetlands regulations
which would seemingly allow a nuclear power plant at the some time that they precluded light
industry from a wetlands area. (See Appendix A). This situation has resulted in some degree
of public alienation.

The area's farm economy is reasonably stable. However, it wil I not likely be an employmerif
growth sector. Ever-increasing mechanization and a switch 'to low labor requirement crops such
as grains and soybeans will likely result in even lower levels of employment in the agricultural
sector. Increasing labor costs, agricultural price and market instability, and the closing of
area food processing plants have all been instrumental in bringing about this basic crop pro-
duction shift. Long term, gradual and continued decline in agricultural employment has been
the forecast of the Cumberland County Economic Development Board as well.

The oyster industry, once a major area employer, was hit with MSX disea se (and consequent
declining production) in the 1950's. The oyster drill, an oyster destroying parasite, invaded the
lower Bay in numbers during dry years, as increasing amounts of water were being withdrawn by
residential and industrial users in the rapidly developing Delaware Valley areas upstream of
the Bay. Wetter years, reduced developmental pace and, potentially, a new device and method
devised by engineer Luther Jeffries, have helped reduce oyster drill damage. Unfortunately,
despite prolonged research, the Rutger's University Oyster Research Laboratory has been unable
to come up with an answer to the problem of MSX. Harvests are slowly improving, but MSX
continues as a problem, preventing a return to former high production levels. The rapid silta-
tion of the mouth of the Maurice River has made it increasingly difficult for oyster boats to use
that natural channel. A maintenance dredging project (allowed ut)der coastal area legislation)
would be of some benefit to that industry and its operators. This environmentally sensitive industry
will, on the whole, be protected by the coastal programs. The Economic Development Board
has assigned a number one priority to the development of a Marine Research Lob in Commercial
Township.

An area of past economic significance, but long neglect, is the recreation potential of
Cumberiand's Bayshore. In times past, a series of small resorts lined the Bay, catering to the
areals population as well as to tourists from Philadelphia. Parts of the lower Bay are ill adapted

to such usage. Shallow, muddy waters would not attract users. In these same areas, however,
recreational development might well disturb or destroy the oyster grounds. The shoreline between
Stow Creek and Egg Island, however, presents considerable opportunity for carefully planned
development. The waters are fairly clear, marinas and boat storage facilities exist, and the
beaches are potentially attractive, if sometimes badly littered and poorly maintained at the present.
The County contains additional tourist attractions: a zoo, several fine municipal parks, many lakes
(most undeveloped), vast forested areas, and a considerable resource of historical houses and
structures. Increasing numbers of people are beginning to avail themselves of these resources in
a South Jersey almost devoid of state sponsored recreational facilities. (Cumberland itself contains
not a single state park or tourist-oriented, state forest facility). Local recreational needs have
been met -virtually entirely by local investment. The residents of urbanized (Delaware Valley)
South Jersey have few alternatives available to them except to use the already crowded beaches
of the shore. This recreational need is chronic and growing; Cumberland's coastal areas and open
space could do much to alleviate existing recreational pressures in South Jersey.

D. The Transportation Infrastructure

One of Cumberland's greatest difficulties in attracting and maintaining an industrial base
is its inadequate transportation network.. There are no major through-routes of importance. The
completion of Route 55 in its entirety (it is long-completed within the County limits) will provide
an important connection to the rest of the New Jersey network. Until the construction of 55,
Cumberland was the only New Jersey county not served by the Interstate System, the Garden
State Parkway, the New Jersey Turnpike, or similar, four-Ian--, limited access highways, The
integration of 55 with the rest of the network will remove some of the problems inherent in the
County's peripheral location. An excellent system of secondary and tertiary roads is well-main-
tained. The lack of a connection from Route 55 to other major arteries long rendered 55 an
economic dead end. It was literally a road to nowhere, -from nowhere. With the impending
completion of route 55, and the added advantage of an excellent network of existing. secondary
fee'ders, the network can begin to function properly.

The railroad system of fhe County has recently received a reprieve in the face of projected
mileage cutbacks. Area sand mines are dependent on rail transportation, much as any other com-
modity with a low value to bulk ratio. Truck shipment (long distance) is out of the question
under current economic conditions. The rail network has gradually decreased over the last 50
years (See Figure 2). Further decreases would pose a threat to many area industries; it would
also reduce further the County's ability to attract future investment.

A large and expanding air service (Millville Airport) shows promise for the future. Few (and
only highly specialized industries),however, can avail themselves of this expensive freight mode.
Recent development of commuter flights and an engine repair facility are enhancing its value
to the area's economy.

E. The Population: Growth, Distribution, Pattern and Change

Both recent and long term economic developments have been mirrored in the County's popu-
lation c1stri6ution and change. The Vineland-Millville economic axis is experiencing rapid
and continued growth. The rest of the county is experiencing much slower growth, stagnation,

FIGURE 2.

GRADUAL DECLINE OF: RAILROAD SEERIVICE IN
CUPViSERLAND COUNT Y: '1930 ---1978

VINELAND

BRIDGETON

0 00.&

MILLVILLE

LEGEND

000009000 LINES ABANDONED BY i939
UNES ABANDONED BY 1940-1964
0*00*0@00 LINES ABANDONED B)'19(35-1972 SCALE IN MiLES
000000000 LINES ABANDONED BY 1973-1977
LINES STILL IN OPERATION-1970
0 2 4 6

or even decline (Table 2). The coastal areas are those which exhibit the slowest overall growth
within the county. In the most recent decade, Lawrence, Downe, Greenwich, the coastal
portion of Fairfield, and the City of Bridgeton experienced net population decline, while Shiloh
and Stow Creek had very low growth rates (figure 3 and Table 3).

Table 2

Population Shifts and Growth in Cumberland County

Growth Rate Growth Rate
1920- 1970 1.9.60 - 1970

I . Southwest Region
(Shiloh, Stow Creek, Greenwich) 29% 0. OCP/O
2. Bridgeton Area
(Upper Deerfield, Hopewell, Fair
Fairfield,, Bridgeton City) 85% 4.47%
3. Vineland-Millville Axis
(Deerfield, Vineland, Mioo 117% 21.17%
4. Eastern Bayshore
(Lawrence, Downe, Commercial,
Maurice River) 6 CP/o 6.01%
5. Cumberland County 990/0 13.6%
6. New Jersey Table 3 127% 18.2%
Population Change Bay Shore Townships I

DECADE
Municipality 1930-40 1940-50 1950-60 1960-70
Commercial -1.8 + ],,5 + 0.2 +13.0
Downe -1.8 +15.5 + 4,7 - 5.0
Lawrence -1.0 +16.5+ +29. 1 *+ -11.7
Greenwich -5.1 + 4.0 +12.4 -11.3
Stow Creek -9.5 +32.9*+ + 5.5 + 4.0
Maurice River -2.5 +25.3*-F + 9.5 +20.5
City of Bridgeton +1.8 +15.2 +14.7 - 2.5
Cumberland County +4.7 +21.0+ +20.6 +13.6
N.J. +2.9 +16.2 +25.5 +13.3
U.S. +7.2 +14.5 +18.4 +13.3
growth exceeding County Average + growth exceeding N.J. Average

Source: U.S. Census
IN.B. Fairfield., an area of sustained growth, has been excluded from the table. Said growth
has occurred in the area adjacent to Bridgeton as suburban growth and not in the Bayshore
segment of that Township.

FIGURE 3

GENERALIZED REGIONS OF POPULATION CHANGE 1960-70
CUMBERLAND COUNTY

SALL31 COUNTY
-'N

.. . . ..... .. .

I....... ..... ..
..... . ..... ......

.... ... ... . .... . .
+H .........
. .... 1`5 1@1 -- ----
E;;4
TOW CREA-1 .. ....... :.:.K.

...........

3X,0M
......... .......

I D

... .... ....
............ .....
0.

. . . . . . . . . .
AWRENCE,
. ............

. ............
.... ... ..... .....

.... ......
.... .... ......
.... ...........
..........
.......... ... .......
.............

...........

... . ......... .. .
. ....... .......
F descue . .....
.................I
............
...........
............
....... ..... . .

Rapid Growth (over 20%)
Low' to M Ioder'ate Growth (+10120%)
r

I Stagnation or Decline (-12% to +4/o)

The greatest growth in the coastal area occurred by and large during the decade 1940-1950.
Sporadic growth has occurred since that time in occassional areas, but low net growth or stagnation
has been the rule. Relative decline has been the case throughout recent history (Table 4@ and
will probably be the case for some time.

Table 4

Relative Share of County Population Living in the Bay Shore Area

Bayshore Area Inland Area
Population % Population %
1920 1 9r696 15.8 511652 84.2
1930 1 1 if 162 15.9 58,733 84.1
1940 1 10,822 14.8 621362 85.2
1950 1 121732 14.4 75,865 85.6
1960 1 131 901 13.0 921949 87.0
1970 14r397 11.8 1061977 88.2
1976 est. 2 15r885 11.9 11 7f 571 88.3
July, 1978 est @ 15,160 11.5 117r285 88.5

*Bayshore Area includes: total area of Greenwich Township, parts of Fairfield,
Lawrence, Downe, Commercial, Maurice River, Stow Creek and Hopewell Township
Sources: 1 U.S. Census, 2N.J. Dept. of Labor and Industry (est imates),3C.E. Zimolzak,
Glassboro State, Dept. of Geo-oraphy (estimates).

F. The Problems of Growth and No Growth

While overall County growth may exceed the State average during this decade (there is
much variety and conflicting data in estimates and projections), the region's growth is not
necessarily based on a sound economic footing. Commercial Township, the area of lowest
mean, median and per capita income in the County, experienced reasonable growth (13.0%)
during the decade 1960-1970. The two factors, population growth and development, are not
always effect and cause in an equation. Growth may continue to occur along with high reg-
ional unemployment and economic problems.

Attempts to attract industry have not always been successful. A bright note is the recent
attraction of small industries to a number of industrial plants vacant for from 3 to 10 years.
Several hundred jobs were added in three such old plants. These, however, were countered
by layoffs or shutdowns at other area employers. Labor market forecasts assume continued decline
in agricultural and industrial employment. Warehousing, distribution and supply facilities, with
a low employment to space ratio, have been increasingly attracted to area industrial parks. New
Jersey and the East Coast have seemingly entered into an era of economic decline. Cumberland,
toof has seemed to follow this pattern. With a high local un6mployment rate, continued in-
flationt and low median income (in 1970, only the seasonally unemployed, tourist-oriented
counties of Ocean, Atlantic, and Cape May had lower income figures) it is natural that programs
which are envisioned by the public as "limiting" to development will be carefully and critically

examined. This has been and will be reflected in attitudes toward programs dealing with land
management in coastal areas.

Cumberland is in need of some economic diversity. Tourism Js one such potential area of
expansion. Light industry, however, is considered both desirable and necessary by most County
leaders and citizens; it is viewed as the best way to solve unemployment problems and to diver-
sify the economic base at the some time. Much of the capital plant (including structures) in
Bridgeton is obsolete or obsolescent. Many of the area's industries suffer critical competition
from imports. The local apparel industry has been characterized by some analysts as overdepend-
ent on government contracts.
Naturally, the prime consumer Iweapon in the attack on-inflation ha's'thus far been multiple
incomes per household, - the working wife is the prototype. High area female unemployment
(See Table 1), low female job opportunity, and low levels of median income are an argum .ent for
more development., not less, in the public mind.

G-. Resources and Potential

The problems associated with Cumberland's economy do not match up with.its potential.
One of the few remc@lning uncongested areas of the State, it ranks among the least densely pop-
ulated of New Jersey's Counties (242/sq. mile in 1970; 266/sq. mile as of 1976 estimates).
The Bayshore area municipalities generally have densities of from 35 to 65 per square mile,
with the exception of Commercial Township, in which two larger towns (Mauricetown and Port
Norris) are located. The more populous northern municipalities support larger populations in
an area characterized by large, prosperous farms and small industries. The three urban centers
of Vi@neland, Millville and Bridgeton contain most jobs in both the manufacturing and non-manu-
facturing segments of the economy (other than agriculture and mining), supporting both high
urban densities and outlying rural non-farm populations of commuters. (Vast corporate jurisdic-
tions result in comparatively low densities in the cities of Vineland and Miliville, however).

The area is one of New.Jersey's flattest, typical of the outer coastal plain which covers
most of th-- County. Only a few stream bank areas would exceed a 6% slope. Most of the inland
area is between 20 and 100 feet above sea level. Most of the area designated as the coastal
zone is between 0 and 20 feet above mean sea level. The abundance of flat -land means that
erosion, and consequent siltation, are relatively minimal problems. Construction of either
highways or structures requires minimal excavation or fill at most sites.

Water rich, the entire County is drained by two major streams, the Cohansey and Maurice
Rivers (both navigable) and by a series of small streams along the Bayshore between these two
rivers. The major streams both have low gradients with consequently meandering courses and
adjacent swampy flood plains. Because of this, the coastal area, and attendant wetlands,
penetrate far inland to the north-central portions of the County. Tidal marshes extend' from
one to five miles inland from the shore of the Delaware Bay and up the two major streams to
Bridgeton and Millville. Large manma'de lakes (Union, Sunset, East and Laurel Lakes, as well
as Clarks Pond, Sh-eppards Mill Pond, and others) have been built in the upper reaches of the
two main rivers and along their tributaries. Some are so-called cedar lakes and many are
impoundments once used for industrial water power in a past era. A maze of lakes and ponds,
interlinked by confused drainage and resulting in part from water-filling of old sandpits, dots

the landscape of Maurice River and Commercial Townships while dominating the landscape of
portions of Downe and Lawrence Townships.

This abundance of surface water is matched by a large reserve of groundwater. Some 16
to 18% of the County has a cover of permanent or seasonally standing water. The sandy soil
facilitates vertical drainage in the upper two-thirds of the County and on interfluve areas
@@Own locally as "necks". The geologic formations which underly Cumberland all dip to the
south o-r-southeast. most often increasing in thickness with depth. Some eleven formations
have been researched, identified and mapped. The Cohansey Sands, one of the most water-
rich of these levels, form a horizon which can be tapped for future needs (up to 1000 gal Lons
per minute yields in a properly installed well) . The Kirkwood formation is currently supplying
water only to Millville; it, too, is a potential future water source for Vineland and Bridgeton
(as well as Bridgeton's surrounding suburbs) currently being served by the Cohansey sands. The
groundwater is relatively soft and free of impurities, though the high permeability of soils requires
that careful treatment of water be undertaken lest groundwater become polluted.

The soils of the County are extremely sandy. The hillier, northwestern portion of the County
contains finer sands, characteristic of the inner coastal plain. Coarser sands prevail in the
southern and -southeastern portions of the County. The sandy soil results in good soil drainage
conditions over almost all areas of the county except in floodplains and areas adjacent to the
shoreline. Soils in the County are highly variable and complex. Scattered areas of Class I
and Class 11 soil exist, but economics often dictate use as much as natural conditions. Careful
farming, heavy fertilization, increased cultivation of legumes (especially soybeans), and irri-
gation have often so improved upon nature that soil maps don't always reflect realities. Real-
istically, however, much of Cumberland has soils far below economic standards, and only about
one-fourth of the land area is devoted to agriculture, (mainly. in the northwestern portion of the
County and around Vineland). This farming area surrounds the major urban centers, and together
they contain about 85% of the population.

I Like most coastal plain areas of recent sediments, Cumberland County has relativ'ely few
mineral resources. However, large sand and gravel deposits of commercial grade exist in the
southeastern part of the County. Almost one-half of the area of Maurice River and Commercial
Townships is underlain with "high economic potential" sands and gravels. A large portion of
Downe Township and parts of Lawrence Township and the City of Millville contain similar deposits.
The mining of these deposits is carefully regulated by federal and state reclamation laws. They
are used in foundries and glass plants along the whole East Coast. Some deposits are used for
fillf construction material and other uses as well. The area described is one of the largest
and best developed industrial sand reserves in the United States.

Some 55% of the County is in open space designated as woodlands, wetlands and vacant
land. Some 120,000 acres of woodland cover major portions of the county, in particular those
areas east of Bridgeton and Deerfield and South of Vineland. Of this total, some 32,000 acres
of privately owned woodland are located in Maurice River Township alone. Public open space,
some in the form of parks, but especially in the form of State Fish and Game Preserves, covers
about 11% of the County's area.

The Coun ty's finfish, shellfish, and wildlife resources are an important asset. Oyster,
crab, and clam grounds front on the County's Delaware Bay shoreline. A wide variety of

waterfowl inhabit,- winter in, or migrate through the area, in particular its lakes and coastal
wetlands. The close juxtaposition, indeed interdigitation, of farms, forests, wetlands, tidal
marsh, surface waters, and pasture, form a varied, almost i6eal millieu for the development of
a great quantity, quality and variety of wildlife species.

The@_scenic cultural and historic resources of the county are many and varied, including
New England - like fishing villages, natural unspoiled coastal marshed, stately, (often opulent)
19th century townhouses, solid farmhouses of every era and style, as well as ethnic churches
and foods. In all, there are 85 registered historic sites and structuresf including virtually an
entire town, Greenwich. Some hundreds more could qualify and many are being documented
to that end. The rolling, hilly country of Stow Creek, Greenwich, arid parts of Hopewell
Townships constitute one of the best scenic reserves in South Jersey.

Sometimes characterized as "quaint", most always as "wild", the Delaware Bay shoreline
may be Cumberland's greatest scenic attrac'tion in the long run. Upwards of 1000 boats may
be accomodated in existing docks and marinas. Commercial fishing craft rub shoulders with
party boats and privately owned craft of every make, size and design. Recreational fishing
is a growing economic endeavor in Cumberland. A series of restaurants, historic sites, museums
and even a dinner theater are developing into a loosely knit network with a resort/sport function
and base. Much of this shoreline area has been subjected to severe erosion during storms, and
many*of the structures have been damaged by repeated storms.

The Wetlands Act is often felt by locals to discriminate against Bayshore dwellers in favor
of seashore dwellers "because the area is less developed." (See Appendix B ). Much of the
opposition to coastal legislation and management policies is based on the fears of those who use
or dwell in this area. Much future research is needed to determine the best possible combina-
tion of uses for this major scenic and environmental attribute of Cumberland County.
I While not all facets are detailed in this description, it is of sufficient length and breadth
to characterize at one and the same time the diversity of Cumberland itself as wel I as its in-
herent difference from the three basic models mentioned on page 2 which account for the
rest of New Jersey.

[I. STATE COASTAL PLANNING PROGRAM AND THE COUNTY

A. Implications of the Proposed State Coastal Program For the County

The environmentally sensitive areas in Cumberland's Coastal Zone include a variety of
water and land features; among these are medium-sized rivers, streams, creeks, natural and
man made lakes (including water-filled sand pits), the Delaware Bay, a series of coastal and
riverine wetlands and agricultural areas. The scenic value of these areas is outstanding when
compared to many other regions of the State of New Jel-sey. These areas also have a great
potential for recreational development. Wetlands also serve to protect the inland areas from
the force of the sea and assist in absorbing sewage discharge by the rivers. They should be
protected in order to preserve the ecological balance of this area. The State DEP/OCZM
Coastal Management Plan protects these and other environmentally sensitive areas by regulating
land and water uses.

The County Coastal Z one is relatively undeveloped when compared with the northern part
of the County; it is among the least developed areas in the State of New Jersey. This zone
can be adequately compared with the Salem County Coastal Zone.

The CAFRA area includes approximately 186 square miles (37% of the total area of the
County)'. The CAFRA area is included within the Coastal Zone. In addition to the CAFRA
areal the Coastal Zone includes all tidal portions of the streams and their adjacent wetlands
which extend landward from the existing CAFRA boundary. The County Wetlands area includes
441893 acres (14% of total area of the County). See Figure 4.

The Wetlands Act of 1970 was effective in Cumberland County from February 21, 1975.
The State Coastal Management Program (BOSS) defines the Delaware Bayshore region as a
Low Growth Area (based on numbers of issued CAFRA permits and also on the State Development
Guide Plan, prepared by the Department of Community Affairs). The general policy in this
area is that conservation is more important than development, and, in particular, the conserva-
tion of agricu.1tural land is given a priority. Low Growth Area designation does not exclude
development entirely. In a low growth area with high development potential (and low or
medium environmental sensitivity), moderate intensity development is acceptable.

In Cumberland County 9 municipalities are located partially within the State Coastal Zone
and only one (Greenwich) is totally within it. This area is sparsely populated with little
existing infrasturcture; approximately 22,000 people live there. The region is largely wetlands
(42%), forest (33%) and agricultural land (20%). The region will accommodate construction
of small numbers of housing units adjacent to existing development and possibly several larger
developments and new industries. More research is needed to determine the exact locations in
which additional development should take place.

The Coastal Management Program's policies calls for the protection of the coastal ecosystem,
concentration of development (residential, commercial, industrial and resort-oriented), and
the preservation of open space.

The coastal decision making process is based on location, use and resource policies. The
locational policies consider both the environmental sensitivi.ty and development potential of
the site proposed for development.

According to the DEP estimate.

FIGURIL... 4

GENERALIZED AREA UNDER THE "WETLANDS ACT OF 1970'1
CUMBERLAND COUNTY

SALEM COU'NTY

Dee tel

Seabrool

U111,E] VINELAN
Rosenhay@'\

MERFIELF)
J-ON@- R E I
d-
H01 LWEL'

ijg;

Airpt

MAUR CE
Riv 'R
............
.......... ..... ..........

r,c;

..........
..........
'feek CONINUERCIA
A,
\P,j, NoJis
sDur;r

...........
... .......

...... .. ......

CAFRA Boundary

Wetlands Area Within the
CAFRA Boundary

A. Implications of the Proposed State Coastal Program For the County

The environmentally sensitive areas in Cumberland's Coastal Zone include a variety of
water and land features; among these are medium-sized rivers, streams, creeks, natural and
man made lakes (including water-filled sand pits), the Delaware Bay, a series of coastal and
riverine wetlands and agricultural areas. The scenic value of these areas is outstanding when
compared to many other regions of the State of New Jersey. These areas also have a great
potential for recreational development. Wetlands also serve to protect the inland areas from
the force of the sea and assist in absorbing sewage discharge by the rivers. They should be
protected in order to preserve the ecological balance of this area. The State DEP/OCZM
Coastal Management Plan protects these and other environmentally sensitive areas by regulating
land and water uses.

The (@AFRA area includes approximately 186 square miles (37% of the total area of the
County)1. The CAFRA area is included within the Coastal Zone. In addition to the CAFRA
area, the Coastal Zone includes al I tidal portions of the streams and their adjacent wetlands
which extend landward from the existing CAFRA boundary. The County Wetlands area includes
44,893 acres (14% of total area of the County). See Figure 4.

The Wetlands Act of 1970 was effective in Cumberland County from February 21, 1975,
The State Coastal Management Program (BOSS) defines the Delaware Bayshore region as a
Low Growth Area (based on numbers of issued CAFRA permits and also on the State Development
Guide Plan, prepared by the Department of Community Affairs). The general policy in this
area is that conservation is more important than development, and, in particular, the conserva-
tion of agricultural land is given a priority. Low Growth Area designation does not exclude
development entirely. In a low growth area with high development potential (and low or
medium environmental sensitivity), moderate intensity development is acceptable.

In Cumberland County 9 municipalities are located partially within the State Coastal Zone
and only one (Greenwich) is totally within it. This area is sparsely populated with little
existing infrasturcture; approximately 22,000 people live there. The region is largely wetlands
(42%), forest (33%) and cgricultural land (20%). The region will accommodate construction
of small numbers of housing units adjacent to existing development and possibly several larger
developments and new industries. More research is needed to determine the exact locations in
which additional development should take place.

The coastal decision making process is based on location, use and resource policies. The
locational policies consider both the environmental sensitivity and development potential of
the site proposed for development.

According to the DEP estimate.

GENERALIZED AREA UNDER THE "WETLANDS ACT OF 197011
CUMBERLAND COUNTY

bee tel SAU"M COUNTY

Saabroo

I-, A-,

Ir.
VINELAN
Rnnhayn

TOW RP

.0
Eel If
Hol I-wFj-,

Mill

Akpvt

XX.

MAUMCE
RIVER
X

....... .......

Maur,

Cox X11:RCIA

.............

...................
............ ..... . .

CAFRA Boundary

Wetlands Area Within the
CAFRA Boundary

In areas of moderate and low environmental sensitivity, the development has been limited
to infilling. This allows a limited amount of growth within existing settlements. New housing
development is prohibited in Water Areas and the Natural Water's Edge. The stabilization of
existing lagoons through vegetation, bulkheading or other means is conditionally acceptable,
provided that the conditions of the Retained Water's Edge and Filled Water's Edge are satisfied.
Housing development that provides for a mix of dwelling types and for persons of different age
and income groups is encouraged. Housing developments which contribute to a municipality's
efforts to accommodate its fair s@are of low and moderate income housing are encouraged.
Residential development involving the demolition and redevelopment of existing structures is
discouraged, unless rehabilitation of the existing structures is demonstrated to be impractical,
unfeasible," and contrary to the public interest. Recreation areas shall be incorporated in the
design of all -residential and industrial development. The spread of development is restricted.
in developed portions of Cumberland County along the Delaware Bay, characterized as a high
risk erosion area, development is prohibited. All types of development are discouraged in
wetlands areas. In certain cases development in wetlands can be acceptable; if said develop-
ment requires water access or is water oriented and there is no feasible alternative on a non-
wet-lands areal such development is permitted.

Resort and recreational uses are encouraged. New marinas are acceptable if there is no
possibility for the enlargement of existing marinas and there is a great public demand for such
facilities. This policy is especially important to Cumberland County. Existing marinas along
t1he Cohansey cnd Maurice Rivers can't accommodate all tourists and users. Example: on
Maur-ice River at Matt's Landing Road, there are four marinas: Anchor, Baileys, Driftwood
and John Robinson. These marinas have no space for expansion. They docked 250 boals and
have little possiblity for further expansion. Every year more people come from the New York,
North Jersey and Philadelphia areas and they can't use these facilities because there is simply
no space. This case indicates that in the future there will likely be some number of proposals
for new marinas.

Industrial development is limited to water oriented industries. Existing shipyards along
the Maurice River (Dorchester, Newporter and Akerman) can potentially serve offshore drillinq
operations as a base for the repair and maintenance of vessels and equipment. The Coastal
Program recognizes the value of these existing facilities and encourages their use for the off-
shore drilling operations by the oil companies. In consistency with this policy, the Maurice
River Future Land Use plan proposal indicates an enlarged industrial zone (adjacent to the
Dorchester Shipyard Industrial Zone), for continuance and enlargement of the repair and main-
tenance functions. This is also consistent with Basic Coastal Policy on the concentration of
industrial uses. New or expanded coastal -dependent industrial or commercial development is
encouraged at or adjacent to ex;sting sites, to the maximum extent practicable. Marine resources
dependent industry, such as commercial fishing, is encouraged and shall have priority over other
waterfront usesf eXcept for recreation. The County oyster indusilry and fishing should be expanded
in the Bivalve and Port Norris areas because of a new oyster drill control program. Non-coastal
dependent development can be acceptable if it offers a high Jobs/acre ratio.

The New Jersey glass industry uses the high quality silica sands of Cumberland County in
its production. The Mining industry (sand) is one of the most important in the ecbnomy of the
County. The mining policy states: "New or expanded mining operations on land, and directly

related development for the extraction and/or processing of sand, industrial sand, gravel,
ilmenite, glauconite, and other minerals are conditionally acceptable The conditions
are listed below:

1) no disturbance of wildlife habitats is allowable,

2) . it must be located nearby or adjacent to sites of existing mining operations,

3) adequate buffer areas must be provided between sand mines and areas of other uses,

4) edch mine operation must submit a development and reclamation plan,

5) each operation must comply with federal, state and local regulations, and

6) standards used will not have a substantial adverse impact on coastal resources, the
local,economy and/or a long-term irretrievable impact on the mineral resources.
In Cumberland, the Townships of Downe, Commercial and Maurice River have economies that
are virtually based on the mining industry.

he Coastal Resource and Development Policies invoIVE@ tha review of any proposed develop-
ment in terms of its effects on various resources of the coastal zone. These policies have spelled-
out performance standards which a proposed development Must meet. New development must be
visually compatible with their surroundings and provide visual and physical access to the water-
front. Coastal development must preserve, to the maximum extent practicable, existing vegeta-
tior, within a development site. The design of a coastal development must incorporate management
Jechniques which favor or maintain native wildlife. Wildlife management areas in Cumberland
contain over 351,000 acres. Most of that acreage is locate6 within the Coastal Zone and is
owned by the State. The following Fish &Wildlife management areas are located within the
coastal zone:

1) Osborn
2) Sea Breeze
3) Clarks Pond
4) Nantuxent
5) Fortescue
6) Egg Island
7) Turkey Point
8) Heislerville
9) Carson

The policies which are concerned with wildlife management areas are among the most
important to Cumberland. "Preservation of areas and their dedication to open space, especially
along drainageways and waterways,will be encouraged." Some municipalities already preserve
areas along the streams and restrict al I development therein. I The Maurice Township Proposed

It is difficult to summarize all the environmental po licies and concern of all the coasta!
municipalities because of a lack of the F.L.U.P,'s in several cases.

Future Land Use Plan is one of the classic examples. 2 the developed site should also provide
public services. In Cumberland, the coastal zone already has existing sewerage facilities in
Bridgeton and Millville; areas that are densely populated. Other coastal areas do not have muni-
cipal or County sewerage fccilities because there is no economic justification for them at the
present time.

The secondary impact of major projects must also conform with the resource policies. Trans-
portation and wastewater treatment systems obviously require such analysis. Runoff from parking
areas should either be used to recharge the ground water or be treated before it is discharged.
Policies also promote energy conservation, including the development of passive and active solar
power. Policies encourage the protection of neighborhoods and special communities.

In the flood hazard areas', resource policies discourage coastal development. Some develop-
ment is acceptable on floodplain areas but it must comply.with applicable flood hazard reduction
standards as adopted by the Federal Insurance Administration. in HUD, (Federal Register, Volume
41, No. 2-7, Part 11, October 26, 1976), as amended. These policies are of special importance
to the coastal municipalities in Cumberland County.

B. Recommendations for Legislative Chan2e of the Existing CAFRA Boundary in Cumberland
County

The Cumberland County Planning Board recommends that the area of the County under
CAFRA jurisdiction be reduced. (The CAFRA boundary is shown on Figure 5 ). The proposal
calls for an inland boundary line to follow the ten foot contour interval (above mean sea level),
as it is shown on Figure 5 . Proposed by the Planning Board, the inland boundary is the same
as that proposed in bill A-722 "Coastal Area Protection Act" introduced in the N J. Legislature
early in 1972. The inland boundary of A-722 was the 10 foot contour. This bill was never
approved; it died in the Senate Committee. However,, the inland CAFRA boundary as it was
described in f'lie original bill A-722, (proposed and recommended by the Rutgers Low School
staff and students) complied with the intent of Congress as it was described in the OCZM thres-
hold paper number 1, which stated: "It is clear that it is the intent of Congress that States
delineate boundaries with a relatively conservative approach, including only those "shorelands"
the uses of which have a direct and significant impact on coastal waters".

Later in 1972, (July 17) substitute bill (A-1429) was introduced in the Legislature. In
that bil I the DEP recommended the inland CAFRA boundary. (See Figure 6 ). The DEP prepared
the recommended "Coastal Area" boundary (CAFRA boundary) by analyzing the geography of
New Jersey in terms of five criteria:

1) Limit the Coastal Area to the Coastal Plain Geological province;

2) Include wetlands;

3) Include tidal portions of streams, and their adjacent fast lands, that empty into the
Raritan Bay, Atlantic Ocean, Delaware Bay, and Delaware River;

2 Maurice River Future Land Use Plan will be approved in January, 1979.

PROPOSED CHANGES FOR CAFRA BOUNDARY BASE M
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, N.J. COUNTY
STATE T

STATE DI

-T
FIGURE 5

. ...... .UPE

D E RFIE D I NIE L N D

EER

c E H 0 EW L DGFON

2
L L E

L
. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

,Ae

M A

2-2

. .. ... #of's

R I

M Ivi

LEGEND

111KI11111111118111 CAFRA BOUNDARY

10 FOOT CONTOUR LINE

AMENDED CAFRA AREA PROPOSED BY
CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING BOARD m

SCALE IN Mll S

0 1 2 3 4
PREPARED BY THE CUMBERLAND COUNTY PLANNING BOARD
1979

FIGURE 6

,qjp
dm

AREA ENCOMPASSED BY
PROPOSED ASSEMBLY BILL NO. 1429

4) Include areas with soil limitations such as poor drainage, propensity for flooding, poor
septic tank suitability, poor landfill suitability, limited agricultural value, regions
with muck, tidal marsh, swamp, and bog soils, and areas with (0) depth to seasonal
high water table; and

5) Include densely populated areas whose sanitary wastes could affect water quality.

DEP then interpreted aerial photography and soil surveys to delineate a recommended inland
boundary by using fixed, legal ly-describable cultural features (such as roads and railroads) to
define the land area that met the boundary criteria.

In the case of Cumberland County, criteria I to 5 were applied. Criteria 1, 2, 3 and 5 do
not raise any objection. However criterion four (4) was not analyzed by DEP quite so carea-
fully. This is why the "CAFRA" boundary stretches too far 'inland in Cumberland County,
including well drained silty soils on the upland (Matapeake-Chillum-Mattapex association
and Aura-Downer-Sassafras association). See General Soil Map for Cumberland County
(Figure 7 @. Classic examples of the municipalities in which coastal area includes too much
upland are: Hopewell, Bridgeton and Greenwich. Other coastal municipalities of Cumberland
,County have some small portion of these characteristically upland, well drained soils which
are also included in the "Coastal Area".

The "Coastal Area" boundary (CAFRA Boundary) proposed by DEP for Cumberland and other
of New Jersey's counties was approved by the Legislature on June 20, 1973, after several
amendments revising the boundary were added and is now known as the Coastal Area Facility
Review Act.

The revised and final "Coastal Area" boundary:

1) deleted the Delaware River industrial waterfront, from Trenton to the Delaware River
Memorial Bridge (four miles south of the Memorial Bridge);

2) excluded a relative small area around Cape May County Airport to facilitate econ-
omic development; and

3) reduced the Coastal Area proposed in Middlesex and Monmouth Counties.

The Planning Board sees no reason why the CAFRA boundary must follow cultural features;
or why such features must be limited to roads and railroads. Any advantage of easy boundary
linb identification is far outweighed by the disadvantages that will accrue to the many addi-
tional upland property owners made subject to regulation. An upland boundary based on the
ten foot contour interval could be accurately mapped with the aid of topographic sheets inter-
preted in critical cases by municipal engineers. In fact, precedent for this approach already
has been set by DEP since, for a portion of the Coastal Zone which extends landward of the
CAFRA boundary along the tidal creeks (which flow through the CAFRA area),the contour
concept is utilized.
The rationale for the reduction of the CAFRA boundary*@

1) Consistency with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act is insured; and 22

FIGURE 7

U. S. D E
SOIL

NEW JERSEY AG
COOK COLLEGE.
Q& NEW JERSEY
75'10'
-:2, @"-- GENE
Seabro. i
39'30' CUMBERLAT@
75-20'

UPPER
fVineland
y
DEERFIELD Z'

N
.... FIELD
DEER

(CC, 5)
77

X"'

E W L L L

n,'h
R.
Nnd
k

i,[email protected]

555
Ab6-U

LAWRENCE

@V- ---
--39*20'
'rb C,
-4@ 0
SIC
0--
Matapeake-Chillum-Matt
arained and moderately
@MAURICE RIVER A-ifa-Downer-Sassafra
drained, loamy, sandysa
Hanmonton-Fallsington-
sloping, moderately well
soils: on uplands and to
PO
Eve-boro-Klei-Lakewood
b5Q excessive!y drained to s
0, Muck-Atsion-i3erryland a
very poorly drained, ocg
Tidal Marsh association
mucky tidal flats that ar
t
Z.
*Texture terms in the name of
j the major s6is in each assoc

,King, MA URICE RIVER COVE
Y dl@

Each area outlined on this map consists of DELA WARE BAY
bt5l 1
ERV

mom than one kind cf joil. Tha map is thus
meant for general planning rather than a basis
far decisions on the use of specific tracts.

2) It would relieve a substantial number of uplandproperty owners from the costly, time-
consuming and discouraging permit application process.

C. Recommendation for Changes in the Coastal Policies

Coastal wetlands are the most environmentally valuable land areas within the coastal zone.
In Cumberland the Wetlands crea contains 44,893 acres (14% of total area of the County).
These environmentally sensitive areas should be protected with special care. The policies
which spell out the type of development which can be permitted on wetlands should be described
in great detail, so that municipalities can use the Coastal Management Program as a guide in
the preparation of Master Plans and zoning ordinances. Presently, the wetlands policies are
explained on. a half page. (N.J. Coastal Management Program, BOSS p. 43). A very helpful
aid for the coastal municipalities would be a model wetlands ordinance which could be distri-
buted by DEP or be made available upon request.

Ill. STATE-LOCAL COASTAL POLICY CONSISTENCY

A. Summary of County and Municipal Plans, Zoning, ana Maps

The Cumberland County Plan of 1966 was adopted in 1967. This is a comprehensive twenty
year development program. The Plan was based on the findings and proposals contained in nine
preliminary studies. The Plan also describes future projected growth for Cumberland to 1985.
In accordance with this Plan, residential growth should be encouraged in areas adjacent to
the existing population centers. New development should follow a pattern of in-filling, pro-
ceeding in areas between already developed lands. Other undeveloped areasnot adjacent to
existing development, should be used for the fulfillment of park and open space demands.
Concentration of new development near to already developed centers is beneficial, because
it is reasonably close to central services and preserves agricultural land and other open space
uses. The Cumberland County Future Land Use Plan shows concentrations of residential develop-
ment in. the Vineland, Millville and Bridgeton areas, (all types; low, medium and high density).
The Plan also provides for greenbelt buffers,-areas which should include sites for recreational
purposes, prevent compounding congestion and preserve community identity.

In accordance with the Plan new industrial development should be located in both areas
adjacent to- existing industrial parks (Bridgeton, Milliville and Vineland) and also in new,
adequate sites. The latter is inconsistent with the coastal management program, in spirit, but
new industrial investment is not completely precluded by that program. All of the industrial
areas in the County Master Plan are conveniently close to multiple transportation facilities,
residentia] areas and necessary utilities. The utility and suitability of each site will require
further research.

The Plan includes a proposal for the building of c new superhighway (Route 55), along which
new residential and industrial development were to be concentrated. Much of Route 55 is
completed and development will likely result because of the approved northern extension plan.
(Already connected with U.S. 40, Route 55 wil I c,ontinue to N.J. 42 in Gloucester County;
completion will likely bring some development along this corridor, generally at or near interchanges).
The Plan predicted that Cumberland County would lose 6% of its agricultural land to some urban
type of development by 1985, though the Plan strongly encourages the protection of prime ag-
ricultural lands. This was one of the important planning objectives for municipalities. Undevel-
oped land was categorized as land reserved for the future (woodland, wetland and vacant land).
In accordance with the Plan tidal wetlands should be preserved (through sound zoning and plan-
ning measures) for conservation and open space purposes.

The Cumberland County Plan of 1966 recognized the importance of all tidelands and en-
vironmentally sensitive areas before the Wetlands Act was signed into law. The Cumberland
County Land Use Plan had as one of its major aims the protection of environmentally sensitive
areas. A new land use map will be prepared in 1979, incorporating data from the vcrious
municipal land use plans.

a. The 1966 Plan and the Cumberland County Coastal Zone

The 1966 land use map, as amended in 1972, shows the major land use categories
within the Coastal area designated as woodlands and wetlands, State-owned open space

areas, agricultural areas and conservation areas. ' Only smal I areas were designated as
residential, including both existing residential areas'as wel I as those planned for future
residential development. Said residential areas are concentrated in a few distinct !ocations:
1) around Greenwich town (an Unincorporated settlement designation in Greenwich Town-
ship, 2) around the peripherae of the City of Bridgeton, 3) south of New Jersey Route 49
within the corporate limits of the City of Bridgeton, 4) near the settlement of Fairton
(Fairfield Township), and 5) in the vicinity of the settlement of Cedarville (in Lawrence
Township). There are also, a few extremely small residential areas designated around the
settlements of Newport, Fortescue, and Dividing Creek in Downe Township. In Commercial
Township, there are residential expansion areas reserved near Mauricetown (part) and Port
Norris, the two largest settlements in that municipal jurisdiction. In Maurice River Town-
ship, only a smal I zone of enlargement has been reserved to residential use around the
existing residential areas of Delmont, Heislerville, Leesburg, Dorchester, and Port
Elizabeth. Within the City of Millville, only a minor fraction of the small coastal area
has been designated for residential purposes.

Small business and commercial districts are shown within the settlements of Fairton,
Cedarville.Fortescue and Port Norris. Industrial areas were shown only in Bridgeton,
Millville, Dorchester, Leesburg, and Bivalve. In accordance with the County Plan, all
coastal municipalities were to be connected by a major county Bayshore Drive Route.
It was planned that this route should extend the length of the county adjacent to the
meadowlands abutting the Bay, crossing the Cohansey River at Greenwich and the Maurice
River at Port Norris. This planned, intracounty route has not materialized and it is not
included in the County Transportation Plan which is presently being prepared by the Cum-
berlarid County Planning Board.

The 1978 Cumberland County composite Future Land Use Map (based on existing and
proposed municipal plans and zoning ordinances) shows that there has been little change,
since the County has not undergone the growth predicted in the original plan.

The County Composite Fu ture Land Use Map is based on the following documents:

a) the Bridgeton City Master Plan and the newly adopted Greenwich Township
Future Land Use Plan;

b) proposed Commercial, Hopewell, Fairfield and Stow Creek (Townships) Future
Land Use Plans; and

c) old municipal land use plans and zoning ordinances (Lawrence, Downe, Maurice
River Townships and the City of Millville Master Plan).

Though generally similar, a detailed comparison of the recent land use map with
that of 1972 does show some changes. New industrial districts were created in Greenwich,
Hopewell, Fairfield, and Lawrence Townships within the coastal zone. These industrial
zones as yet have lithe industrial development, but these are the areas designated by
municipalities for future industrial growth (with the exceptions of Fairfield and Lawrence
Townships, where existing industrial zones were enlarged to accommodate future industrial

growth). As a result of these changes, there is a minor decrease in the area of agricultural
land, Also noteworthy is the increase in residential land in selected portions of the County,
in particular: Newport in Downe Township, around Route 553 in Lawrence Township, and
in Maurice River Township around the settlements of Heislerville, Leesburg, Dorchester,
and Port Elizabeth. Decreases in the area designated as residential are noted in the Port
,Norris and Greenwich areas. There is also evidence of an increase in both the number
and size of commercial districts in the townships of Downe and Maurice River.

In some areas located upland of the Coastal Zone the changes can be said to be both
acceptable and necessary, providing jobs to area residents, but in some instances (environ-
mentally sensitive area@, these changes are in conflict with the State of New Jersey
Coastal Management Program. This subject will be discussed in detail below.

Each coastal municipality's master plan and zoning ordinance will be reviewed
briefly and compared with the County Master Plan and -the State of New Jersey Coastal
Management Program. (See Legal Inventory, Tables 5,6).

b. Review of the Coastal Municipalities' Master Plans and Zoning Ordinances

City of Bridgeton. Almost one half of the area of Bridgeton is included in the
coastal zone. The boundary essentially parallels route 49. This is the only portion
of the City that has large tracts of vacant land. Indeed, vacant lands and sites are
at a premium in crowded, densely developed Bridgeton, and these are the only tracts
of vacant land which could be used for clustered housing (even mid-rise and high-
rise) and for the localizaflon of industrial development. Industrial development
should be encouraged at selected locations in Bridgeton (those well served by roads
and utilities) in order to provide additional employment in an area with a sagging
economy. Industrial development would also strengthen the tax base of the City.
In accordance with these city goals and objectives the Bridgeton Land Use Plan
shows these areas as reserved for industrial development.

Existing industrial uses represent a relatively small amount of the total city
area (5.8%). Most of these industrial lands are located in the vicinity of the river
and/or along existing transportation arteries (highway routes and railroad rights-of
way). Most area plants would be characterized as light industry (for example, food
processing and the clothing industry).

New areas designated for industrial development are located in the south-
eastern portion of the City, near to railroad rights-of-way. (Figure 8 ). (One of
the most critical criteria in industrial location is transportation accessibility). In
accordance with the Plan, roadways leading to industrial sites should be improved
and upgraded so that they have adequate capacity to serve commuter traffic, as
as well as traffic generated by the transporting of raw materials and finished goods.
Prospective industrial areas, according to the Plan, should be protected from en-
croachment by other land uses. Well designed and landscaped industrial buildings
should be encouraged for the benefit of both industry and the community.

Floodplain areas along the Cohansey River and its tributaries are designated in
the Plan as a conservation area. The Plan also contains a statement to the affect

X X X X 0
Lo N) m I-
0 ::;:a 0 o c
c -0 CD
I CD CD :3
(D
Z m;:o m 0 :3 CD CD 0
r) 0 =1
CD0 C X M X CD
(D 0
-o CD (D CD CD 0 co -a
CD 3:
C
m (D 77 CL
X = -! a n
Z;.= 0 = (a --I < (D
CD 0 CD CD
-.I. kA
0
3' ouT r)
(0 (D "'C
CD m _0
X (D
:3 (D
x x x x x x x x m
0
CD _0
C) (D
1 (D
CDN - - CD z
:3 --" 0- x x x x
0 Q :r rQ N)
:3 - NO 0
;;a :3
CD
<
0 cA (D Su
-1 (D
Q- CL x x x x x x
0 N)
Q
:30 :3
%0 0 _0 (a
CD0 si
tA 0 x x x
0 ., Re
CL 0-

(D 0 F1
X x X x I x x X X Re

m
X x X x x x x x x
i- w - - Re

X X X X X X x x x m
CA) Re

In
x x x x x Pe
St

mmmmmmm mom I=IMMMM MMM=

Table 6 CUMBERLAND COUNTY COASTAL MUNICIPALITIES LEGAL INVENTORY
Future Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinance
January 20, 1979

Master Plan Master Plan
Municipalities Adopted Proposed Adopted Proposed Consultant Address
1. City of Bridgeton Dec. 29, 1976 Sept. 20, 1977 The Williamson Design Group 255 Kings Highway, E. Haddonfiled,
I New Jersey 08033
2. Commercial Twp. N ov. 29, 1978 x Michael D. Reeves Cumberland Co. Planning Board,
800 E. Commerce St., Bridgeton, N.
3. Downe Twp. Oct. 23f 1978 x Eileen Stewart Downe Twp. Pl. Bd. (CETA Job),
Newport Fire Hall, Newport, N.J.
4. Fairfield Twp. Nov. I 1 1978 Dec. 12f 1978 Judith E. Scott Cumberland Co..Planning Board,
800 E. Commerce St., Bridgeton, N.
5. Greenwich Twp. June 13, 1978 X2 Richard Cramer 11 11 11 . 11
6. Hopewell Twp. Oct. 18, 1978 3 Dec. 27.1 1978 J.M. Kendree Assoc. Inc. Fort Washington, Penna.
7. Lawrence Twp. x x William Bowen Bridgeton Housing Authority,
W 1 110 E. Commerce St.1 Bridgeton, N.
0 8. Maurice River x x Harry R. Dare, III Upper Deerfield Twp.,, Municipal
Township Bldg.,, Seabrook, N J. 08302
9. City of Millville Nov. 1, 1978 x Francine Wishnick City of Millville Planning Board
City Hall,, S. High St., Millville,
4 New Jersey 08332
10. Stow Creek Twp. Nov. 1., 1978 x Kenneth Wishnick Cumberland Co. Planning Board,
800 E. Commerce St., Bridgeton

I Public hearing is planned all the end of January, 1979
2Public hearing is scheduled on January 23, 1979
3L,@@wrence Township Future Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance in preparation
4Public hearing is scheduled on January 30, 1979

FIGURE 8. BRIDGETON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX 11W

%,4
80POWe//
wnst)lp
7e0-

ELAIER %AfSET
LA
LAKE V,

-z@
ILI
7zi
At(

5 Cx
T-I
[1 Li
Az jj I
-2/ -i@
rl,[] R T
IX
-7

:L
-JLJ

IF
LAKE
J/

J Lil

-Ld
..k
L 3::::::

N
.............
04,

4:6

0
0 0

SCALE
ROAD BASE MAP
Township
PREPARED BY.-
CITY OF BRDGETON ..... Foirf jeld
DEAU?TMENT OF PJBUC WMKS ....
DIVISION OF ENGINEERING 31

that: "There is a need to preserve areas along stream beds and other water bodies
for conservation and environmental protection". The Recreation and Conservation
Plan (Figure 9 ) shows open space conservation areas and neighborhood recreation
areas. Over 200 acres (5% of the total area) in the City are devoted to waterways
and lakes. Retention of open space uses remains a high priority.

The Bridgeton Master Plan is consistent with the County Plan and also with
Coastal Management Program. The Bridgeton zoning map shows various commercial,
industrial and conservation districts. These are listed below:

R-1 (Low Density Single Family Detached Dwellings
Residential) -

R-2 (Med. Density Single Family Detached Dwellings, Two Family Detached
Residential) - Dwellings, Two Family Semi-Detached Dwellings,
Townhouses

R-3 (High Density All uses permitted in R-2, Single Family Semi-Detached
Residential) - Dwellings, Apartment Dwellings.

R-4 (Med. Density Single Family Detached Dwellings,, Two Fcmily Detached
Townbouses) - Dwellings, T ownhouses

C-1 (Central Business) - Retail Sales, Finance Institutions, Municipal Uses,
Offices

C-2 (Apartment Com- Retail Sales & Service, Financial Institutions, Offices
mercial) - Commercial Recreation, Printing Establishments, Mor-
tuaries, Community Service Faiclities, Government
Uses, Apartments

C-3 (Hospital Medical Hospitals, Convalescent Homes, Clinics, Medically
Center District) - Realted Commercial Uses, Personal Services, Medical
Schools

C-4 (Neighborhood Retail Sales, Offices, Banking, Indoor Theaters
Commercial)

C-5 (Highway Commer- Gasoline Service Stations, Auto Repair Garages, Used
cial District) - Car Sales, Auto Parts Sales, Car Wash, Heavy Equipment
Sales & Services, Drive-Inn Facilities, Commercial
Recreation

I (Industry) - Offices, Cleaning & Processing of Products, Building
Material Sales Yards, Equipment Storage, Municipal
Uses, Research Labs, Wholesale Activities, Warehouses,
Utility Installations

FIGURE 9

E.,',RIDGETON CONSERVATION PLAN

R"-4-

Y
-,z-j R!
M@

LEGEND

Conservation and Park Areas

R Recreation Areas

11111111 CAFRA Boundary

FP (Flood Plain) Cultivation of Crops, Pasture, Orchards, Recreation,
Harvesting of Wild Crops, Game Farm, Wildlife Santuary,
Outlet for Sewerage Treatment Plants, Flood Retention
Dams

01 (Park & Open Parks, Playgrounds, Recreation Buildings, Commerciql
Space- Retention Facilities, Golf Courses, Zoo, Public Schools,
Cemetary, Municipal Buildings.

In addition to these uses, commercial excavation is permitted as a conditional
use in Industrial (1) districts. Such operations must adhere to controls concerning:
1)*mine location and 2) the rehabilitation of abandoned mine land. Mining oper-
ationsf along with all other uses, must meet certain performance standards regarding
noisef air pollution, water pollution, electromagnetic interference, radiation, glare
and heat, fire and explosion, and vibration. These standards are listed in the zoning
ordinance Section 704.

According to the zoning ordinance, the intent of the Flood Plain (FP) and Park
and Open Space (01) districts is "to permit and encourage the retention of open
land use" (Article 500). This is consistent with the -iims of the N.J. Coastal Man-
agement Program,, one of which is "to encourage the preserva :tion of open space"
(pg. I'l). In addition to the limited uses permitted in each districtf the following
uses are specifically prohibited in the Flood Plain districts: 'the transmission of
petroleum products, junkyards, outdoor storage, filling of marshlandsl removal of
topsoil and the altering of watercourses.

One of the Housing Use Policies stated in the N.J. Coastal Management Program
is the encouragement of "housing developments that provide for a mix of dwelling
types" (pg. 33, Section 7.2.3). Bridgeton's Zoning Ordinance is consistent with
this policy as exemplified by the existence of an R-4 district which allows for med-
ium density townhouses. As stated in -the zoning ordinance, the intent of the district
is to "allow for a wider choice of housing types" (sec. 204). Bridgeton is attempting
to diversify and improve its housing stock.

In general, the zoning ordinance complies with the City and County Master
Plans and also with the Coastal Management Program.

C-ommercial Township. Commercial Township is located adjacent to the Bay-
shore; ir@tua ly two-thirds of its territory is in the coastal zone. Generally one of
Cumberland's less developed municipalities, it has a high rate of unemployment and
the lowest per capita (and per household) income levels in the County. Sandmining
and the oysi-er industry are the major employers. Growth rates have been relatively
high despite economic difficulties. Most of the Township is poorly served with
transportation facilities.

Future Land Use Plan policies include:

I. Conservation of naturol resources, open space and farmland;

2. Providing low income housing projects;

3. prohibition of development on floodway areas and the discouragement
of development in the flood fringe areas.

4. discouraging development on tidal marshes; and

5. encouraging the utilization of a regional sewage facility (City of
Millville) or building its own.

The Commercial Township Future Land Use Plan recognizes that this Township
has limited development potential as Nvell. Among the constraints listed are poor
soil conditions and the absence of centralized waste water treatment services.
Moreover/ the plan discourages development in flood hazard areas and on farmland,
which together comprise a large portion of the Township. In the future, the Town-
ship should expect expansion of the sand and gravel industry and the location of
one or more apartment complexes (low cost housing projects). Population projections
show that Commercial Township is facing a moderate increase of population, par-
ticularly in the Laurel Lake area. Existing municipal services and facilities seem
to be adequate to serve the people's needs. However, the Plan recommends addi-
tional recreation areast and one small business areal to accommodate the needs or'
its many small communities.

The Commercial Township zoning map shows six districts which are listed below:

R-rA: Single Family Detached Units, Farming
R-1: Single Family Detached Unit
R-2: Townhouses, Garden Apartments, Duplexes
I -G: Research, Manufacturing, Processing, Fabrication, Assembly &
Storage, Single Family Dwellings, Farming
CR: Marine Services & Accommodations
F P: Open Land Uses, Recreation, Limited Storage

Al I but the southern and eastern sections of the Coastal area are zoned Residen-
tial -Agricultural (RA) and Industry-General (IG), each of which allows sand and
gravel mining by special excpetion (conditional use). The planning board grants.
mining permits only when specific requirements are met. However, the proposed
amendments to the zoning, site plan, and subdivision ordinances would restrict
mining operations by limiting them to a new Resource Conservation and Development
district (RCD) and the existing Industrial -General districts. This would reduce the
mining area to the vicinity of ongoing activity, thereby meeting the policy of the
N.J. Coastal Management Program which states that "mining is acceptable only
in sites immediately adjacent to current mining operations . . . " (Sec. 7.6.2,
pg. 148). In addition, the proposed amendment would require that an environmental
impact statement be submitted for this use as specified in the site plan and subdivision
ordinances. An environmental impact statement would also be required for develop-
ment in Residential (R-2) and I-G districts, in accordance with the site plan and
subdivision ordinances.

The 1976 Amendment to the zoning ordinances created two R-2 (multi-family
dwelling) districts, one of which falls withi-n the Coastal Zone Boundary. By

allowing for townhouses, garden apartments, and duplexes, this ordinance was a
step in the direction of the policies stated in the N . -01. Coastal Management Program.
These policies state that a community should encourage development that "provides
for a'mix of dwelling types and for persons of different age and income groups,"
(Section 7.2.3. p. 133). Another ordinonce which affects this housing distribution
is the mobile home. ordinance.

Mobile Home oarks are permitted in Rural -Agri c ul tura!, Commercial-Recreation
and Multi-Family Dwelling Districts as conditional uses. The ordinance specifies
sewerage disposal, density, total acreage and location of the mobile home parks,
as well as the acceptable dimensions of the homes themselves.

A flood plain zone exists in the community (U.S. Corp of Engineers Flood Plain
Study) along the southern and eastern boundaries. The zoning ordinance specifically
limits land use in flood plains. Any use permif@ed by this district must meet require-
ments concerning lot area, coverc9e, building structure .. building anchor-age, sewer-
age and vegetation removal. According to the zoning ordinance,, this regulation will
serve to "Protect the water supplies, groundwater recha-ge areas and natural drain-
age systems and to "protect the water supplies, groundwater recharge areas and
natural drainage systems and to promote the hecith, safety, and welfare of Commercial
Township residerts . . . . " (Zoning Ordinance Section 8. 1) This is consistent with
the N.J. Coastal Management Program's Resource Policy, which is to review proposa;s
in terms of their "effects on the various resources of the built and natural environment
of the coastal zone (Sec. 8.1 pg. 151).

As an additional regulatory device, the current zoning ordinance (Article VI)
specifies Industrial Performance Standards. To comply with these, each applicant
must prove that he conforms to federal, state and county laws regarding noise, odor,
glare or heat, radiation, vibration, toxic- or noxious molter, dust or dirt, fire and
explosion hazards, and liquid and solid wastes.

In general, Commercial. Township Master Plan is cc-iisistant 'with its zonina
ordinance and also with the County Master Plan and the State Coastal Management
Program. The County Pian forsees the development of rria,rinas and a revival at'
the oyster industry as providing the future employment base. Both these uses are
-consistent with the Coosial Management Program.

Downe Township. All but the extreme northern s.egment of Downe Township
falls within the Coastal Zone. The Downe Comprehensive Mcster Plan fakes into
consideration the policies of the Coastal Management Program. in accordance with
the Plan, Downe Township should preserve its rural character by maintaining farm-
land and discouraging any type of development on prime farmland (Soil Classes 1,
11 and 111). Almost one-half of Downe Township is covered by tidal marsh (Class VIll
Soil). This type of soil is unsuitable for development, subject to flooding, and used
only for salt hay forming. Typical meadow cordgrass (Spartina Alterniflora) is a
common wetland species.

The Plan states that Downe Township has limited growth possibilities because:
"The Department of Environmental Protection delegated specific restrictions under
the CAFRA and Wetlands Act".

AJDpuncig VSjVD

ajn4jn:)ijSV JO 4uawdolaAa(l

X4! I!qodD:)
9AO(] 04DJa
4uawdol, POW

sLualqoJd 014daS 9JaA9S

SDaJV P001A 1014ua4Od

3w .......

... . ....... .
........ . ......
JOL
...... .... . .-
...................

...........

.............
. . ... . . . . .
..... ....

. ........
.. ........
. ...................

. . ......

-S31111lgVdVD IN3WdOl3A3(l dlHSNMOl 3NMUO ot Hnoij

Among other listed disadvantages for development are:

I . the lack of a consolidated sewer and water treatment system, and along with
it, extremely limited soil percolation; and

2. the discouraging of any development on prime farmland and/or on flood
hazard areas.

Downe Township has inadequate community services to meet the needs of people.
New recreational areas, convenience shops and social services should be located in
the Township. However, there is no specification as to which areas are suitable for
.these or certain other types of development. The residential zones of the Township
are located in woodlands and on agricultural areas. The predominant type of housing
is the single family detached house, (low density residential development 20.3%;
high density 2.8%). The woodland areas should be preserved for future conservation
and park areas, and are currently earmarked for commercial forestry products as well
as sand extractive industries.

For many yeors large areas of tidal marsh were diked and drained and used for
farming. Tides continuously filled these dikes with sediment; presently tidal marsh
is not used for farming. Now, salt tolerant grasses (Salt hay) have moved onto
formerly intensively used farmlands. Salt hay is used main!y as mulch for strawberries.

Development on or near the flood hazard area should be carefully regulated by
using large lots, minimum lot coverage, setting a minimum elevation above a stream,
and preserving the natural ground cover of the area. However, the Plan does not
mention the adoption of Federal Insurance Administration standards.

Along the Delaware Bay there are several small towns (Fortescue, Gandy's Beach
and Money Island)which constitute a resort and recreation area open to the public.
Hunting, fishing and bird watching are permitted on State property, but swimming and
picknicking are prohibited.

Resort and recreation areas, as the Plan statest are "sufficient for the Township's
needs". There is no assessment as to how these areas serve the needs of people from
other metropolitan regions (Philadelphia and New York), and what role they should
play with regard to the metropolitan regions in the future. There exists, perhaps,
a possibility for expanding current facilities or the building of a new water-oriented
recreational facility. This might be the greatest opportunity for future development
in the Township. Pressures are such that it should be planned for. Such planning is
encouraged by the State Coastal Program. The proposed sites for recreational facil-
ities (picnic areas, tennis courts, baseball fields etc.) are located on the Future
Land Use Plan ' but due to poor reproduction of the Plan, the proposed sites are
largely invisible.

The Downe Township Plan predicts growth of the sand and gravel industry
located in Newport. All land that has been excavated must be rehabilitated in

accordance with local regulation. (This should also be consistent with the Federal
Strip Mine Reclamation Law). The Plan states: "the Coastal Management Program
is a tool for decision making; however, it is not a detailed rigid plan. It enables
creativity for developers and recognizes the need for a strong role for local govern-
ment".

On the zoning map, Downe Township is divided into five districts. These districts
are listed below:

R-1 (Rural Residence Single Family Detached Dwellings, Farming, Municipal
Zone) - Facilities, Private Recreation Facilities

R-2 (Resort Residence Single Family Detached Dwellings, Fc-rming, Trailers,
Zone) - Restaurants, Marine Facilities, Marine Equipment Manu-
facture, Sale & Rental

R-3 (Residence Zone) Single Family Detached Dwellings, Municipal Facilities,
Neighborhood Business

B-1 (Highway Business All uses permitted in R-3 Municipal Facilities, Commer-
Zone) - cial uses devoted to auto servicing Qr transient activities.

C-1 (Conservation No use, activity or construction except by conditioral
Zone) - use grant subject to the following conditions:

1 . use must relate to the exploitation of natural resources in the area;

2. adequate provisions must be made to restore the area to natural conditions
where disturbed; and

3. no use, activity or construction shall be permitted which will result in
permanent disruption of the ecological balance of the zone.

The use of a Conservation District is consistent with the N.J. Coastal Manage-
ment Program policies, which encourage "protection of the coastal ecosystem"
(N.J. Coastal Management Program - pg. 11).

The township limits development in a special Flood Hazard area. A develop-
ment permit must be obtained before construction can begin in that area. Permit
is awarded when the applicant meets standards concerning: anchoring, construction
methods and materials, utilities, subdivision proposals and encroachments.

This is consistent with the Coastal Management Program's policy which states
that "development is discouraged in flood hazard areas". (Coastal Management
Program, 6.4.4.2. pg. 59).

Downe Township is unique among the County's coastal municipalities. It does
not have any existing industrial districts.

In summary, the Downe Master Plan corresponds with its zoning ordinance, the
County Master Plan and the State Coastal Mana@ement Program as well.

Fairfield Township. The Fairfield Land Use Plan updates the nine-year old
Fairfield Master Plan.

In past times Fairfield had a rural character. This situation has changed due to
its geographical situation as a neighbor of Bridgeton and its proximity to eastward
spread of the Megalopolitan Corridor in South Jersey (Philadelphia 42 miles and
Wilmington 32 miles). Bridgeton, already filled to its borders with development,
has created a demand for housing in locations along the Bridgeton-Millville Pike
(Route 49) as well as in areas south and southeast of the corporate limits.

Fairfield's coastal areas presently remain in their natural state. The area
loccted south of the Cohansey River and east to Back Creek (the boundary with
Lawrence Township) and south to the Delaware Bay contain most of the wetlands,
though the wetlands themselves are interspersed with pockets of farm and woodland
area. In 1975, the wetlands area contained 8,497.3 acres (30% of the total town-
ship area). In comparison to 1969, the wetlands, area had decreased by 1144.7
acres. (Of that figure, however, 821 acres were included in the State Fish and
Wildlife Management Area, reclassified from wetlands to public land. it remains,
therefore, as wetlands in fact.) The rest (323.7 acres) was developed for other uses
or otherwise lost. Some of the wetlands loss can be attributed to shoreline erosion.
This part of the Delaware Bay is designated in the Coastal Management Program as
a high risk erosion area. A classic example of a high risk erosion area in the dev-
eloped portion of the Delaware Bay shore is the community of Sea Breeze. Today it
is a quiet community mainly of seasonal homes, though historically it was developed
as a hotel resort for Philadelphians. Field research docurnented the recent aband-
onment of several structures and the destruction of the road paralleling the settlement
and the shore through erosion losses. State Fish and W;ldlife Management Areas
include 2,281.2 acres (8% of the total Township area); most of it is in wetlands.

The Fairfield Land Use Report states:"Some of the tidal marsh (Class Vill) and
Evesboro Sands (Class V111) have been successfully reclaimed to provide productive
farms. However, there is a constant battle with nature because of both tidal and
-muskrat damage to dikes which must consistently be rebuilt to protect the farmland
reclaimed from the marsh." Tidal marsh is considered to be an undeveloped land use.
All uses should be consistent with the Wetlands Act. The Fairfield Use Report
recommended that all development should be avoided in critical areas unless a
sound proposal is presented. Critical areas inciude:

a. flood prone areas;

b. severe conditions for septic tank filter fields;

c. all terrain with slopes greater than 15%;

d. swamp, marsbes and lakes; and

e. historical sites

The plan appears to be consistent with coastal policies in all its aspects,
and with the County Plan as well.

Under the present Township zoning ordinance most of the Coastal Zone area is
divided among either Agricultural (A) or Industrial (1) uses. There is also a large
area of state owned property and four small areas zoned for marinas (MR) along the
Cohansey River, Delaware Bay, and Back Creek. Some residential districts are
located in the Village of Fairton along the railroad line. A brief schedule of
district regulations is given below:

(A) Agriculture - Farms, Camping Facilities, Wildlife Preserves, Single
Family Dwellings, Golf Courses, Swim Clubs, Municipal
(S) State .Owner .Property Buildings, and Places Iof worship
(R- 1) Residential - Single Family Dwellings, Residenti.al PUD's, Forms,
Municipal Buildings and Parks, and Places of Worship

(R-2) Residential - Same as above with other specifications

(R-30) Residential - Single Family Dwellings, Two Family Dwellings, Con-
version of Detached Dwellings to Multi-Family Use,
Municipal buildings and parks, places of worship

(MR) Marine Resort - Marinas, Boat buildings and repair yards, Boatels and
Motelsf Restaurants, Sporting goods stores, Farms,
and Municipal buildings and parks

(PBI) Village Business - Retail Stores and Service Establishments, Municipal
buildings and parks, places of worship

(1) Industrial - Light Industry, Commercial Industrial Use, Municipal
Buildings and Parks, Farms, Garden Apartments

(FP) Flood Plain - Recreationai uses, game farms, fish hatcheries, hunting
and fishing reserves wildlife sanctuaries and open space

The largest change in the new zoning ordinance* is the creation of a Flood Plain
District (FP). This would be the largest district in the Township Coastal Zone area.
Uses in the floodways would be limited to pasture and grazing land, recreational uses,
g
ie farms, fish hatcheries, hLinting and fishing reserves, wildlife sanctuaries, and
an t
open spaces. In the remaining flood plain areas, any use would be permitted as
long as it meets the requirements of lot area, lot coverage, building structure and
elevation, site plan review and vegetation removal (proposed amendment to zoning
ordinance - Sec. 709). The remainder of the Coastal Zone area is state owned land
or is to be zoned for agriculture (A) or marine'(MR) uses. There would also be created

*Adopted, December 12, 1978.

some Industrial (1) and residential districts along the railroad line and near Fairton,
where these uses already exist. This is consisterit with the N.J. Coastal Management
Program which states that "industrial or commercial development is encouraged at
areas adjacent to existing sites". (N.J. Coastal Management Program Sec. 746.1
pg. 148).

Fairfield's zoning ordinances limit industrial development by means of perfor-
mance standards. (Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 708). These standards concern:

1) smoke, dust, odor, fumes and other obnoxious gases
2) liquid waste and effluent treatment
3) protection against fire hazardst radiation, explosions, etc.
4) vibration and glare.

Sand and gravel mining is currently permitted as a conditional use in the agri-
cultural districts (A) of Fairfield Township. The new Zoning Ordinance conditionally
allows mining in both Agricultural (A) districts and Industrial (1) districts. However,
this actually allows less land for mining ihan the previous ordinance because of the
proposed ordinance's greatly reduced area of Agricultural districts. Among other
provisions that must be met before the Board of Adjustment grants permission for
mining, is the rehabilitation of abandoned mined land, (Zoning Ordinance Sec. 807).

As another regulatory device, certain uses are prohibited in all districts. (Zoning
Ordinance section 601 11) These are:

- Billboards not related to the activity on the premises,

- Resident structures without permanent foundations,

- Trailers other than in Mobile Home Parks,

- Any use effecting health, morals, etc.

- Any trade, industry or purpose that is noxious or offensive 'by reason of emis-
sion of odorf dust, smoke, gas or noise. The standards of the Air Pollution
Control Commission of N.J. shal I be the enforcement standards for listed uses:

- The manufacture of heavy chemicals,

- The manufacture of basic or semi-finished chemicalst

-The products of metals and alloys in ingot form,

-Manufacture or production of paints, matches, oils, varnishes, lacquer,
or rubber and

-The keeping of animals other than dc!.,mestic types . . . except on the
permitted farms.

In general, Fairfield Township Master Plan complies with its zoning ordinance
and also with the Coastal Management Program.

Greenwich Township. Greenwich Township is the only County municipality
included totally 77itFin the coastal zone. It has a significant scenic and historic
resource as wel I. As such, i t is viewed as both prosperous and as a desirable place
to live. Local officials are greatly concerned with the preservction of the area's
character as well as its environment.

Greenwich Township's Future Land Use Plan (F.L.U.P.) was selected for a
detailed study because it was the first of the County's coastal municipalities to adopt
such a plan (June 13, 1978). This study contains a detailed analysis of the Greenwich
Future Land Use Plan and zoning ordinance, analyzing its consistency or inconsistency
with the N.J. Coastal Management Program.

The Greenwich Township Future Land Use Plan updated the Township's seven
year old development plan in two stages. First, it reviewed the Township's natural
features and existing land use types. Secondly, it used this information, together
with current planning policies, to form an amended Land Use Plan.

The Greenwich Township Future Land Use Plan recommends:

1) the keeping of prime farmland in agricultural production;

2) that flood hazard areas should be left as agricultural open space, marsh or
woodland;

3) that tidal marshes should be left in their natura! state;

4) the preservation of existing stands of forest;

5) that historic districts should be protected from any development that could
alter their character;

6) the encouragement of continued development of recreation and open space
facilities;

7) the encouragement of commercial recreation development,-

8) the encouragement of liqht industrial development;

9) the concentration of residential growth and commercial uses; and

10) the encouragement of housing development that clusters dwelling units.

The following paragraphs will examine each land use category described in the
F.L.U.P. in the light of the Coastal Management Program's policies.

Agriculture - According to the F.L.U.P., agricultural uses presently occupy
40.7% of the township (pg. 40). There is very little Class I soil, however Class 11
and Class III soils are widely present in the Township (see Fig. 3, F.L.U.P.).
Class 11 soils are excellent and Class III soils present only moderate limitations to
agricultural use.

The F.L.U.P. recommends that "it is in Greenwich's best interest to keep this
resource (prime farmland) in agricultural production". The areas designated for this
use are, for the most part, already being cultivated (F.L.U.P. pg. 48). This is
consistent with the N.J.C.M.P. policy which states: "Development of Prime Ag-
ricultural areas for non-farming purposes is discouraged. . . " (N J.C.M. P. See
6.4. 11 pq. 55), or conversely, farming is encouraged in Prime Agricultural areas.

Flood Plains - Figure 6 of the Greenwich Township F.L.U.P. shows the Flood
Plain area as designated by the U.S. Corp of Army Enqineers and the Cumberland
County Soil Survey. These areas are along the Cohansey River, Stow Creek, the
Delaware Bay, and extending along narrow streams into Head of Greenwich and the
Sheppard's Mill Pond area. These areas are, for the most part, currently undeveloped.

The N.J.C.M.P. policy discourages development in flood hazard areas (N.J.-
C.M.P., see 6.4.4.2, pq. 59). The F.L.U.P. policy is consistent with State policy.
It states:

"The Township's flood hazard areas should be left as open space with limited
development . . . consequently, the F.L.U.P. has designated flood hazard areas
as either tidal marshl woodland or agricultural open space, except where de-
velopment, as in the historic Village of Greenwich and the Commercial-Rec-
reation area, has already taken place." (F.L.U.P. pg. 49).

Tidal Marsh - Figure 2 of the F.L.U.P. displays an area of "tidal marsh" in the
Township. This area is approximately consistent with the areas designated by the
Department of Environmental Protection as "wetlands". It is also similar to the area
described as Flood Plains.

"The Township's tidal marshes should be left in their natural state. They are
among the more sensitive and ecologically valuable areas in Greenwich. It is
clearly the intent of both C.A.F.R.A. and the Wetlands Act to preserve the Coastal
marshes". (F.L.U.P., pg. 48). This is consistent with the coastal policy which
discourages development in the wetlands (N.J.C.M.P. Sec. 6.5.1.2. pg. 69).

Woodland - The F.L.U.P. recommends that, "whenever residental development
occurs in a wooded area, site planning techniques, such as clustering, should be
utilized to save the woodland as open space" (F.L.U.P., pg. 48). This is consistent
with coastal policy, which states" "Coastal development should preserve, to the
maximum extent practical, existing vegetation within a development site" (N j.-
C.M.P. See 8.8, pg. 155).

In addition to the cforementioned policy, the F.L.U.P. designates large tracts
as "woodlands". These are "existing stands of forest which should be preserved."
These areas include the Township's environmentally sensitive stream corridors and the
watershed around Sheppard's Mill Pond.

Historic Sites .- The Township contains numerous his toric sites, concentrated in
the villages of Greenwich and Head of Greenwich, and in scattered locations through-
out the surrounding area. In 1972, the Greenwich Historic District was placed on
the National Register of Historic Places. I Much of its appeal is due to the fact that
these structures exist in a relatively und .sturbed settinc
I g (See F.L.U.P. Fig. 7).

In order to preserve the setting of both the historic areas in Greenwich and Head
,of Greenwich, the F.L.U.P. recommends that these areas be designated "hisforic
districts" and thus "protected from land uses and development that could alter their
character" (F.L.U.P. pg. 49). It further suggests that the historic structures lying
outside of these districts should be protected, "Since these sites are scattered, rather
than concentrated, the Township's approving author-ties should review development
proposals for their impacts on these sites . . ." (F.L.U.P. pg. 49). The F.L.U.P.
is consistent with N J.C.M. P. policy which states "development that detracts from,
encroaches upon, damages, or destroys the value of historic resources is discouraged"
(N.J.C.M.P. see 6.4.5., p. 60).

Public Facilities & Recreation - Currently, 1.2% of the land area of Greenwich
is used for public and quasi public open space. This includes 1 .0 acres of parks and
playgrounds, 7.0 acres of marine use, 139.0 acres of game preserve and a state
monument of 0.5 acres. (F.L.U.P. pg. 41). These areas can be found on Figure 10
of the F.L.U.P. The Future Land Use Plan proposes three new public facilities- a
park (adjacent to Ye Greate Street); a playfield (at the intersection of Springtown
Road and Roadstown Road) and a recreation area (at Sheppard's Mill Pond).

The coastal policy encourages new public open space (N J.C.M. P. see
6.4.9.2. pg. 64). The Greenwich Township F.L.U.P. is, therefore, consistent
with this phase of coastal policy.

Commercial Recreation - Coastal Management Program Policy states: "Resort
recreation uses shall have priority in,the. Bay and Ocean Shore Segment over all other
uses . . ." (N.J.C.M.P. Section 7.3.1., pg. 135). The F.L.U.P. retains the
1970 designation of Commercial Recreation areas in Greenwich. (See F.L.U.P.,
Figure 11]) As stated in the plan," . . . the commercial recreation areas take advan-
tage of the Township's water front and access to the Bay and encourage activities
that strengthen Greenwich's economic base. " (F. L. U. P., p. 49).
Industry - Vie N.J.C.M.P. mandates a "restrictive" policy toward industrial 148).
development in the Coastal Area Bay and Ocean Shore segment. (Sec. 7.6, pg.
However, the F.L.U.P. does designate one industrial district within the township;
outside both the floodplain and the wetlands areas. It is assumed that the location of
this area, along with restrictions on the permitted types and densities of industrial
development insures that negative environmental impacts associated with such a usage
will be minimal. The F.L.U.P. explains its position as follows:

"The Township is aware of the State's proposals for directing industrial location
within the C.A.F.R.A. zone. Greenwich agrees with the spirit of C.A.F.R.A.
regulation. The Township does not seek extensive industrial development, nor
does it desire oil refineries, petrochemical facilities, crude oil storage facilities,
tanker terminalsf base load electric generating stations, or industrial develop-
ment which is incompatible with the coastal environment or which has secondary
impacts that trigger premature urbanization within Greenwich. However, the
Township does desire a diversified economic base which could include light
industry and research activity. In s6tting aside an area for industrial location,
the township hopes to attract uses which can benefit the community without
adversely affecting the coast" (F.L.U.P. pg. 50).

Commercial Use - Because of the Township's small population,, only one commer-
cial site is proposed. (See F.L.U. P. Fig. 11). It is both near to existing population
centers and to the site recommended for future residential development. The N.J. -
C.M.P. restricts commercial activities to areas where such uses already exist (Sec.-
7.7. 1 ., pg. 148). Because no extensive commercial faci I ities presently exist in
Greenwich Township,, the current site does not conflict with Coastal Policy. It
does provide for one business district and avoid scattered commercial development.

Residential - As can be seen in Figure I I of the F.L.U.. P., an area in the north-
east corner of the township has been set aside for residential development. According
to the F.L.U.P., this area was chosen because it: "would make use of what is largely
poor or marginal farmland; has only slight Hmitations for septic systems; and has the
oreatest potential for development of a Township water supply." Also according to
@he plan, this district would "concentrate rather than scatter future residential
growth". (F.L.U.P. pg. 45). This is consistent with the policy which is to "con-
centrate, rather than disperse, the patterns of coastal residential. . . development
and encourage the preservation of open space" (N J.C.M.P. pg. 11).

In summary the Greenwich T'ownship Future Land Use Plan is consistent with
the N.J.C.M.P. However, the proposed zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the
F.L.U.P. and Coastal Policies in a few instances.

The Greenwich Township Zoning map of 1975 (which was adopted in 1976 and
1977), zoned all flood plain areas as General industrial (G-1). The 1978 F.L.U.P.
recognized this mistake and the need to protect these areas. There is a statement in
the F.L.U.P. (p. 45): "Ecologically sensitive areas should be kept in, their natural
states or undergo only.limited development". Consequently, the Nan designated
nearly the entire floodplain area as tidal marsh. The proposed changes in the Zoning
Ordinance of 1978 have greatly reduced the area designated as Genercl-Industrial .
Presently the G-1 district is located ',n the northwestern part of Greenwich Township.
The industrial area now consists of woodland, cropland and cropland reverting to
open fields. The industrial district is located in part in the flood plain area.
Presently, there are no pressures for industrial development, so that the industrial
district will be a resource for the future, in the event that the development climate
changes.

Uses permitted in General -Industrial District: Uses permitted in R-A above!
institutions of learning; industrial, commercial or public research; assembly or
fabrication of products from previously prepared materials; -naanufacture of candy,
cosmeticsir drugs & perfumes, pharmaceuticals, toiletries & food products; marina
and marine services and water recreation; 1,',-arehousing and wholesale operations
other than petroleum productsmaintenance building and st--)rage yards.

Conditional Use The Township zoning ordinance permits as a conditional use
in the G-I district, solar and wind powered experimental demonstration generating
plants". This policy is consistent with the N J.C.M. P. which states: "The use of
renewable resources for energy such as solar, wind and tidal power, including exper
imental and demonstration projects, will be encouraged to locate in the coastal zone"
(N.J.C.M.P., Sec. 7.4.15, pg. 197).

The Township regulates industrial uses by applying detailed Industrial Perfor-
mance Standards (Article 8.4). These specify the minimum requirements which must
be met by any industry wishing to locate in the community. The standards covered
'by this ordinance are: noisel odor, glare or heat, radiation, vibration, smoke, toxic
or noxious matter, dust or dirt, flame and explosion hazards, liquid or solid waste
(including treatment plant effluent), electromagnetic interference and buffer zones.

Buffers - The Coastal Policy calls for buffers at site boundaries between incom-
patible, adjacent developments (N.J.C.M..P., Sec. 8.15, pg. 160). The proposed
zoning ordinance also requires buffer zones in such cricumstances. Any conditional
use must adhere to a 200' buffer in the Commercial -Recreation districT and a 50,
buffer in the Local Business District.

As an additional regulatory devise, the Zoning Ordinance specifies uses which
are prohibited in all districts of the Township. These are iisted below:

Electricity generating stations and bulk @-_Iectricity transmitting lines; open
air commerc ial amusements; oiggeries; topsoil removal; airports; mobile homes
or tailers on separate lots; dumping or disposal of waste scrap or material of
any kind by any person; reduction or rendering of fish or animal products;
smeltina of ore; distillation of bones; cbove ground bulk storage of petroleum
or other flammable products; rash or garbage incinerators; manufacturing or
processing of acetylene, bauxite, asphalt, petrochemicals, alcoholic beverages,
amonia, bleaching powder, celluloid, fertilizer, fireworks, etc.; hotel or
molel: and act-vi.ties which involve danger of fire, explosion, emission of
toxic and noxious matter, radiation, or other hazards; or which create vibrations,
smoke, or other parflculate matter, odorous matter, heat or humidity.

The Greenwich Township Proposed Zoning Ordinance has a special section
(9.4) dedicated to the protection of historical sites. This regulation permits the
owners of buildings erected prior to 1850 to apply for protection under the rules and
requ!ations affecting Historic Conservation Districts even though they are not within
the designated district. This is consistent with'N J.C.M. P. and helps in protecting
the numerous valuable historical structures scattered throughout the Township.

The Township Proposed Zoning Ordinanc e is also consistent with N.J.C.M.P.
policy which expressly advises municipalities "to concentrate, rather than disperse
the pattern of coastal residential, commercial, industrial and resort development and
encourage the protection of open space." The standards required for clustering of
housing are specified in the Zoning Ordinance, Section 9. 1. Housing development
'that clusters dwe-Iling units is permitted as conditional use in Residence -Agri c ul ture,
Residence, Local Business and General -industrial districts.

The Greenwich Township Flood Plain Regulation (part of the proposed Zoning
Ordinance), controls lot size, lol coverage, building structure, building elevation
and vegetation removal in the flood plain area. However, the Greenwich proposed
Zoning Ord.inance does not adopt flood hazard reduction standards as adopted by
the Federal Insurance Administration in HUD (Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 207,
Part 11, October*26, 1976) as amended.

This detailed study of the Greenwich proposed zoning ordinance indicates some
areas of conflict with the Township F.L.U.P. and the N.J. Coastal Management
Program policies. The first area of conflict involves the industrial district. The
F.L.U.P. had restricted the industrial area to the northwest section of the Township,
outside both the flood plain and wetlands areas (See F.L.U.P. Fig. 11). However,
the proposed zoning ordinance extends the industrial district to the western boundary
of the Township, including both flood plain and wetlands areas.

This is inconsistent with Coastal Policy which states that "development is dis-
couraged in flood hazard areas" (N.J.C.M.P. Sec. 6.4.4.2, pg. 59). It also
conflicts with Coastal Policy regarding wetlands, which states that, "development
of all kinds is discouraged in wetlands, unless the D.E.P. can find that the proposed
development:

i) requires water access or is water dependent as a central purpose of the
basic function of the activity,

ii) has no prudent or feasible alternative on a non-wetlands site,

iii) will result in minimum feasible alteration or impair ment of natural tidal
currentsf

i v) will result in minimum feasible alteration or impairment of the natural
contour or the natural vegetation of the Wetlands". (N J.C.M. P.,
Sec. 6.5.1.2. pg. 69).

Another inconsistency between the proposed Zoning Ordinance and the N.J.-
C.M.P. policy concerns regulations regarding construction in the flood plains.
Greenwich's construction standards are given in Section 8.3 of the zoning ordinance.
The Coastal policy recommends that the stringent standards used by the Federal
Insurance Administration in HUD. (Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 207, Part 11,
October 26, 1976) as amended, be adopted.

In conclusion, the Future Landl Use Plan, cf Greenwich Township, is consistent
with the policies set forth in the N.J. Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean
Shore Segment. For the most part, I-lie proposed zoning ordinance is also consistent
7
T-Ile coas
\1t sta tal policy. However, these are some recommendations for changes on
the proposed zoning ordinance:

1) Federal Insurance Standards for construction in flood plains should be adopted.

2) The General -industry district should be restricted to the area outside of the
flood plain and wetlands area.

The detailed analysis of Greenwich Township local regulations and its consistency
with N.J.C.M.P. was forwarded for comments to the Greenwich Township Planning
Board.

On September 19, 1978 a public meeting was held in Greenwich,, devoted to
the Coastal Management Program. The findings of the study related to Greenwich
Township were presented at the meeting. As a result of that meeting, Greenwich
Township adopted standards used by the Federal Insurance Administration in HUD
(Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 207, Parl 11, Octo"'er 26, 1976) as amended. The
Proposed Township Ordinance, as related to flood plain usage, was amended.

The General -Industry District remains the same as in its proposal stage. Accord-
ing to Mr. Roemer, Chairman of the Greenwich Planning Board, the Township is
showing the area where industry can be permitted, where it has accessibility to
the water routes (which industry and also commercial/recreational activities requires).
.The Township was advised to have some area frr industry. As it is proposed (in the
zoning ordinance), the Township has reduced the industrial area by almost 50% from
the previous zoning ordinance. But, at the some time we realize that the Atlantic
Electric Company and the Federal Government indicate that a nuclear power plant
can be located in the lower part of the Township, which we have now excluded
from the general industry district, because it is the wettest part of the wetlands.
At least the area which we have now zoned for general industry is located higher
(upland) and is not as prone to flooding as those p,-.)rtions in the lower area of the
Township". (Recorded and transcribed by Czeslawa Zimolzal<,. Appendix A).

The Greenwich Township Planning Board understands that if they are in totji
compliance with the N.J. Coastal Management Program, then they will have no
area at all in which to locate an industrial district.

This is the only Inconsistency with the C.M.P. and the County Master Plan.

Hopewell Township. The Hopewell Township Master Plan calls for preserving
prime aqriculturaFfar7d_'@nd marshlands. In accordance with the plan, floodplains
cannot be occupied; certain wooded areas should be preserved for windbreaks and
ground cover. The Township will require mandatory open space for future residen-
tial development to protect the needs of all residents. The Township encourages

r.4
1-4

*3 0 @4 Z,
0 ca
@A

u
" . 'IOU 10 u
(12 14 X = a a -Z

kill:

SOT

wooll 4
IA

LL 4o, )QUO 41
0-tv

cluster and planned residential development. The Plan also proposes a wider
density range of residential uses and dwelling types (agricuttural/residential,
large lot residential, medium density residential and high density residential). The
Plan states: "certain natural resource areas of the Township containing woodlands,
floodplains, wetlands, and other fragile land areas are important to the environ-
mental condition of the community; the Cohansey River and other water courses are
recommended conversation areas." The Plan also encourages the preservation of
areas of historical significance at Roadstown. 'timited development in such areas
shall be encouraged only within the guidelines and requirements,of applicable State
law.11

In the Plan there is another important Statement: "Hopewell Township is now
and will continue to be a rural, agricultural community with predominantly single
family dwellings in its developed areas. However, the Township has provided land
areas for low income housing projects. The Township also provides community ser-
vices, community facilities and utilities which will become necessary during the
next decade. When the Township population reaches or exceeds 10,000 persons,
public water and public sewer facilities will become necessary.it

The Township conservation Plan states: "it is the intent of the Township to
regulate development activity for the conservation of natural resources by the de-
sigroation of flood plain areas consistent with the Department of H.U.D. Federal
Insurance Administration program, the flood control regulations and standards of
Cumberland County, and the land development regulations of the State of New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. Two legislative acts setting the
standards of regulations are the Wetlands Act and the Coastal Area Facility Review
Act.

Hopewell Township is divided almost in half by the Coastal Area boundary.
The zoning ordinance separates Hopewell into four districts: Agriculture-Industry
(A-)), Agriculture (A), Residential (R-3) and Public (P). A schedule of permitted
uses is listed below:

P (Public) Municipal or County buildings, State or Federal
offices, public education institutions,, public parks
.and recreation- facilities, conservation areas, public
or cultural uses
A (Agriculture) Farmsf stables, single family dwellings, churches,
public schools, cluster developments
R-1 (Residential) - All uses permitted in A except stables
R-2 (Residential All uses permitted in R-1 except farms
R-3 (Residential) All uses permitted in R-2 except cluster developments
HB (Highway Business) - All uses permitted in R-2, Business & Miscellaneous uses
A-] (Agricluture-Industry)- Uses permitted in A, Commercial -industrial Uses,
Industrial uses under special exceptions.

Industry is allowed in the Commercial -industrial zone; it is also allowed in the
A-] District, but only by special exception. Before this exception is given, certain
standards must be met pertaining to: type of production; sewerage treatment; pre-
cautions against fire hazards, radiation and explosion; provision for the storage of
V materials; structural building design; provisions for safeguarding the health of workers;
vibration and glare;and number of access driveways.

Sand extraction is allowed by special exception in both A and A-] districts,
which together comprise the majority of the Coastal Area-Standards and requirements
for this use are given in the zoning ordinance (Sec. 8.2).

In addition to permitted uses, certain uses are prohibited in all districts of
Hopewell Township. These are: acetylene gas manufacture; alcoholic beverage
production; junk.yards; amonia bleaching powder or chlorine manufacture; celluloid
manufacture; fat rendering; fertilizer manufacture; fireworks manufacture, match
manufacture; slaughter houses; tanning, curing or storage of leather; chemical manu-
facture, cement manufacture; or any other use that will be injurious, hazardous,
noxious, or offensive to an extent equal to or greater than those enumerated above.

The zoning ordinance contains special provisions for cluster developments. These
developments are permitted in A, A-1, R-1, and R-2 districts, which constitute the
greatest proprotion of Hopewell's area. This is in accordance with the N.J. Coastal
Management Program which encourages "housing development that clusters dwellings"
(N.J. Coastal Management Program, Sec. 7.2.2 pg. 132). Article 3.1 of the Zoning
Ordinance dictates that cluster developments must meet requirements of: minimum
areas, maximum number of lots, building requirements, santiary sewer systems, site
plan data, and use of open space. Hopewell Township Master Plan complies with
County Master Plan and the N.J. Coastal Management Program. Hopewell's Master
Plan is a step towards the implementation of the Coastal Management Program.

Lawrence Towns@ip. The entire southern half of Lawrence Township is included
in the_C_oast_aTTrrea.' Most of this area is zoned for agricultural We, although
there are districts for industrial, public, and residential development uses. The
industrial area is located along the railroad line, just near the CAFRA boundary.
There are also some coastal areas which are zoned for commercial and business uses.
These are located in the Cedarville area. A brief schedule of regulations is listed
be I ow:

R-1 (Residential) Single Family Dwellingsk Schools, Community
Buildings, Places of Worship
R-D (Residential Develop-,
ment) As above, but using different standards
B (Business) All uies allowed in R-1, Retail Stores

IThe Lawrence Township Future Land Use Plan is in preparation. According to con-
sultant William Bowen, Lcwrence Township will probably need an extension, because
it is not able to meet the deadline of February 1, 1979.

C (Commercial) All uses allowed in B (Business), Wholesale Business
Establishments
I (Industrial) - Any uses allowed in B (Business) except those also
allowed in R-1, Manufacturing, Assembly
A (Agricultural) Any use permitted in R-1 General Purpose Agriculture
Associated Rural Activities Recrectional Facilities
R (Resort) - Any uses permitted in R-1 and RD Amusements, Eating
Places, Lodging
P (Pub I i c) - Any use is permitted, subject to Zoning Board of
Adjustment approval

Sand and gravel mining is permitted as a conditional use in all districts. In
1971 IF a mining ordinance was enacted, making it mandatory that a permit be
received from the Township Committee before mining can begin.' The committee
must be assured that the mining operation will meet performance standards as speci-
fied in the ordinance (Article 8). This could be used as a tool to carry out the pol-
icies of the N.J. Coastal Management Program which states that mining should be
restricted to areas adjacent to current mining operations (N.J. Coastal Management
Program Bay & Ocean Shore Segment Sec. 7.6.2 pg. 148).

Article XXII of the zoning ordinance contains anot her law that could be used
to protect the coastal environment. This ordinance states that approval must be
obtained from the Zoning Board of Adjustment before any construction or demolition
can occur "where water stands habitually, @)r after rain, or in locations subject to
flooding by tides, including flood tides."
Maurice River Township.2 The Coastal Zone covers the western edge of Maurice
River Township (along the Maurice River), and the southern section of the Township,
along the Delaware Bay. In the Township Coastal Area, the proposed Plan is con-
sistent with the Coastal Management Program.

In accordance with the Plarif agricultural areas are designated as limited growth
areas reserved for farming. The proposed Plan shows three categories of residential
development (low density, high density and mobile homes); commercial areas (Lees-
burg, Dorchester, Port Elizabeth); and an industrial area (Dorchester).

The industrial area as designated in the F.L.U.P. has been enlarged over that
of the current plan. If Dorchester is selected a's a support industry site for the repair
and maintenance of vessels and equipment for offshore drilling, this enlargement
will prove to have been necessary. The newly planned industrial area is located
near to an existing industrial zone; this is consistent with the Coastal Management
Program. Areas along the rivers and streams are designated as conservation areas.
These areas should be preserved in their natural state.

In Cumberland Country,just Lawrence Township has a separate zoning ordinance (No.
102) which contains regulations for mining and removal of soil.
20n October I I 1 1978, there was a meeting of the Maurice River Twp. Planning Board@
its express purpose was a discussion of the Maurice River Township proposed Land Use
Plan, prepared by consultant Harry Dare, Ill.

Wetlands areas are divided into two categories:

a) Preservation areas - on which any types of d evelopment is prohibited.
(An example of one such area is the land reserve located around East
Point to preserve the historicail site and edifice of the Light House).

b) Developable wetlands - areas that can be developed in accordance
with the Coastal Management Program (an example is the enlarge-
ment or budding of new marinas, or the location of water-oriented
industries).

The majority of the Township coastal area is zoned for residential uses. A Resource
Development and Restoration District (M-2) is located along the Maurice River. An
Industrial Zone (M-1) also occupies one section adjacent to the river. There are
two Commercial -Business Districts in the Coastal Zone (C-1). One is adjacent to
the river across from Port Norris,_ the other is located near to Route 47, in Leesburg.
Along the bay are located two Mobile Home Districts (T) . A brief schedule of
permitted uses are listed below:

R-1 (Residential) -
Single Family Dwellings, Municipal Facilities,
Farming, Golf Courses, Parks, Airfields
R-2 (Residential) - Single Family Dwellings, Apartments, Schools,
Municipal Facilities, Boarding Houses
R-3 (Residential) - Single Family Dwellings, Apartments, Schools,
Municipal Facilities
C-1 (Community Business) Retail Stores, Offices, Banks, Passenger Terminals,
Restaurants, Motels, etc.
C-2 (Neighborhood
Business) - Same as above
M-1 (Industry) - Food processing, Laboratories, Offices, Public
Utilities, Textile Industry, Glass Industry, Muni-
cipal Facilities, Trucking Facilities
M-2 (Resource Develop-
ment & Resotration) - Agriculture, Recreational Uses, Mining, Public
Utilities, Uses allowed in M-1
T (Mobile Home) - Mobile Homes, Uses permitted in R-2

Mining is permitted only in the Resource -Development and Restoration Districts
(M-2), cnd only with a permit from the Township Committee. Before such a permit
can be awarded, performance standards must be met, dealing with property, pro-
duction and processing, and land rehabilitation. A Resource Development Review
Bocrd (made up of three Planning Board Members and two representatives of the
mining industry) makes recommendations to the Township Committee concerning these
uses,

A new mining ordinance has been proposed, but not yet adopted. It would
require that a permit from the Planning Board be given before the Township Comm-
ittee could issue a mining license.

T6 zoning ordinance specifies certain uses which are prohibited in all districts
of the Township. These are uses which are noxious or offensive in or within 50' of
a Residential District, and uses which are noxious, offensive, or hazardous in
Commercial Districtsf except by approval of the Board of Appeals.

City of Millville. Millville has a small segment of its total area included in the
coastaTzone. It is located along the Maurice River and its tributary Menantico Creek
(on the west it is bounded by Mauricetown Road and on the east by Route 47). Among
the purposes and the goals listed in the Millville Master Plan are the following:

To promote the conservation of open space and valuable natural resources, and
to prevent urban sprawl and the degradation of the environment through improper
use of land;

To encourage planned unit developments which incorporate the best features of
design and relate the type design and layout of residential, commercial, indus-
trial and. recreational development to the particular site; and

To insure preservation of natural open space through the encouragement of
agricultural activities, very low density rural residential development, pre-
servation of natural features in areas of more intensive development, and public
acquisition of open space for conservation and recreation purposes.

The Millville Plan also encourages preservation of the marshlands and discourages
development in the flood plain areas and promotes a balanced system of recreational
areas within the City.

The City of Millville Plan emphasizes the preservation of both private and qL:Osf-
public open space areas. The preservation of private lands is necessary for the general
welfare, where those funds significantly contribute to the environmental soundness of
the area, or the recreational needs of city residents (pinicking, boating, hiking,
riding, swimming, winter sports).

Among the most important policies of the Plan are the preservation of natural
stream corridors, slopes, scenic areas, and historic structures and sites. Natural
stream corridors should be protected by development clustering, easements, or property
acquisiticn. The Plan recommends that the City actively support County acquisition
and development plans for parks in Millville.

According to the Future Land Use map, the Millville coastal area shows as a
conservation area (more than 50% of the total crea), on which very low residential
development is permitted. Outside of the conservation areas, along the Port Eliza-
beth Route (Route 47), mediur@ density residential development is permitted, and some
areas along Route 47 are devoted to commercial use. High density development is
shown around the Lcurel Lake area. The Plan also shows two trailer areas: the first
extends from Route 47 to the banks of the Maurice River, and c second smal I trailer
area is located in the northern part of Millville coastal area. The first area is almost

FIGURE 12

MILLVILLE COASTAL ZONE

-------------- -------

. . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........

. . . . . . . . . .
CITY LANOFILL'>

..............

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .... .. .

.. . ......

AIRPORT IL -1

LEGEND
TOWNSHIP 1111111111 CAFRA Boundary

Conservation Areas

totally located on wetlands, which is inconsistent with Coastal Management Program
that discourages all types of development on w'etlands.

An industrial zone is located in the northern part of the Millville coastal zone.
The area is located partially on flood plain area. A small area, located south of the
industrial area, is marked as a Flood Plain Area - this area is to be preserved in its
natural state.

The Millville Master Plan indicates; that within the city coastal are a development
is planned for:

a. a public marina (northern pcrt of the coastal zone), and
b. Southeast Park along the Maurice River; with projected size is 56.@ acres.

According to the C.M.P. -policies this type of use has priority over other types.

To acquire supplemental park sites, the Millville Plan recommends State and
Federal Assistance Programs, such as Green Acres funding, especially in coordination
with the State Comprehersive Outdoor Recreation Plan.

Currently, the Millville coastal area is divided into rural and urban areas. A
Land -C onservati on district (L-C) covers most of the area with the exception of the
following uses; Industry (I-L, 1-2, and I-R) and Residence (R-15). A complete list
of use districts is given below:

L-C Land Conservation
R-20 Residential
R-15
R-10
R-9
P.A. Professional and Admi nistration'O ff ices
P.B.C. Planned Business Center
B-1 Central Business
B-2 Neighbcrhood Business
B-3 Highway Business
F-P Flood Plain
I-R Research Industry
1-1 General Industry
1-2 Waterfront Industry
1-3 Air Park Industry

Certain uses are prohibited in all districts of the city. These are- billboards and
signs not related to businesses on premises; keeping of swine; privately owned dumps;
seasona! resort cottages; any use endangering health., safety, or welfare of the com-
munity; excessive amounts of dust, fumes, noise, odor, smoke, vibration, glare or
waste products and slaughtering of fowl.

The Land Conservation (L-C) district which covers more than half of the Coastal
Zone in Millville is limited to six permitted uses. These are: farming, single family
detached dwellings, municipal uses, migrant labor housing, cemeteries, and planned
communities. Mining is permitted as a conditional use in this district. It is fully
permitted in 1-1 and 1-3 districts. In all cases, mining operations must comply with
standards in the following areas: design requirements; dismantling after termination of
operations; construction materials and methods; noise, vibration and dust and land
rehabilitation.

Performance standards are also set forth for al I uses in I-R, 1-1, and 1-2 districts.
These are guided by N.J. State Dept. of Health and State Dept. of Labor and Indus-
try standards.

The 1-2 district "permits manufacturing, processing or industrial use . . . provided
that the proposed use has characteristics requiring location near, or immediate access
to, a body of water". (Zoning Ordinance: See 6:2-1602). This is consistent with
the N.J. Coastal Management Program which attempts to reserve waterfront locations
'for uses which are dependent upon the utilization of that resource.

In summary, the Millville Master Plan is compatible with the County Plan of
1966, as amended, arid wil-h the C.M.P. as well.

Stow Creek Township. The western portion of the Township (along Stow Creek),
as well as the southern portion, are included within the coastal zone, approximately
one third of the Township area.

The Future Land Use of Stow Creek spel Is out important policies: the encourage-
ment of farmland preservation; the discouraging of all development in areas not adequate
for such use; the encouragement of housing rehabilitation programs and the construction
of single family dwellings; the encouragment of the utilization of regional community
facilities; the encouragement of the preservation of historic structures and sites; the
preservation of space for recreation; cnd the conservation of natural resources,

In accordance with the Stow Creek F.L.U.P., township coastal areas are to be
used for open space and recreational purposes, preservation (tidal marsh and woodland
area), and agricultural use. In Roadstown, a Historic District has been created in
order to preserve the historic structures; this is consistent with C.M.P. policy. The
Plan states: "All lands contained in the composite flood hazard areas are considered
to have severe limitations for development". If critical, environmentally sensitive
areas are to be protected from development and prime farmland is to be preserved.
Stow Creek Township offers limited potential for future growth and developmeni".

The Stow Creek Future Land Use Plan is consistent with the Township's agricul-
tural character. This municipality had developed a zoning ordinance in complete
agreement with the F.L.U.P. It is important to note that under the previous zoning ordin-
ance almost ali of the western portion of the T ownship coastal area (along Stow Creek)
was zoned for industrial development. This inc'onsistency has been corrected.

The Township of Stow Creek is divided into zoning districts which are listed
below; including types of uses permitted:

Residential (R) - Single family detached dwelling, two family
detached dwelling (duplex), home occupations
as a conditional use, and all uses permitted in the
Agricultural Zone, with some exceptions.
Historic Residential (HR) Single family detached dwelling, home occupation
as conditional use, and all uses permitted in the-Aq-
ricultural Zone with some exceptions.
Agricultural (A) Farm and agricultural activities, the sale of farm
or dairy produce, single family detached dwellings
for family engaged in agricultural production and
as a conditional use for famililies not engaged in ag-
ricultural production, and home occupations as a
conditional use.
Commercial (C) Retail sale of goods, drugs and pharmaceuticals,
confectionery, dry goods and notions, feed, grain,
farm machinery and supplies, stationary, books.,
tobacco, periodicais, newspapers, antiques, service
activities, home occupations (as conditional use);
structures devoted to combined residential and gen-
eral commercial occupancy; and all farm and ag-
ricultural activities permitted in the Agricultural
Zone (with some exceptions).
Flood Plain (FP) - Only uses.permitted in the Agricultural District.
Constructior of an enclosed building is allowed only
in accordance with existing Federal Insurance
Administration Standards.

All uses not expressly permitted by the Stow Creek Township Ordinance are
prohibited. Some of them are listed below: mobile homes or trailers, trailer parks,
multi-family housing containing three or more dwelling units, industrial uses and
activities which involve dnager of fire, explosion, emission of toxic and noxious
matter, radiation or other hazard3,

In general, Stow Creek Land Use Plan. is consistent with 11he County Plan of 1966, as
amended, wi'lh the County planning objectives -and with the C.M.P. policies.

c.. Land and Water Use Decision Making Authorities

A great many agencies share the authority and responsibility for the decision
making process on both land and water use within the County Coastal Zone. A
significant number of organizations, public action groups and citizen advisory
committees (at the municipal and county level), also have influence. They express
their opinions and comment on specific development proposals, as well as helping
in the finalization of important decisions.

Cumberland County 208 Water Quality Planning. (Section 208 of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, IM, an Zi'm-endments). This areawide Water
Quality Management Planning is conducted in the Lower Delaware Basin by the
DEP. The Lower Delaware Study Area includes Salem and Cumberland Counties.
This planning program considers wastewater and stormwater treatment. It is also
concerned with the possible impact on water quality from land use, any types of
development, transportation strategies, air quality and solid waste management.
It deals specifically with non-point sources of water pollution. This planning pro-
gram cal Is for a 20 year management plan which should be approved by November
1978.

The County Planning Board is responsible for informing all municipalities about
this program. Meetings were held in several of the County's municipalities and a
slide show was provided.

Soil Conservation Service. (U.S. Department of Agriculture Agency for Cum-
berland and Salem Counties). The Soil Conservation Service helps farmers in Cum-
berland with the rational use and management of the land. This agency provides to
the farmers soil surveys, engineering and technical servies. It also considers rationale
drainage systems (waterways for drainage), soi I erosion problems, ponds and other factors
related to land use.

In Cumberland County this agency serves 500 farmers (cooperatives) of the
County. Many of them do not belong to the ccoperative. The Soil Conservation Service
Agency also extends their services on to private homeowners.

d. County Land and Water Decision Making Authorities

Cumberland County agencies, which are responsible for land and water use
decisions are listed below:

Road Department, Planning Board, Economic Development Commission, Public
Health Department, Mosquito Extermination Commission, Recreation Commission,
Cumberland Soil Conservation District, County Utility Authority, Industrial
Pollution Control Financing Authority.

Description of the County Agencies.

Road Department. This is one of the largest County departments. The Road
Department operates the maintenance garage. This department supervises maintenance,

repair and construction of al I County roads. Proposals for construction of new roads
in the Coastal Zone require a DEP permit. The County Engineer serves as a member
of the County Planning Board and participates in the review of all of the County's
site plans and subdivision applications. The County Engineer also assesses damages
to County roads and bridges caused by traffic and/or storm water run off. He recom-
mends, supervises and evaluates repairs (repair also requires a DEP permit in wetlands
areas). He also consults with the County Mosquito Commission on drainage system
maintenance and repair. He aids developers in adhering to proper land usage.

The CountyRoad Supervisor reviews all road opening permits, driveway permits
6nd all new streets and drainage permits in new developments, shopping and industrial
areas.

Planning Board. This agency is responsib le for the preparation and adaptation
of a master plan for the County. The Board cooperates with municipalities by en-
couraging the development and use of sound planning objectives and policies as
well as by helping them with 1he preparation of municipal master plans and zoning
ordinances. In 1973, the County Planning Staff worked on preparation of the Master
Plans and zoning ordinances for the municipalities of Fairfield, Stow Creek and
Commercial Townships. The Planning Board is also iesponsible for the review of
all site plans and subdivisions. It can withhold approval on subdivisions if decisions
will affect county roads (eg. by discharging storm water) until such time as adequate
facilities are provided.

Site plans for commercial, industrial and residential development must also
meet specified standards in order to be approved. The County Planning Board meets
with and cooperates with municipal planning boards. Recently, the County Planning
Board met with municipal boards to, discuss a State Development Guide Plan. This
agency also acts in an advisory capacity to the Board of Freeholders and cooperates
with.all agencies at the Federal, State, Metropolitan and regional level. The
County Planning Board was invited to cooperate in a project by the State (DEP/
OCZM) in 1976 to study the onshore impact of offshore drilling for oil and gas on
Cumberland County.

Again, in 1978, the staff was assigned to study the cons istency of local legal
regulations (Municipal,County) with State regulations. The Planning Board studies
population composition and change, land use, zoning, park and recreation needs,
historical features.. business conditionsf water 'and sewage, traffic and transportation
and industry. A detailed bibliography of the Planning Board publications is attached
to the report, Appendix C.

Economic Development Commission. This agency has an important role in the
decision mal@ing process, including where industrial development should be located
within the County, and its locational consistency with county-state land use and
resource policies.

The Commission collects all information on industrial and commercially zoned
areas. It also prepares County Capital improvement programs. Further the

Economic Development Commission is involved in preporation of informational mater-
ials and literature and its distribution to other Co'unty agencies and the public.
This Commission is also involved in advertising the industriall, commercial and
recreational advantages of the County; to this end it prepares materials for displays,
gives lectures and conduct meetings.

In its various projects, the Economic Development Commission cooperates with
County realtors, Utility Authority and various State agencies. It in effect brings
government assistance to management. The Commission is constantly updating the
County industrial directory arid prepares an overall economic development program
progress reports every year.

Public Health Department. This Department is responsible for the enforcement
of State and local kealth c . It has to plan and administer all phases of public
health, including programs designed to meet the health needs of each community
within its jurisdiction. The Health Department supplies water testing services,
performs percolation tests, and assists in establishing municipal water and sewage
systems. It inspects bathing places, controls public water supplies, and controls
the storage, collection and disposal of solid refuse and liqUid waste. It surveys
streams for compliance with a variety of State and Federal Standards. (U.S.C'.A.
33:1251 et. seq.; U.S.C.A. 42:300f et. seq.).

The Public Health Department also assists in the enforcement of air quality
regulation in accordance with adopted standards listed in zoning ordinances; it
checks complaints for air and water pollution.

This Department also makes recommendations for new health projects and services
for the betterment of public health in the various municipalities. It urges the ad-
aptation of local health codes where none exist. This multifunctional agency is@
responsible for public health education, the maintenance of a continuing program
on water pollution control, the maintenance of a continuing water sampling program@
answering public questions and investigating citizens complaints.

The Health Department should also provide the public wi@h copies of State Laws,
health pamphlets, and copies of County/State reports on local health conditions.

Mosquito Extermination Commission. This agency has a large area within Cum-
berland County to control for mosquito Tinfestation. The Commission conducts long-
range drainage programs for mosquit-,, control; it also patrols and maintains drainage
ditches. Among its other functions it reviews drainage plans with representatives
from the County Road Department. In order to avoid conflict, it maps and charts
mosquito breeding areas; it conducts inspection and spraying programs. The Com-
mission is responsible for spraying street catch basins and fire res-ervoirs; it operates
a surveillance program, checks traps and provides identification.

The Commission works very closely with municipalities and its officials work
with the Road Department when installing cross-street drains and catch basins. The
Agency performs (for the Health Dept.) inspection of all sewage and open drains.

The Mosquito Commission conducts public education programs and cooperates with
land developers to eliminate mosquito problems.' The Mosquito Commission' should main
tain liaison with local and State Departments of Health. All mosquito control projects
on Wetlands are permitted by "The Wetlands Act of 1970". C. 13L9A-7 Section 7.
which was effective in Cumberland County on February 21, 1975.

Recreotion Commission. This commission assists in the planning, development and
maintenance of al I County parks. The Commission ;s further responsible for the man-
agement of many recreational activities, and the administration of lands for public
recreation. The Recreation Commission supervises the placing of park benches and
picnic tables. The commission also inspects parks periodically. It cooperates closely
with the Planning Board to which it provides detailed information on areas suitable
for parks or conservation uses.

Cumberland Soil Conservation District. This agency is formed by the appointment
of five farmers to the district council. berland Soil Conservation officers are
involved in the preparation of an operations plan which will benefit farmers. They
have influence on scope of the services performed by the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture Agency (Soil Conservation Service).

County U tility Authority. The County Utility Authority is responsible for the
preparation of a solid waste management plan. This Committee also plans new sanitary
sewerage facilities, provides for their instaliation and works on improvements of
existing sewerage installations. (Appendix D shows Cumberland County Utility Auth-
ority Expansion Plan).

Industrial Pollution Control Financing- Authority. Created in 1973, the purpose
of this autkority is to help th@ county's industries to finance pollution control programs,
including compliance with the State standards of the Clean Air Act. (U.S.C.A. 42:7401
et. seq.).

County Organizations and Public groups which help in the land and water use
decision making process.

County Environmental Organization "Save Our River Environment". (SORE)
'This organization group has about IN-m-e-mbe-rs. Within the organization there are
several committees, each with a designated task or area of concern. Some of these
committees and their functions are noted be!ow. For example, the SORE Agricul-
tural Committee is actively supporting the bill known a� the Family Farm Development
Act; it is now before Congress.

SORE has been actively involved in promoting the conservation of the natural
resources of the Maurice River watershed. SORE also reviews all applications for
permits under the CAFRA, Wetlands, Riparian and Stream Encroachment State Statutes
as well as permits under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
U.S. Coast Guard. It has cooperated with DEP-OCZM, other N.J. Counties en-
vironmental organizations and the Fairfield Township Environmental Commission.

Leaque of Women Voters. The League is actively involved in studying Cumberland
County natural resources.-IT-Fe organization's Environmental Quality Committee i's
presently studying: land use, energy problems, water and air pollution, solid waste
and onshore impact from offshore drilling.

Municipal Land and Water Use Decision Making Authorities

Municipal agencies and commissions which are responsible for land and water
use decisions are listed below: The Municipal Planning Board, the Zoning Board of
Adjustment, the Municipal Engineer, Zoning Officer, Building Inspector, Housing
Inspector, Shade Tree Commission and Environmental Commission. (See Table 7

Municipal Planning Board. The Plaribing Board is responsible under the land
use law of 1975 Ch. 291 (-C-.-70:55D-25) for the preparation of a master plan, the
official map and the zoning ordinance. This agency reviews and controls subdivision
and site plans. It is also involved in preparation of o capital improvements program,
variances, and certain building perinits (in conjunction with subdivisiont site plan
and conditional use approval).

Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Zoning Board of Adiustment has the power
to grant a variance, t a structure or use in a dist.-ict restricted against such
structure or use in particular cases and for special reasons. Variances can only be
accomplished by an affirmative vote of at least two thirds of the Board. This Board
also has the power to direct the issuance of a permit for a building or structure in
the bed of a mapped street, or public drainageway, flood control basin or public
areas reserved to other uses. It has the power to approve subdivision or site plans
as does the planning board.

Zoninq Officer, Buildinq Ins These officials have
pector, Housing Inspeclor.
the responsibility of signing documents "zoning permit" which is required by ordinances
as a condition precedent to the commencement of a use or the erection, construclion,
reconstruction, alteration, conversion or installation of a structure. They issue
building permits and authorize repairs or capital improvements. The zoning permit
acknowledges that such use, structure or building complies with the provisions of
the municipal zoning ordinance.

Environmental Commission. This commi:;sion is generally appointed by the mayor.
This Commission also works ly with the Planning Board. The Environmentul
Commission is invited by the Planning Board to comment on all applications for
development after they have submitted, to the Planning Board, an index of the natural
resources of the municipality.

Shade Tree Commission. There is only one municipal Skade Tree Commission
within t@e @@-ounty (GreenwiICh Township). It has many functions, including the
pruning of trees along municipal roads, the removal of girding roots, the supply of
trees for planting and the removal of dead and dangerous trees. The maintenance of
municipal institutional grounds by mowing, fertilizing, re-seeding lawns, trimming
and spraying of trees and shrubs, the planing and mowinq of flowers, etc. It performs
general landscaping work as wel I.

Table' 7

MUNICIPAL LAND AND WATER USE DECISION MAKING AUTHORITIES

Resource
Zoning Road Develop. Environ- Shade Township
Coastal Planning Board of Building Zoning Housing Super- Health Review mental Tree or City
Municipality Board Adjustment Inspector Officer Inspector visor Officer Board Comm. Comm. Planner

1. City of Bridgeton x x x x x
2. Commercial Twp. x x xa @xa x x x d
3. Downe Twp. x x x x x x
4. Fairfield Twp. x x x x x
5. Greenwich Twp. x x x x x
6. Hopewell Twp. x x x x x
7. Lawrence Twp. x x x b x b b
8. Maurice River Twp. X x x x x
9. City of Millv*-Ile x x xC xc x xd
10. Stow Creek Twp. x x x x

0@
a,- same person

L - same person

.c - some person

d- - CETA position

Soui-(---: Directory of Local Officials

B. Areas of Agreement, Conflict Confusion Among Land Use Plans and Policies

The Cumberland County Future Land Use Pattern recommended by the Plan is in general
consistent with State coastal policies as was documented in the previous section. The newly
adopted municipal Land Use Plans, as well as those which have been proposed but not yet
adopted, were reviewed and found to be consistent with basic coastal policies. All these
plans were prepared in accordance with the provisions of the Municipal Land Use Law of 1975.
Among the listed goals of this law are: conservation of open space and valuable natural
resources; prevention of urban sprawl and deqradation of the environment through the improper
use of land; and the preservation of the existing prime farmland. All Municipal Land Use
Plans inc.lude a conservation plan for environmentally sensitive areas and valuable natural
resources.,

After the municipalities have completed the Land Use Plans, they will review and update'
existing zoning and subdivision ordinances. Greenwich Township has already prepared the
basis for zoning changes to existing zoning ordinances and the zoning map. (These changes develop
will be adopted in January, 1979). The zoninq map shows the location of a General Industry
Zone in the floodplain area. However, the ordinance specifies that all types of develop-
ment should comply with the Federal Insurance Administration standards (HUD, Federal Regis-
ter, Vol. 41 No. 207, Part 11, October 26, 1976) as amendcd. Additionally a provision in
Section 8,,5 stutes: "No activity regulated under the Wetlands Act of 1970 shall be permitted
in the coastal wetlands mapped pursuant to N.J.S.A. 13:9A-1 et. seq., unless a permit has
been issued in accordance with said act. Requiated activities shall not include the continuance
of commercial production of salt hay or other aqriculture crops". (p. 4 of the proposed Green-
wich Township Ordinance).

The Cumberland County coastal zone is the least developed part of the N.J. shore. The
main consideration should be the protection of the fragile coastal ecosystem and in particular
of the valuable wetlands. New construction and development (residential, commercial,
industrial and resort development) should be concentrated in areas where such development
already exists, in order to preserve prime farmland and open space. To follow these basic
coastal management policies, it would be very helpful if the coastal municipalities were
able to adopt a model wetlands ordinance. (Requests were made to DEP to supply such a
model wetlands ordinance).

If the' municipalities have flood plain regulation, then all development must conform
to applicable standards. In Cumberland County, all coastal municipalities, with th,-.
exception of one (Hopewell Township),have flood plain regulations. Only one municipality,
Downe Township, has a separate flood plain ordinance. Other municipalities have included
flood plain regulation as a part of the existing zoning ordinance. Recently, Greenwich
Township adopted flood hazard reduction standards as mentioned earlier. That change took
place after a public meeting in Greenwich Township at the suggestion of the County
representative.

It is recommended that coastal municipalities reserve floodplains and areas along streams
for recreational purposes or conservation, as has been done in several municipalities in
developing their Land Use Plans. Municipalities should discourage landfilling in floodplain
areas; it can create serious flooding problems and do much damage to the property of down-
stream owners.

C. Recommendation for Admin istrative and Regulatory Changes

a. Recommendation for Change in the Permit Review Procedure

According to DEP information, minor waterfront construction such as repair of fam-
ily docks and piers requires only an application that includes:

1. a sketch or drawing of the proposed work;

2. a copy of the property deed, and

3.. an appl.ication fee ($100), providing that the owner has a riparian right permit.

This work can be done locally.

The Cumberland County Planning Board recommends some changes in the permit
review procedure under the Wetlands and Riparian statutes. The Planning Board proposed
that:

I . Al I major devel opment proposals for new structures wi I I be reviewed by the State of
N.J. DEP/OCZM as they are currently, and

2. All proposals for repairs or maintenance of existing structures 'and minor pro-
posals for building new structures should be reviewed and approved or disapproved
locally.

The proposal calls for the establishment of a county clearinghouse which will be
responsible for the review of such proposals. This county agency would cooperate closely
with. municipalities by inviting them to review and to comment on the proposals if they
so choose. Many Cumberland County coastal residents are unhappy with existing regu-
lotions (see Appendix B).

Local government agencies should be funded to implement the various proposed State
procedures, since the Trenton and Atlantic City offices are too distant. Phone calls and
trips to existing offices are quite costly.

Legislative reform should be undertaken to eliminate conflict and confusion over
jurisdictions, to simplify procedures and to make the languaqe of regulations and pro-
cedures understandable without the need for costly legal interpretation.

Riparian Permits. Recent practice shows that individuals who wish to build any
wate'rront structures (pier, dock or small boardwalk) must follow a complex procedure
of application for the riparian permit, including:

1. Two notarized copies of the applications;

2. Two copies of an environmentai questionnaire;

3. Fifteen copies of a survey conducted and stamped by a registered engineer and
land surveyor (fee $600);

4. An acetate copy of the survey; and

5. Sketches and drawings of the structure.

If the construction (such as dock or pier) were built and used by any owner, who
did not have a legal riparian title, he must apply for a permit for that preexisting
structure.

b. Recommendation for Change in the Procedure for Obtaining a Riparian Permit

The Cumberland County Planning Board recommends that:

1. The application forms and the environmental questionnaire should be simplified
and written in language understandable by the average person and not just by a
lawyer.

2. The current fee for processing applications in tl!e case of small properties is
too high; it should be reduced considerably.

3. Engineering work required should be the minimum necessary to clearly identify
locations, and in the case of owners who are surrendering substantial amounts of
land through tidal erosion and consequent change of riparian ownership, all
survey and other costs should be paid by theState.

c. Recommendation for Tax Abatement For Wetlands Owners

The owners of all wetlands (as mapped by the State) should receive a tax abatement.
Wetlands, as an environmentally sensitive area preserved by the State Coastal Manage-
ment Program, have no development value. Owners of the wetlands who regularly
paid taxes on them in the past should pay less. Townships with few ratables can hardly
afford to reduce taxes without aid from the Stateand should not be expected to in view
of the fact that further utilization of these lands is being reaulated away from their
owners to preserve them as a State and Regional water-fron@, open-space resource.

IV. COUNTY PLANNING BOARD OFFICE AS COASTAL CLEARINGHOUSE

A. Contact with Coastal Municipalities: Providing Information on the DEP/OCZM Planning
Program

During the State County Coastal Coordination Project the State and the Federal Govern-
ment held a public hearing on the Draft Coastal Zone Management Program in Bridgeton.
The hearing was well attended by more than 50 people. Seven persons from Cumberland
testified at the hearing. (John Holland Statement, See Appendix Q.

The Planning Board held two public meetings. The purpose of these meetings was to
explain to coastal residents and municipal officials the DEP/OCZM coastal policies and
planning'program and to solicit comments and opinions on coastal management and State
permit application procedure (under the Riparian, Wetlands Act and CAFRA statutes). One
of the public meetings was held in Greenwich Township on September 19, 1978. The meet-
ing was attended by all members of the Planning Board and representatives of the public. The
second meeting was held in Lawrence Township on October 18, 1978. This meeting was very
well attended, (some 86 people). All municipal officials attended the meeting, as did
residents from the small coastal communities, especially Bay Point, and residents from other
parts o'l*tbe Township. The meeting was organized with the help of Alvin Griffith, Secretary
of the Lawrence Township Planning Board.

Both public meetings showed that the coastal residents are not familiar with the laws,
(Riparian, Wetlands Act and CAFRA) nor with the Coastal Management Program - BOSS
(the Mayor and Planning Board received copies). Even those individuals who had read
the Coastal Management Program felt that they couldn't understand it. There is a strong
need for simple explanation of the professional terms. More contact with DEP officials,
workshops and perhaps even short courses cre necessary for those residents who have to live
with these laws. The biggest areas of conflict are interpretation of riparian rights, the pur-
pose of the Wetlands Act and the experience with the application for a permit (for details see
Appendix B). The CAFRA regulations and review process were largely unknown to Lawrence
Township coastal residents.

A Representative of the County Planning Board attended two meetings -with Municipal
Planning Board's, on October 11, 1978 in Leesburg, (Maurice River Township ) and on
October 23, 1978 in Newport, (Downe Township). The purpose of the meeting in Maurice
River Township was an investigation of the Future Land Use Plan and its consistency with
the State Coastal Management Program. At the meeting in Downe Township a Master Plan
was adopted. In ihe opinion of the Mayor of Downe Township, the residents of the coastal
areas of Downe Township had difficulty in obtaining permits for repair of waterfront structures
as wel I as riparian permits.

The Commercial Township Planning Board did not wish to have public meetings dealing
with the coastal management programs. They wished, instead, to have a meeting of the
Township Planning Board with the representative (coastal coordinator) of the Cumberland
County Planning Board. Unfortunately, the membership of the Township Planning Board
wished to schedule that meeting for the same date and time as the above mentioned meeting
in Downe Township. No alternative meeting date was p-.)ssible within the time framework.

B. Summary of Experience Commenting on DEP Coastal Permit Applications

0. CAFRA Permit Application

Cumberland County has had a limited number of applications under the CAFRA
permit program. In the four years since the Act took effect, DEP has received five
applications of which: two have been approved, one has been denied, and two are
pending.

Approved permits: dwelling units (100 apartments),and sewerage.
Denied permits: dwelling units, (campsites, 122).2 This permit was denied due to
inadequate soils for proposed septic treatment of wastes, as well as its potential
negative impacts on the wetlands.

b. Wetlands Permit - Applications in Cumberland: 1970-1977

Approved projects: one utility, four piers and docks, and bridges and roads (1)

Denied projects: one - (no specification)

Withdrawn projects: one - bridges and roads; one recreation

The Cumberland County Coastal Zone is a relatively undeveloped area; this explains
the limited number of wetlands permit applications.

Because of the limited number and scope of applications received for CAFRA and wetlands
permits, a hypothetical study case was undertaken- which cal Is for a smal I recreational boat-
ing facility located on the left bank of the Cohansey River in Fairfield Township. In this
case the CLAM methodology was applied, (Appendix F). Such a facility is typical of the
scope of project permits likely to be forthcoming, both in scale and type.

C. Recommendations for Future State/County Relationships

The Cumberland County Planning Board recommends that the existing State-County relation-
ship be continued. We would like to participate in the State-County coastal coordination
project that will begin in November, 1978. We have proposed a study of the recreation po-
tential of the Delaware Bay waterfront for 1979, (Appendix G).

The Cumberland County segment of shore along the Delaware Bay is relatively undeveloped,
in particular when compared to the Atlantic Ocean shore with its tourist-oriented economy.
Howeverl a few studies have been done that indicate that Cumberland County, New Jersey's
"Other Shore". does have some recreational development potential.

2Coastal Management Strategy for New Jersey CAFRA area, September 1977, pg. 160-164.
Later, the applicant built only 24 campsite units on the site and thus avoided CAFRA regulations.

The Cumberland County Planning Board suggests that such a study should be undertaken.
It can be useful to both DEP/OCZM and the County. Recreational demands in the enfire East,
as wel I as in New Jarsey, are very high. Local ly, mari n*as cannot handle al I requests for
dockage or storage of boats. Recreational development is allowed, even encouraged, under
the provisions of the coastal management program. The need for striking a balance between
-open space needs, commercial fishing, the natural ecosystem and habitat function, recreational
facilities, and employment for the area's residents - in short between nature and man - in
the Delaware Bay area is a pressing one. A unified, rational plan for the Bayshore area is
an absolute necessity. There is pressure from the huge megalopolitan populotion concentra-
tions for resort/recreation facilities, because existing facilities can't cover all needs. In-
tensive field research which includes a detailed inventory of resort/recreation facilities,
sporting areas (birding, hunting, sailing, pleasure boating, sport fishing, crabbing),and
swimming areas must be undertaken before rational planning can be accomplished. The
detailed inventory can be used to fill in data gaps which will increase the specificity and
predictability in the DEP/OCZM decision making process. (See Cumberland County Planning
Board proposal for the 1979 State -C ounty-C oastal Coordination Project, which was sent to
DEP on July 14, 1978).

The County Planning Board also recommends that the County government be authorized
to review applications permits for minor new construction and repair or maintenance of
existing structures (as we specify in recommendation for changes). It further recommends
simplification of the language a nd procedure for obtaining riparian, wetlands and other
permits.

We recommend, also, the creation of county coastal offices (to be funded by the
State and DEP/OCZM) in each of the coastal counties. These offices could act as data
gathering centers, informational clearinghouses, liaison betwe-en DEP/OCZM and coastal
municipalities (as well as between DEP/OCZM and the county government and citizenry),
and a library of pertinent information and documents. Public relations might well become
an important additional function.

A P P E N D ICE S
040,

Appendix A

PUBLIC MEET:NG
GREENWICH TOWNSHIP

On September 19, 1978, a public meeting was held at the Greenwich Township Fire
House. Present at the meeting were Greenwich Township Planning Board members and resi-
dents of the Township. Twelve people attended the meeting.

Also present at the meeting were staff members from the Cumberland County Planning
Board: Carl Holm, Principal Planner; Richard Cramer, Senior Planner, (author of the Green-
wich Township Future Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance); and Czeslawa Zimolzak, Senior
Planner - County Coastal Coordinator.

This was a joint meeting devoted to the Coastal Managemen! Program and to "208" Water
Quality Program. The latter was conducted by Carl Holm during the second half of the
meeting.

Question (Q.)

What type of uses are permitted in the wetlands?

According to the opinion of Mr. Roemer, Chairman of the Greenwich Township Planning
Board, if Greenwich Township complies with the Coastal Management Program, then no
wetlands could be developed; that would leave the Township with no place for the location
of any industry. "At least in this way, we are (the Township) showing an area where indus-
try can be permitted, where it has accessibility to the water routes, which industry and also
commercial/recreational activities requires".

The Township was advised to have some area for industry. As it is proposed (in the zon-
ing ordinance), the Township has reduced the industrial area by almost 50% from the previous
zoning ordinance. But, at the same time we realize that a nuclear power plant can be
located in the lower part of the Township, which we have now excluded from the general
industry district, because it is the wettest part of the wetlands. At least the area which we
have now zoned for general industry is located higher (and is not as prone to flooding as
those portions in the lower area of the Townshi

According to other members of the Greenwich Townsbip Planning Board, it doesn't make
any difference w@jether the Township has some wetlands zoned for industrial use or not. If
the decision is made that a specific site for industrial development is located in wetlands and
is the best site of any available alternative, this site will be developed despite the negative
opinion of the Greenwich Townships' residents.

The Township position (according to the chairman of the Planning Board) is that the
Township should have -a zoned industrial district as an alternative site. In the case that the
federal or State clovernments wish to locate "something" in the lower area of the Township,
they can say "no" (because it is zoned for a different use), and offer an alternative site.

Richard Cramer - "Greenwich Township does not have adequate restriction in the zon-
ing ordinance regarding wetlands and flood hazard areas. The proposed zoning ordinance
restricts development in the floodway portion of flood hazard areas, but it doe's not have
the same restrictions that would cover the remainder of the flood hazard areas (which in the
case of Greenwich is mainly wetlands)." The area delineated for general industry in Green-
wich Township means that we will permit industrial development in a wetlands area. It was
assumed that the State has a permit policy, and all proposals for development will have to
undergo permit procedure. This is inconsistent with the Coastal Management Program and
should be changed. The Planning Board requested that Mr. Cramer should make suggestions
for changes to be considered by the Plannirg Board.

Greenwich resident- "Wetlands policy forbids residential, commercial and industrial
development, but whatever the P.U.C. wants to put there is all right. If that is true, we'
will be faced with possibly greater (negative) environmental changes from a nuclear power
plant. No one knows what impact it has on fauna or what potential damage could occur
from leaks or even slight accidents. Isn't this at least as miuch or more damaging as commer-
cial or residential development to a wetlands area?

Although the plan (C.M.P.) protects against individuals who would capitalize on the
wetlands, it almost makes the environment ideal for the government to locate "something"
in the wetlands. A restrictive growth policy will result in a low population, and the area
will increasingly meet the locational criteria for a nuclear power plant".

Richard Cramer - "The Greenwich Township ordinance, as it is drafted, prohibits the
location of the ar power plants in the Township".

Appendix B

PUBLIC MEETING LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP

On October 18, 1978, a public meeting and hearing were held at the Lawrence Township

municipal building in Cedarville, N.J. The meeting was orranged with the help of the Lawrence

Township Planning Board and was advertised in all local papers as well as on the air.. Some 86

people attended the meeting; representatives of the local municipal government, area farmers,

retired citizenry, local homeowners, owners of second homes in the Bayshore area and people

who use the area for fishing and recreational purposes were all represented.

The tone of public response was universally one of disatisfaction. All those in attendance

were owners and/or operators of existing homes, businesses or facilities.All agreed to the need

for conservation of wetlands and open space. Few wished to have any kind of further develop-

ment. No industrial construction or "developer" elements were in evidence. Abo ut half the

participants were retired individuals on fixed incomes and an overwhelming majority were life-

time or longtime permanent residents of the area.

The great disgruntlement voiced seemed to center on confusion, a lack of communication,
con'flicting advice and directives received from and among various agencies and offices,

involved in DEP, Wetlands, Coastal Zone and CAFRA regulations, and the high costs of ob-

taining legal' advice and/or redress of grievances.

Baypoint, an area of many permanent residences which suffers from serious shore erosion,

was the home community of many of those in attendance. Most present either had received

permits (repair and/or riparian rights) or were in the process of getting them. The average

tenure of Baypoint hcmeowners present was 24.4 years.

A total of 39 people spoke at the meeting; every single individual mentioned a lack of

communication and a lack of clarity in directives as a major problem. The complaints with

regard to a communication's gap included the following points:

o) The inability to understand the regulations, correspondence, procedures for obtaining

permits, aim and purposes of the low without the aid of a lawyer, (22 statements of com-

plaint).

b) The lack of consultation with citizenry as to needs and problems of the area before

theWetlands Act was passed, (6 statements of complaint).

c) The publication of dates and times of informational hearings prior to wetlonds, CAFRA,

and other coastal area legislation in the Atlantic City Press and the Vineland Times Journal

only. Local citizenry read the Bridgeton and Millville newspapers almost exclusively and

were not informed of these hearings in times past (4 complaints).

d) Incorrect referrals to other offices not responsible for or involved withriparian rights

or repair permits for coastal zone structures (31 complaints). For example, one citizen

(a former) was counseled to contact the federal government Corps of Engineers for a permit

to deepen an existing well by an employee of a State agency.

e) Lack of a toll free number for public information and consultation (2 complaints).

f) "Legalistic", unintelligible language in correspondence, communications and laws

(31 complaints).

g) No answer to correspondence (14 complaints).

h) Abusive language and rude behavior on the part of DEP employees (2 complaints).

i) Major versus minor repairs are not clearly distinguished in the law and/or in its inter-

pretation by responsible offices and officials, (16 statements).

j) Riparian rights, obligations, and deeds/titles were not made clear at the time of

purchase or settlement (33 complaints). This was universally viewed as a fail.ure of

State and local officials, the legal establishment and shirking of duty. One citizen

felt it was deliberate fraud. Each statement to the affect that "no one knew at the time

of purchase" was.greeted with applause.

k) Absence of DEP officials from public meetings when invited to attend was cited by

8 people.

1) Conflicting directives and/or opinions.as rendered specifically by the regional office

(Atlantic City) and DEP in Trenton*(eight cases).

m) Lack of a local field office (14 references).

n) No one received -information concerning violations and procedures from 1975 until

the current letters threatening legal action (19 statements),

Charges of discrimination against or by various groups were levelled by 21 people present.

Most charges were related to costs and economics, centering on the inability of those involve'd

to pay necessary costs in obtaining a permit and/or riparian rights. The following cases in

point were mentioned:

a) If change s in the mean high tide result in ownership changes (riparian rights), then

the State, not the individual who owns the ripa,should be responsible for the removal of

structures. (2 statements to this effect).

b) Reports of discrimination against owners of existing stru ctures and a feeling that relevant

portion5of the laws/regulations violate the ex post facto provisions of the United States

Constitution (18 statements).

c) Discrimination against the area's citizenry through designating the Cumberland Bayshore

as a low-growth area, (4 statements).

d) Discrimination against the township trhough loss of existing rateables, (4 statements).

e) No economic help from the State in either stemming shore erosion or the repairing,

dismantling or moving of structures (seven statements).

f) Favoritism toward big business interests, like water oriented industry in general,

nuclear power plants in particular (seven statements).

9) Attempts to assess "back payments" on what was constructed or repaired years ago (14

statements) .
h) The charging and col'Iection of taxes on footage/acreage/yordag e lost through erosion

and nat legally belonging to the individual in question under riparian lcw (11 statements).

i) Treatment as culprits and destroyer� of the environment while untreated waste sewagg.

discharge and nuclear power plant fishkills go unchallenged (3 statements).

Economic cost discrimination against senior citizens on fixed income (27 references).

k) Less harassment of Atlantic Coast home owners comparative to those of the Bayshore

(9 statements).

1) Ducks unlimited was cited as a special interest group for whom the law had been

changed (I statement) during the hearing stage.

m) Removal of control from local zoning and planning boards, in effect concentrating

decision making in Trenton,, (I I statements)

in ) Expression of the fact that all present at hearings in 1969 and 1972 were in opposition

to the legislation as written, yet noneof their protests were considered nor the law amen-

ded (29 statements). (Farmers present noted that one change theyfavored, with regard to

floodgates, was made).

a) One person present, charged harrassment of area homeowners, farmers, the Township

PI anning Board and municipal officials.

P) Atlantic City gambling interests and State development of the Hackensack Meadows

were viewed as evidence of discrimination in favor of special interests by virtually all

present. Six individuuls specifically mentioned one or both in their statements.

q) Hit and miss enforcement of regulations, preventing presisures for the formation of

community legal action groups'. The result is great confusion and greater costs to indiv-

idual owners (7 statements).

The following recommendations were made by the group assembled:

a) Repeal of the Wetlands Act and its replacement with a more satisfactory piece bf

legislation.

b) Amendment to the Wetlands Act to distinguish between major and minor repairs and

improvements.

c) Incorporation of the group as a Bayshore Homeowners'Association to defray legal costs

and to institute a class action against the State of New Jersey.

d) Rewriting of the legislation and ihe procedures in clear English (standing ovation,-

3 minutes and 30 seconds).

e) The creation of a local office to kandle permits and information

f) Reassessment of taxes and institution of just compensation for loss of land and land

values.

9) The setting of concrete legislation and/or constitutional limits on further expansion

of the State with regard to regulation of personal ownership of property and the areas of

State jurisdiction in coastal areas, the wetlands, shore areas.

h) Elimination of conflicting statements and procedures with regard to riperian rights,

CAFRA regulations, local and county ordinances.

i) Exemption of minor repairs from Ike need for permit application and process,

j) Improvement of the inspection process*

Q Elimination of the need for expensive engineers reports and. consul tati ons, with that

function being absorbed by the inspector.

1) Creation of a State plan for controlling shoreline erosion in areas with existing structures.

m) Investigation of the need for a comprehensive program of Bayshore stabilization.

n) More frequent and direct contact with officials of DEP;
a) Comprehensive environmental research and intensive field research in' the Bay.shore area,

The occassion wus u,;ed to document and explain riparian law in simple English, to clefine

and differentiate tke zones known as "shore", wetlands, CAFRA area, and coastal zones, and

to explain the origin, purpose, and functions of various laws and agencies to the -public

assembled.

Opinions recorded h-ere are not necessarily espoused by this individual. They are simply

a record of a lively and well attended public meeting in Lawrence Township.

APPENDIX C

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS:

Population Study, 152 pp. (December 1963-Out of print) (Revised & Reprinted) October, 1967
Economic Base and Social Environment., 223 pp. (Reprinted 1972) December, 1964
Traffic and Transportation, 183 pp. June.. 1965
Land Use - 19641 150 pp. October, 1965
County Government, 90 pp. February, 1966
Long Range Financial Study: 1966-85, 97 pp. (Loan Only) May, 1966
Open Space and Recreation, 130 pp. June, 1966
Special Studies: Land Mining; Agriculture; Oyster Resources, 98 pp. July, 1966
Official Map Reportf 20 pp. (Loan Only) August, 1966
Capital Improvements Report, 46 pp. (Loan Only) August, 1966
The CUMBERLAND PLAN - 1966, A 20-yr. development plan, 212 pp.
(out of print) November, 1966
Rural Water Study, 101 pp. July, 1969
Urban Water Study, 67 pp. December, 1970
Housing - Initial Element, 51 pp. January, 1970
Implementing the Cumberland Plan, An eight year Report of Action, 123 pp. June, 1970,
The Juvenile Criminal Justice System in C.C. (Phase 1), 81 pp. September, 1970
A Plan for the Administration of Criminal Justice in C.C. (Phase 1), 72 pp. November, 1970
Countywide Seweraqe Feasibility Study, 220 pp. (Loan Only) February, 1971
Urbanization, Devices to Control; Optimum City Size, 68 pp. May, 1971
Housing Study and Program, (11) Problems: Objectives; Proposals, 55 pp. November, 1971
Job Opportunities Study (Part 1), Survey of programs & agencies, 40 pp. February, 1972
Job Opportunities " (Part 11), Employment & Efforts to Increase, 35 pp. IV-.arch,, 1973
Amendments to the Cumberland Plan, 14 pp. February, 1972
S urface Drainage Plan and Program, 101 pp. (Loan Only) September, 1972
Housing III - Analysis of 1970 Census Date, 67 pp. Novemberf 1972
Housing IV - Cross-Tabs of Housing & Population Characteristic, 28 pp. June, 1973
Housing V - Dev. & Test for Fair Share Allocation Model, 13 pp. July, 1974
Population Date - 1970 - Analysis & Projections, 25 pp. June, IM
Open Space - A Guide to Preservation, Acquisition & Defense, 34 pp. May, 1974
Soil Erosion Study - The Problem & How to Alleviate Damage, 45 pp. July), 1974
Housing V1 - Allocation Model September, 1975
Historic Preservation of Register of Historic Structures & Sites October, 1976

MISCELLANEOUS PRINTED MATTER AND PLANNING ASSISTANCE

Aerial Photographic Aids (white prints are inexpensive)
Scale I " = 2r000' 1963 Cumberland County - Wall Mounted Mosaic
II let = 2, 000. 1963 Entire County for stereo viewing & diazo prints
III = 1,000. 1963 9" x 9" prints for tri-city area for viewing
I" = 2001 1963 for tri-city area - diazo prints
III = Ir3201 - soils mapping - diazo prints
III = 1,000. 1970 24" x 24" photos only - entire county - may be viewed at
planning office.

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS, Cont'd.

Review of Principal Findings - a part of each basic study available se parately Free
Subdivision Review Guide Free
U 11 Resolution Free
Site Plan Review Guide Free
11 11 Resolution Free
Brochure - An Introduction to the County Plan Free
The Future Land Use Plan Map Free
Flood Plain Study - tidal areas - Cohansey River 1968 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Loan
11 11 11 11 11 Maurice River 1968 Loan
Pamphlets - 3eparate tidal areas within flood plain 1968 Free
Selected Statistics - Population & Housing - 1970 - also gives sources, 25 pp.
Newsletter - The Cumberland PLANNER - bimonthly Free
Historic Site Inventory & Location Map (Newsletter @46) Free
Planned Unit Development (PUD) Scale Model & Exhibit - 1973 Free
Land Use - Patterns & Characteristics - Upper Deerfield Township
A local planning assistance activity for the UDT Planning Board Loan
Seminars - In - Planning-Six 'Packaged" Programs - 1975 Free
County Road Map - (firsi one free)

Fairfield Township:
1. Services and Facilities
2. Future Land Use Plan

Commercial Township:
1. Services and Facilities
2.. Land Use - Existing Patterns and Environmental Characteristics

Maurice River Township:
I . Land Use - Existing Patterns and Environmental Characteristic

A Pictorial Guide to Historic Greenwich, 25@ - 1976
A Pictorial Guide to the Historic Buildings of Mauricetown, 1977

Onshore Development Alternatives - An- Impact Analysis of Offshore Oi I and
Gas Drilling, pp. 136, 1977

APPENDIX D

CUMBERLAND COUNTY UTILITIES AUTHORITY EXPANSION'

CUMBERLAND COUNTY SFI,,.AGE AUTHORITY EXPANSION
BRIDGETON & UPPER DEERFIELD

LOCATION: Bridgeton & Upper Deerfield Township.

ESTIMATED COST: $26,400,000.00

APPLICANT: Cumberland County Utilities Authority

FUNDS: Federal EPA $15,700,000.00
State of New Jersey 1,300,000.00
CCUA 9,400,000.00

INITIATION March 1976
DATE:

COMPLETION DeCember 1978
DATE:

STATUS Plant is 85% finished now, will
be 100% finished at end of 1978

V
UMBER OF JOBS 800 jobs
BE CREATED:

OVIRONMENTAL Upgrading sewer plant will stop present
MPACT: pollution of Cohansey River, improve marine
life, shell fisheries,'and recreation.

GOAL TO BE ATTAINFD BY THIS" PROJFCT
Construction of sewer and water systems

10verall Economic Development Program Progress Report, 1977, pg. 76.

APPENDIX E

Statement of the Cumberland County Planning Board at the Department of Envilonmental
Protection Public Hearing Held of the Cumberland County Court- House June 13, 1978

As the Coastal Management Program is developed and refined, a major concern of the
'Cumberland County Planning Board has to do with the impact that this progrcm will have

on the people who own land; those who are seeking to provide their livelihood; and those

who might be able to provide new job opportunities in our coastal areas. While the Planning

Board recognizes the importance of protecting the natural environment of the coastal area

it also feels strongly that the sometimes critical needs of peoples' living, working and business

environments must also be recognized, and that a balance must be struck between the two

that will not unnecessarily stultify agricultural, business or commercial recreational

activities in the bay region. To this end we recommend 1hat the Coastal Zone Boundary now

included in the program, be reduced to follow the ten foot contour - a line that would

have a direct and meaningful relationship to the tidal water areas which the program seeks

to protect. We see no reason why the Coastal Zone Boundary must follow cultural features

such as roads and railroads as was done by the legislature in establishing the CAFRA

boundary. An upland boundary based on a selected elevation contour,could be accurately

mapped and interpreted in critical cases by municipal engineers just has been accomplished

in the care of HUD Flood Insurance Rate Maps. If this were done, it would.reduce the

overall area included in the coastal zone; provide a more supportable rationale for the

boundary line location; and constitute a first step toward sEtcuring legislative cooperation

in revising the CAFRA boundary line, to match. The Planning Board feels thai in reducing

these zone boundary lines the department would be complying with the intent of Congress

as described in the OCZM Threshold paper number 1, which states: "It is clear that the

intent of Congress wss that States delineate boundaries with a relatively conservative

approach including only those "shorelands", the uses of which have a direct and significant

impact on coastal waters". An utlimate reduction in the CAFRA boundary would relieve

a substamial number of upland property owners from the costly, time consuming and

discouraging red tape involved in the CAFRA permit process.

Another way in which the program could take into account the needs of people

living in the area is through a more sensitive approach to regulation administrations.

just as a good judge seeks to "make the punishment fit the crime" the coastal management

program should find ways to simplify the program's impact on project applications having a

relatively insignificant impact on natural resources. This might be done through tile

institution of a locally managed permit procedure for certain classes of minor developments

in both the wetlands and CAFRA portions of the zone. Replacement of storm damaged

dockage; the construction of minor new private or commercial boat docks; and the con-

struction or repair of necessary agricultural drainage and tide protection structures are

examples of projects that should be considered. The Planning Board feels this would be

another means of avoiding unnecessary expensive application'preparation and costly and
possible fatal time delays. Such a procedure might be tied in with the issuance 'of local

building permits through the municipal construction official's office and could be based on

natural resource advice provided by the Soil Conservation District, which presentlY reviews

many local development projects and is thoroughly familiar with many of the natural resource

c
'teria included in the program's land acceptability tables.
ri

Another of the Planning Board's concerns has to do with the regional growth potential

map shown on page 98. This map delineates growth areas and limited growth areas. A

general view of the map discloses the, proponderant concentration of growth areas throughout

the northern portions of the coastal zone and an almost complete absence of such areas in

the southern portions with the exception of the area adjaceni to Atlantic City. The

Implication here is that a development application originating practically anywhere in our

area will be viewed more critically than one eminating from the almost continuous "growth

area occupying the northerly portion of the coastal zone. The basis for these delineations

probably has to do wilh the state of existing development. However, it w e arL, truly

concerned about the quality of our coastal resources it seems to us that at least as much

and probably more concern should be exercised over developments occuring in the
'northerly, more-intensively, developed waterside areas than the southern low-density

coastal and bayside sections. We feel that this classification, along with a similar approach

in the State Guide Plan, will not only work to complicate local development proposals

and other economic activities through the coastal regulatory process but will also be used to

discourage grants and other aids for new infrastructure which will be needed if any more

intensive development areas are' to be created in our region.

In conclusion, the Planning Board urges that the department, while it seeks to protect

and enhance the coastal environment, maintain a continuing awareness that the landowners

and wage earners as well as existing and prospective business owners are an important and

critical part of that environment; and as such, have a right to expect that their interests
will be respected. The program should be limited in its approach; it should not be used

9s a toot to prevent or promote regional development; the selling of land or the conduct

of legitimate commercial activities.

A map delineating our recommended coastal zone boundary and a more detailed

statement including comments on the Coastal Location Acceptability Method will be

submitted prior to July 5.

Thank you.

APPENDIX F

Title of Project: HYPOTHETICAL PROPOSAL FOR A SMALL RECREATIONAL BOATING FACILITY

Purpose: CLAM Methodology application to the study case.

Location: Proposed s.ite is located on the left bank of the Cohansey River in Fairfield Township,
south of Bridgeton.

Site Description: This hypothetical study case calls for the proposal of a small recreational boating
facility to be constructed on the bank of the Cohansey River (see enclosed N.J.
State Official Map 1:250,000). The property is owned by the Cohanzick Country
Club. It is assumed that patrons of the facility would use the basic services
(parking, water, sewage)of the clubhouse located approximately 1000' from
the proposed site.

A survey of the Cohanzick Country Club area adjacent to the Cohansey River,
helped locate the site for the hypothetical study case. It is interesting to note
that along the entire length of the Cohansey River only one site (that located
within the confines of the Cohanzick Country Club) was found which was suitable
for a small recreational boating facility. There is no possibility for location of
a commercial size marine (100-150 boats). The suitable site was inspected in
detailsf and measurements were taken on which to base a diagram of the proposed
small recreational boating facility (see diagram attached to the report).

It is planned, that the small recreational boating facility would hold 23 boats of
up to 25' in length and include a boat ramp. An extension of the existing
roadway would connect with the ramp. It is al,so assurned that the road would be
constructed of porous materials. Some vegetation on the water's edge would be
disturbed in erecting the dock and ramp, but is is assumed that this impact
would be minimal.

It is assumed that the planned facility would be used by members of the Cohanzick
Country Club and their families (120 members of the Club).

:igure
PROPOSED SMALL RECREATICN.Al- BOATING FACILITY
FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP

2003

Cohansey River
2' catwalk

anchcr
pile

rl
8' main walk
C) 41

<:D
G(D C@ 0-

Existing Vegetation new
road
Source: St
De
3 0
P I
71- 17@

('Nf A

Existing Maintenance.
@u /i I

Existing Unpaved Road

IV "@'Jw .. M I M
Lo@
%- * ,
f I VJ*i'C I I . @ , , i, ,N.t. "", -- : , , I I Fil
E G' 7 , 77 CAM" P
o COLI

X.,
JG
@Z; ----- T,N' -Y

I I n
Carneys"
k Point 'Q
Upper
A
0, L L
KI.
11 Soul ,.,)rrlscn 4- S
c r
'n 7
N
urchlcwn
Pilipsgr6vc,
ch '-- , I - 1 9 ; '. 1 ".1
U 4,N - , ', L ' @@\
I
Elk _1 %
4C
T
11 DO6 MAI onrp
zv
!UCCXCOK K.,M-

I U
oVl@@ o n riv i 1c
.@u N:
,A;") CEX' 'y

all
FCAT MOTT 71@
STATE PARK" @ J'/ '. C, nkl"
V.'c:IchviIl rv@:@ '@p 1, r,
-v- Dow
I- -Mown
R@r
'0 f @@ 3,
L
0'
-F7 N
s-
sa!'M C.-
are
Pittsgro.ve
Aidine ?4
403 kWooq,----,.
ow3y e
'y

A
14,',L n,0n1.* 'Y _R
r.11 sb vl@
Elsinboro '7
AW
Flcr,n M-d- _d
coha -y'
' - ' ___-'1.;pp(n - X-,@erfield-
ncotks'Oricu Harmer vile\, i. i "/
1, '@' pac-r -
d,, @s or.
'T'
T PAPg
No

R@@cnhayn
'AL Z.
XVCLEAR T
POWER PLONT Canton
-,-Lo- i, A!!owz
we y Kek
A:' @11F C91'JA Stb@v Cre-k
@271ph @t T
Dea\rfielc
-s
-'@j,!1T @;IA
%

3
AI& COV* Gum Tr c corner
p carm"
M's
CO COLL
@`.r L U. Uld!own

%
49
.7!

%
r'so"
7'(

slo-

r
CQ@a
% sida@
0

c
'ra L"T
@u, Fairfield
A@IA @cntra Grove
V

@,n
7-
c.h.-Y
Woodland
fN Baal r@l L
.4wr

M @Vlo -llq@GW

rl co

U 7-
lQ1,
-7. -T@
-77

'\I,,
.2 J.
ll@,

or
:'P 0 r
/*

A:;

v E R
f4l C)

T P

COHANSEY

0 0)
Co
-74"
Q- c
0 0 0

CN
1\2

0C) .... ...

@4t@a
it 1. /1,

n
%TI A!@,:A!33
si:, P KC 1 .240
IAP OF S' A], 1 1. 0
(1@sc Al.-A.-' for le,,;orid)

ch-irts

CL,".M A111:,AS
@Jl)',,,T conclemined A",1,.'AS C,:;:%KTS 1-10

'-'ISHING AF,,j,'.A.S

e
to U.S. S-c-

Pro osed

Si e
-S
Zic Ne,,., ;ersev -,COHANSEY
Inven ',c) ry X.
RIVER
-ation witk owners of the commercial
-Consul I
marinas along the Cokansey River

.A r C- o 'L i t: t 1 e 1- - "-,.a rD 0 r
A6
o f t. 1': C* S, C.. r g r- 0 0 t,: i,-: 1 0
In uuts.`_Q@c- of Li*@tle e e
oloper %,--ill be recu:*.red to survev re.5,zource

TI'l V 4
- @ t i (,,I ( L ,, 1,
L _-` 1-- `.0.- -c)-c _e'a_@
Water Depihs-Cohansey River Condition
Survey, U.S. Army Cor OAJ.
P, Prs,,of En
gineers, 1,
an eoa
LA-C-umbuland Cqunty__ d -f-Y
c _r
SHli'WRECKS

iir.-:rocks off 0.

--------- -
S

*This information is currently unavailable to the Cumberland County Planning Board.
1; n

A4 Zich, "New Jersey Anadromous Fish Inventory" - This source does not include inventory of
the anadromous fish for the area on which is located analyzed site.

'A P C SPKC@AL V;t!":R 'I)'-A"
',%'A-r1"R (pp. 1:2400
e ior le,@;ond)
S@hol] E; 11 1 aS

'%j1)i:1' concie-M-ned Al'KAS. C';:@%F'Ts 1-10

1' RZ I N, i F T S 1 1 N G K' 1 A S
-K
to S 1'.t C C C a "mC. I S' - C -
Pro, osed
A

/'1C @ev, Jorsey ---sjj -COHANSEY
RIVER
-Consuli-otion with owners of the commercial,
marinas along the Cohansey River o
A4 . ...... .
5. S 1" v, @-, T' i VY. -j I
0
A6
of tit-'e. 0 o t -I

1. n s (),,I L S 4 C,
c L t I e 'F a i e
0

C V
"'.1 be recu rec! to sui7v tl-:'..- reso"'.I:ce

--s

Water Depths-Cohansey River Condition
Survev, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 11077, .
C-urab&rIand Couni-v Planning Board-p-rqpgi
7.!

"Otc:o
off

L CLI

*This information is currently unavailalble to flne CUMberland County Planning Board.
A4 - Zich, "New Jersey Anadromous Fish Inventory" - This source does not include inventory of
the anadromous fish for the area a,) which is located analyzed site.

<
14 B I-L.P Oi' I.L.11TE 1-11 !,E;". S 1:2400
K R A. REA S (p j) k
C)
!11--1;9 for loc (1-ic!)

-4-
OC "AN
""AY
3.
)):'@Cf: BAY

X!,.N

T@
7.
f;,I) I I Nf "'f A

DATA SO"'

S "! r vc
Us(,S '711-, CL Pro osed U i
B8 sl

0 0

COHANSEY
SCS Cou"'t.", soil. u

CL RIVER

Ocean Open Day Semi-Enclosed Bnck Bay Inland Man-Made Channel
Blly Bnoin Unrbor
Ke y
0
Q

P - Frohibitted
D - Discourcoed
C - Conditionally
C .4 r_
Acceptable %,D
;o zo
E - Ercouarged r4 1-4
1!::p ra c t i c a 0 0 $4 14
P4 $4 V
+ + CN 0) >
C> + + C@ > .14
@4 04
Note: Water depths are 00 :x :J:
measured from F3 0 0 %10 9 0
::1 -4 :3 :5 -4
r4 -4 M -4 -4 -4 C)
[near low water 4) _j ri "i C1 92) IV)
ci a) X, ru C)
ri 0) !:: cl
Aquaculture ick @yl. U) .4 ;y!
C C 1) C C C
- (; G C C p C C D
C C C C C C C C' D C C E C 0 D
3. Structures C C C C C C IC C C C
DOC43 aml Piero D C C D -C C
C C C C C D C I-,-,
Dredging laintcnance C C p C p C C p
6. Dredgin -',,,cw D P D P D P V D Y) p C C P
-7. Spoil L)i p I p P D D D p
",I! 1!@p i ng 13 p 0_9 a C p C p p C p p P P p p p
Fi I I i lig p p p p 1) p p p p P P 2 P P
Pi I io@, P C p C p D D P D D D D P
D C
K)or i ng C C C C C C C p C C C D
P P P D D C c C C C
12. irshore Sand Mining C 1) P p P. 1) p C C C P
131 . 13@ri (igcs D D D P P p 11 P P p
1) D D D D D p C C C
14., CaLle Routes C C C C C C C C
15. Overlit--nd Lines p , / 1) 1) P D
16. Pij)eline Routes C C C D D C C C C
17. EffItlent rclea.
9 e C P P C P D D P. C D -P
@l 8. IM-ms and Itnpoundments P
CIRCLEE THE USES TILNT PERTAIN TO THE CASE BEING ANALYSEDAND THE PROPOSED LOCATION
CIRCLE THE ACCEPTAKLITY OF THE USE.
IF ANV 11 A-Z
"I'L 1@ 4%V1 CIRCLED SEE B.O.S.S. -TEXT ON PAGES 46-49 FOR CONDITIONS.
SPECIFY CONDITIONS ON REVERSE SIDE OF THIS PAGE..

AS & D
SPECT ,110. W, TERI S rncl- & I.AND A!'.E 11, C. 111%p 01" IS'. VAIVIT IS ncl,
111('11 RISK EROSION A;1F.AF)__(l);). 50-68). AREAS ( I : 2 40 o)
(us'e Cl-C13 for legend)
- Rutgers UniversiL' "COZISLal
Gcomorpiriclogy of NJ" V01. I &TT*

1)UN F S
- uscs ;-', HiMLItO QILMdS (or) C4
- NJDFP Wetlands 1"n,.@s

C EN TK-% L BA@IRI@--\ !S'..@.\D CO"RHIM,
CIO
USCS 71*5 ouac;,s (or) ca

cz
Z
< Z
D
00D ARI:-'@ 0
Flood i;aZard Areas
DFP (0
COE F..ood Area:@, 'cr)
Lsz@s m7u@, Prone -,o,-:,S Sujo ement-
al with alluvial soils (or)
>
in ti6al areas, 130 year tidal
cleva',ions C07 de,:4-cd

U-i
>
MSTORic 117so@:Rr- Z
7
NJ StLaze R,2F_J* s ter o f s t o r i c <
Places
Of Histcr`c Pre-
0
National
u
seuv,,.@-ion, Estoric Sitc@s Inventory
E 5`
NjDEP Durca'u of Forestrv

_EIME @02.;:,_ST A.P.-EAS
"!fie ?.`.nee Bar-
rens Vegetation Goograp*hv" (or)
1pj,,Ur0at1 0*7 j'0rCSt_'_'
NiD-: L rv
S

site survey

9.1 PUBLIC OPEN SPACE
I.D1 Tax X"Ips (or)
NJ UE11 ',!--Ijc)r ilu@!._`c open Flood Hazard Areas
"J 0
Recreation Areas in ct. 19771
Steep Slopes

(d.,11A lint IV--

k coil t
r-@ c,
cl. -..c -".j C- C, I V,
i ().i IqTFIVII SLOPES
N-IDEP
SUS Count,,- Soil. Sul-vc-A,
Site Survey

AC,',',TCr
SCS COLJI',',-.\- SOil- SUI-VOV

12-
SIS Counfl-.:

K P i,:, to0 C-l-, C: s 17

"cs So-'J surve", Orl--:
si te SL-"-,"(""

(USC i)4d for I egend)
v.;\], F,.:@ Is F.T)CY,
11 1) S

-er Limit MV)
S `,,--,inuLe 0 -ua -d-s D26
D- I I,, iz 11: i an N, a S
DIa
IcIBEACHE.S D.2d
of vcgetace@-i San@v beach)
NIJID'El, 1,110tocuLds-, 19Y2

NJD 1@e d -0
1-d.,D1,VFLOPI@D FIRST C1L--*';--,1-A,1.. FE
NJ 15- P
i I h 0 t 0 CI. L' , I.C. S
more recent 11r mnof--O
site 0
U

COHANSEY
N
0 R -- lfR-
--- IV

-4- 0
2
I Q)
S C, S C. @:n j

n 7) s
0
li:-I'l-'L Of 10 r
L 0', 1.

wate.
,-(sa,me-a,, la, lb,
D-2 -c. 0 S o il S
th
117
SCS Sr,S,
Site
-2d.'UPPI@R 1,1',IT (510'
DI
o-,.- Upper Limmit, of Lower Water
E'd D2
sc,aled from, ar)pr,)-,riat:e line
estabj4sh,ed from above data
Sources for v-etlands, or UPper
Limit Beach

T
D3. P K TA I N D W; T 1-7 R ' S G E
(rctz-i-c@ s@ructurc I.ine)::
A USGS 7;@: minute O,jad
Photoq@lad -9 7
Wetlands Species:
Move Fecent air 0 L o
Spartina Alterniflora
u r v C V
c i i i Lu, r a f e -4
@ure)
Upper Water's Edge! Forestod

NJ DEP P.10 OQ LN@J -1.

(100'
c

rources pl).273)

Vi V;, k.:
ILI,

DEPTIH TO SP.I.%SONAL 1116il I.,'AlTill TAIA,F IJ. '-L,%P "'F DSI'.@WT

SCS C01,1111'@',: SCAI SLI'V07"
See Land Factor Corrfposite
Map
31
I 11A 11 i.;
Elb I UPLANDS < 3

!!,1,P C.' C07
E2.

e
0 S L J a id Factor Composite
o r
+
S' e Lor
Map

non",

su v 0. v
- -. . . ____ - .- - : ,
SCS ":oSt- l-sulf:S of so'l sa-nlos iK3. lM,',P 01@ SOIL FIERT11,21-TY
.1 T T)
S T 7 1 Il 'EC
------ See Land Factor Composite
(.:.CC 1V kN-SC' 3)
Map

E4 NAP OF VLGHTA'TION I' DH-X
F 4 VE G F TA-Fl 0 N I N:) 1: X 8 7
e:l,@ acrial Photos
t 0- - -,.Ll.r See Land Factor Composite
Y-411.111("[email protected], Map

W@IUI SOUYc(,s p-275)

;-S'I 1,-::TTAL I*@"-:-',*I,()I".----:- POTENTIAL E5. FANj:J'X FOR RKSJDHN'i
DEEVELOI-NE" T I'OT:-.M,-T_

S r.:"111te Quads*

On S-Ite tl:alfiC COLMC
Acc ss is ess
thar. 1000!'
away L 0 Al

';1@1TI-Y
jWith the exception of road and direct
ater access, these conditions do not
1W
Eurcl-u Of Pol le "o] icy &
I to the small recreational boo,-
@pp Y
sli-)Iv Council --iing facility under consideration.
c) i' G o,,:@ 1 c)v
:Boat water and sewage facilities
Y
ava
ilable of the Colicnzick Coun-i
try Club's main building localed ap-
C. C)
roximately 1000' feet from the pro-
1P
posed site. A smal 1 (15' wide) un-
Paved road does reach the site. This
road could @e widened and paved wifN-
:out too much negative impact on the
;.area. Because the site does offer
-------- access to the channel and is
than 1000' from the nearest pak,ed'
"IN
-jpublic road, its development potentia'
ifor recreational boating is medium.

NIA

1: 5 e

E50.-Direct- Access to Channel

Cohansey River Condition Survey, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers 1977 Curnb. Counly Plcnnin.c
-d

p.275)

1:1 U
E. il,A%l) APFAS (Coil
DEVYLO!"'. T
C-T,
F' FOP, CO: C 1 6
1 N DIL S. 11 T .%L
data SOLIrCOS arC t-,C Sa,!-C ZIS I
POTE'NTIAL
Pesidential. Develooment Potential
rnam
It -f (--1! 5
P.,.-LD
i,,% I L S

17,6 -,-.Af J: R S U PP 1, Y
MEMU-M
S EL G
L

Hf ENFILL
El LOIN'
E7. CA.,-,IPcPlOi-NDj T)'--VLT..0P',!VN'.l' POTENTIM 'KING FOR C.-VN'lDGR0l:ND
F7. R-41,
(p i, F LIC *-','.f --NT PO'l-ENTIA1,
i-jdalta scurces are sa:-,? as
Residential Developr.%ent Potential

HICH
E7a@ROADS

SUP?LY
E7b.* WATIE

E 7 c ', S I '@%A G'---

E7d.R'-:GION

ENERGY 'I"CILITY DEVFLOPMENT
F.-%CIL-JITY:
P 0 T EN'@-'l A
TENT'
DEVELOP'@--ENT PO.L- IAL
nc,
It

RrclO,l:AL GRM-Iil POTK@;TIAL
FOR
. \, GT ONAL GROV.1-:111
@-T
type map POTE';TIIAL

Eg,[, ARFAS GROWI-H Ail-rils

AREAS
LI.MITED GROW

99)
MAP & YOR YAC-1-01,'
Oil- @:ources nrc, F, o f (1:24,00.) or niter,
@,j,,c-
DSI!WT, soil Soil 1--c- 12, if 24 is not large cnou@-h)
fertility, ai,.(l \,cE,, C.@
c@t@l -0j, ill (1:2400)
RdditiOll, tO the Yank'
,, j- n,@ f; rcr
dcxc,.1c)p;-.ciit pocc',ILLII, and
region'-d pcL(,.jjtijj.

Water's Edge
Upper Limit of Water's Edge

Proposed
Site

Land Area:
Elb Upland
.2- E2a High Permeabilit@y
V)
E3c Low Soil Fertility
E4-b Med. Vegetation
0
COHANSEY Medium Development Pot.
RIVER Limited Growth Area

LAND AND 'v?ATET, CO"POSITE G. MAP 1. 1.11'GENT) F01', 1-,'ATTT\
- 11he dot-a ,-.ourcos i,:c the inaps of COXITS111 (24, -11.2, S:00")
r,pccipl ;11-cn@;, @!I-ens,
-c and 1-311d
Special. 1:.1ter'S L-2,-,
Edge Areas, mnd WATER AREAS
Land Areas.-
I A4 Finfish Migratory Pathway
A6 Navigation Channel
B8 Medium River

WATER'S EDGE AREAS

2 C4 Flood Hazard Area
DI Lower Water's Edge

3 C4 Flood Hazard Area
1 2 3 41 CIO Steep Slope Area
D2 Upper Water's Edge

Proposed LAND AREAS
Site
4 C4 Flood Hazard Area
CIO Steep Slopes
Elb Upland
E2a High Permeability
E3c Low Soil Fertility
E4b Med. Vegelation
E5 Med. Development Potential
E9 Limited Grow1h Area
@4 III

LOCATION ACCEII-TABILITY ILM) A"I'D 1.1`@:`-D FOR L-CCATION
the data sources are tile -, PTA 1; 1!
@ locltioll ACCI.
acceptability tables on foljo@-!jjjg
pa&es.

For legend, see following page.

Propose
Site 1 2 3 41

WATER ACCEPTABILITY CONDITIONS

Boat Ramps

a) they do not disturb intertidal flats or subaqueous vegetation
(or they cause minimal practicable disturbance),

b) there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities,

c) there is access to an existing navigation channel of adequate depth,

cl) the location policies for upper and lower water's edge are sctisfied,

e) they shall be constructed of environmentally acceptable materials such as concrete
or oyster shell,

f) public use ramps have priority over restricted use and private use ramps, and

g) refuse barrels shall be provided as part of a boat ramp.

Docks and Piers

a) there is a demonstrated need that cannot be satisfied by existing facilities,

b) the adjacent shorefront is intensely used for coastal recreation/

c) the location policies for upper and lower water's edge are satisfied,

the projected construction minimizes environmental impact to the maximum extent feasible,

e) there is minimum feasible interruption of natural water flow patterns,

f) docks and piers on pilings shall be preferred to solid construction on fill, and

g) applicants shall demonstrate why floating docks and piers cannot serve the required
purpose.

Pilings

Dealt with above.

Moorings

The area shall be adequately marked and not be a hazard to navigation'.

LOCATION ACCEPTABILITY CRITERIA

WATER AREAS

I A4F i nfish Migratory Pathway

The boat ramps, dock and piers, pilings, and moorings can be constructed in accordance
with the existing policies and standards. The upstream movernent of the anadromous species
should not be blocked.
A6 N a'vigati on Channel

By not disturbing the vegetation along the bank, erosion and consequent siltation of the
channel would be kept to a minimal level. The proposed use is acceptable under these
circumstances.

B8. Medium River

Boat ramps are acceptable because:

a) they could be constructed which would not disburb subaqueous vegetation,

b) there is a need for them according to both the lo'cal people opinions and literature
(Sternlieb, Leisure Market Studies, Urban Studies Center, New Brunswick, 1969,
pg. 25),

c) direct access to the Cohan'sey channel exist (water depths: 12 feet at I. M. W.),

d) location policies for upper and lower water's edge have been met,

re they could be constructed of oysters shells, which are available in Cumberland
County,

f) the members of the Cohanzick Country Club and their families could have access
to the ramps and

9) refuse barrels would be incorporated into the design,

Docks, piers and pilings are acceptable because:

a) there is a need for these facilities in the County,

b) the riverfront adjacent to the site is used by the Cohanzick Country Club for golf

c) policies for upper and lower water's edge are sctisfied,

d) environmental impact can be minimized by proper construction techniques,

e) natural water flow patterns won't be changed,

f) docks and piers will be built upon pilings,

9) floating docks will be utilized

Moorings are acceptable because:

a) The area would be adequately marked.

2. C4 Flood Hazard Areas

The pro[)Osal calls for a hazard free recreational use which is acceptable

D I Lower Waters Edge (Wetlands)

The proposed facility is acceptable because:

a) req'uires direct water access,

b) can't be I ocated on a non I ower waters edge area and

c) construction methods could minimize feasible negative effects on vegetation existing
on the site.

3. C4 F I a ad Haza@d Area

The proposal calls for a hazard free recreational use which is acceptable.

CIO St,@ep Slope Area

The proposal is acceptable because inspected areas along the banks of the Cohansey River
are characterized by steep slope, allowing no alternative site. Most of the existing vege-
tation will remain, thereby controlling erosion and sediment:ition.

D2 Upper Water's Edge

The facility is acceptable because:

a) the proposed use requires direct water access,

b) the proposed facility requires use of the upper water's edge,

c) a Cohanzick Country Club is immediately adjacent and

d) most of the vegetation would be undisturbed.

LAND AREAS

4. C4 Flood Hazard Area

The proposal calls for a hazard free recreational use which is acceptable

CIO Steep Slope Area
-------------- ;_ -

The proposal is acceptable because all areas inspected along the banks of the Cohcnsey
are characterized by steep slope, allowing no alternative site. Most of existing vegetation
will ramain, thereby controlling erosion and sedimentation

Final Statement

The hypothetical proposal for a small recreational boating facility meets all above listed
locational criteria and therefore is acceptable.

COMMENTS ON C.L.A.M.

The Coastal Location Acceptability Method (C.L.A.M.) is, in general, a valuable
too[ in determining the suitability of a site for various types of development proposals,
However, a few problems do exist. These are basically in three areas; information acces-
sibility, the definition of standards and the determination of development potential.

The study case shows, that some of the basic information required in the CLAM method-
ology were unav,-3ilable to the Cumberland County Planning Board. Section 6.2.1 (Shellfish
Beds) required the use of Haskin's "Distribution of Shellfish Resources in Relation to New
Jersey Intercoastal Waterways. " The Cumberland County Planning Board couldn't obtain
a copy of that book from both loco! areas and state libraries. A similar problem occured
with necessary documentation which is required for Section 6.2.3 (Prime Fishing Areas).
Angler's Guide to the U.S. Atlantic Coast Fish, Fishing Grounds and Fishing Facilities
by Freeman and Walford. This source was also not available to the Planning Board.

More information which is required is that concerning submerged vegetation (Section
6.2.5). There is no existing documeni-ation of this subject and asurvey was not possible.

A second problem area was the specification of standards. Section 6.3.8.4. (Docks
and Piers) refers to a "minimum feasible alteration of natural water flow patterns and minimum
standards should be set to avoid various interpretations of "minimum feasible'.' This iss'ue
clso arises in the. wetlands policy (Section 6.5. 1.2), whick refers to "minimum feasible"
aIteration of tidal circulation, natural contours and natural vegetation.

The Determination of Development Potential raised two issues. The first is that a much
wider range of proposed development categories should be defined for the Development
Potential Factor (Section 6.6.7). Example: The "marina" category (Section 6.6. 7.2. 1)
does not apply to ihe small recreational boating facility used in the stud@ case. The
proposed facility would not require water supply or sewage accessibility which are the
deterrnining factors for marina proposal acceptation.

Finally, the delineation of Growth Areas and Limited Growth Areas is rather arbitrary.
For instancel the proposed site is located in Fairfield Township, designed by B.O.S. as
� Limited Growth Area. However, it is located only 3000' from Bridgeton, designated as
� Growth Area. Maybe around the growth areas a new zone should be created - Moderate
Growth Areas?

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TRENTON PLEASE ADDRESS REPLY TO:
P. 0. Box 1889

DIVISION OF MARINE SERVICES TRENTON. N.J. 08625

September 25, 1978

Ms. Czeslawa Zimolzak
Cumberland County Planning Board
800 East Commerce Street
Bridgeton, New Jersey 08302

Dear Czeslawa:

Ms. Andrea Topper has requested that I review the hypotheti-
cal case study you have done using the CLAM methodology. Upon
examining the case study, it appears that you have followed all the
steps correctly. Overall, you seem to have a firm understanding of
this analysis techique.

As I am sure you are well aware of, 'in August 1978, the
Department of Environmental Protection published the New Jersey
Coastal Management Program - Bay and Ocean Shore Segment and Final
*Environmental Impact Statement (NJCMP-B0SS). There- have been several
changes in Part II, Chapter Four in reference to the classifications
and policies regarding Special Areas, Water Areas, Water Accepta-
bility Tables, Water's Edge Areas and Land Areas.

We are now in the process of completing a case study handbook
using the CLAM technique of analysis. These case studies have two
main purposes: first to illustrate the steps of the CLAM analysis as
a model for applicants and second to illustrate the varying accepta-
bility of different development proposals in different coastal
zones. As soon as the handbook is completed and printed, I will be
sure to send you a copy. If there are any questions please contact
me or Mr. Saul Wiener at (609) 984-3447.

Sincerely yours,

Kathy-McKenna

KM/bw
cc: Ms. Andrea Topper
Mr. Saul S. Wiener

APPENDIX G

PROPOSAL FOR THE 1979 STATE-COUNTY
COASTAL COORDINATION PROJECT

TITLE OF THE PROJECT: The Recreational Potential of Cumberland C t s
Delaware Bay Shore Area_

INTRODUCTION

A study of recreation potential of Cumberland County's Bay Shore region
should be undertaken. The importance of such a study increases as the traditional
recreation sites along the Atlantic Ocean become ever more crowded.

Birdwatching, hunting, sailing, pleasure boating, sport fishing, crabbing
and swimming are traditional activities along the Bay. Recreational use of the
Bayshore will'obviously intensify in the future. There is great potential for
the further development of any or all of these recreational possibilities. Several
rivers and creeks provide excellent harborage. The particular shape of the lower
Delaware Bay provides a large area which can be used by pleasure craft without
interference to or from commercial shipping. Developing these and other possible
recreational activit-les in an environmentally acceptable manner is an extremely
important planning objective, particularly in the light of use pressures on the
Atlantic Coast shore areas of New Jersey.

At the present time, an extensive (future) Bay development study is being
instituted by the Delaware River and Bay Authority. We feel that the major existing
potential for Bay shore areas is recreational, - primarily low density in nature.
We,propose a detailed study of future recreational potential and resource limitations
affecting both intensive recreational use as well as other, possibly incompatible
land use types, that might be proposed. The study should result in: a complete
inventory of existing conditions, a set of policy guidelines for future growth
management, and a start toward a detailed recreation and open space plan for the
area. Ideally, this study might be undertaken on a three county basis (Salem,
Cumberland and Cape May) and at a scale exceeding that proposed here. However,
the limi.ted approach we're proposing for Cumberland County would place us'in a
much stronger, more knowledgeable position to participate effectively in the
development of proposals that will evolve from the Authority's s.tudy.

A. Name of Applicant: Cumberland County Planning Board

B. Location and Description of Project:

The area of investigation would include selected parts of the

Cumberland County coastal zone, including portions of Stow Creek, Green-

wich, Fairfield, Lawrence, Downe, Commercial and Maurice River Townships.
A dozen or more settlements in the area have had (or currently have) some

sort of recreational, seaside resort or fishing resort function, - seven

directly on the Bayshore, others along tidal streams emptying into the Bay.

There has already been development of recreational facilities in the area:

boat docks and marinas, partyboat fishing, some tourist-oriented restaurants,

and a dinner theater. These, together with the many existing structures
used as second homes or permanent dwellings (mainly retired individuals),
the myriad historical structures, sites and towns, five fish and wildlife
areas (state) and several public access (boat ramp or other) areas, form

the nucleus of a loosely developed tourist economy.

Provisions of the Coastal Management Program encourage the development

of recreation facilities in shore and coastal areas where recreational demand

exists. The Cumberland County Bayshore already has a considerable inventory

of dwellings and existing recreational facilities. The area is certainly

experiencing pressures for further recreational development. Boat owners

must often be turned away; weekends, the Bayshore beaches are lined with

fishermen, crabbers, hikers, birdwatchers and other occasional users.

Unpatrolled and unregulated, many beach areas have suffered littering and

destruction. There is a great need for a comprehensive plan which would

reconcile recreational needs and maintenance and/or upgrading of existing

facilities with environmental considerations and-goals.

Left alone, the Bayshore is less likely to return to wilderness and

more likely to become wantonly destroyed. With inlets and indentations,

there are some 50 miles of beach and coastal wetland fronting on the Bay.

Much of the area is too shallow and muddy for bathing, but beaches northwest

of Egg Island are used for that purpose. The current demand for dockage

could only be satisfied by a doubling of current marina capacity. For nature

lovers and fishermen, it is almost the last uncommercialized, uncrowded shore

in New Jersey.

The proposed study would include three parts: inventory, analysis, and

recommendations. The inventory would survey all existing structures, facilities

and uses present in the area. It would survey people who make use of the

region (questionnaires) as to their frequency and purpose of recreational use.

Access roads would be analyzed and evaluated for quality and capacity; traffic

counts, parking facilities and other measures of use/adequacy would be developed.

A systematic survey of supply, repair and other service facilities outside,

but adjacent to, the area will likely be a nece ssary part of the study. An

assessment of structural soundness and condition would contribute to an overall

evaluation of the viability of the area for tourist/recreation purposes.

Physical data are obtainable from maps and other sources. Fish and

wildlife management areas can provide animal census data as well as statistics

on the "take" of various species. The cultural features of the landscape,

however, require field survey and site inventory.

The second phase of the program will deal with analysis of inventory

data, adherence to and/or deviation from the recommended and permitted uses

under existing coastal, legislation, and public opinion/attitudes with reference

to recreational use in the area. Public input and discussion of plans for the

future of the area are a necessary part of the process. A survey of township

officials, local residents, land owners, pressure groups and special interest

groups would be undertaken to this end.

The third and final phase would be recommendations for an area land use

policy and the selection of sites for detailed study. Emphasis would be on

those sites which seem to have great potential for tourist usage in the

future.

C. Timetable for Completion:

The project is designed to be completed over a twelve month period,

beginning January 1, 1979, and ending December 31 of that year. The research

is intended to cover both off-season and summer usage, necessitating periodic

return to the same field for certain types of investigation and data collection.

The research is to be completed by September 30, 1979. The preliminary draft

to be delivered October 31, 1979, and the final draft to be completed by

December 1, 1979. Preparations of multiple copies, assembly, final additions

or corrections, binding and mailing would be accomplished during the month

of December, with all work completed by December 31, 1 979.

D. Product to be Completed:

The results of the study will be:

1. a concrete contribution toward the ultimate development of

a recreational/open space plan for the Bayshore area;

2. a comprehensive land use inventory to be used in developing

rational future land use plans;

3. a meaningful data base for use in conjunction with the CLAM

methodology;

4. a framework for the development of a modest tourist industry to

help re-vitalize the ailing local 'economy, but one without any

major negative impact on the area's environment; and

5. a valuable data base to be used in evaluating applications for

land use and repair permits.

F lillplsmentation of the Goals and Policies of the NJCMP-BUSS:
The project will supply a badly needed data base for accurate

assessment of the area's potential role in the future of New Jersey.

it will aid in cross-checking area compliance with wetlands legislation

in both practice and future land use plans. It will provide necessary

data for implementing the NJCMP-BOSS land use goals, conservation aims

and use prohibitions, insuring rational land use planning and the creation

of a plan which would successfully reconcile recreational needs, environ-

mental considerations and public desires into a wise and utilitarian use of

the Bayshore.

3 6668 00002 7245