[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PASSAIC RIVER RESTORATION MASTER PLAN: EAST RUTHERFORD/WALLINGTON DRAFT PASSAIC RIVER COALITION An Urban Watershed Association 246 Madisonville Road Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 l!. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 September 1984 Property of CSC Library ACKNOWLEDGEMENT This report was prepared under contract with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources, Bureau of Coastal Planning and Development with the financial assistance of the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Office 6f Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, under the provisions of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act, P.L. 92-583, as amended. Preparation of the Restoration Master Plan for the Boroughs of East Rutherford and Wallington is by Daniel J. Van Abs, Technical Director of the Passaic River Coalition, with the assistance of: The Citizens Advisory Committee for East Rutherford and Wallington Councilman Edward Lisovicz, Wallington Mrs. Lillian Sesselmann, East Rutherford Passaic River Restoration Project Steering Committee Robert J. Myers, Chairman Raymond Gadomski, Historian, Wallington Stanley John Lacz, AEP Associates Cartogrphy - Mary Marinaro Robert Pergolizzi Daniel Van Abs PAkSSAIC RErVE CCLITTON 2,9 MADtSONVILLE RMOAD. AS(ING RIIDGE. N J O7P20 * PWONIE (201) 16-.755sC Board of Trustees 1983-84 Chairman: Robert J. Myers, North Arlington; Chairman, Passaic River Restoration Committee First Vice Chairman: Jo-Ann C. Dixon, Glen Ridge; Director Alumni Relations, New Jersey Institute of Technology Second Vice Chairman: Eon. John E. Ewing, New Jersey Senate, Peapack Secretery: Betty A. Little, Basking Ridge: Coordinator, Fund Raising, Passaic River Coalition Treasurer: Joseph J. Filippone, Basking Ridge; Manager, Quality Control, Associated Technology, Inc., Clifton At Large: Herbert J. Cannon, P.E., Chatham Borough Engineer; Chairman, Passaic Valley Ground Water Protection Committee Andrew L. Cobb, III, Madison Ella F. Filippone, Ph.D., Basking Ridge; Executive Administrator, Passaic River Coalition Donald W. Haberstroh, Chatham Borough Prof. Frank S. Kelland, West Caldwell; Depart- ment of Earth Sciences and Geography, Montcilair State College, Upper Montclair Arthur F. Loux, CLU, CDC, Applications Systems Manager, Mutual Benefit Life Ins, Co., Newark Alfred Porro, Jr., Esq., Lyndhurst Donald A. Rudy, Ph.D., Berkeley Heights; Bell Telephone Laboratories, Whippany Kermit Von der Beiden, Millington; Regional Vice President, First National State Bank of South Jersey Attorney: Walter Dewey, Esq., Paterson Bank: First National State Bank of South Jersey, Basking Ridge Accountant: Morristown Accounting Services, Inc., P.A., 22 Maple Avenue, Morristown, N.J. 07960 Incorporated: 1971; 501 (c) 3 corporation IRS Tax Exemption Number: 22-1945455 CONTENTS Chapter I: Introduction 5 II: Planning Principles 9 III: Historical Overview 15 IV: Special Zoning 30 V: Projects The Pathway 34 Park Facilities 43 Design Planning 49 Project Phasing 49 VI: Permitting and Licensing State 52 Tideland Statutes 61 County 63 Federal 64 VII: Costs 66 VIII: Funding 69 Appendix A: Consistency with Coastal Resource and Development Policies B: Narrative Discussion of the Riverfront Area C: Riverside Property Owners and Values D: Recreational Inventory E: Marina Design F: Pathway Corridor Design G: Permit Application Forms H: Wildlife Studies I: Green Acres J: National Endowment for the Arts K: Project Maps I NTRODUCTI ON Introduction The Passaic River Restoration Project came about as the result of an effort by the Passaic River Coalition and the municipalities of Rutherford, Lyndhurst, North Arlington and Kearny to prevent further degradation of the Lower Passaic Basin. In the surnmer of 1980, because of a ruptured interceptor line, the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners sought and obtained permission from the State of New Jersey to discharge approximately 29 million gallons per day of raw sewage into the Passaic River at Paterson. Efforts by the Coalition to prevent the sewage discharge from taking place failed, and two facts became clear. First there appeared to be a belief by some of the participants in the hearings that the Lower Passaic should be written off and that no one cared what was done to it. Second, very few members of the public attended the hear- ings to protest what was about to happen. The Passaic River Coalition is an urban watershed association that concerns itself with the environmental well being of the Passaic River Basin. It has been in existence since 1969 and counts among its members the municipalities of Wallington, East Rutherford, Rutherford, 'Lyndhurst, North Arlington, Kearny and Harrison. Located in Basking Ridge, the Coalition has been an effective voice in the environmental affairs of the 935 square mile basin. Shortly after the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners com- pleted their repairs on the interceptor, the four municipalities of Rutherford, Lyndhurst, North Arlington and Kearny, sought the assistance of the Passaic River Coalition in developing a strategy that would discourage further insult to the Lower Passaic River. The Coalition helped the municipalities to obtain -5- a planning grant from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Coastal Resources. The grant was to be used, for the planning of a recreational corridor that would extend from Rutherford to Kearny and would be centered around a trail that could be used by bicyclists, joggers and walkers. The trail was to be laid out along the river wherever possible, and was to provide public access to the river. It was to be the central feature of a Restoration Master Plan (RMP). The RMP was completed in November of 1982 and was accepted by the four municipal ities soon thereafter. Since that time, efforts in these towns have focused on developing detailed designs for parks, fundraising and implementation. In 1983 a uiumber of additional communities requested that the Passaic River Restoration Project be extended to include their areas, and that the Passaic River Coalition assist in plan- ning and implementation efforts. May 7, 1983, was declared Passaic River Restoration Day by the Governor and Legislature. On that day, Harrison, East Rutherford and Wallington officially joined the PRRP. While Harrison had completed most of its planning phase, the Passaic River Coalition sought planning funds to extend the Restoration Master Plan north of Rutherford through East Rutherford and Wallington. In late 1983, the New Jersey Division of Coastal Resources indicated that a second grant would be made to the Passaic River Coalition for that purpose. The contract for East Rutherford and Wallington was signed with the State by the Passaic River Coalition in the spring of 1984. The first phase of work was the data collection phase, which involved mapping the area and delineation of the Division of Coastal Resources area of jurisdiction as well as the areas of special interest, such as wetlands, floodplains, historical sites and so on. In addition, A lot by lot analysis of the existing land use was done and a narrative report analyzed the suitability of the area for the planned project. (Appendix B). -6- During this period and throughout the remainder of the pro- ject, frequent meetings were held by the Coalition staff with a committee of citizens who had expressed a desire to be a part of the planning process. With the help of this committee a preliminary route for the pathway was planned and proposals for the acquisition and development of parks were developed. During the summer of 1984, the Coalition continued to work on the final Master Plan, developing maps which showed the trail routing, as well as areas for possible acquisition, landscaping possibilities and various special projects that might further enhance the restoration of the riverfront. At each step, the Citizens Committee has been brought into the planning process to the maximum extent possible. The exchange has been mutual. Members of the committee have advised us of local activities that may affect the plan. Plan Features Projects within the plan are organized as discrete elements located about a multi-purpose trail designed to encourage access to the river. The trail also serves as a unifying factor in the overall plan. Each of the projects is described in some detail in a subsequent chapter, but a brief description of the general classes of projects is appropriate here. Pocket parks are planned in Wallington in several locations. In some cases the pocket parks may involve the acquisition of land; in other cases the land is already publicly owned. In virtually all cases a greater or lesser degree of landscaping is required to beautify and screen the proposed park. Pocket parks are meant to be places for passive recreation -- small, quiet areas for reflection and observation of the riverine environment. 0 -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~7- The designs will tend to discourage the use of the parks for play- grounds and picnic areas for large groups. Thoughtful landscape architecture will be employed to screen out the noise and business of the urban background. Public safety and security will be a factor in each design. A Marina is planned in East Rutherford, with a smaller boating facility proposed for Wallington. In both instances land acquisition will be~-necessary. In the case of East Rutherford, the acquisition of a facility that was formerly a marine facility is suggested. Adequate landscaping and parking will be planned into the projects. The smaller marina will be little more than a ramp with one or more floating docks and adequate turn-around and parking space. The East Rutherford facility is larger and can include more extensive facilities that are conducive to or consistent with the recreational use of the land. The second stage of the study involved the selection of the individual projects, the plotting of the trail and the design of various facilities. In addition, during this phase, attention was given regulatory problems, permitting and the interface with federal a-ad county agencies, notably the Army Corps of Engineers, the Bergen County Planning Board, and the Bergen County Parks Department. Contact with the Army Corps of Engineers resulted from the probable requirement for bulkheading and bank stabilization at various points along the shoreline. Contact with the Planning Board and the Public Works Department dealt with the utilization of the county highways as a temporary part of the bikeway. Maps showing the principal features of the plan and some alternative routes for the trail were prepared from previously submitted base maps, and became a part of the second stage work product. These and the draft Restoration Master Plan were sub- mitted to the N~. J. Division of Coastal Resources in July, 1984. This marks the present stage of development of the RMP. Chapter II PLANNING PRINCIPLES The Restoration Master Plan (RHIP)was developed under a set of controlling assumptions. First, a desirable goal is to draw attention to the value of the entire river and its adjacent lands as a community resource by encouraging use of the river and its lands in specific areas over a'time horizon of many years. Second, present uses, detrimental to the river and its pro- cesses must be eliminated over some period of years, and no aspect of the Restoration Master Plan can be detrimental to the river. Third, some form of public and private collaboration is required to realize the restoration of the lower Passaic, and municipalities, individuals and business concerns must act in concert to provide the means of accomplishing the restoration. Given these general assumptions, the planners operated under eleven (11) Principles of Planning. They are; 1. The Passaic River will be the focus of the Restoration Master Plan (RMP); 2. No project will be recommended in the RM? if it poses a threat to the river or its processes; 3. Projects that are reliant on the river will be given priority; 4. The river will be viewed as an entire system as will the Restoration Project; 5. Implementation of the RMP will be incremental, with some steps feasible immediately, others on two-, five- and ten-year time horizons; 6. The RM? is open ended because changing circumstances and * ~~~~~~needs may change the products of the plan; -9- 7. Public access to the river will be encouraged and in any new development provision will be made for public access; 8. The linear nature of this PMP, that is, the linking of modes of interest by a walkWay/bikeway, is an essential feature of the plan; 9. Park furniture and plantings will be employed to enhance open land for viewing areas; 10. The ecological integrity of the land, the water and the zone where they interface will be preserved; and 11. Existing facilities and spaces will be used initially wherever possible, and the acquisitions of property con- sidered a long-term strategy. 1.) The Passaic River will be the focus of the RM:P. The degradation of the lower Passaic has been, at least in part, the result of the belief that no one cares about this area. Because this portion of the river is tidal, materials from above and below the area may be deposited in the study area or may be transported back and forth several times. One of the factors that led to the initiation of the Restoration Project was the summer of 1980's discharge of more than a half billion gallons of sewage into the Passaic River at Paterson. By drawing attention to the river, demonstrating in a tangible way that communities on the lower Passaic do care about their river and are investing in the waterfront as a community resource, more pressure can be brought to bear for the cleaning up of the river in other locations. The RMP takes as its guiding principle, therefore, a turning of attention to the river. It is after all, the original linear element that links together the parts of the study area. The river is still the unifying element. -10- 2.) No project will be recommended in the RM if it poses a danger to the river or .its processes. This principle is consistent with the primacy of the river as a focal point of the RMP-and with the Clean Water Act. Each project recommended. in the Master Plan will be evaluated on the basis of its effect on the river and weighed against its value to the community. If a project will damage ecologically sensitive areas fauna, or will tend to further degrade the river, it will not be recommended. Structural modifications to the riverbank will not be encouraged in the RKP. 3.) Projects reliant on the river will be given priority. Wherever possible, projects that involve the active or passive use of the river itself will be given priority in the Master Plan. Active uses include boating and fishing. Viewing is a passive use as would be attending a riverside performance, etc. Wherever possible, on each time horizon, those projects directly involving use of the river will be given priority in the RMIP. 4.) The river will be viewed as an entire system, as will the restoration project. Since viewing the river can be an attractive pass time if the opposite bank is attractive and if the water flowing by is aesthetically pleasing. The RMP will include measures to attain these objectives through public participation. We will, in addition, seek to motivate other communities to undertake restoration projects similar to this one. Since projects encompassed within this plan will not further degrade the river and may in fact tend to improve the river quality, the Restoration will afford some pro- tection for downstream communities. Similarly, the projects that are considered in the plan are designed to serve the municipalities, and each of the parts is designed as a piece of an integrated whole. They are designed to serve all municipalities as part of a recreational and cultural system. 5.) Implementation of the FMP will be incremental with some steps feasible immediately, others on two-, five- and ten- year time horizons. The plan calls for the implementation of several projects. Some of these tan be accomplished within a very short time horizon; others may require a great many years for completion. Placing of signs delineating the walkway/ bikeway could be done in a matter of a few months, where the trail coincides'with an existing paved area or public street. On the other hand, acquisition and development of a major piece of private property might take many years. Completion of the walkway/bikeway might take 10 years or more. 6.) The RM? is open-ended because changing circumstances and needs may change the products of the plan. While currently the RM? is made up of many projects, new projects may be added or substituted for those presently in the plan. This technique is consistent with the concept of the river as a "living" system that changes over the years. What is agreed upon now in the RMIP should be con- sidered a starting point with the capacity to change to meet new circumstances. 7.) Public access to the river will be encouraged and in any new development, provision will be made for public access. Public access to the river is a key element in the RMP not only for public areas such as parks and marinas, but also where new commercial, industrial or public service facilities will be developed in the future. -12- 0 ~~~~8.') The linear nature of the RNP, that is the linkage of N.odes of interest by the walkway/bikeway, is an essential feature of the RH?. A principle objective of the RH? is to provide a route by which one can enjoy walking, running or bicycling near the river. In some instances there may be several routes, where, for example, the terrain is appropriate for walking but not for bicycling. In some instances, in order to bypass an area where bicycling is not permitted or is not appropriate for other reasons, the bicycle trail may depart some distance from the river, but will always return to the river at a site where there is access to the water's edge. Where we believe that there is a safety hazard and no suitable alternative route can be used, the RHP may recommend that the trail be discontinued until a route can be arranged. 9.) Park furniture and plantings will be employed to enhance open space for viewing areas. Viewing areas will be equipped and landscaped in such a way as to focus attention on the river. Each area will have a somewhat different'theme, but in all cases, the river will serve as the unifying theme. Where interesting vege- tation, geomorphological features or historic sites are present or nearby, appropriate signs will be provided. 10.) The ecological integrity of the land, water and their interface zone will be preserved. With any kind of development, there may be a negative or positive impact on the ecology of the area. A basic planning principle of the RM? is that negative impacts will be minimized. Stands of unique or unusual vegetation will be preserved. Areas inhabited by or frequented by water- fowl will be preserved. Each prospect will be weighed as -13- to its value to the community, its possible impact on the riverine ecology and the availability of suitable alterna- tive sites. Landscaping will be used to improve the ecolo- gical values of open spaces. 11)Existing facilities and open spaces will be utilized wherever possible, and the acquisition of property will be considered as a long-term strategy. Many paved paths, parks, and publicly-owned spaces exist that can serve as the sites for viewing areas, recreational facilities and as segments of the walkway/ bikeway. Other pieces of property are privately held and would make useful additions to the project. Strategies for the acquisition of these properties are included in the R14P as are plans for their development. It will be recommended that each municipality alter its official map to show those properties that the municipality may wish to acquire. Condemnation is not considered to be an appropriate strategy except in the most extreme circumstances. -14- Chapter III: HISTORICAL SUMMARY() Native Americans and the Dutch The earliest inhabitants of the Passaic River's east bank were Delaware Indians. The Delaware were a subgroup of the great Algonquin linguistic family whose tribes settled most of the northeastern United States. The Delaware populated the area between present-day New York State and Delaware. In their own language, they were the Lenape, or "original people."~ Three major subdivisions of the Lenape settled in New Jersey. Northernmost were the Minsi, the group which lived along the lower stretches of the Passaic. The Lenape were further divided into sachendoms. The Hackensack Indians were a Lenape sachendom which inhabited the lands just west of the Hudson River. One of their leaders, Oratamn, was instrumental in making peace with the Dutch in the middle of the seventeenth century. The Lenape are classified as a "semi-nomadic"' people. However, under normal circumstances they remained in permanent village settlements for years at a time. 2Cliff overhangs and rack formations along the banks of rivers and streams often pro- vided the Lenape with shelters. More permanent settlements consisted of one-family wigwams centered around a community Big House. Although much archaeological evidence may have been obscured by intensive development, a map illustrating known Le~nape village archeological sites suggests that few permanent settlements existed between the Passaic and Hackensack Rivers. 3Semi-permanent shelters may have lain along the Passaic itself, but the Hackensack marshes prohibited more permanent construction in that area. -15- The Lenape were a peaceful farming people. Widespread burning of woodlands around the villages created irregularly patterned fields for cultivation of crops. 4The primary crops were maize, beans and squash. Other agricultural foodstuffs may have included grapes, plums and maple sugar. 5The Lenape supplemented their farming with hunting and fishing. Stone fishing traps were used along the Passaic River near Wallington, with Indians in canoes driving fish to the traps during high tide by beating the water.6 First contact between the Dutch and the ILenape occurred soon after Henry Hudson's voyage of 1609. Still, little con-tact,, commercial or otherwise, occurred between the two people, as the Dutch showed little interest in New Jersey during the early years of New Amsterdam. Though survey parties were dispatched, no real attempt was made to settle eastern New Jersey until the establish- ment of the p-atroonships in 1629. A community was established by the Dutch at Bergen, but the lack of a good port and the Indian massacres of 1638-45 prevented the development of strong town centers. Political instability and the inability of the Dutch to get along with the Lenape outweighed the economic advantages of eastern New Jersey. Ironically, it was not until the English gained control of the region in 1664 that the Dutch became a major force in the growth and settlement of New Jersey. What became Bergen County was largely settled by the Dutch in its early years.7 The English Colony When New Jersey passed into English hands, the Duke of York deeded the state to two proprietors, Lord John Berkeley and Sir George Carteret. These proprietors immediately parcelled out land under their control a-ad began the slow development of New Jersey. Colonization of the Passaic River basin spread northward from the English settlement at Newark, and westward from the Dutch communities at Bergen, Pavonia, and Communipaw. -16 - The land from Kearny to Rutherford was deeded to William Sandford of the West Indies, with a portion patented in trust for Major Nathaniel Kingsland also of the West Indies.8 Their heirs established major plantations along the river, in what they called New Barbadoes Neck. North of the Sanford and Kingsland properties, approximately 10,000 acres was owned by Captain John Berry of Hackensack, a man of prominence in the colony. He sold his property to Walling Van Winkle, one of two progenitors of the Van Winkle families in present-day Bergen and Passaic Counties. The tract included "nearly all of East Rutherford, Carlton Hill and Wallington."9 He later purchased more land up to Lodi. Van Winkle constructed a small, stone house on Paterson Plank and River Roads. His great-great-grandson, Michael Van Winkle, built a large home on the same site in the 1870's. At his death, the Van Winkle land of two centuries passed to the Anderson Lumber Company. Walling Van Winkle, grandson of the first Walling and the person for whom Wallington is named, earlier erected a large house at the County (Gregory Avenue) Bridge. This was purchased by David I. Anderson in the mid-1800's and became known by his name. At the turn of the century this home became a hotel. The history of Wallington and East Rutherford along the Passaic River is largely tied to that of the City of Passaic, which for well over a century was known as Acquackanonk or Acquackanonk Landing. Acquackanonk was settled early on, with sizeable port facilities, the area's first church, and generally a more developed setting. Wallington had yet to be named as such toward the end of the seventeenth century, and the Van Winkle farmstead was the major structure. - 17 - The Proprietors of Eastern New Jersey described the area in glowing terms: "quote from Life of the Settlers." "'the country is plentifully supplied with springs, rivulets, rivers, and creeks, which abound with fish and water fowl. Oak, chestnut, walnut, poplar, ash, fir and cedar timber abound. Soil, fertile, producing plentiful crops, also good flax and hemp, which is spun and manufactured into linen cloth. The country is well stocked with wild deer, conies (i.e. rabbits), and wild fowl of several sorts, as turkies, pigeons, patridge, plover, quails, swans, geese, ducks in great plenty. It produces a variety of good and delicious fruits, as grapes, plums, mulberries and also apricots, peaches, pears, apples, quinces and watermelons." 10 The early plantations became known as Wallington, Carlton Hill and Lodi. Carlton Hill later became a portion of East Rutherford. Roads became established starting in 1707, first on the Acquackanonk side and then on the eastern shores. Two of the earliest converged at the County Bridge by Anderson's Lumber Yard, the major industrial concern of the area in the late 1800's with 300 feet of landings in Wallington and close to a mile in Acquackanonk. The first road ran south through Carlton Hill (probably now Carlton Avenue). The second ran through Lodi to Hackensack. Another major route was the easterly extension of the Paterson and Hamburgh Turnpike to the Hackensack River. This extension, and ultimately the entire road, became known as the Paterson Plank Road (now Paterson Road).11 An early map of the Wallington/East Rutherford area is shown. The Acquackanonk Bridge originally crossed from Wallington to Acquackanonk somewhat upstream of the current County (Gregory Avenue) Bridge. The early bridge was apparently for foot passengers only. Later improvements were made. On 21 November 1776, Washington's army moved across the bridge on its way from Hackensack to Newark, being pursued by the British troops of General Lord Cornwallis. Washington's soldiers and local citizens partially destroyed the bridge to prevent the British from closing. The bridge was later rebuilt in 1793, damaged, rebuilt in 1795 and destroyed by ice in 1811. A new bridge was built in 1835, replaced in 1865, again replaced in 1890, and finally replaced with the current structure in 1904. This bridge is listed in the Bergen County Historical Survey. Growth of the Area Because the industries in Passaic were chiefly responsible for Wallington's growth, it is important to include the City of Passaic in a Wallington history. Wallington was once known as "Passaic Park". The two bridges, Eighth Street and Market Street or Second Avenue as it was known then, were constructed mainly to entice area residents to purchase land in Wallington, thus developing the town as we know it now. The river had played it's role in supplying food and transportation, as well as sport for the Indians. It proved to be a main artery, for the White Man, in the settlement of "New Barbadoes". The river provided food and transportation for these early settlers. Later the power of the river was harness to the manufacturing plants in Garfield, Passaic, and Wallington. The early farmers i.e. Tades, Van Winkle, Stagg,Sip, Goetschus, all relied on the spring freshets to moisten and fertilize the soil. The area north of Main Avenue extending to the river was once full with well manicured gardens and fruit groves. These mostly Dutch farmers and well to do business-men had very large homes and often competed for the most prestigious looking pro- perties. Their home was called a "Manse". It was not until the 1880's that Wallington experienced the first devastating flood. The late Michael Van Winkle gave 12 this account: - 19 - "Every now and then I would pick up a book on floods and freshets in different communities of our Bergen and Essex Counties. I wish to say, here and now, the cause of the floods and freshets are due to the building of the new Dundee Dam in 1859. Before this Dam was built we had freshets, but very mild ones, and floods if you can call them floods, slightly over it's banks hardly touching the lawn of the David I. Anderson Homestead, for his is practically in the lowest section of our hamlet." Michael Van Winkle continues to write: "In 1878 the onrushing waters of the Passaic River went on a rampage, we could see the waters churning violently, the rushing river would make your blood run cold, for the Passaic 'River really went over it's banks again and into our living room, parlor, dining room and kitchen. Still we suffered slight property, damage. But on January 6, 188.1, the banks of the Dundee Canal * ~~~~~~collapsed due to a heavy rain fall. It was like the ride of Paul Revere, men on horses in the terrific rain were shouting, the dam is busting in different villages. In the meantime the men tried desperately to close the water gates of the Dundee Dam, it failed, our whole village was under water. The damage is done and the Dundee Dam is to blame for it allI." As noted earlier, it was Michael Van Winkle who sold his properties to Anderson, thus making way for the largest, and most industrial use of the river. Passaic and It's Environs; W. W. Scott Exerpt: -20- "In 1885, S. L. Nickeron, who for twenty years had been a sea captain, entered into partnership with W. S. Anderson and built the original factory on the Wallington side. Anderson had operated his business in Passaic for years. "This building afterwards receiving additions, has a one hundred and fifty horse power engine, while about fifty men find constant employment in manufacturing all kinds of packing cases, and every- thing pertaining to wood work for a home." In 1870 W. S. Anderson divided a tract of land in Wallington into several lots. Six years later Levi R. Alden sub-divided additional lands. These developments did not meet with immediate success, though the row homes of Park Row were built on the Alden tract. In 1874, Hugh McCleery (who is mostly remembered for coining the name of Wallington) anticipated the movement of craftsmen to Wallington when he purchased a small parcel of land from Anderson and built a blacksmith shop and a small house; the latter still exists. Developers, both New Yorkers and early settlers, used elaborate sales brochures to entice new residents. Most of these promotions did not fare well. An 1876 map shows only forty houses in Wallington. Not until 1900 did Wallington expand greatly. The construction of the Wallington Avenue and Eighth Street bridges, plus the 1894 trolley car service to Carlton Hill and Passaic linked the new town to surrounding areas. On January 1, 1895, Wallington was incorporated as a borough., Many of the new residents worked at the Anderson Lumber- Yard, Garfield Manufacturing, Prescott, and Manhattan Belt Company. They were. often immigrants from Poland, Hungary and Germany. With long work hours, they had little time to improve their land like the early, wealthy settlers. This situation made the area less attractive to the landed gentry, resulting eventually in the subdivision and sale of most lands, which once were the sites of great farms and orchards. The subdivisions resulted in a more residential and commercial develop- ment, giving rise to a self-supporting community. Population in 1890 was 1,812 and by 1910 it grew to 3,448. -21 - From approximately 1890 - 1910, the Van Winkle family sold most of its holdings between Rutherford and Wallington along the Passaic River. The railroad station at Carlton Hill became the location of a large manufacturing plant. The brick buildings extended from the p~resent Carlton Avenue to the river, eliminating the old road at the river's edge. At the same time., the remainder of the Carlton Hill section sprouted one and two family homes, mostly for residents of Slavic and German descent. The residents soon developed their own town government, community facilities, churches, schools and businesses. During World War 11 and the Korean Conflict, both towns proudly sent many young men to the military. Wallington's V.F.W. chapter once boasted the largest number of servicemen in the nation with overseas duty. A soldiers and sailors monument was erected between the two towns at the intersection of Paterson Avenue and Union Boulevard in honor of the servicemen. By 1920, Wallington was the fourth largest borough in Bergen County with a population of 5,715. Mostly Polish, German, Russian and Ukranian, the ethnicities were very similar to the Dundee section of Passaic. By 1940 most of the people who owned land in Wallington were of Polish descent. Property and land is often passed on to new generations of existing families. The rapid pace of growth resulted in a haphazard pattern of development, with intermixed residences and industry. With the removal of the railroad tracks and station on Main Avenue in Passaic, and the closing of the Carlton Hill Station in East Rutherford, the railroad bridge crossing the Passaic River was removed. The industrial complex in Carlton Hill still stands and is occupied mostly by Starr Industries. Resources and Recreation - The Passaic River Despite the growth of industry in the latter half of the nineteenth century, the land on the Passaic River retained most of its country landscape and served as a recreation ground for the area. The Passaic -22 was particularly attractive to fishermen, who caught shad, eel and sturgeon, and gathered mussels, (One history records that a 7-foot, 500 pound sturgeon was caught off the shores of Lyndhurst.)13 "Bass, perch, trout, carp and other fresh water fish were in abundance as well as fresh water-mussels and eels. Shad by the thousands ran up the river to spawn. Farmers from far away came to the river with barrels and salt to buy and clean fish, pack them in barrels and cart them home for consumption and sale. "The river 100 years ago was a delight to swim in. Bathing beaches were abundant and popular with rowboats and canoes avail- able for rental.",14 The beaches along the river were popular meeting places for the fun lovers in Wallington. There were perhaps three beaches, one located about 500 feet north of the Acquackanmonk (Gregory Avenue) Bridge that faced west, and another along lHatheway Street that faced east. The third and probably the prettiest was at the intersection of the Passaic and Saddle Rivers. Most long-time residents would agree that the rivers were clean, full of fish and a source of enjoy- ment and recreation. The Roaring Twenties were a prime period for river recreation. One of the most detrimental events concerning the natural Passaic River took place in the late fifties. The course of the river was changed to provide an aligh-ment for Route 21, through Passaic County. As a result, Wallington gave up an entire street (once Scott Street) and several families were relocated. The river is now bordered by concrete embankmnents to the Market Street Bridge. Industrial pollution gradually destroyed both the fishing and boating by the end of the nineteenth century. Both activities did see a brief revival during the 1920's. In the 1930's, the Army Corps of Engineers deepened the Passaic River channel and put the dredged spoils along the shores. The boating clubs went out of business, many of their facilities being converted to commercial uses and eventually 15 lost. -23- ~Historic Sites All of the bridges in the project area are on the Bergen County Historical Survey list, primarily due to their age and interesting engineering. The site of the Anderson Lumber Company is likewise listed, at the corner of Paterson and Main Avenues. An old tavern near the Wallington Avenue bridge is listed, as well as the original Wallington borough hall across from the Eighth Street Bridge. Suggestions that the building be purchased and renovated for public use have been made. A site not listed on the Historical Survey is in the linear park across from the Wallington High School. This is the site where Michaelin Tades landed, the first white man to set foot in and develop Wallington land. The confluence of the Passaic and Saddle Rivers was the site of the Zabriskie grist mill as well as the location of a bloody battle between Hessian and Continental soldiers. The sole site in the project area on the State and National Registers of Historic Sites is the Wallington High School, on Main * ~~~~Avenue just north of the Eighth Street Bridge. -24- 0 ~~~~Conclusion For many years, local residents have turned their backs on the foul smelling, unsightly Passaic River. Wha t was once an artery of life, has been forgotten. Some long term residents tell stories of fishing and swimming, and enjoying the river. One can read, and see pictures, and accounts in this outline of the old Passaic River. Now we are turning our backs on degrading uses, and looking for cleaner and more enjoyable uses for the river. We must remember, and learn from the past., 'Perhaps the new use may be the history for ages to come. A birth, in a sense, like the Indians used it. Their use was simple, to use and enjoy a body of water in harmony with mankind. *This chapter is drawn from three major resources. "Native Americans and the Dutch," and "Resources and Recreation"~ are primarily excerpts from the Restoration Master Plan for Kearny, North Arlington, Lyndhurst and Rutherford, Chapter III, by Christina M4. Mason. "Growth of the Area", "The Early 20th Century" and "Conclusion" were prepared by Raymond Gadomski, a local historian of Wallington, with the aid of Marilyn Sudol and Anthony Gadomski, his father. The remaining text is drawn from W. J. Pape and W. W. Scott, 1899, The NEW'S History of Passaic, the NEW'S Publishing Company. The photographs are by the late Stanley 0 ~~~~F. A. Kopack, and provided through the courtesy of his family. These latter materials were also compiled by Raymond Gadomski. -25- A BRIDGE OF MANY NAMES The Gregory and Main Avenue Bridge is a well preserved example of an early 20th century swing span. To date, it is the only known Owego Bridge Co. bridge in New Jersey. This bridge is the seventh bridge across the Passaic in its immediate vicinity. The first bridge predated 1741. The 1766-68 wood bridge with iron work was destroyed in the Revolutionary War. It was known as the Acquacknonk Bridge and was destroyed by Washington's army on November 21, 1776 after they crossed it. The 1793 bridge was located 100 feet north of the present bridge. Subsequent bridges were at this site from 1835-65, 1865-90, and 1890-04. - 26 - ~z:-, -� . ::: -. : : .: ; : ; �: : , : . ,: Many barges, like this one, passing thru the open "County Bridge" pro- vided means for transporting materials to and from the industrial complexes along the river. This barge is preparing to dredge the canal, and form a levee. 8th Street Bridge. This bridge and the Market St. Bridge were constructed primarily for residents and transportation of materials to and from Dundee Section of Passaic. It was a short walk to work in those days. - 27 - Pleasure4/ and fishing bo a t 2oored at a455 maiaaogVnikeAeu.5 T h e s e 544.>445,44 p hto are4'<4 fro the 1930. s. <~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ?i~~.4.4 5 <...,, 55 .' . 4 ~�v.~"z~~; ~ . ;.... :..~ Folks>' ice5>K, sktn o n 45445 444~~~~~~~~. ~ ;.;: ',.~:..:~, 5 ,: '<.'j .44, 47 Aparmens. . ~ " 44445 4 45 4 44,- 58 - REFERENCES 1Peter O. Wacker, Land and People (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1975), p. 57. Norman F. Brydon, The Passaic River: Past, Present, Future (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1974), P. 42. 3Brydon, p. 40. 4Brydon, pp. 42 - 43. 5Wacker, p. 66. W. J. Pape and W. W. Scott, The NEW'S History of Passaic (The NEW'S Publishing Co., 1899). 7W. J. Pape and W. W. Scott. Brydon, p. 51. 9W. J. Pape and W. W. Scott. 0W. J. Pape and W. W. Scott. "W. J. Pape and W. W. Scott. W. W. Scott, Passaic and It's Environs. 13 W. Woodford Clayton, ed., History of Bergen and Passaic Counties, New Jersey, (Philadelphia: Everts and Peck, 1882), p. 305; and the Township of Lyndhurst, 1917 - Township of Lyndhurst - 1967, Historical Essay (1967), p. 21. 14Unknown author, History of Lyndhurst (Lyndhurst, N. J.: Township of Lyndhurst, 1974). 15Brydon, p. 172. - 29 - Chapter IV SPECIAL ZONING STANDARDS One important element of the RMF is that a Special Waterfront Area be established by the two municipalities. We recommend that the general provisions of the Waterfront Area be consistent. At the very minimum, the riverfront area should be delineated (defined) and recognized as a special area in the municipalities' M~aster Plans and in the zoning ordinances. Perhaps the simplest approach is to retain the existing zoning but to condition development in a way that provides public access and landscaping amenities. In addition, State requirements for Waterfront Development Permits and Flood Plain Development Permits could be incorporated selectively, by reference, or by adding any conditions to State permits as conditions to the local approval. This is the approach recommended to the Borough by the Citizens Advisory Committee. Generally Acceptable Uses The entire study area from the bulkhead line inland to one block east of the first public street should be considered as the waterfront area. All new construction within the zone should be obligated to meet performance standards consistent with the Pl~anning Principles and should provide for passage of the multi- purpose trail and provide public access to the waterfront. Acceptable uses may include: apartment and single family residences boat sales, rentals, repairs, ramps, docks and marinas waterfront-dependent industrial users marine supply retail outlets offices,, engineering., professional and high technology offices -30- permeable surface parking areas recreational, social and cultural facilities, educational uses, parks, open spaces restaurants, outdoor eating facilities specialty shopping facilities (art, gift, antique, import, health and natural foods, leisure activity shops, sport- ing goods,marine hardware, marine furniture, health spas, gymnasiums department stores Of the above uses, those that are waterfront dependent are encouraged by the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. All uses must provide for public access to the waterfront where at all practicable. Prohibited Uses Any use not compatible with the intended use, purpose or function of the waterfront or which does not fit into the desired pattern of activity. Certain uses, such as automobile junkyards or salvage businesses, may be specifically prohibited. Siting Requirements Set-back requirements should be i(1) uniform for all structures on the block; (2) designed so as to provide adequate passage way for pedestrians and, where appropriate, bicyclists; and (3) not less than 20' from the bulkheading, proposed bulkheading, or, if there is no bulkheading, from the mean high water mark. In special cases where a 20" set-back is not feasible, a minimum of 14' may be set. The river set-back should provide for passage of the trail. Building height, bulk and alignment should be defined so as to maximize view of the river from the landward side of the build- ing. No building should be more than 30' in height. Public access to the river should be clearly marked. State flood plain development regulations also should be reflected in the standards. - 31 - Landscaping Landscaped open space should be provided so as to enhance development and improve the overall area. Landscaped areas on adjacent lots should be continuous, and landscaping should be coordinated so as to provide a unifying effect. Any area between a building and the river that is not used for loading and unloading on the river should be screened with landscaping. Standards for landscaping should be determined by the Planning Boards in consul- tation with a landscape architect, and coordinated among the two municipalities. Zoning Standards Rather than a special zone with prohibited and permitted uses, the Citizens Advisory Committee suggests the use of performance standards. In this kind of ordinance, attention is given to the side effects of a development, and any acceptable use is per- mitted in the zone if the prescribed standards are met. In the case of the Restoration Project, the standards might take account of stress placed on the infrastructure and natural resources, as well as providing public access and trail right-of-way. Performance zoning may be used in conjunction with conventional zoning laws. As an alternative, incentive, or bonus zoning offers trade- offs to developers in exchange for public benefits or amenities. For example, public access and special landscaping might be sought from developers in exchange for greater density or more floor area per unit space. This 'kind of zoning offers a compro- mise between rigid zoning and the performance standards described above. Limits on what can be traded off are set by zoning ordinance. -32- Conclusion The municipalities should consider an overall waterfront area that will permit each to maintain the distinctive charac- teristics of its waterfront. Each could keep to the present condition, but by coordinating with the other municipalities could assure that Restoration proceeds in a balanced way. The institution of special waterfront standards, is, in addition, a tangible expression of the municipalities' commitment to the Restoration Master Plan. -33- 0 ~~~~~Chapter V PROJECTS The Pathway A river is linear, and forces development and road systems into patterns which match the river. In the project area, the county roads generally parallel the Passaic, leaving room for little or no development. Only in Wallington, where the river describes a sinusoidal shape, is the pattern of development different. The pathway is envisioned as a multipurpose trail accommodat- ing pedestrians, joggers and bicyclists, which will follow closely to the river wherever possible. Where development or other right-of-way problems exist, the trail may move away from the river for some distance. In all cases, however, proposed parks will be linked with the pathway in some manner. In most 0 ~~~~cases the pathway will be 10 feet wide. As with any heavily urbanized area, the routing of the pathway in the project area encounters numerous obstacles. Though open space exists, most of it is privately owned at present. Some industrial/commercial properties have sufficient space for a pathway, but it will be necessary to purchase or lease ease- ments. Residential development completely blocks any river- side route in places, while traffic creates routing problems along the county roads. Therefore, the RMP suggests two routes in some reaches of the project area. One route would maximize riverside access, but will require extensive land and easement purchases. This route can only be developed over the long term. In places, an interim route is proposed, generally along existing roadways, for use in the short term. -34- Linking Rutherford & East Rutherford: The current RMP for Kearny through Rutherford calls for a northern terminus for the path in Rutherford Memorial Park. The Rutherford and East Ruther- ford boundary is a railroad spur serving the neighboring industrial park in East Rutherford. Although rarely used, the spur is active. The path cannot go over the spur itself, due to safety concerns and the high gradient. Two possible links exist. One is to extend a walkway from Rutherford Memorial Park over a stormwater outlet channel to the industrial park, which is the most direct route, following the river. It would require an alignment and easement in the indus- trial park. The other option is to bring the path along the spur embank- ment foot or along Monona Avenue, in Rutherford, to Jackson Avenue, cross into East Rutherford, and turn toward the river along Morton Street and Van Winkle Street to River Street. This route reduces construction costs and eliminates the need for crossing the industrial park. However, it is circuitous and involves travelling along Jackson/Carlton Avenue, a busy thorofare, for approximately five blocks. Also, placing the path along the spur embankment would be difficult along the baseball field north of Darwin Avenue, though possible with a slight loss of area from the playing field. The eastern portion of Morton Street has a five foot sidewalk along an industrial area, for two blocks. The remainder of Morton Street to Van Winkle Street is good quality residential with narrow (3') sidewalks. It is unlikely that a 10' path could be developed here other than by partition- ing off one side of Morton Street. East Rutherford may close Morton Street to traffic from Carlton Avenue, which would improve opportunities for the pathway. -35- Although a path link into the industrial park is possible, there are constraints in linking to Van Winkle Street. Parking stalls exist on the river's edge, and constitute the only avail- able parking for the building -nearest the river. It should be possible to relocate this parking to the opposite curb alongside the building, leaving free space along the bulkhead for the path. From there the path could swing away from the river to River Street, or could jump the stormwater channel at the north side of the industrial park to Lot 13 C of Block 6. (A great deal of non-floatable debris has been left along the stormwater channel). Gates and new locks in the industrial park indicate a level of security which must be taken into account. The industrial park itself is light industry and should pose no health or safety threat other than from maneuvering vehicles. Van Winkle Street to Carlton Avenue: Van Winkle and River Streets are back streets with minimal traffic. Van Winkle Street has no sidewalks, and limited sideyards on either side. River Street is slightly wider but also lacks sidewalks. The long front yards of the residences along the river, and the River Renaissance Condominiums, could allow for path construction. The Sea-Land Operation on the corner of River Street and Carlton Avenue has parking along River Street which could be utilized for the path. Aesthetically, the preferred alternative is to continue from the industrial park along the riverbank. Public access might be possible from River Renaissance, and the condominium owners might favor a pathway linking them directly to other recreation areas. Cutting a path riverward of the trucking -36- facility may be difficult, though East Rutherford is considering a purchase of that property. The alternative is to travel along Carlton Avenue for 150 feet. Carlton Avenue to Main Avenue: The "~marina" along Carlton Avenue is an excellent prospect for bringing the path back to the river, though much work would be necessary to improve the site. North of the marina, the path must swing to Carlton Avenue past Bahr Auto, Eastern Motors Used Cars, and Russo's Diner. These three establishments occupy the narrow strip of land along the river and Carlton Avenue, between Paterson Avenue and Main Avenue. There may be sufficient space available along Carlton Avenue for a 10' path. Carlton Avenue is a well-traveled thorofare. Main Avenue to Wallington Avenue: North of Main Avenue, the path could comfortably continue along the river behind the Jade Garden Restaurant and the Clifton Clothing Company. As an alter- native, there is ample space for a 10' path along Van Winkle Avenue on the west side, to Mercer Street. After one residence on the left (past Mercer Street) Van Winkle Avenue deadends at the river's edge. There is a very narrow right-of-way between a fence and the river, from Mercer Street to the end of Van Winkle Avenue, which is too narrow for the path. At the end of Van Winkle the path could easily cut through to a small river- side park at the end of Lester Street. After leaving the park at Lester Street, the narrow river right-of-way continues, but it is probably too narrow for the path. Therefore, the path would follow Lester Street to Anderson Avenue and turn left. There is a small pocket park at the corner of Anderson and Lester. Both are residential back streets with minimal traffic and standard concrete sidewalks. -37 Anderson Avenue deadends to the north. The river right- of-way is approximately 12' from fence to river directly oppo- site the Dundee Canal outlet. It continues at approximately the same width to the end of Parkway, where an emergency boat ramp cuts through to the river. A locked gate closes the boat ramp to general public use. The Tuck Tape parking lot begins on the north side of the boat ramp and continues to Wallington Avenue. A 6' walkway could be constructed on the river right-of- way, between the fence and. the river. A bikeway is inadvisable there due to space limitations and safety concerns (the river's edge is a steep concrete embankcuent, quite dangerous for cyclists). The bikeway would follow Lester Street from the small park to Maple Avenue and north to Parkway and the former Tuck Tape lot. The walkway would have to negotiate the boat ramp to reach the Tuck Tape parking lot. This could best be done by relocating the boat ramp to within the parking lot (assuming access is available through a public or public/private use of the property) and reconstructing a flat bank at the current boat ramp site, or by moving the gate landward to allow the path to pass by. The Tuck Tape parking lot holds major promise as a public park or a combination public/private facility with public access to the entire riverfront. Wallington Avenue to 8th Street: Wallington Avenue is a major access route to the City of Passaic, over a bridge at this loca- tion. Heavy traffic is experienced during peak hours, and enough traffic exists at other times to endanger path users. On the other hand, vacant land exists on both sides of the bridge. The path should swing out to Parkway (due to the high gradient to -38- Wallington Avenue nearer the river) and cross Wallington Avenue at a hand operated traffic light. This light would allow safe passage for pedestrians and cyclists. North of Wallington Avenue, the path would continue through two parcels of land apparently owned by the New Jersey Department of Transportation, or Bergen County, which are currently vacant. Exiting to Halstead Avenue on either side of Milosh Carbide Tool Company (though preferably the south side, due to the high gradient to the road near the river), the path would follow 'Halstead Avenue to Lester Street and from there to Hatheway Street. Halstead and Le~ster-are residential streets, with local travel only on Halstead Avenue (a dead end) and more traffic on Lester Street. 'Hatheway Street is bordered by light industry, residences, two non-profit organizations (Knights of Columbus and Veterans of-Foreign Wars) - and borough property (park, Public Works Department and library). Traffic is somewhat heavier here, with large trucks, at times. There is little opportunity to place a 10' path on any of the three streets, though some wider sections are possible along portions of Hatheway Street. At the northern terminus of Hatheway Street to the east between the street and the river, by the Janitorial Supply Company, a wooded and grass lot exists which could serve as a pocket park for the area between Wallington and Main Avenues and the river, to the northeast. Access to the river is also possible along the eastern right of way of Lester Street, which is unpaved east of Eatheway Street. 0 -~~~~~~~~~~~~39- The path would follow the easter~n side of Hatheway Street to avoid conflicts with the residences along the western side and to link with the Borough park by the river. Space exists for the path to continue from the park along the river behind the Veteraas. of Foreign Wars, the Gulf Station, and the Italian Subs concession. As an alternative, a double-width sidewalk exists along the street by the Overseas Veterans Association, and a wide asphalt area exists in front of the Gulf Station. The advantage is that many piles of fill behind the Gulf Station would not need to be moved. The dis- advantage is the traffic in and out of the Gulf station across the path. In either case, the path would swing behind the Italian Subs concession and continue to the 8th Street Bridge along the linear strip of land between a fence and the river, or along the existing sidewalk area between Main Avenue and the fence. The land behind the fence is owned by Car Bar Ltd. The 8th Street Bridge experiences heavy traffic at times. The Borough supplies a crossing guard before and after school hours. 8th Street Bridge to Midland Avenue: After crossing 8th Street, the path would travel along Main Avenue in-front of the Exxon station, and then continue along the long, narrow strip of borough property adjacent to the river. This strip is currently too narrow in one stretch, just north of the Exxon station and across from Wallington High School, for a 10' path. A short (200') section of narrow pathway with warning signs may be required. North of the narrow section, a 10' width is possible. From Park Row north along Main Avenue for 500' a new town- house development (Riverview Estates) will have sufficient space available along Main Avenue for perhaps a 7-8' wide path. A standard width concrete sidewalk is currently in place, setback ~~~~~~~~~~~~~40 15' from the road and 2' from the curb. According to the N. J. Division of Coastal Resources, Riverview Estates has a Waterfront Development Permit conditioned upon the development of a 10' wide path along the top of the riverbank. A commercial section completes this reach. Curb cuts are in place for a sidewalk but no sidewalk exists. The first lot has parking stalls to the curb, while the second through fourth lots have considerable customer traffic across the normal side- walk location. Traffic is heavy in this area. Crossing the street to the opposite sidewalk would involve hazards to pedes- trians and would force them to negotiate the difficult inter- section at Main Avenue and Midland Avenue. The path could run behind the commercial area along the river- bank which is steep in this location and offers some good views of the opposite riverbank. Behind the structures, the first lot north of Riverview Estates has excess inventory from a used appliance dealer; the second has a number of trucks; and the third has piles of sand and construction debris. The fourth (Wallington Exchange) has a wedge of open space 20-30' wide between the parking lot and the riverbank. Midland Avenue to the Saddle River: The First National State Bank has an office at the corner of Main and Midland Avenues. The path could continue along the street side, or could occupy a portion of the parking lot to the rear. The parking lot is far oversized for the bank, but is used by the Wozniak Funeral Home, adjacent to the north. As the funeral home is fairly close to the river and is in part a residence, the bicycle path would run along Midland Avenue north of the First National State Bank, in front of the funeral home. There is minimal room for the path directly in front of the funeral home but the opposite side of the street is more restricted. Safety con- 0 ~~~~siderations are important along this section due to the heavy traffic along Midland Avenue. The land behind the funeral home -41 - is apparently owned by the owner of the next property north (Watson). It may be possible to run a walkway behind the funeral home on this property, as well as providing a different river experience, by moving down the bank and then back up to the crest north of Wozniak's. North of the funeral home for 300' or more, a section of land between Ilidland Avenue and the river is in green space with varying widths of flat ground and generally steep banks. With some alterations of the guardrail location and some regrading, the path could follow the riverbank. Minimal tree removal would result, as the path location presently contains small, herbaceous vegetation. Midland Cycle and Barcelona's Lumber presently utilize the area between their buildings and Midland Avenue. Rearranging on-lot parking could possibly open up sufficient space for the pathway along the street, but the planned widening of Midland Avenue will eliminate that space. There is some potential for an easement for the pathway along the riverbank area. The northwest portion of the Barcelona Lumber property, at the con- fluence of the Saddle and Passaic Rivers, is an unused open area~. As open space the property could be landscaped as the northern terminus to the pathway. Two structures and considerable construction debris now render the land unfit for recreational use. Specifications for bicycle trails may be found in the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials guide for The Development of New Bicycle Facilities (1981), or the New Jersey Trails Plan. The trail should (1) have a name, (2) be posted with reflectorized signs indicating whether it is for walking, bicycling or both, (3) be a minimum of 10' wide with 2' clearance on both sides, and (4) provide separate lanes for bicyclists and pedestrians. -42- Park Facilities East Rutherford currently has no open space along the Passaic River for public recreational use. Wallington has public riverside land owned by the Borough, the N. J. Department of Transportation, and the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners. The Borough has one park for active recreation on Hatheway Street,- and a passive park along Main Avenue. Overall, just a few recreational uses are possible along the river, for a limited number of people. The Citizens Advisory Committee for this study developed a list of recreational activities which it felt would be appro- priate in one or more parcels of riverside open space. Suggestions include: Boating - Marina, mooring slips, boat launches, *boat storage, canoe and rowboat rental. Active Recreation - tot lots, ball field, bikeway, other. Passive Recreation - Naturalistic areas, benches, picnic tables, sitting areas, pocket parks, historical sites markers. The Committee emphasized the importance of security, and of having uses which could be fully controlled (such as the marina) or which would not attract great numbers of people (i.e. pocket parks). Landscaping is also a high priority, both for public and private areas. A major focus is appreciation of the river area. Some Committee members suggested that the riverside would be much more attractive to local residents once cleanup and beautification of the opposite bank is accomplished. The PVSC pumping station across from the western end of Lester Avenue is in Wallington but across the river. Landscaping could improve the view in that area. -43- There are seven potential sites for new parks along the study area, aside from the pathway development. Moving from south to north, these are: 1) Block 5, Lots 1 & 2, East Rutherford -- Presently a trucking company facility and a former marina. The Borough is pursuing Green Acres acquisition of the site. Proposed Use: Marina, for power and rowed boats. 2) Block 12, Lot 26, Wallington -- Off the western end of Lester Avenue. Currently an open, lawned area owned by N.J. DOT. Proposed Use: Picnic area, tot lot, informal lawn use. 3) Block 10, Lot 1, Wallington -- A parking lot associated with the Tuck Tape facility in Passaic. Now under new ownership. The Borough is pursuing Green Acres acquisi- tion. Proposed Use: Multipurpose recreation. Small boats. 4) Block 7, Lot 25, Wallington -- An open lot of unclear ownership (probably N. J. DOT or Bergen County Highway Department), across Wallington Avenue from the "Tuck Tape" parking lot. Proposed Use: Picnic area, pocket'park. 5) Block 9, Lot 1 (partial), Wallington -- Northern portion of the lot with Janitorial Supply Company. Partly open, partly wooded. Proposed Use: Pocket park, sitting areas. 6) Block 26, Lots 14 - 16, Wallington -- A linear strip of land with larger lot near the 8th Street Bridge. The Borough is pursuing Green Acres acquisition. Proposed Use: Landscaped area, rest area for pathway users, benches, fishing. 7) Block 26A, Lot 15 (partial) Wallington -- North end of the Barcelona Lumber Company property, presently with an unused building and considerable debris on site. - 44 - Proposed Use: picnic area, i nformal lawn use, fishing area, terminus for pathway. The East Rutherford marina site and the parking lot in Wallington offer the best opportunities for active recreation and general access. The remaining lots, due to their size, configuration or limited parking potential, are better suited to passive uses. East Rutherford Marina Figure 1-:,and Appendix E represent a conceptual design for the proposed marina. The design incorporates activities suggested by the Citizens Advisory Committee, the pathway route, and land- scaping. A great deal of concrete debris must be removed from the site. Bank stabilization is currently achieved by way of the debris. A more aesthetically pleasing and permanent solution will be necessary. Overall, a significant amount of work will be necessary for construction and landscaping of the marina. However, the facility will be highly visible and offers a long frontage on the river itself. The marina will be a major asset to the community. Parkway Park There are any number of ways to develop the parking lot on Parkway and Wallington Avenue for recreation. Key questions include the cost of the land and of the recreational development, the availability of all or part of the parcel, and the mix of uses. The parking lot was recently purchased. Its intended use is presently unknown, but development of the property is con- strained by its flood plain location. Also, the Waterfront Development Law will apply to the site. The Borough should be -45 Gardeb * ~Prepared by- ATR~LEER) AEPASSOCIATES~ ?OE~ SUYA~ ____ Fil e #1.470.5~ 485 Notch RO~d;Ult%1ef falls, N.J. 07424 .(21) 256-7575 Ags 3 94 able to acquire at least some portion of the site along the river. The potential exists for acquisition of the entire site. Therefore, a series of plans could be developed for the site, ranging from a pathway route and some landscaping along the river, to a mixed use park occupying the entire property. Figure 2 is a very con- ceptual drawing of the property fully developed for recreation. The Citizens Advisory Committee has suggested a ball field, small boating, passive areas and landscaping as design elements in addition to the pathway. Pocket Parks There are five proposed pocket parks. Two are on public land (which would need to be transferred to Borough ownership), one is on private property which the Borough proposes to acquire, and two are private property not currently contemplated for purchase. In each case the pocket parks serve as areas for passive,- recreation. Landscaping can range from formal to naturalistic, depending on the site and its potential uses. Commom features will include sitting areas with an orientation toward the river. Designs will generally be simple and relatively inexpensive. In most cases, the parks can be constructed using volunteer assistance and a minor amount of materials. Linear Parks Three sections of the pathway will traverse linear parks, one of which is already owned by the Borough of Wallington. These parks are long, narrow parcels between the river and a parallel road. In general, the linear parks are too narrow for more than the pathway, some sitting areas, and landscaping. However, they are very important as connecting greenspace between the larger parks, as well as aesthetic settings for pathway users. -47- RIVER IN,~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ conifer Wall Sidewalka0k0 Planter File #1.470.5 August 23, 1984 Prepared by:_ AEP ASSOCIATES PARIQAAY PARK 1 Architects / Engineers /Planners 5tanley John Lacz. PROJECT STUDY AREA 20 60 100 485 NOtch Road, Llttle fAlls. N,.j07424 (0)2677 I"- 60? Figure 3 represents a conceptual plan by AEP Associates for the'linear parks. The engineering and landscaping will be similar to the linear park planned for Lyndhurst and Rutherford, except that there will be no need for fill or pilings in any of the path areas along the linear parks. Costs should be minimal for non-pathway components. Design Planning After acceptance of the Restoration M~aster Plan by the Boroughs of East Rutherford and Wallington, the boroughs will work with the Passaic River Restoration Project in developing detailed designs for the proposed facilities. The steps will include: (1) an indication of interest from the affected municipality; (2) development of a site plan by an engineer or landscape archi- tect (depending on the development planned); (3) local approval of the design; (4) detailed design, funding and implementation. Public participation, as always, will be a major component of the planning process. Project Phasing Three primary considerations will control the phasing of projects. First, where local support exists in terms of project approval and a funding commitment, a specific project will naturally have a high priority. Second, where development pressures or other factors are threatening an otherwise viable project, it should be pushed forward so that recreational oppor- tunities are not lost. Third, projects which are relatively simple and inexpensive to implement offer a faster means of improving public access to and enjoyment of the river. These also offer greater opportunities for hands-on citizen involvement, and enhance the public support for river restoration in general and the larger projects in particular. -49- Figure 3 Steps Sheet Piling Bulkhead o �~~~~~~i Walkway LIP 011 Columtnar Maples 'P33 Weeping Willows Engineer's Sketch Design of Prepared by: ,~~~~~~~TN ~The Linear Park IZEI~9Q AEP ASSOCIATES AM~htects / E~ngineers I Planners 0 50 100 150 200 SLunk-Y John La"00 ~Sca7 .le V -5 Obviously, changing priorities and development pressures will alter local priorities over time. However, the RMP proposes that three priority project types be established. With the concurrence of the municipalities and the Passaic River Restoration Project Steering Committee, the 1984 through 1986 priorities would be: 1) Acquisition of land for parks as proposed by East Rutherford and Wallington in their Green Acres Local Program Pre-Applications of 1984, contingent upon funding by the N. J. Green Acres Program. Preliminary design work should begin immediately upon acquisition. 2) Secure transfer of Block 12, Lot 26 and Block 7, Lot 25 in Wallington to the Borough. Design and construct pocket parks in these lots. 3) Develop pathway segments wherever possible without the acquisition of land beyond the current Green Acres Pre-Applications. Prevent prime route locations from being foreclosed by development, through acquisition, easements, State permit conditions, or local develop- ment permit conditions. Longer term priorities, from 1987 through 1989, include construction of the larger parks, acquisition of easements for the pathway where possible across private property, and construc- tion of the pathway on the easements. By ten years past accept- ance of the Restoration Master Plan, all work should be complete or nearing completion, except where development of the pathway is blocked by long-term constraints. Chapter VI PERMITTING AND LICENSING This chapter will describe the various federal, state and county permits and licenses that are likely to be required in connection with various RIP projects. Municipal permits and licenses have not been included, since it is reasonable to assume that the municipalities are aware of such needs in their own jurisdictions. Appendix Ii contains more detailed exhibits on each permit type. State The Master Permit Form The key element in the State permitting process for any project is the Master Permit Form. This form is obtained from and processed by the Office of Business Advocacy (OBA) in the New Jersey Department of Commerce. Through a series of questions (mostly yes-no) the OBA is able to determine the various agencies that have jurisdiction and from whom permits -need to be obtained. In certain areas of the State, permits may be needed from agencies such as the Delaware River Basin Commission, and these would not be considered by the OBA. No permit of this latter type is applicable in the study area. A copy of the Master Permit Form is included as Exhibit I. Forms and information may be obtained from: Of fice of Business Advocacy New Jersey Department of Commerce CN 380 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Standard Application Form CP-1 The next most important element in the permitting process at the State Department of Environmental Protection is the CP-1. This form can be employed to find out if Division of Coastal * ~~~~Resources and Division of Water Resources permits are required. -52- It is also the form used to apply for those permits as well as permits from the Solid Waste Administration and certain air quality permits. The form and accompanying instruction book are included as Exhibit 2. -53- WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT PERMIT Department: Environmental Protection Project Type: Coastal and Waterfront Development (Riparian) Statute Number: N.J.S.A. 12:5-3 Purpose: Require permit prior to the development of waterfront upon any tidal or navigable waterway. Waterfront development means docks, wharves, piers, bulkheads, bridges, pipelines, cables or pilings, dredging or removing of sand or other materials from lands under tidal waters, and limited upland construction in portions of Salem, Gloucester, Camden, Burlington, Mercer, Middlesex, Union, Essex, Bergen, Passaic and Hudson Counties. The minor maintenance and repair of docks, piers and bulkheads is exempt from this requirement. Permit covered by 90-Day Review Law (P.L. 1975, C.232) Submit: CP-l application form (standard form) Certified legal document establishing applicant's right to use or occupy riparian land Development plans Location map Permit fee Evidence that notification of application has been made to required local agencies Contact: To make an application: Bureau of Coastal Project Review Division of Coastal Resources Department of Environmental Protection CN 401 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 609-292-0060 To find out if a permit is needed: Bureau of Coastal Enforcement and Field Services Division of Coastal Resources Department of Environmental Protection 1433 Hooper Avenue Toms River, New Jersey 08753 (1) When a Waterfront Development Permit application is filed, this also constitutes an application for Water Quality Certification. - 54 - WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION Department: Environmental Protection Project Type: Coastal and Waterfront Development, Dredge and Fill Statute Type: New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977 Statute Number: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 to 13 33 U.S.C. 1251, Section 401 Purpose: Requires construction related projects to be consistent with New Jersey's water quality standards and policies, and that such construction activities will not have an adverse impact on the water quality. Construction activities include, but are not limited to, docks, wharves, piers, bulkheads, bridges, pipelines, cables or pilings, or dredging and fill or removing of sand or other materials from lands under water. Submit: CP-1 application form for certification Site location map (USGS or DEP Quadrangle) Public Notification Drawing/Development plans Color Photographs Dredge Projects - methods of: dredging, turbidity/sedimentation controls, dewatering and disposal. Also quantity and sites of dredging, dewatering and disposal. Contact: Office of Planning and Standards Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Protection CN029 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 609-633-7026 - 55 - STREAM ENCROACHMENT PERMIT Department: Environmental Protection Project Type: Flood Control Statute Title: Stream Encroachment Act Statute Number: N.J.S.A. 58:16A-1 et seq. N.J.A.C. 7:8-3.15 Purpose: Requires permit for the construction, installation or alteration of any structure or permanent fill along, in, or across the channel or floodway of any stream. Permit also required for any alteration of the stream itself (dredging or filling) within the high-water mark of 100-year flood as determined by the State. The Flood Plain Act, N.J.S.A. 58:16A-50 et seq., empowers the State to control use and development on floodway portions of flood hazard areas and flood fringe areas. Until rules and regulations under the Act are administered, the review by DEP of permit applications for development within this area is being administered under the provisions of the Stream Encroachment Statute. Permit covered by 90-Day Review Law (P.L. 1975, c. 232) Submit: CP-1 application form for permit (standard form) Engineering data sheet Location key map Drawings showing property lines, contours, profiles, etc. Photographs upstream and downstream from proposed projects Channel relocation and major fill projects required EIS Hydrologic computation based on 100-year flood Erosion and sediment control practices Application fee Evidence that notification of application was made to required local agencies Contact: Stream Encroachment Section Bureau of Flood Plain Management Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Protection CN029 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 609-292-4869 - 57 - NEW JERSEY POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM Department: Environmental Protection Project Type: Point Source Discharge to Surface Water Municipal, Industrial, Thermal, or Pre-Treatment Facility Statute Title: New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 Statute Number: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-l et seq. N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seq. Purpose: Those persons who presently discharge or plan* to discharge from a point source to surface waters of the State must apply for a NJPDES permit which grants approval for such discharge. Permittees currently holding a federal NJPDES permit are exempt but must apply for a new State NJPDES permit six months before the expiration of their federal permit. Submit: CP-1, plus supplement sheet NJPDES - WQM-1, and a technical addendum. Application to Discharge Wastewaters to the Surface Waters of the State of New Jersey. For Pre-treatment, submit the application for permit to discharge wastewater to a domestic treatment works. Contact: Water Quality Management Element Division of Water Resources Office of Permit Administration CN 029 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 609-292-5262 * Those persons planning to discharge must first receive a discharge allocation certificate. This certificate allocates effluent limits which a new facility must meet initially. For details contact the above office. - 58 - NEW JERSEY POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM Department: Environmental Protection Project Type: Point source discharge to land/groundwater. Land application of sludge and septage; land application of industrial waste residues; landfill wastes; spray irrigation; overland flow; rapid infiltration; surface impoundment; underground injection; any other discharge to land/or groundwaters, as required. Statute Title: New Jersey Water Pollution Control Act of 1977 Statute Number: N.J.S.A. 58:10A-1 et seq. N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seq. Purpose: Those persons who presently discharge or plan* to discharge from a point source to the land/groundwater of the State must apply for a NJPDES permit which grants approval for such discharge. Submit: CP-1, plus supplement sheet NJPDES - WQM-1, and a technical addendum which covers the activities presently conducted or planned, such as, the land application of sludge, septage, or compost; land application of industrial waste residues; landfill wastes; spray irrigation; overland flow; rapid infiltration; surface impoundment; and underground injection. Contact: Water Quality Management Element Division of Water Resources Office of Permits Administration CNO29 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 609-292-5262 * Those persons planning to discharge must first receive a discharge allocation certificate. This certificate allocates effluent limits which a new facility must meet initially. For details contact the above office. - 59 - FEDERAL-STATE PERMITS Although it is not the intent of this directory to list federal permits, the following is noted because State certifi- cation is required prior to the issuance of the federal permit. At present, certain federal permits, primarily but not limited to, Army Corps of Engineers Dredge and Fill Permits, re- quire under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92- 500) certification by the Division of Water Resources, DEP, prior to the issuance of the permit by the appropriate federal agency. In addition to state permit requirements, application for the Dredge and Fill Permit must also be made to either - - Army Corps of Engineers New York District (N.J. north of Manasquan River) 26 Federal Plaza Attention: Operations Division New York, New York 10278 212-264-0185 or Army Corps of Engineers Philadelphia District (N.J. south of Manasquan River) Customs House Second and Chestnut Streets Room 404 Attention: Permits Branch Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 215-597-2812 -60- Tideland Statutes There are three kinds of tidelands instruments: grants,, leases, and licenses. A gran~t conveys full ownership to the applicant. A lease conveys use of the property for a fixed number of years, and is usually issued for projects involvin~g solid fill (such as bulkhead). A license also allows use of the property for a fixed number of years (usually 10 or: less), and is the type of instrument most commonly used for residential docks and piers. If the State of New Jersey claims ownership of a piece of land under the Tidelands Statutes, municipalities may have to obtain a lease or license to use the land before obtain- ing a Waterfront Development Permit. In order to obtain a Tidelands grant, lease or license, an application must be submitted to the Tidelands Resource Council. Prior to submitting an application, a pre-application conference with the Division of Coastal Resources, Bureau of Tidelands, which serves as staff to the Council, is advisable. The Bureau of Tidelands uses two different application forms which vary only slightly, one for licenses and one for grants or leases. The following items must be submitted with an application: 1. A current survey, prepared by a licensed surveyor, showing the applicant's upland property and the boundaries of the tidelands area applied for, the location of the mean high water line, the depth of the waterway at mean low water, the names of adjoining property owners, and a diagram of proposed or existing structures within the applied for area; and 2. A certificate of title signed by an attorney at law or representative of a title company demonstrating evidence of ownership of the upland property, or of permission of the upland owner to apply for the conveyance (State law gives the upland owner first right to apply). -61- A twenty-five dollar fee is required for an application for a Tidelands grant only. There is no fee for a Tidelands lease or license application. At the time of submission for a Tidelands application, a Waterfront Development Permit application must also be submitted to the Division's Bureau of Coastal Project Review. A Tidelands application will not be considered complete until this is done. When the application has been determined complete for review, it will be scheduled for discussion by the Tidelands Resource Council. The Council's real estate appraiser will evaluate the property, and this evaluation will be considered by the Council in making its decision. This evaluation represents the annual rental in the case of a lease or license, or the full value of the property in the case of a grant. If the application involves legalizing an existing structure, the value may include back rental for past use. If the Council votes to approve the appli- cation, it will certify the decision at the next meeting when it approves the minutes of the previous meeting. The Commissioner of the DEP then receives the minutes for approval or disapproval. For additional information or clarification, contact: Bureau of Coastal Enf-orcement & Field Services Waterfront Region CN 401 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 (609) 292-8203 A complete listing of the applicable State permits and licenses is included in Appendix G, Exhibit 1, the Directory of State Programs for Regulating Construction. In addition, the Directory provides information on the "90 Day Review Mandate", the services offered by the Office of Business Advocacy (OBA), one-stop permit information and over-the-counter processing. * -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~62- County No county permits are required unless building construction is involved in Bergen County, as, for example, the marine center if rebuilding were required. Bergen County Planning Department officials have stated that in case a Site Plan Review by the county is required, the applicant must submit the Site Plan Review Application Form, a fee of $50 and six copies of the site plan. Any zoning changes must be accompanied by a change in the municipalityts Master Plan. Although it is a State Department of Agriculture requirement, a Soil and Sediment Control Plan Certification must be obtained from the County Soil Conservation District (SCD) for projects in which more than 5,000 square feet of surface area of land will be disturbed. For projects not involving a Site Plan Review, officials suggest an informal meeting with the county planners. Such a meeting is required where a county road is involved. For further information contact: Bergen County Planning Department 29 Linden Street Hackensack, New Jersey 07601 Telephone (201) 634-2896 Bergen County SCD 389 Main Street Hackensack, New Jersey 97601 -63- 0 ~~~~Federal The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) is the principal agency having jurisdiction over some RMP projects. An ACE permit is required to locate a structure, excavate or discharge dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States or to transport dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. The ACE is responsible for notifying all Federal agencies of a proposed project for review and comment. In addition, if an ACE permit is sought, a New Jersey DEP, Division of Water Resources Water Quality Certification must accompany the ACE application. Contact: Army Corps of Engineers New York District 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Telephone (212-264-0185 Office of Planning and Standards Division of Water Resources Department of Environmental Protection CN 029 Trenton, New Jersey 08625 Telephone (609) 633-7026 Use Form CP-l Federal Consistency If a development project requires a federal permit or is federally funded, and is in, or affects, New Jersey's Coastal Zone, a federal consistency certification from the Division of Coastal Resources must be obtained. This is a requirement of the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act, and can be satisfied by receipt of a coastal permit from the Division. * -~~~~~~~~~~~~~64- Chapter VII COSTS Cost projections in the Restoration Master Plan are rough estimates. Landscapelengineering designs and specifications must be completed, and necessary permits obtained, before pre- cise figures can be obtained. The location of this project along the coastal zone increases the number of design constraints, and so close cooperation with state and federal agencies will be advanta Wous so as to minimize delays, costs and environmental impacts. In addition, the timing and method of implementation is a local decision. Each community must develop a strategy with regard to land acquisition and recreational development. The cost of fee simple or easement acquisition is mostly unknown at this time. Riverfront stabilization will be an additional cost in some (though not all) locations. More detailed study of this component, including design, cost and permit requirements, is needed. Stabilization will require close coordination with government regulatory agencies and property owners. Costs have been estimated based on similar projects (such as in other Restoration Project municipalities) or a standard 11rule of thumb" for a given project. For example, a standard for a trail is $45,000/mile for a park where no paved trail exists; $1,700/mile where a trail traverses public streets, including signs and lining but no curb cuts; and $70 each for signs used to mark the pathway (1982 estimates from the N. J. Department of Transportation 'brought to estimated 1985 levels). -66 ESTIMATED BUDGET Estimated Costs Pathway Singage $3,500 $235,500 East Rutherford New Path 10,000 Street Path & Bridge 80,000 Wallington New Path 141,00021 Street Path 1,000 Pocket Parks Wallington (5) $100,000 Land Acquisition 40,000 Improvements 60,000 Linear Park Wallington $ 40,000 Parkway Park Wallington $850,000 Land Acquisition3 350,000 Improvements 500,000 Marina East Rutherford $865,000 Land Acquisition4 365,000 Improvements 500,000 - 67 - 'Estimated costs Assume land acquisition of the full parcels proposed, no material or labor donations, and improvement of the property using contractors rather than municipal personnel. As such, the costs represent a high figure which can be reduced through grants, donations, innovative financing, etc. 2Includes cost of the walk behind Wozniak's Funeral Home, as mentioned in Chapter V. 3Land Assessed Value X l1.65 Equalization Ratio =Estimated Market Value. This property is entirely within the 100 year flood plain and also is within the Waterfront Development law jurisdiction. 4This estimate was used by East Rutherford in its pre-appli- cation to Green Acres. * -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~68- Chapter III FEMIDING The development of a Restoration Master Plan is only the first step toward restoration of the waterfront area. After the REMP is accepted by the affected municipalities and the N. J. Division of Coastal Resources, individual projects as outlined in Chapter V must be implemented, requiring site plans; engineering and landscaping designs; local approval; county, state and federal permits where necessary; funding; and implementation. The implementation steps may range from volunteers working with donated materials, to construction projects involving construction proposals and bids. Some efforts may occur in a phased manner to reduce the annual costs involved in capital projects. Others will be implemented in later stages of the process, as suggested in * ~~~~Chapter V. It is anticipated that the Passaic River Coalition will continue to coordinate the Restoration Project for East Rutherford and Wallington as it has for the other municipalities. Funding for the PRC's administrative, planning and fundraising work will come from a variety of sources, including the Bergen County Community Development Program, private foundations, and local donations. Administrative costs will be substantially less than the antici- pated expenses for landscaping and engineering designs, construction and maintenance. Funding for these aspects of implementation may come from a variety of private, corporate, foundation and governmental sources. The atmosphere for fundraising is highly competitive, and thus the quality of plans and proposals must be high during implemen- tation. * -~~~~~~~~~~~~~69- U.S. Army Corps of Engineers In June of 1984, the N. J. Department of Environmental Protection instructed the Corps of Engineers to undertake a debris clean-up of the Lower Passaic River from Kearny Point to the Dundee Dam (Newark Bay and the Hackensack River were also included), under funding from the federal/state Waterfront Clean-up Project. The Lower Passaic project was included by the DEP based on the Preliminary Debris Survey prepared by the Passaic River Coalition. All costs of the clean-up are borne by the DEP and the Corps of Engineers. Completion is expected in 2 - 3 years. National Endowment for the Arts The NEA provides s'mall, competitive grants in two categories -- Landscape Architecture and Design Arts -- for design work by professionals for public parks and facilities. 0 ~~~~N. J. Green Acres Program As a result of the 1983 Green Acres Bond Issue, low-interest loans are available to municipalities and counties for the acquisition and improvement of public open space and parks. Grants of 25 per cent are available for the acquisition of park I-and for certain urban areas. N. J. DEP - Division of Coastal Resources Loans may be available to municipalities in the project area for shcre protection work. These funds stem from a recent Shore Protection Bond Act. Small grants, on a 75:25 per cent matching basis may also be available. If funding of the Local Planning Grants program is re-established by Congress, further planning funds may be available through the Division of Coastal Resources. The possibility of funding for the program is highly uncertain at this time. -70 - Local and County Government The Passaic River Coalition will work with the municipalities to establish and operate a fundraising program for the implementation of approved projects. Funds from Bergen County could include appropria- tions through the Community Development Program, Parks Commission or capital budget. Local appropriations from the capital budget or parks and recreation budget are possible. Maintenance costs will be a local responsibility for the most part, with some expectation of volunteer assistance and local donations. The Bergen County Community Development Program has provided administrative/implementation funding from FY1982-3 to FY1984-5. Further funding is uncertain. Non-Governmental Sources Successful implementation will depend on the development of non-governmental sources. These include local private donations, local and regional corporations, and foundations. In each case, best results will come from the close cooperation of the Passaic River Coalition and the Boroughs of~ East Rutherford and Wallington. Fiscal Impacts The local fiscal impacts resulting from the implementation of this plan are expected to be small. Every attempt will be made to maximize private, corporate, foundation and non-local government funding for the projects, and to minimize costs through innovative design, volunteer involvement and the donation of materials. -71 Chapter IX PUBLIC MEETING 0 ~~~~~~~~~~29 AUGUST 1984 WALLINGTON BOROUGH HALL The Passaic River Restoration Master Plan for East Rutherford and Wallington was presented to the public for review a-ad comment. Passaic River Coalition representatives were: Robert J. Myers, Chairman; Daniel J. Van Abs, Technical Director; and Margaret Chandler, PREP Coordinator. Edward Lisovicz, Wallington Councilman and PREP Steering Committee representative, opened the meeting and introduced Mr. Myers, who discussed the importance of planning to the success of the project. Mr. Van Abs, who developed the Restoration Master Plan, then out- lined the process by which the plan was conceived and recognized members of the Citizens Advisory -Committee which assisted in the planning effort. He presented a slide show on the Restoration Project and the East Rutherford/Wallington riverfront, indicating the proposed pathway route and park locations. After reviewing the proposals on maps of the area, * ~~~~he outlined the process for municipal acceptance of the plan and possible implementation of plan elements. The meeting was then opened to questions from the audience. The audience included residents of East Rutherford, Wallington and Passaic. Questions focused on several topics: 1)Whether acceptance of the plan committed either municipality to implementing any or all of the plan or expending local funds for any purpose; 2) How the proposed facilities could be financed; 3) How to control the use of any park facilities (specifically the proposed park on Parkway in Wallington); 4) Whether changes could be made in the plan. 5) The future role of the Passaic River Coalition. 0 -7~~~~~~~~~~~~~2- Other questions and comments noted support for the overall concept of riverside parks, concern about the potential impact of proposed flood control levees along the Passaic River, and the need to beautify the west bank of the river to enhance restoration efforts on the east bank. Questions and Responses 1) Commitment of local funds -- The Borough Councils will be asked to accept the Restoration Master Plan for their communities. This is hot a commitment to implement or fund the plan or any part thereof. Rather, acceptance indicates an interest by the boroughs in reviewing the plan as a set of recommendations. If the boroughs, individually or together, wish to implement any or all of the recommendations, they may do so at any time. Acceptance of the plans merely closes the con- ceptual planning period, which began when the Borough Councils supported by resolution the Passaic River Coalition's grant proposal to the N. J. Division of Coastal Resources for planning funds. The plan itself is * ~~~~conceptual and has no force in law. However, the PRC hopes that both municipalities will choose to implement most or all of the plan, with modifications to fit the recreational needs and financial constraints which exist. 2) Financing plan implementation -- Chapter VIII on Funding outlines possible sources of money for park development. Maintenance responsibilities most often rest with the park owner, though special funds could be established. The Boroughs could pursue funding on their own or in cooperation with the Restoration Project. 3) Controlling Park Use -- Any park developed with municipal funds may be controlled so that only local residents have access. If State or federal funds are used, a standard requirement is that access be open to all members of the public. However, controls may be ~placed on the number of users at any one time, the types of use, and the hours of use. In addition, parks can be designed to buffer neigh- boring residences from disturbance, while allowing effective surveillance by law enforcement personnel. -73- 4) Alterations of the Restoration Master Plan -- The plan may (and most likely will) be changed any number of times, much as the plans for Kearny, North Arlington, Lyndhurst and Rutherford have been changed. Additions, deletions, changes in scope, new park designs,- alternate pathway routes, etc., may occur as a better sense of local needs develops. The Restoration Project welcomes proposed changes at any time. 5) Future Role of the Passaic River Coalition -- The PRC coordinates the Passaic River Restoration Project, which was established to move forward in implementing local goals for parks development and restoriwiafor the benefit of the residents. The theme is one of cooperation, and the Steering Committee includes representatives from Wallington,'I.East Rutherford, Rutherford, Lyndhurst, North Arlington, Kearny, Harrison, Nutley and Clifton. The PRC invites and encourages the Boroughs of East Rutherford and Wallington to continue their partici- pation in the Restoration Project, and to take advantage of PRC assistance in fundraising and implementation of any or all of the plan's recommendations. ~Comments Submitted After the Public Meeting One comment-was received subsequent to the public meeting. Mr. Edward Lisovicz of Wallington suggested that the Restoration Master Plan be revised to recommend acquisition of all riverside properties from the proposed East Rutherford Marina to the Gregory Avenue Bridge. This would create a bi-municipal linear park in that area. Current land uses are two used car lots and a small restaurant. As this project would further the goals of the Restoration Project, would allow a more aesthetic setting for the pathway, and would extend the unbroken line of park land north of the proposed marina, it is hereby recommended for inclusion. The map on the following page shows the location of the site. The cost of the linear park is estimated as follows: -74- Property 159,000 East Rutherford 61,500 Wallington 97,500 Improvements 15,000 174,000 - 75 - RESTORATION MASTER PLAN EAST RUTHERFORD-WALLINGTON OVERVIEW o 40Q FE .E T innnnPAT"WAV ROUT% ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0NAAIL- -am s~~~~~~~~RTEFR Appendix A 0 0 I :~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ CONSISTENCY WITH COASTAL RESOURCE AND DEVELOPMENT POLICIES The study area falls within the jurisdiction of the Division of Coastal Resources of the New Jersey Department of Environmental' Protection. The authority of that agency is granted under the Waterfront Development Permit program (N.J. S.A. 12:5-1 et Seq.). The purpose of this chapter is to assure consistency between the RMP and the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. Considera- tion will be given to Special Areas (7:7E-3.1-45), General Water Areas (7:7E-4.1-10), General Land Areas (7:7E-5.1-7), General Location Policies (7:7E-6.1-3), Use Policies (7:7E-7.1-13), and Resource Policies (7:7E-8.1-26). Policies that do not apply do not appear in this section. Section 7:7E-3.5 Finfish Migratory Pathways Comment Certain migratory finfish exist in the river, at least one in fairly large quantities -- the blueback herring. Immature striped bass have been sampled in very small quantities in the tributaries to the Passaic River main stem, and eels have been reported by fishermen and others. No development is proposed that will either impede the movement of fish or lower water quality in any way. A commercial fishing ban and recreational fishing advisory are in effect for anadro- mous fish along the lower Passaic Section 7:7E-3.6 Submerged Vegetation Comment Vegetation in the river is limited to nonexistent. The river bed is listed as Riverine-Tidal-Open-UlJnknown bottom in the National Wetland Inventory. 0 ~~~~Section 7:7E-3.7 Navigation Channels Comment The Passaic River from the southern boarder of the study area to the Market Street Bridge is considered to be a navigation channel channel according to the United States Coast Guard, Third District Commander. Aids to Navigation are maintained in the navigation channel. No project proposed by the RMP would result in loss of navigability, and for the present, at least, no dredging of the main channel is proposed. Section 7:7E-3.1Q Marina Moorings Comment No RMP proposed project will detract from recreational boat- ing. One project deals with the creation of a new marina site. No specific dredging permits need be sought at pre- sent, but it is possible that minor dredging will be needed. In that case appropriate permits will be obtained and required turbidity precautions taken. Dredge spoil would be disp osed of as fill along eroding parts of the river bank, possibly at the site of the pocket parks, to level land or create berms. Section 7:7E-3.12 Submerged Infrastructure Routes Comment No project proposed by the master plan will interfere with existing submerged infrastructure, nor with infrastructure underground, as no subsurface work is anticipated. Section 7:7E-3.17 Filled Water's Edge Comment Mut~h o� the study area is characterized by filled waters edge, some of which is already heavily developed. While many of the uses proposed by the RM? are water dependent (e.g., public recreation, marinas and so forth) many are not. Some of the commercial uses that would exist in any planned mixed-use district, will not be water dependent but are an integral part of the revitalization of the waterfront. Section 7:7E-3.19 Natural Water's Edge-Floodplains Comment Much of the existing and planned development lies in the floodplain (as defined by the NJDEP). Portions of the trail, parks, the marina and launching ramps are recreational uses and are generally considered to be acceptable uses of floodplain land. Section 7:7E-3.20 Alluvial Flood Margins Comment A large portion of the study area has been filled with a com- bination of river dredgings, organic waste and rubble. There are, according to the Bergen County Soil Survey, no areas of alluvial margin (as defined). No project within the RMP will conflict with this policy. Section 7:7E-3.24 Erosion Hazard Areas Comment See response to 7:7E-3.33 (Steep Slopes). Section 7:7E-3.26 Wetlands Comment There are no wetlands in the study area according to the National Wetlands Inventory, verified by a field survey. Section 7:7E-3.27 Wetlands Buffer Comment As no wetlands exist in the study area, this policy does not apply. Section 7:7E-3.33 Steep Slopes Comment 3.24 (Erosion Hazard Areas) and 3.30 (Coastal Bluffs) apply to coastal areas, not riverine sites. 3.33 (Steep Slopes) applies to steep slopes which are not at the waters edge. In the RMP Study Area, several steep slopes exist along the river, especially in Wallington upstream of the 8th Street Bridge. These steep slopes are not directly covered by the Coastal Resource and Development Policies. However, the three paragraphs noted above have similar restrictions upon development in steeply sloped areas. These restrictions should be applied to the study area. No project in the RMP will conflict with the steep slope policy. Section 7:7E-3.35 Historic and Archeological Resources Comment One site, the Wallington High School, is on the N. J. and National Registers of Mistoric Sites. Seven other sites are listed in the Bergen County Historic Sites Survey. No project proposed in the RMP will conflict with this policy. Section 7:7E-3.37 Endangered or Threatened Wildlife or Vegetation Species Habitats Comment Because of existing heavy development in the study area, it seems unlikely that any project contemplated by the RMP would adversely impact on such habitat. The plan acknowledges the policy here and under "Planning Principles". Since the DEP treats this policy on a case by case basis, each project will be evaluated at the time of application. Section 7:7E-3.38 Critical Wildlife Habitats Comment Because of existing 'heavy development in the study area, it seems unlikely that any project contemplated by the RMP! would adversely impact on such habitat. The plan acknowledges the policy here and under "Planning Principles". Since the DEP treats this policy on a case by case basis, each project will be evaluated at the time of application. Section 7:7E-3.39 Public Open Space Comment The principles guiding the RM? are designed to maintain or increase public open space. Where a development on present open space is proposed', it is designed to enhance the use of public space. 0 ~~~~~~~~~~GENERAL WATER AREAS Section 7:7E-4.1Q Acceptability Conditions for Uses ()Boat Ramps Comment Boat ramps scheduled for renovation in the RMP are existing facilities, and no change is anticipated that would alter the existing relationship with the river ecosystem. Where a new ramp is planned, there is no existing facility. In this case, the definition of intertidal flat is not met and the impact on subaqueous vegetation is minimal. Ramps will be constructed of concrete or crushed stone. (d) Docks and Piers (Recreational and Fishing) Comment The proposed marina for East Rutherford may involve docks which are on pilings though floating, removable docks are more likely. No mooring sites or marinas currently exist in the project area, though the proposed site was formerly a marina. The steep banks and concrete bulkheadings provide sufficient fishing areas that no fill or wharves are necessary. All dock and pier designs will comply with this policy. (e) Dredging - Maintenance Comment Maintenance dredging is not specifically provided for in the R~MI, but may prove to be advisable at various sites,- as a result of debris accumulation and siltation near boating facilities. (f Dredging - New Comment No near dredging is anticipated as a result of the RMP. While it is unlikely that any new dredging will be.required, it will be minimal in any case and will satisfy this policy. (g) Dredge Spoil Disposal Comment To the extent that dredging is ever necessary, it will be minimal.A s the Passaic River qualifies as a medium river, no spoil will be placed in the river area. (i) Filling Comment No filling has been proposed in the RMP. (k) Mooring Comment A small mooring area may be desirable as part of a proposed boating facility in East Rutherford, which would be a public facility and would be adequately marked. GENERAL LAND AREAS Section 7:7E-5.3 Coastal Growth Rating Comment The area is located in the northern waterfront region. Section 7:7E-5.4 Environmental Sensitivity Rating Comment The area appears to be of "Low Environmental Sensitivity". Vegetation is, except for a few isolated spots, not forest vegetation, soils are not highly productive as agricultural soils. Most soils are urban land or urban land complex, with extensive impermeable surfaces and modification. Section 7:7E-5.5 Development Potential (b) Residential Development Potential Comment Each site must be evaluated separately but most sites in the RMP appear to fit the High Potential classifi- cation. No RMP project calls for residential develop- ment. (c) Major Commercial and Industrial Development Potential Comment Some project sites meet the qualifications for a High Potential Commercial, but of these many are within the 100 year flood plain. Section 7:7E-7.3 Resorts/Recreational Use Policies Comment Every community involved in the RMP and this project except East Rutherford has at least one waterfront park along the Passaic River. The net effect of the RMP will be to create some new parkland and enhance still more, while providing a riverside park for East Rutherford. In the area designated for mixed use, the RMP recommends a zoning requirement for public access to the river and a right-of-way for the proposed trail. Recommendations will be made to planning boards as to incorporation of viewing areas, etc. in future developments. The RMP includes plans for the development of boating areas. It is hoped that such facilities will encourage the expanded use of the river for boating. The proposed marina will meet standards for operations of its type, including pump-out facilities. Section 7:7E-7.5Transportation Use Policies (c) Bicycle and Foot Paths Comment The proposed trail is consistent with this policy. (d) Parking Facilities Comment Parking facilities will be required for a few projects recommended under the RMP. In some cases, parking facilities exist, though they are in need of repair. Where feasible, if new or replacement facilities are required, permeable surfaces are recommended. Section 7:7E-7.10 Commercial Facility Use Policies (a) Hotels and Motels Comment Although no motels/hotels are specifically called for in the RMP, as the corridor develop as a recreational area, a market for such facilities may develop. Each facility will be evaluated individually and in accordance with this policy. (c) Retail Trade and Services Comment The mixed-use zone is designed to encourage retail and service facilities consistent with the restoration plan. Each will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and will be evaluated on the basis of this policy among other factors. Section 7:7E-7.11 Coastal Engineering Comment Some bulkheading has been proposed in the RMP. In other areas, rip-rap may be employed to retard erosion. In certain areas, the structural modification is necessary to create a useable park area. Bulkheading would be employed to retain existing banks and to facilitate access to the water for boating, fishing, etc. No struc- tural modifications affect sand transport, and they reduce sedimentation due to gullying and bank erosion. No wet- lands exist in the planning area and there should be minimal ecological impact. The proposed bulkheading appears consis- tent with this policy, and will be minimal as most areas are already stabilized or will be left in their existing condition. Section 7:7E-7.12 Dredge Spoil Disposal on Land Comment Little or no dredge spoil will be developed through imple- mentation of the RMP. Its use will conform to this policy. RESOURCE POLICIES Section 7:7E-8.4 Water Quality Comment No impairment of water quality should result from the pro- jects proposed by the RMP. Water quality may improve as a result of public awareness of the river as a resource, and as a result of reduced sedimentation due to antiero- sion measures. The water is not suitable for contact recreation at the present time. Section 7:7E-8.7 Runoff Comment Projects proposed by the RMP should not significantly increase stormwater runoff. Where paving is involved and it is feasible to do so, permeable paving will be used. Section 7:7E-8.9 Vegetation Comment The RMP will result in no significant loss of vegetation, and should yield healthier, more valuable' specimens. Landscaping will increase the amenity value of both exist- ing and new vegetation. Section 7:7E-8.13 Public Access to the Shorefront Comment All proposed RMP projects require public access and the proposed zoning provides for public access in all new development. Section 7:7E-8.14 Scenic Resources and Design Comment The RMP proposes formation of parks and viewing areas to enhance and make accessible man-made and natural land- scape amenities. Section 7:7E-8.15 Buffers and Compatibility of Uses Comment Buffer areas will be provided where feasible, and where adjacent incompatible land uses abut. Section 7:7E-8.17 Energy Conservation Comment Where required and on a case-by-case basis, an energy plan will be submitted. Section 7:7E-8.19 Traffic Comment Projects proposed by the FMP should have negligible impact on existing traffic flows. Section 7:7E-8.12 Wet Soils Comment No project of the RM? is inconsistent with this policy. Load bearing characteristics of soils will not be a factor in proposed projects, but development in the proposed mixed-use zone will have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Most soils in the study area are not wet soils. Section 7:7E-8.23 Flood Hazard Areas Comment Most projects contemplated by the RMP are open space/ recreation projects and are completely consistent with this policy. In those instances (i.e. mixed-use zone develop- ment.), applicable N. J. DEP regulations will be followed. Section 7:7E-8.26 Barrier Free Design Comment Barrier free design will be included in all RMP projects. Appendix B Passaic River Restoration Project: East Rutherford /Wallington Work Product 1: Narrative Discussion * ~~~~~~~~~~~of the Riverfront Area I June 1984 Passaic River Coalition 246 Madisonville Road Basking Ridge, New Jersey 07920 Introduction * ~~~~~The Passaic River Restoration Project was established jointly by the Passaic River Coalition and the municipalities of Kearny, North Arlington, Lyndhurst, and Rutherford in 1980. Coordinated by the Passaic River Coalition and a Steering Committee of municipal representatives, the Restoration Project seeks to further the improvement in quality of the Passaic River, and to enhance public access to and enjoyment of the river and riverbank areas. The Passaic River served the early residents of the Lower Passaic Valley as a recreational and commercial resource. Boating was a major sport through the late nineteenth century. Increasing pollution from sewage and industries led to the decline of most recreational uses of the river and the bank area. Parks declined in quality and became oriented to non-riverine uses. A Restoration Master Plan for the four municipalities was prepared in 1982 by the Passaic River Coalition under a grant from the Division of Coastal Resources, N. J. Department of Environmental Protection. The Restoration Master Plan, which was accepted by all four municipalities, sets forth a phased program for the development and improvement of riverside parks and a connecting pathway. Implementation is underway. The municipalities of East Rutherford, Wallington, Harrison, Belleville, Nutley, and Clifton have become involved with the Restoration Project, and the Counties of Bergen and Passaic have provided support. In 1984, a second grant from the N. J. Division of Coastal Resources was awarded to the Passaic River Coalition to extend the Restoration Master Plan to the Boroughs of East Rutherford and Wallington. This document, along with five maps, constitute Work Product I of this latest planning effort. As for the first four municipalities (Rutherford through Kearny), the Restoration Master Plan in East Rutherford and Wallington will recommend a series of actions to improve public access to and enjoyment of the Passaic River. Recommendations will include park acquisition and beautification, and the phased development of a pathway along or parallel to the river linking the riverside parks. The plan is being .developed in cooperation with a Citizens Advisory Comittee of local citizens and public officials. The first phase of this project has been the gathering of data on the existing physical attributes of the project area. Special areas as defined in the Coastal Resource and Development Policies (1982) were identified and delineated (See Appendix A), along with existing land uses and zoning, soils, etc. Field surveys have been used to verify published information and develop a familiarity with th region. Evaluation of the Project Area The riverfront area in East Rutherford and Wallington was divided into short sections, or "reaches," to simplify analysis of the area. Each reach begins and ends with easily identifiable landmarks, such as streets or bridges. A general description is provided for each reach, followed by a f our- part analysis of the reaches: 1. Suitability for recreational uses; 2. Suitability for transportation uses; 3. Suitability for development; and 4. Physical attributes and areas of special concern. Recreation, transportation and development are the basic alternatives for the use of any parcel of land. The three types of uses are interdependent, such as development's dependency on good transportation networks, but also may conflict. The first three sections analyze how well the reach can accom- modate any existing or future recreation, transportation, or development; the extent to which the use conflicts with other uses; and the extent to which the physical attributes of the reach may prevent its use for any one purpose. Physical constraints may include existing development, steep slopes, flood hazards, etc. The last section briefly describes information shown on the five maps for that reach. The maps are: Land Use; Zoning; Soils; Land Use Jurisidiction; and Special Features. Jurisdiction of the State of New Jersey under the Waterfront Development Law extends a minimum of 100 feet and a maximum of 500 feet from the mean high water line, and otherwise to the first property line or public road. All development within this area must apply for and receive a Waterfront Development Permit prior to development. The analyses within this report have been developed by the Passaic River Coalition based on existing information and field surveys. The Restoration Master Plan will use these analyses as modified by the Citizens Advisory Committee and comments of the general public and the N.J. Division of Coastal Resources. The criteria used in assessing each reach are as follows: Recreation 1. viewshed -suitability 2. access to river 3. soil erodability 4. topography 5. security 6. hazards 7. competing existing or proposed use Transportation 1. links developed areas 2. existing corridor 3. availability of right-of-way Development 1. existing structures 2. available infrastructure 3. amenity/asperity value 4. river dependent These criteria are important measures of the suitability or unsuitability of a particular reach for each use. The criteria were developed in cooperation with the Passaic River Restoration Project Steering Committee during the first phase of planning in 1982. REACH: Linking Rutherford and East Rutherford- #11 General Description The Restoration Master Plan for Rutherford calls for the multi- purpose path to terminate at the northwestern corner of Rutherford Memorial Field. A Connection between Rutherford and East Rutherford is desirable. The boundary is formed by the right-of-way of a spur line of the Erie Lackawanna Railroad from Carlton Avenue to the Passaic River. All but 200 feet of the right-of-way is occupied by railroad tracks on a steep embankmnent. The remaining area near the river is a materials storage area and a stormwater outlet channel. Light industry occupies the land north of the municipal boundary. Recreation Long term potential -Moderate to poor. There is almost no means of executing a recreational pathway across the border area in a setting that is conducive to recreation and is aesthetically pleasing. The pathway in this location would be mostly a means of travelling across- * ~~~~~the site. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The path segment in Rutherford is fully consistent with Rutherford Memorial Field, a multi- use recreational area. East Rutherford, adjacent to Rutherford, is used aridzoned as light industry and has a railroad line along the border, both of which are incompatible with recreation uses, being intensive land uses Physical constraints - The high gradient on both sides of the rail- road embankmnent and the stormwater outlet channel constitute major im- pediments to recreation. Transportation Use potential - Excellent. The border area is a railroad spur serving the industrial park in East Rutherford. It is used infrequently but on a regular schedule. Jackson Avenue in Rutherford becomes Carlton Avenue in East Rutherford. Traffic is moderately heavy during much of the day. Transportation (cont'd) Consistency with existing/planned uses - Good. The railroad is unlikely to see increased use due to the limited number of firms which it may serve in the industrial park. Physical constraints - Jackson/Carnton Avenue is the closest possible road to the river, due to the high gradient of the railroad embankment. The road has limited potential for widening, and the railroad crossing creates a gradient and surface which reduces traffic velocity at that point. Development Use potential - Fully utilized. No space exists for new develop- ment, though it might be possible to upgrade the industrial buildings along the railroad near Carlton Avenue. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The zoning matches the current uses. Physical constraints - The railroad embankment, Carlton Avenue, and the stormwater outlet channel make any change in use along the border very unlikely. Overlay Comments Zoning - Recreation and Residential in Rutherford. Light Iidustry in East Rutherford. Soils - Urban land classification, indicating extensive impermeable surfaces. Land Use - Transportation rights-of-way along the border. Fully developed as public parks, housing and industry on either side. Special Areas - The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners regularly sample the river at two stormwater outlets just south and north of the industrial park. Much of the site is within the 100-year flood plain. Most of the bank is filled. Land Use Jurisdictions - State jurisdiction under the Waterfront Development Law extends inland from the river to Madison Street. The Passaic River is navigable in this area. REACH. Van Winkle Street to Carlton Avenue, East Rutherford - #2 0 ~~~General Description The industrial park is bordered on the north by Van Winkle Street and Morton Avenue. Morton Avenue is generally residential, while Van Winkle Street directly abuts the industrial park. North of Van Winkle Street along River Street to the junction with Carlton Avenue, the area is primarily residential with one commercial facility at the corner of River Street and Carlton Avenue. No direct access to the riverbank exists. Recreation Long term potential - Good to fair. It may be possible to gain access to the river along its bank line through a variety of small lots and other property, such as the River Renaissance condominiums. Otherwise, there is no real potential for recreation other than as passage from one recreation area to the next, given existing uses. However, the Borough proposes to acquire the commercial facility at Carlton and River Street for conversion to recreational uses under the Green Acres Program. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Moderate to poor. Nearly all avail-able lots are developed for housing and commercial uses, at low to moderate densities. Physical constraints - Other than existing development, only one possible constraint exists. A pathway along the river's edge would necessitate a bridge across a stormwater outlet channel just north of the industrial park. Transportation Use potential - Limited. The roads in question are small, residential streets. Morton Avenue has sidewalks, but Van Winkle Street and River Street do not. Morton Avenue has ample width for a residential street; the other two are narrow. East Rutherford is considering plans to limit truck traffic on Morton Avenue by closing its eastern connection with Carlton Avenue. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Good.; The area is almost fully developed, and the streets conform to the nature of the surrounding develop- ment. Physical constraints - Van Winkle Street has a limited potential for widening. The industrial area and residences have minimal sideyards. Development Use potential -Limited. The 'River Renaissance Condominiums are filling the last major area of undeveloped land. Additional development might occur on River Street in the long run if existing oversized lots were subdivided. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The present and ongoing develop- ment matches the zoning. Physical constraints - Most of the area is within the 100-year flood plain. Overlay Comments. Zoning - The area is toned as residential in two zones --- single family detached and multi-family with multi-family zoning near the -river. Soils - Urban land complex soils indicate extensive modification of the soil structure. Land Use - Primarily residential. One commercial trucking facility. Special Areas - Much of this reach is within the 100-year flood plain. The bank area is both filled and natural. Land Use Jurisdictions - Waterfron Development Law jurisdiction extends to River Street in all areas. The Passaic River is navigable along this reach. REACH: Carlton Avenue, East Rutherford, to Main Avenue, Wallington - #3 General Description Carlton Avenue follows the river north to Paterson Avenue, which continues 'north along the river to Main Avenue at the Gregory Avenue Bridge. T~vard the river from the roads, a boat storage area and two used car dealerships use the riverbank, in a generally unintensive manner. Commercial facilities north of the car dealers fully occupy the bank area. The opposite side'of the road starts as residential but quickly becomes commercial. Recreation Long term potential - Good. A lengthy section of riverbank is not en- cumbered with structuresi:and could eventually be purchased and used as open space. The Borough of East Rutherford proposes to do so under the Green Acres Program. The remainder has long-term uses, but with small structures which only cover fractions of the property. Consistency with existing planned uses - Poor/Fair to Good. Compat- ibility with existing uses is poor. However, steps could be taken to change existing uses to recreation in several lots, leading to increased consistency. Traffic along Carlton and Paterson Avenues is heavy at times. Physical constraints - In the boat yard, considerable construction rubble, concrete pads, and other material should be removed to allow for any recrea- tional uses. Transportation Use potential - Good. The road system is part of the north-south arterial system through Wallington and East Rutherford. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The roads serve to move traffic through the area, and also allow access to commercial uses. Future commercial use is compatible with the road system. Any recreational uses must be planned around the relatively high traffic volume and the surrounding commercial development, allowing ifor parking which does not affect the main roads and for pedestrian access. Physical constraints - None. Development Use potential -Fair. Development is a competing use with recreation for the underutilized properties. However, the narrowness of the lots and the local traffic volume are constraints. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Commercial uses-would be consistent. Residential and industrial would not be consistent. Physical constraints - Lot dimensions, existing rubble, and steep banks are major development constraints. Most of the area is within the 100-year flood plain. Overlay Comments Zoning - The southern half is zoned multi-family residential, while the northern portion is zoned for light industry. Soils - Urban land soils indicate extensive modication of the soil structure and impermeable surfaces. Land Use - Primarily commercial, with a few residences on the side of Carlton Avenue away from the river. Special Areas - The Gregory Avenue (Main Avenue) Bridge and the site of Anderson's Lumber Company (a major industrial concern of the late nineteenth century) are located along this reach. Both are listed on the Bergen County Historic Sites Survey,;. but are not on the State or National Historic Sites Registers. New Jersey Bell has twenty cables running submferged under the Passaic River just south of the Gregory Avenue Bridge. All of the reach is within the 100-year flood plain. The bank is filled in most areas. Land Use Jurisdictions - Waterfront Development Law jurisdiction extends inland to Carlton Avenue and beyond in places to 100 feet inla~fid of mean high water, along this reach. The Passaic River is navigable here. REACH: Main Avenue to Wallington Avenue, Wallington - #4 0 ~~~General Description The Passaic River gradually bends to the east as one moves tipgtream, a 90 degree turn. Its banks are lined with concrete slabs laid during the realignment of the river in this area by the N.J. Department of Transportation in conjunction with the building of Route 21. Because of the realignment, numierous streets deadend at the river. They serve adjacent properties 4nd are not available for pocket park development. Several parcels of land are owned by the N.J. Department of Transportation which are remnants of pre- existing lots. A mix of commercial, industrial, and residential uses exists along the river. Recreation Long term potential -Good. The pathway can be placed along the river in several areas, and along streets in the rest. The N'.J. Department of Transportation property, possibly in combination with new acquisitions, can provide neighborhood and community oriented recreation opportunities. The purchase or lease of easements-VI-be needed in some areas, along with the proposed purchase of the former Tuck Tape parking lot on Parkway through the Green Acres Program. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Other than the N.J. Depart- ment of Transportation properties, much of the area has existing uses which restrict recreation potential. However, the businesses near the Gregory Avenue Bridge have excess space near the river, and an unused parking lot near the Market Street (Wallington Avenue) Bridge offers recreational potential. A narrow right-of-way exists along the river. Physical constraints - The steep concrete embankment presents a potential safety hazard for bicyclists. Transportation Use potential - Main and Wallington Avenues bound the area, and serve as major transportation routes. All of the remaining streets are primarily one-way or narrow residential roads. The area is fully developed, so no expansion is possible. Consistency wit h existing/planned uses - Good. The road system fits the existing uses. The limited traffic an the residential streets will not endanger recreational users. Transportation (cont'd) 0 ~~~~Physical constraints - Existing development precludes expansion of the roads in most areas. Deveomn Use potential - Mostly utilized. The'business uses near Gregory Avenue Bridge And the parking lot near Market Street Bridge offer potential sites for higher density uses. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The zoning differs from the current uses in several areas, especially along Wallington Avenue where resi- dential and commercial uses are mixed in a business zone. The parking lot is zoned for commercial use near Wallington Avenue and light industry else- where. The N.J. Department of Transportation open parcels are zoned for single family detached housing. Physical constraints - Most of the area is within the 100-year flood plain. Overlay Comments Zoning - The lots along Wallington Avenue are zoned for business uses, with residential zoning occupying most of the interior land. Two portions of light industrial zoning also exist in the area, at Van Winkle and Main, and on west side of the Wallington Avenue business zone on the riverside. Soils - Urban land, with extensive impermeable surface and urban land complex soils which are extensively modified. The riverbank is primarily filled land. Land Use - The land uses generally fit the zoning except as noted above. The parking lot is now unused. Special Areas - Much of the reach is within the 100-year flood plain. The tavern at 12 Wallington Avenue (c.1900-1920) and the Market Street Bridge are in the Bergen County Historical Sites Survey, but not the State or National Registers. Public open spaces include two very small parcels owned by the N.J. Department of Transportation and Wallington, and a larger parcel off of Lester Avenue which is owned by the N.J. Department of Transportation. An emergency boat ramp exists at the end of Parkway and has a locked gate. Overlay Comments (cont'd) Public Service Electric & Gas has submerged lines just north of the Gregory Avenue Bridge, while the Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners have a trunk line under the river off the end of Lester Street. Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners also monitor water quality near the location of their pump station across from Lester Street. Land Use Jurisdictions - Waterfront Development Law jurisdiction extends inland to the first road or property line in this reach or a minimum of 100 feet, creating a disjointed pattern due to the realignment of the river. The navigable channel of the Passaic River ends at the Market Street Bridge. REACH: Wallington Avenue to 8th Street Bridge, Wallington - #5 General Description Moving upstream, the river turns south in this reach, running in the opposite compass direction from the previous reach, and then swings east again at the 8th Street Bridge. The effect is similar to a backwards S. ,The riverside is mostly commercial property with a small section of resi- dential development. Recreation Long term potential - Fair to good. A few prime pathway possibilities exist through this developed area. A few sections of open land and the existing borough park offer ggod opportunities for neighborhood recreation. A narrow section of open space near the 8th Street Bridge is a possible pathway route, which the Borough of Wallington proposes to purchase under Green Acres funding. Purchase of a potential pocket park area at the northern end of Hatheway Street would also be possible through Green Acres. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Existing development generally is inconsistent with recreation, except for the borough park and the narrow strip near 8th Street Bridge. Physical 'constraints - None, other than existing development. Transportation Use potential - Main and Wallington Avenues bound the area and serve as major transportation routes. Most of the remaining streets are residential. The exception is Hatheway Street which has several businesses along the east side which use large trucks. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Fair. Hatheway Street is used frequently by tractor-trailer trucks, but is the size of a residential street and has residences on the west side. The remaining streets are consistent with their uses. Physical constraints - Existing development precludes expansion of the transportation system through the area. Development Use potential - Fully utilized, except for one lot near the Market Street Bridge which is owned by the N.J. Department of Transportation. The linear strip near the 8th Street Bridge is not large enough for significant development. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The current uses are in conformance generally with the zoning. Physical constraints - Most the area is within the 100-year flood plain. Overlay Comments Zoning - The riverside area along Wallington Avenue is zoned for business use. The remainder is zoned for residential, light industry, and public open space. Soils - Urban land and urban complex soils indicate considerable imper- vious surfaces and modifications of the soil structure. The banks are primarily filled land. Land Use - Along the river, a mix of light industry, residences, a borough park, two non-profit organizations, and private open space. Special Areas - Much of this reach is within the 100-year flood plain. The 8th Street Bridge and the Wallington Municipal Building/Henry W. Plant Co. Factory site (1897) just across the street are on the Bergen County Historic Sites Survey. Two public open spaces'exist, one developed as a borough park along Hatheway Street, and the other an undeveloped parcel owned by the N.J. Department of Transportation just east of the Market Street Bridge. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners have a trunk sewer line under the river off of 'Lester Street toward Lodi Street in the 'City of Passaic. Passaic Valley Szverage Commissioners also have a water quality monitoring site by the 8th Street Bridge. Land Use Jurisdictions - Waterfront Law jurisdiction extends inland to the first public road from the river. REACH: 8th Street Bridge to Midland Avenue3, Wallington -#6 General Descripti~n- From the 8th Street Bridge north, the river turns to the north with a wooded bank which rises steeply from the river. Over half of the bank top is either publicly owned or undeveloped private land. The remainder is commercial or multi-family residential. Two-thirds of the reach is very narrow between Main Avenue and the river, until it widens north of Park 'Row. Recreation Long term potential - Good to fair. The undeveloped bank top from 100 feet north of the 8th Street Bridge to Park Row is suitable for a pathway and sitting areas along much of the property. On the other hand, commercial and residential development to the northern end of the reach greatly limits recreational uses. Riverview Estates is committed to developing a 10-foot wide pathway along the rear of its property as a condition of its Waterfront Development permit from the N.J. Division of Coastal Resources. Consistency with exist-ing/planned uses - The southern portion of the reach, from Alden Street to Park Row, is compatible with recreational uses. North of Park Row, existing uses are incompatible with most recreational uses other than a pathway. Physical constraints - The steep banks of the river offer excellent views .f the river but greatly limit access to the w.ater's edge. Transportation Use potential - Excellent. Main Avenue is a major county road through 'Wallington. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Residential development along Miin Avenue causes a conflict between through traffic and residential traffic, such as ingress to and egress from driveways. Commercial facilities with limited parking also have some difficulties with access during peak traffic flows. Physical constraints - Widening of Main Avenue could only occur at the expense of public open space and comercial frontage. Development 0 ~~~~Use potential - All lots large enough for significant development have now been utilized. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Existing uses are generally compatible with the zoning of the reach or are in open space. Physical constraints - The steep riverbank and narrow bank top limit the development potential for the remaining undeveloped private property. Overlay Comments Zoning - This reach is zoned for commercial, multi-family residential, and public open space use's. The map indicates zoning as of the 1982 Master Plan. Soils - Urban land soils indicate extensive impermeable surfaces. Urban land complex soils, such as the Du-nellen-urban land complex soils of this area, have been extensively modified by human activity., These range in slope from low to high in this reach. The riverbanks exhibit some filling, but are mostly natural with a Riverhead Sandy Loam soil. Land Use - Approximately half of the land is developed, and the other half is open space. Special Areas - The steep riverbanks limit the extent of the 100-year flood plain to a narrow strip along the river. Although Coastal Resource and Development Policies exist for 'Et-osion Hazard Areas (3.24), Coastal Bluffs (3.30), and Steep Slopes (3.33), none specificallay applies to steep slopes in riverine areas. However, the intent of each policy is the same, to reduce erosion and safety hazards by strictly limiting development on steep slopes. The intent of these policies should also apply here (See Appendix A). Wallington High School, north of Alden Street, is listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Sites. It will not be affected by the project. Lots 2 through 5 of Block 26A are owned and maintained by the Borough of Wallington as public open space. Land Use Jurisdictions - Waterfront Development Law jurisdiction extends to Main Avenue along this reach. REACH: Midland Avenue to the Saddle River - #7 General Description The commercial development at the north end of the previous reach continues for a short distance, then gives way to undeveloped private land where a steep riverbank approachbs too close to Midland Avenue to allow for develop- ment. As Midland Avenue swings away from the river again, more commercial development occupies the bank area to the end of the reach and project area. Recreation Long term potential - Fair to good. The undeveloped land midway along the reach could be used for a pathway. There may also be room for the path- way behind the commercial buildings at the southern and northern portions of the reach. Along the Saddle River at its confluence with the Passaic River, half of the lot is used for construction debris and other miscellaneous uses. This land could be developed for open spacez if purchased and developed through Green Acres or another program. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The existing commercial uses will make recreational development difficult in most instances and impossible in the remaining lots. Vehicular traffic along Midland Avenue also will conflict with recreational uses. Physical constraints - The steep riverbank will limit public access to the water's edge. Transportation Use potential - Good to excellent. Midland Avenue is a major county road for north-south through traffic along the river. Consistency with existing/planned uses - The commercial uses in this reach have parking available, reduce traffic conflicts. The status of Mid- land Avenue as a county road is consonant with the existing uses. There are plans by Bergen County to widen Midland Avenue and its bridge over the Saddle River to three lanes, with the road reducing to its present tw'o lanes 175 feet south of the Saddle River. Construction may occur within two years. Transportation (cont'd)' Physical constraints - Development will limit further widening beyond that which is currently planned. Development Use potential - Mostly utilized. The northernmost property along the river is 60 per cent utilized, but the remaining property could support additional development. Consistency with existing/planned uses - Further commercial development would be consistent with existing uses and current zoning. Physical constraints - Much of the land near the confluence of the Saddle and Passaic Rivers is within the 100-year flood plain. Steep banks and narrow dimensions limit the development potential of the remaining undeveloped land. Overlay Comments Zoning - Commercial zoning predominates in the lower half with a light industry zone to the Saddle River. Soils - Urban land and Dunellen-urban land complex soils respectively indicate extensive impermeable surfaces and soil structures which have been extensively modified by human action. The soils range from low to high slopes. The riverbank is both natural and filled or slightly filled. Land Use - The entire reach is commercial/light industry development or undeveloped private land. Special Areas - Along much of the reach, steep slopes limit the 100- year flood plain to a narrow bana along the river. At the northernmost portion of the reach, much of the property is within the 100-year flood plain at the confluence of the Passaic and Saddle Rivers. The steep banks should be subject to the same policies as stated for the previous reach. The Garfield Woolen Mill (Garfield Manufacturing Co., c. 1895) was the largest industrial complex in Wallington. The brick buildings are located on the east side of Midland Avenue along the Saddle'River. The Passaic Valley Sewerage Commissioners regularly sample water quality at the confluence of the Passaic and Saddle Rivers. Overlay Comments (cont'd) Land Use Jurisdictions -Waterfront Development Law jurisdiction extends to Midland Avenue along this reach. 0 Appendix C. 0* : : Appendix C Property Owners and Assessed Values JI The attached list shows (from left to right) the block and lot numbers, the lot size where known, the name and address of the owner and the assessed value. The assessed value is shown (from the top down) as land, improvements and the total of the two. Current equalization ratios in the towns are as follows: East Rutherford 86.26 Wallington 65 EAST RUTHERFORD BLOCK, LOT LOT SIZE OWNERSHIP VALUATION 5 1-A 0.15 ac Bahr Auto Sales, Inc. L 46,400 Carlton & Paterson Aves. I 6,600 East Rutherford T 53,000 1 0.4 ac Sigerist, Edna 47,500 T/A Favorite Marina 299 Carlton Avenue 17,500 East Rutherford 65,000 2 1.38 ac C & K Realty 151,800 P. 0. Box 147 98,200 Rutherford 250,000 3.A. of 4.6 ac River Street Corp. 6,000 each Sub-Lots 39 River Street sub-lot Nov. East Rutherford assessment 6 1 210 x 390 East Rutherford Boro Exempt 9A 78 x 282 Pelcher, John 20,700 46 River Street 19,000 East Rutherford 39,700 9B & 13 C Keller Engineering Co. 18,200 River Street --- East Rutherford 18,200 13B 53 x 264 Pavell, S. 20,300 42 River Road 20,400 East Rutherford 40,700 13D Carlton Hill Construc. Corp. 1,800 P. 0. Box 28 -- East Rutherford 1,800 13E Pavell, Steve & Helen 2,800 113 River Street --- East Rutherford 2,800 8 1 Kelways, Inc. 400,000 1 Madison Street 1,853,000 East Rutherford 2,253,000 WALLINGTON BLOCK, LOT LOT SIZE OWNERSHIP VALUATION 1 1,3 4.5 ac N.J. DOT L Exempt 1035 Parkway Avenue I Exempt Trenton, N. J. 08625 T Exempt 2 0.1 ac Passaic Valley Sewerage Comm. Exempt 3 1 50 x 98 Wallington Boro Exempt 2 71 x 70 Pabin, Joseph & Phyllis L 15,700 22 Anderson Avenue I 49,200 Wallington T 64,900 3 Zwolinski, Vincent & Viola 12,200 20 Anderson Avenue 33,400 Wallington 45,600 4 16, 17 63 x 96 Ejgird, Aleksandra & Richard 17,700 24 Passaic Avenue 31,600 Hasbrouck Heights, N.J. 07604 49,300 7 25 Not listed.Either N.J. DOT or Bergen County Highways 7 29, 30 85 x 100 Milosh Carbide Tool Co. Inc. 30,000 8 Halstead Avenue 23,000 Wallington 53,000 8 22, 23 63 x 100 Sudol, Paul & Wanda 15,400 7 Halstead Avenue 21,200 Wallington 36,600 24, 30 250 x 100 Sasso, Bernice & Harriet 63,400 8 Hatheway Street 121,600 Wallington 185,000 9 1 330 x 215 Petshaft, Sadye G. 101,000 25 Hatheway Street 96,600 Wallington 197,600 10 1, 2 350 x 200 Tuck Industries, Inc. 226,500 c/o S. Greenberg 1 Lefevre Lane --- New Rochelle, N.Y. 10801 226,500 11 1-6 N. J. DOT Exempt 12 17, 18 50 x 92 N. J. DOT Exempt BLOCK, LOT LOT SIZE OWNERSHIP VALUATION 12 19, 20 N. J. DOT Exempt 21 N. J. DOT Exempt 19 1 647 x 230 VanWinkle & Mercer Cod. 185,100 80 VanWinkle Avenue 89,900 Wallington 275,000 4 120 x 200 Zotos, Timoleon 69,300 77 Ridgewald Avenue 57,200 Waldwick, N.J. 07463 126,500 26 1 100 x 225 Van Blarcom, Dorothy 54,400 224 Alden Street 32,300 Wallington 86,700 2 100 x 215 Gibello, Raymond F. & Jean M. 58,400 804 Pueblo Drive 51,200 Franklin Lakes, N. J. 109,600 3' 4 Not Listed Mercer St. r.o.w. Used by adjoining properties 5 100 x 242 Petrozzello, Donna 86,500 47 Hatheway Street 150,700 Wallington 237,200 6 200 x 200 Triolo, Anthony &.Elaine 75,000 61 Hatheway Street 61,200 Wallington 136,200 7 100 x 145 Knights of Columbus Exempt 69 Hatheway Street Wallington 8 311 x 122 Wallington Boro Exempt 9 Wallington Boro Exempt Pump House 10 Veterans of Foreign Wars Exempt 125 Main Avenue Wallington 13 280 x 128 Scangorella, John C. & Helen 67,800 133 Main Avenue 53,200 Wallington 121,000 14 165 x 21 Car Bar Ltd. 8,900 77 Union Avenue - 15 230 x 12 Wallington 8,900 BLOCK, LOT LOT SIZE OWNERSHIP VALUATION 26 16 100 x 75 Kobczenski, Philip & E 35,100 3 Stein Avenue --- Wallington 35,100 26A 1 50 x 190 Kobczenski, Philip & E 52,800 50,000 102,800 2-5 729 x 25 Wallington Boro Exempt 6 490 x 127 Imbruglia, Ross & Carolyn 159,100 77 Union Blvd. 6,800 (Reassess Oct) Wallington 165,900 7 116 x 215 Sudol, Walter & Amelia 43,200 27 Pleasant View Terrace 100,000 Wallington 143,200 c/ 8 58 x 200 Ricci, Rocco & Antoinette 24,500 351 Main Avenue 33,400 Wallington 57,900 9 100 x 224 Giamo, Michael & Sanger, Bruce 54,000 357 Main Street 9,100 Wallington 63,100 10 100 x 247 Peristein, Lester & S. 53,200 336 Tremont Avenue 54,000 Fort Lee, N. J. 07024 107,200 11 188 x 66 Wozniek, AM, DJ & GJ 110,000 80 Midland Avenue 86,000 Wallington 196,000 12 27 x 100 Wozniak, AM, DJ, & GJ 46,300 29,300 75,600 13 320 x 65 Watson, Elizabeth M. 40,400 P. 0. Box 40 --- Garfield, N.J. 07026 40,400 14 63 x 115 Zaleski, Stanley & Marie 16,200 34 Midland Avenue 38,900 Wallington 55,100 15 409 x 140 Sondey, Stanley A. 114,000 2 Midland Avenue 29,800 Wallington 143,800 27 2 William Mocek 45,400 20 Thansgiving Ave. 18,900 Clifton, N. J. 63,300 Appendix D Recreational Facility Inventory Appendix D Recreational Facility Inventory Existing Parks Hatheway Street Park, Wallington --Swings, slides and sand box. Children's pool. Tennis and basketball courts. 'Benches. Main Avenue Linear Park, Wallington -- Passive uses. Benches. Other Public Open Space Block 12, Lot 26, Wallington --N. J. Department of Transportation. Block 7, Lot 25, Wallington --Ownership not recorded. Probably N.J. DOT or Bergen County. W APPENDIX E EAST RUTHERFORD MARINA DESIGN m I'ARAY PP-ARK FROJEC SUDY AREA 21 un . Zy~~~~t '~~~~~~. >I ~~~~~~~~~~ - *~~~~~~~~~ ut A RRD MARINA File #1.470.5 4 PROJECT STUDMY A.REA August 23, 1984 O&Prepared by: AEP ASSOCIATES LOCATI ON MAP Architects / Engineers / PlannersI i h o,~ LStanley John 0cz 485 Noc Rod Litef,1s .]O 4 4 2 1 2 677 I,. WEi l ee, ~~~~ ~~~~~~~)O ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ Flower Gazebo Boat ~Prepared by' ____AEP ASSOC1ATES 1ES Archtect] Eniners /PlanersFile 1.470.5 ROET S U Y A k____________ stanley John LaCE ~~August 23, 19841 1 Ij 611 ~ I ConcreteFotn L File #1.470.5 SEAT DETAIL August 23, 1984 Prepared by: 0 ~~ ~~~~~~~~~0 1 2 3 AEP ASSOCIATES Scale 3/4"1 I 0" Architects / Engineers / Mlanners Stanley John La" 6 TConcrete 6x6 Corten Steel Tube 0~~~~~~~~~~~~ Concrete Footing File # 1.470.5 BENCH SEAT DETAIL August 23, 1984 Prepared by: 0 1 2 3 AEP ASSOCIATES Scale 3/4" 1' 0" Architects I Engineers/ I Mnners Stanley John LAc 8 Notch lo~d. ULMYt F* N4 0741t * (Z 55-7571 6x6 Cot6te Concrete~otn N. ~ ~ ~ . File# 1.470.5 August 23, 1984 Prepared by:,PINCTBED AL C) 1 2 3 AEP ASSOCIATESScl3/" 1-0 Archliects I Engineers I Mtann~ers Stardey John LAci Polycarbamte Lens Ornamental Cast Irxi Post File # 1.470.5 Auigust 23, 1984 LAMP & POST DErAIL Prepared by:. 00 1 2 3 Scale 3/4" = i - 0" AEP ASSOCIATES Architcts / Engineers / Planners StAney John Lau 45 Noes &od. Udr F.* NJ. 074Z4 .(Wq Zsa4757 Trash Receptacle Insert- Locking Metal Lid for Trash Insert Removal Textured Pre-cast Concrete r ,Z~~~~, TRASH. RECEPTACLE DETAIL File 4 1.470.5 August 23, 1984 Prepared by: 0 ~ ~~1 2 3 Scle341 - i \~~C 77 AEP ASSOCIATES Sae31i -0 Arrhllf-rf~ Ensln~errs / Planners S(Arvicy joh" Lhrz 48-3 N~h R.d Lf" .N 07424 .OI256-757' Cap 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ A l--Lawn, Plantings, or Concrete Walk Sheet Piling ri'~~ ~ " IPi CCanpacted Backfill River File # 1.470.5 August 23, 1984 SHEEI PILING BULKHEAD SECTION Prepared by: 0 1 2 3 AEP ASSOCIATES Scale 3/4" = 1'- 0" AE1P ASSOCIATES Archftects I Engineers I PlAnners StAnley John IAr 4a5NLo.ch ~LM11. uF r1NJ O~A2A *(2OI3l5.6-7575 4" Concrete Slab I" Cu' e SI ((II IIe Pfl1'~t 411 Crushed Stone Ccmpacted Backfill or Undisturbed Soil PAVING DETAIL File # 1.470.5 August 23, 1984 Prepared by: 0 1 i 2 3 Scale 3/411 I I- oil AEP ASSOCIATES Architeft, / Englneers / PIfnntrs Startlcy John Lacz 485 Na<t sotd. Lmi. F-1 0 0 2Ol41 . (zoo)26- ?S75 APPENDIX F Strip Park Design 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Coluirnar es 4' "on center Sidewal Fishin AreOCaT Ivy onSWall ~ 0 Columnar Maples Ivy on Wall Lawn Fishing Area Sidewalk Sheet Piling Bulkhead Passaic River CROSS SECTION Prepared by: ALP ASSOCIATES Architects / Engineers / Mlnners 0 10 20 30 40 St-WY Ichn La= Scale I"' = 20' 4 N.re~ Sr" Ufte ra [email protected]?,ZU * (20 1 254-T757 Appendix K Project Maps RESTORATION MASTER PLAN EAST RiUTHERFORD-WALLINGTONRP OVERVIEW LEGEND FE PATHWAY ROUTE PARK IR \WOODRIDGE PASSA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~IC T PARK~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ RC'X _ 'I~~~~~~~ 'PARK. A ~ ~ ~ ~~ RUHEFARD MA~~~~~~1i1 RESTORATION MASTER PLAN EAST RUTHERFORD-WALLINGTON LOWER PASSAIC RIVER PASSAIC RIVER COALITION 1984 CARTOGRAPHICS-MEM RC P WALLINGTON LEGEND - PATHWAY ROUTE ...... ALTERNATE ROUTE PARK PASSAIC EAST RUTHERFORD MAP 2 RESTORATION MASTER PLAN EAST RUTHERFORD-WALLINGTON LOWER PASSAIC RIVER LN RPR PASSAIC FWER COAUTION LEGEND POSD 1984~ ~~~--- PATHWAY ROUTE7PED CARTOGRAPHICS-MEM a aP ...... ALTERNATE ROUTE -PARK 100 FEET PASSAIC L z 'POCKET PAR RESTORATION MASTER PLAN 'I. EAST RUTHERFORD-WALLINGTON LOWER PASSAIC RIVER PASSAIC RIVER COALITION 1984 CARTOGRAPHICS-MEM f (PROPOPARK WALLINGTON PASSAIC PARK ROW LEGEND STEIN AVE. - -- -- PATHWAY ROUTE ........ALTERNATE ROUTE - ~~PARK LNEAR PARK IRESERVOIR AVE. - - ~~~~~~~~~STRONG ST.