DOCSLIB.ORG

Preserving Community Character in Hunterdon County

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Preserving Community Character in Hunterdon County Preserving Community Character in Hunterdon County A Community Design Handbook FINAL DRAFT Prepared by Hunterdon County Planning Board Flemington, NJ 08822 December, 1999 2nd printing Preserving Community Character in Hunterdon County, NJ _________________ A Community Design Handbook Page Introduction 7 Chapter 1. Preserving Community Character: What Are We Preserving? 9 Chapter 2. Creating a Vision: Defining Community Character 13 Chapter 3. Implementing the Vision: The Community Design Plan 17 Chapter 4. Implementing the Vision: Writing The Ordinance 19 Chapter 5. Community Design Guidelines: A Selected List 21 Chapter 6. Residential Site Design in Hunterdon County: Open Space Zoning 45 Chapter 7. Preserving Community Character: Making it Happen! 57 Appendix A Design Guidelines: Are They Legal? 63 Appendix B The Perpetuity of Preserved Open Space 65 Appendix C Sewerage Treatment Options 66 Appendix D Hunterdon County Community Design Workshop 68 Appendix E Invasive Exotics of the Eastern Forest 75 Glossary of Design Terms 77 References for further reading 81 HUNTERDON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Thomas P. Borkowski, Chairman George J. Wickard, Vice Chairman Charles Halsey, Jr., Secretary John DiSarro Angelo T. Marsella James G. Martin, County Engineer Chris Yates Frank Doyle, Alternate Nance Palladino, Alternate George B. Melick, Freeholder Paul C. Sauerland, Jr., Freeholder Director HUNTERDON COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS Paul C. Sauerland, Jr., Director Marcia Karrow, Deputy Director Frank Fuzo, Freeholder George B. Melick, Freeholder George Muller, Freeholder HUNTERDON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD STAFF John W. Kellogg, Director Suzanne M. Hess, Supervising Planner *Linda B. Weber, Principal Planner *Caroline J. Armstrong, Principal Planner Les Varga, Principal Planner Gary Pohorely, Senior Planner *James Kyle, Assistant Planner G. Sue Dziamara, Transportation Coordinator Jayne Haussler, Agriculture Specialist Diane Snyder, Secretary to Director Wendy McCrea, Senior Clerk Typist Allen D. Porter, Esq. Board Attorney *Principal authors Community Design Handbook Preserving Community Character Acknowledgements The Hunterdon County Planning Board would like to thank the following individuals for reviewing draft manuscripts of “Preserving Community Character in Hunterdon County” and offering their comments – without which this handbook would not be possible. Frank Bell, AIA County Architect Edward A. Clerico, PE President, Applied Water Management, Inc Peter Kinsella, Chairman Raritan Township Planning Board John Madden, PP, President John Madden & Associates Jim Martin, PE County Engineer Aram Papazian Developer Allen Porter, Esq., Attorney Hunterdon County Planning Board Howard Ripptoe, Vice-President of Development Sharbell Development Corporation Carlos Macedo Rodriquez, Manager, Special Projects New Jersey Office of State Planning John Thomas, ASLA, Principal John Morgan Thomas Landscape Architects The Hunterdon County Planning thanks the New Jersey Office of State Planning for the funding and technical assistance provided in support of this handbook. 3 Community Design Handbook Preserving Community Character Preserving Community Character…….. “More and more people feel a gnawing dissatisfaction with the quality of development in their communities. For all the process and procedure, they ask, is this all there is?” Christopher Duerkson, Aesthetics and Design Controls 5 Community Design Handbook Preserving Community Character Introduction discussed at the workshop. Preserving Community Character provides this “how to” guide following many of the principles During a six-year Growth Management Planning Process, found in the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment conducted by the Hunterdon County Planning Board, residents and Plan. It offers a step-by-step process for developing community local officials identified what they felt were the most pressing design guidelines and contains examples of specific guidelines that “quality of life” concerns facing Hunterdon County. The purpose municipalities can incorporate into their own land use ordinances. of this program, which began in 1992, was to solicit input on a Additionally, it describes a planning technique called open space variety of land use issues confronting Hunterdon County zoning. Participants in the Growth Management Planning Process municipalities and reach agreement on possible solutions. recommended using open space zoning to help preserve farmland Through surveys, public meetings and task force discussions, people raised a variety of issues. For instance, they said that development is threatening the integrity of their communities. Sprawling residential subdivisions are consuming productive farmland and open space. Strip development is cluttering the highways. New buildings all look alike and have no regard for the natural landscape or local building styles that define Hunterdon County’s communities. Following these and other comments raised during the Growth Management Planning Process, the Hunterdon County Planning Board launched two initiatives. In 1998, it sponsored a community design workshop, funded by the New Jersey Office of State Planning. During this workshop, local officials, developers, and interested residents created site designs for residential and nonresidential developments using various planning and design and open space and to provide more compact patterns of growth. tools. The workshop, explained in detail in the latter part of this The handbook also offers answers to commonly asked questions handbook, was a bold step in translating public concerns into concerning the legality of design guidelines, the strength of deed practical ideas and designs. restrictions and conservation easements for open space, and wastewater treatment options associated with open space zoning. The next logical step following the workshop was to produce a Finally, Preserving Community Character contains a list of “how to” manual that includes planning tools and techniques references on community design that may be of additional help to local officials and other interested readers. 7 Community Design Handbook Preserving Community Character Chapter 1 Preserving Community Character: …what are we preserving? In recent years, local newspapers and public hearings held in Given this definition, how can rural character be preserved in an Hunterdon County have frequently reported that local officials and area with continuing development pressure? Aside from residents in the County are concerned about the impact that growth aggressive open space and farmland preservation planning is having on the character of their communities. Traffic has programs, design guidelines are probably one of the most effective increased significantly in the past two decades on local and state planning tools. There are many types of design guidelines, but the roads. Large box-like buildings are being constructed that have no discussions in this handbook are limited to design guidelines as connection to the County’s scenic and historic landscape. The they relate to the visual elements of the landscape. For County’s rural heritage of country stores and Main Street has communities that want to retain their rural character, the goal of succumbed to its antithesis – strip commercial development. design guidelines is to create the appearance that the natural People can no longer walk or bike to neighboring residences or environment is still the dominant feature of the landscape. This can convenience stores because they have been separated by cul-de-sacs be done in a variety of ways discussed later in this handbook. or are located too far away. County residents lament that they want to preserve their community character. But what is community character – and can it be preserved? Hunterdon County communities are diverse. They include 19th century hamlets and villages, traditional farms, suburban towns, and low density residential developments. Despite these distinctions, one of the most frequently heard descriptions of communities is “rural”. Not surpising, then, is the fact that over one-half of Hunterdon County’s 26 municipalities have included the preservation of rural character in their master plan goals. However, more often than not, rural character is not defined. For the sake of discussion, consider the following generic definition: “Rural character: A landscape where the predominant feature is the natural environment, such as open space, What exactly is rural character? farmland, woodlands and water bodies, and the intrusion of development is minimal.” 9 Community Design Handbook Preserving Community Character But not all of Hunterdon County is rural anymore. Development Defining a community’s character is an important step in pressures are suburbanizing many areas of the County by replacing community planning. It is much more than the label “rural” or farmland and open space vistas with new buildings and “suburban”. It is a complex association of the visual and development. Ironically, however, preserving rural character is functional elements of the community. The visual elements are still a goal for many of these suburban communities. Perhaps this conveyed through the community’s architecture, landscaping and is because people find it difficult to admit that their communities scenic vistas. The functional elements of a community are equally are not rural anymore. More likely, people enjoy the rural way of important. People enjoy taking leisurely walks, sitting and chatting life and are looking
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Neighborhood Investment Strategy
    PLAN FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT’s GARFIELDNEIGHBORHOOD INVESTMENT STRATEGY BLOOMFIELD GARFIELD CORPORATION GARFIELD JUBILEE ASSOCIATION Prepared by: Perkins Eastman TABLE OF CONTENTS Purpose and Process ........................................................................................................................... 1 Good Houses ...................................................................................................................................... 5 Great Streets ..................................................................................................................................... 29 Hilltop Park ....................................................................................................................................... 47 Community Greens .......................................................................................................................... 57 PURPOSE AND PROCESS Garfi eld’s 2030 Plan Garfi eld is looking to become a neighborhood of as encompassing the ideas or viewpoints of all who choice by 2030. To be a place that readily attracts ho- call Garfi eld home. The 2030 Plan is available on the meowners and tenants alike as residents, it must ef- Bloomfi eld-Garfi eld Corporation’s website, fectively deal with the aftermath of nearly 40 years of www.bloomfi eld-garfi eld.org. disinvestment. This means creating a new and valued community that offers high-quality urban living in a The purpose of Garfi eld’s 2030 Plan is to strive for a well-kept environment. Much has been accomplished
    [Show full text]
  • Transforming Alleys Into Green Infrastructure for Los Angeles
    June 2008 Transforming Alleys into Green Infrastructure for Los Angeles Arly Cassidy Josh Newell Jennifer Wolch © 2008 by the Center for Sustainable Cities University of Southern California 3620 S. Vermont Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90089‐0255 www.usc.edu/sustainablecities Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge financial support from the John Randolph Haynes and Dora Haynes Foundation. We would also like to express our gratitude to Kim Reynolds, Travis Longcore, Joseph Devinny, Hilary Bradbury, Mona Seymour, Jennifer Mapes, Zaria Tatalovic, Greg Elwood, Mia Costa, Rachel Bramwell, Ari Briski, Michael Schreiber, and Ross Stephenson as well as our community partners TreePeople, Trust for Public Land, Pacoima Beautiful, and the Los Angeles Neighborhood Land Trust. Preferred Citation: Cassidy, A., Newell, J., and J. Wolch. 2008. Transforming Alleys into Green Infrastructure for Los Angeles. Los Angeles, CA: USC Center for Sustainable Cities. About the Center for Sustainable Cities The USC Center for Sustainable Cities (CSC) fosters research, education, and partnerships to address the sustainability challenges facing metropolitan regions, and generates innovative solutions that enhance the natural environment, economic vitality, and social equity of cities worldwide. CSC regularly partners with community‐based nonprofit organizations, as well as USC’s Institute for Prevention Research, on projects that highlight the role of parks and open‐space and recreation in increasing physical activity and improving public health, particularly in park‐poor
    [Show full text]
  • Green Alley Programs: Planning for a Sustainable Urban Infrastructure? ⇑ Joshua P
    Cities xxx (2012) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities Green Alley Programs: Planning for a sustainable urban infrastructure? ⇑ Joshua P. Newell a, , Mona Seymour b, Thomas Yee c, Jennifer Renteria d, Travis Longcore e, Jennifer R. Wolch f, Anne Shishkovsky g a School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States b Urban Studies Program, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, 4328, Los Angeles, CA 90045, United States c Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Lewis Hall 312, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States d School of Architecture, University of Southern California, Watt Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States e Spatial Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, 3616 Trousdale Parkway, AHF, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States f College of Environmental Design, University of California, 230 Wurster Hall, 1820, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States g School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States article info abstract Article history: Revitalization of urban alleys, underway in cities and towns in North America, Europe, and other regions, Received 20 September 2011 can be seen as a manifestation of a broader movement among city agencies, planners, and community Received in revised form 13 March 2012 groups to expand green urban infrastructure and promote sustainability. This article analyzes alley Accepted 10 July 2012 greening programs in seven cities in the United States using the lens of sustainability planning. Study Available online xxxx results indicate that most alley greening programs are narrowly oriented toward stormwater manage- ment.
    [Show full text]
  • Alley Gating & Greening Toolkit Baltimore
    Alley Gating & Greening Toolkit Baltimore Written by Benjamin Nathanson & Danielle Emmet Edited by Kate Herrod © Ashoka: Innovators for the Public 1 1 This document is solely intended to provide general information about the Alley Gating and Greening initiative. It is not a contract, written or implied. It is not intended to, and does not, create any legally enforceable rights or obligations, nor does it constitute legal advice. Community Greens and Ashoka: Innovators for the Public (“Ashoka ”) make no warranties or representations as to the accuracy or currency of its contents, and expressly disclaim liability for any errors and omissions. Community Greens and Ashoka are not liable for any claims or losses arising from its use. WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST IN GREENING YOUR ALLEY! This is an exciting time for citizens of Baltimore. In April of 2007 the Baltimore City Council, under the visionary leadership of Mayor Shelia Dixon, passed a historic piece of legislation - an Alley Gating and Greening ordinance - allowing residents, for the first time ever, to gate and green the alleyways behind their homes. This ordinance is an historic first step for Baltimore, which now becomes one of the first cities in the country to allow the creation of new “commons” via citizen action. You are fortunate to have this option, for these new alley greens are more than just an attempt for Baltimore to “go green”. These newly shared spaces give you the ability to create a safer environment in which to live. Reclaiming and improving an alley tends to result in a reduction in the amount of dumping, vandalism, and crime that occurs there.
    [Show full text]
  • Creating New Urban Commons, a Baltimore Case Study by K.A
    Creating New Urban Commons, a Baltimore Case Study by K.A. Herrod 1 Abstract: In 2003, Baltimore was a city in distress, with over 14,000 vacant houses and a population that had dropped by more than one-third since 1950. Tired of alleyway crime, residents decided to gate and beautify their alleys, creating common spaces outside their backdoors. Residents faced significant legal and political challenges before, in April 2007, a landmark ordinance passed allowing for alley gating and greening. This historic legislation culminated from the efforts of government, residents, private sector and nonprofit partners, including Ashoka’s Community Greens. This new ordinance protected the city from frivolous law suits and provided residents with a transparent, reasonable, and replicable process. Dozens of blocks in Baltimore are now taking advantage of this ordinance. Because of the social, environmental, and fiscal benefits it provides, other cities are beginning alley greening programs, customized to their unique needs. None, however, appear as community-driven as Baltimore. Baltimore’s program rests at a unique intersection of grass-roots responsibility (residents must undertake the process primarily on their own including gaining their neighbors’ consents and raising funds for improvements) and top-down, municipal authority (a city wide ordinance and application process that must function in order for the program to spread city-wide). This paper will explore the context for and the challenges of creating Baltimore’s alley gating and greening initiative. It will also cover the process residents underwent, the legislation that was ultimately passed and the impact alley gating and greening has had to date.
    [Show full text]
  • Getting to Smart Growth
    Getting to Smart II: Growth Praise for Volume I of Getting to Smart Growth: Getting to Smart II: Growth 100 Policies for Implementation: Getting to Smart Growth II: 100 MORE POLICIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION “It’s nice to have a single document describing many different “100 Policies is a great book.We are going to make this one strategies to refer to as a resource.” mandatory reading for the city’s aldermen.” Diane Paoni, Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Mayor Fred Brereton, Bureau of Planning, Madison, Wisconsin City of Belvidere, Illinois “I work with towns all over the state for free technical “We are currently working on the preparation of our new assistance and this will be a fantastic resource for tools for General Plan and this book appears to offer some great ideas municipalities and counties.” for incorporating specific policies and programs to incorporate Joyce DeLaurentis, Community Development Director, sustainability and smart growth into our Plan.” Maryland Rural Redevelopment Corporation, Greensboro, Maryland Pamela Tuft, AICP, Director of General Plan Administration, City of Petaluma, California “I think it is an excellent document and will help our leaders shape the future of Northern California.” “A couple of months ago, I ordered and received 15 copies of Rich Theis, Leadership Institute for Ecology and the Economy, Getting to Smart Growth. Since then, I’ve given them to local Sebastopol, California municipal officials and developers. Everyone likes the book and I’ve run out of copies. It’s a great publication.” Steve Davis, Canizaro Cawthon Davis, Jackson, Mississippi http://smartgrowth.org 42994 10/03 • 04-099 Acknowledgements Cover Credit We would like to acknowledge the efforts of the writing and research team that put Dover, Kohl & Partners; James Dougherty, Illustrator.
    [Show full text]
  • Comprehensive Master Plan
    HAMMOND COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN Y OUR CITY Y OUR VISION Y OUR FUTURE J UNE 1, 2011 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Mayor Mayson Foster City Council Johnny Blount, District 1 Jason Hood, District 2 Robert “Bobby” Martin, District 3 Lemar Marshall, District 4 Michael Williams, District 5 Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Jimmy Meyer Dr. Sam McClugage Ralph Ross William Travis Stanley Young Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee Jeffrey Smith, Chair Charlotte Banks Louise Bostic Gretchen Chauvin Nancy Coleman Dr. Celine Echols Bonnie Lewis Lemar Marshall Dr. Sam McClugage Barbara McKaskle Robby Miller Bro. Eddie Robertson Pierre Theriot Karen Wallsten City Staff Ginger Fortson, City Planner Tracie Schillace, Planner/GIS Technician Leanne Rushing, GIS Technician Northshore Community Foundation Frank Saxton Consultant Team Dover, Kohl & Partners Villavaso & Associates Hall Planning & Engineering With sincere thanks to the hundreds of members of the public that helped create the plan, the Northshore Community Foundation, and the untold numbers that will endeavor towards its realization. I NTRODUCTION & VISION 1 L AND USE 2 C OMMUNITY DESIGN 3 T RANSPORTATION & INFRASTRUCTURE 4 H OUSING 5 N ATURAL RESOURCES 6 R EGIONAL COORDINATION 7 P UBLIC FACILITIES & SERVICES 8 I MPLEMENTATION 9 P UBLIC PROCESS APPENDIX A L AND USE APPENDIX B R EFERENCE DOCUMENTS C G LOSSARY D June 1, 2011 i I NTRODUCTION & VISION 1 INTRODUCTION This Comprehensive Master Plan adopted by the City of Hammond Planning Commission on __________ is in ful- fillment of the requirements of LA RS 33:106 and serves as the basis for the City’s laws and policies that guide the physical development of the municipality in the exercise of its police power to protect the health, safety and wel- fare of the public.
    [Show full text]
  • Green Alley Programs: Planning for a Sustainable Urban Infrastructure? ⇑ Joshua P
    Cities 31 (2013) 144–155 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Cities journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cities Green Alley Programs: Planning for a sustainable urban infrastructure? ⇑ Joshua P. Newell a, , Mona Seymour b, Thomas Yee c, Jennifer Renteria d, Travis Longcore e, Jennifer R. Wolch f, Anne Shishkovsky g a School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States b Urban Studies Program, Loyola Marymount University, 1 LMU Drive, 4328, Los Angeles, CA 90045, United States c Price School of Public Policy, University of Southern California, Lewis Hall 312, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States d School of Architecture, University of Southern California, Watt Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States e Spatial Sciences Institute, University of Southern California, 3616 Trousdale Parkway, AHF, Los Angeles, CA 90089, United States f College of Environmental Design, University of California, 230 Wurster Hall, 1820, Berkeley, CA 94720, United States g School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan, 440 Church Street, Ann Arbor, MI 48109, United States article info abstract Article history: Revitalization of urban alleys, underway in cities and towns in North America, Europe, and other regions, Received 20 September 2011 can be seen as a manifestation of a broader movement among city agencies, planners, and community Received in revised form 13 March 2012 groups to expand green urban infrastructure and promote sustainability. This article analyzes alley Accepted 10 July 2012 greening programs in seven cities in the United States using the lens of sustainability planning. Study Available online 3 August 2012 results indicate that most alley greening programs are narrowly oriented toward stormwater manage- ment.
    [Show full text]