morris county master plan: future land use element

8/3/2019 Morris County Master Plan: Future Land Use Element

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morris-county-master-plan-future-land-use-element 1/68



MORRIS COUNTY MASTER PLAN

FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT

MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

Dean A. Gallo, Director

Leanna Brown S. Charles Garafalo

Peter J. Burkhart Eileen McCoy

Rodney P. Frelinghuysen Douglas H. Romaine

MORRIS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

Robert N. Zakarian, Chairman Eugene H. Caille, Vice Chairman

William Keitel, Secretary

George E. Burke Dean A. Gallo

William J. Mathews

Douglas H. Romaine John Stevens

Harry E. Weaver

Dudley H. Woodbridge, Planning Director

APRIL 1975



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION 7

Section I VALUES, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 9

VALUES 10

GOALS 10

OBJECTIVES 13

Section II BACKGROUND 16

NATURAL DETERMINANTS 1. Topography and Geology 17

a. Slopes 17

b. Depth to Bedrock 17c. Drainage 172. Hydrology 193. Ecology 22

MAN-MADE DETERMINANTS 221. Existing Land Use 222. Zoning 303. Transportation 34

Section III PROJECTIONS 381. Population 38

2. Distribution and Density 393. Employment 394. Open Space 465. Water Supply 476. Sanitary Sewerage Facilities 47

Section IV DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN 50

TRADITIONAL CENTERS 521. Morristown Area 522. Other Traditional Centers: Dover,

Boonton, Chatham, Madison, Butler 53GROWTH CENTERS 54

1. Parsippany Center 542. Netcong Area Center 563. Towaco Center 564. Mt. Freedom Center 575. Mendham, Chester and Long Valley Centers 576. Denville and Succasunna Centers 59



VILLAGES 60

COUNTY-WIDE CONCLUSIONS 61

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS 61

Section V IMPLEMENTATION 64

1. County Government 642. Municipal Government 65

AFTERWORD 67



LIST OF MAPS

Page

Environmental Constraints 18

Planning Regions 24

Existing Land Use, 1970 31

Water and Sewer Plan 48

Future Land Use 62

LIST OF TABLES

1. Potential Sources of Water for Morris County Use, Year 2000 21

2A. 1970 Land Use by Region, in Acres 25

2B. 1970 Land Use by Region, as Percent of Total Area of Each Region 26

3. 1970 Vacant Land by Region 27

4. Zoning in Morris County, 1950 - 1970 33

5. 1970 Zoning in Morris County in Acres and Percent of Area Zoned 40

6. Morris County Population and Projections by Decade, 1920 - 2000 41

7. Morris County Population and Projections by Municipality, 1920 - 1980 42

8. Morris County Population Densities, 1970 - 1990 44

9. Morris County Employment and Projections by Decade, 1940 - 2000 45



INTRODUCTION

Four years ago, when the studies culminating in the present Future Land Use Element began; theMorris County Planning Board entertained possibilities for two very different kinds of reports. Thefirst of these, ultimately rejected, would have analyzed pertinent basic data, selected an appropriate physical unit (square miles or quarter-square miles) and, on the basis of the analysis, assigned a

particular use, or uses, to each unit. The resultant plan would have been impressively detailed.

This alternative was rejected for a variety of reasons. Specifying land use on such a minute scalehas, within the concept of home rule, traditionally been the prerogative of the municipalities in

New Jersey. While it is academically interesting to debate the merits of this system, it isdemonstrable that the fact is not imminently subject to change. At present, the power to implement

a land use plan is vested in the zoning authority, i.e., and the municipality; hence, it is onlycommon sense to leave decisions of detail with the municipality as well. The rejection of this kindof planning will cause a certain dissatisfaction on the part of those who feel planning decisionsshould be made and enforced on a supra-municipal, or regional basis. It is the experience of the

Morris County Planning Board; however, that there are in Morris County vastly more people whoinsist on local control.

We believe to a very great degree that the issue of regional authority versus home rule is a

specious one. The level at which a plan originates, or at which it is implemented, is of no realimportance. What is important is the soundness of the plan itself. At present, the kind of knowledge

necessary for detailed planning, the weight of tradition, and the legal power of implementation arein the hands of the municipalities; as long as this is so, decisions of detail should remain there aswell.

In view of this, the Morris County Planning Board determined to write a general land use plan -one that attempted to enunciate the few basic principles, which should underlie all future planning.This report is given over to analysis of the historical context out of which these principles were

developed, detailed explanations of the principles themselves, development of goals and objectives,and finally, recommendations of a broad land use pattern for the County as a whole. Residents of Lot 1, Block 2, in Municipality "X" will seek here in vain for some prescription to govern their

future; the proper source for their curiosity should be a municipal master plan. It is our hope,however, that those looking for the broad outlines for the future, and a framework in which to plantheir own part of it, will find it here. The Morris County Planning Board has endeavored to create aclimate in which sound local planning may proceed.

The Future Land Use Element is built upon two basic principles:

1) That all future development proceed only after careful analysis of environmental

considerations, and within any limitations imposed by such an analysis;

2) that future growth be clustered, in order to preserve open land, and to render utilityservices and public transportation feasible and economical.

The present document seeks to apply these principles in a way that will insure a futuresatisfactory to us all.



SECTION I: Values, Goals and Objectives

The planning process begins with analysis, and ends, if it ever does, with implementation. Themechanism through which the planner gets from one to the other is the exercise of "choice".Choices among alternatives are made on the basis of how well each option conforms to anestablished set of goals - how far and how fast each alternative will take us toward what we see as a

desirable future. For purposes of this study, goals are distinguished from objectives in that theformer retain application over time, while the latter have immediate, short-term validity. Finally,

goals and objectives are a reflection of values, "the things of social life (ideals, customs,institutions) toward which the members of a given society have demonstrated an affective regard."

Traditionally speaking, values have no place within the planning process, yet it is impossible not

to see how they are really the framework on which the entire process is built. "Individual andcollective values are the background for making choices, and must be understood and honored in planning if plans are to be most useful." In short, we must isolate our values and use them toformulate our goals; we must then use our goals to evaluate our alternatives and make choices.

In contemporary society, values are never held universally; rather, they vary from person to

person and community to community. The values which underlie the growth of an urban center arenot the same as those which underlie the preservation of a rural area. The individual values that a

planner endorses as a professional are often at odds with the collective values of the community heserves. In a pluralistic society, whose values, then, are to be regarded as fundamental to the

formulation of future plans?

Obviously, what are needed are values which are sufficiently general to enjoy majorityacceptance, and at the same time are specific enough that meaningful and practical goals and

objectives may be derived from them. To articulate such a set of values is the first task informulating any plans for the future.

The existing underlying values of the residents of Morris County as they apply to the physicaland social structuring of the future, can best be seen by examining the mechanisms through whichthese values are articulated. According to the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission:

Zoning and permanent open space presumably represent what governmentand institutions do to confirm and enhance the aggregate choices of their

constituents. ....Such existing conditions may tend to represent whatindividuals and communities have decided they want in each place. Theymay serve as evidence that characteristics deserving of such choices are present there, and that people are there who have chosen them. These arereasonable assumptions, and for building a stable society, the peoples'

choices are worthy of respect.

Thus, to ascertain the prevailing values in Morris County, the Morris County Planning Boardhas examined extensively local zoning and master planning, issues of local political concern, andwork programs of organizations operating on a County-wide basis. It has also examined the values

expressed by agencies and institutions operating over larger areas which include Morris County.



VALUES: There would seem to be three sets of values pursued in the County at the same time.Although each set is the particular concern of one broad interest group, there is actuallyconsiderable overlapping among them, and little or no inevitable contradiction.

* One set is represented by the coalition of human rights groups, and agencies for publicwelfare. Its primary value seems to be "the organization of an equitable society." From this value,variety and equality of opportunity, fuller participation for all people in community affairs,"human”

standards in housing, income, employment and education are seen as necessary conditions for asatisfying life.

* Another set of values is represented by those groups associated in their concern for the entireecosystem, where the ecosystem is seem as having rights apart from, and transcendent to,

individual human rights. This value may be stated as the desire "to preserve and rehabilitate the physical environment." From this point of view, the preservation of open space and the

safeguarding of water supplies are seen as desirable.

* Yet another set of values is represented by the economic interests within the County.Generalized sufficiently, this value is expressed by the desire to "harness natural forces, such that

the future of Morris County is built with skill and purpose." It is from this value that an increase inmaterial goods, in personal space in available power, in income and in leisure, are seen as desirable.

There need be no contradiction among these three sets of values, and in fact, most MorrisCounty residents endorse them all. Together they suggest three desires, for: equality, harmony and

efficiency. Expressed as one over-arching value, they become: "to achieve an equitable balance between the needs of man and the demands of the environment.

In deriving goals from the foregoing values, we are trying primarily to answer the question,

"What can be done within the scope of planning to bring about or perpetuate values which are presently held by a majority of Morris County residents?" It is important to emphasize that physical

detail is not warranted at this stage of planning. As the Tri-State Regional Planning Commissionsays:

It is more reasonable to outline the values and goals that guide subsequent plan making than to design places and structures, especially sincetechnological innovation and economic change produce uncertainties of high order. More detailed plans will be derived as needed - in separatefunctional systems and in shorter time spans. Detail will also be possible inlocal planning work.

In creating a series of goals, the most important factor to consider is that the goals, taken

together, represent no contradiction of the prevailing opinion of County residents, and that they be

general enough to retain application over time. Goals are, by our definition, "long-term" goals. For our purposes, "short-term goals" are called "objectives" and will be discussed subsequently.

GOALS: The following are eight goals for the future of Morris County.

1. Support the establishment of an equitable tax base.

The present system of dependence on a localized land tax to support local schools has often ledmunicipalities to create industrial zones in places not necessarily suited to a labor force,



transportation routes and municipal services. It has contributed to the "strip" commercialdevelopment found along major roads, and it has led to the practice of "upgrading" residentialzones to produce fewer and more expensive homes, on the theory that fewer homes generate fewer school children. Under the present tax structure, municipalities have had no choice but to allow tax

revenues to dictate local planning and zoning. In the future, however, an active commitment must be made by all individuals, agencies and institutions to find a more feasible alternative to the

present situation.

2. Balanced and diversified economic growth, coordinated with transportation, utilities, andenvironmental limitations.

The substance of this goal is to achieve an equitable number of employment opportunities with

respect to population. It seeks to insure that jobs requiring various levels of skill and/or educationwill always be available to the citizens of the County. It seeks to insure that both small and large

industries will continue to locate in Morris County to mutual benefit. It emphasizes that, for reasonsof economy and efficiency, any new economic activities will be located in areas easy to serve byutilities and easy to reach by some major transportation system. Finally, it indicates that all futuredevelopment proceed within the limitations imposed by sound environmental analysis.

3. Increased suitability of municipal services to land use; adequate capacity of both physical andsocial support systems.

It is imperative that at full implementation of the Plan, municipal water and sewer services, and

solid waste disposal, be available to as many residences and businesses as is physically feasible andecologically sound. It is equally imperative that new growth be directed such that these increases inservices will be available economically. A part of this goal indicates that schools, health facilities,and other essential services should be planned to keep pace with any new growth. (See Water Supply Element and Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element of the Morris County Master Plan.)

4. Increased scope of public transportation.

Full implementation of the Plan does not necessarily suggest any major new highwayconstruction, or any further construction of rail lines. However, it is imperative that new growth be

designed to make fuller use of those facilities and services already available, and that service alongexisting lines be increased. It is also foreseen that public transportation will achieve greater significance as it comes to be seen as a necessary alternative to the private automobile, with itsattendant problems of pollution, energy availability, and congestion. Therefore, this goal is meant

to suggest increased availability of bus and rail transportation, and examination of other innovative programs of public transportation. (See forthcoming Transportation Element of the Morris County

Master Plan.)

5. Maintenance of "human" standards in housing, employment, income and education.

The standard of living presently enjoyed by the majority of Morris County residents is at a veryhigh level. Median family income is significantly higher than the regional average. The quality of

public education and the degree of educational attainment are likewise high for the region. On theother hand, the number of sub-standard housing units is significantly lower than the regional

average. However, even within the County, some are prevented from exercising free choice in



housing, education, jobs and recreation because of malfunctions in the social and economic system.While the problem of poverty has not reached the dramatic proportions evident elsewhere in theregion, it nevertheless exists. In setting this goal, we seek to maintain our present high standards,and to bring them within the reach of all County residents.

6. Provision for a variety of individual choices in life styles and living spaces.

Sociological research would seem to indicate that Americans have a marked preference for single family detached housing, and that such a preference is directly related to increase in income.It is anticipated that Morris County residents will continue to express such a preference, and thatthe private market will continue to reflect it by providing more single family detached housing.However, other types of housing are often preferred by sub-segments of a demographically mixed

population; the elderly and the newly-married, for instance, have no need for large living areas.Therefore, the future goals for Morris County should include adequate provision for other types of

housing in sufficient numbers to provide a choice for all residents. Even within the majoritycategory of single family detached housing, variations in density and design should be provided toaccommodate individual preferences.

7. Preservation of adequate open space, unique natural features and historical assets; provision for sufficient recreational facilities.

The character which defines Morris County today is the product of two primary factors: the physical appearance of the land, and the history and traditions associated with it. It is both desirable

and inevitable that Morris County should grow in response to the pressures from areas surroundingit. However, it is important that in responding to those pressures, and in absorbing its fair share of growth, the physical character of the County - its openness and suburbanness - as well as itsimportance as watershed and air filter, should not be compromised. It is equally important that itshistorical and architectural heritage should be preserved. (See Open Space Element and HistoricPreservation Element of the Morris County Master Plan.)

8. Maintenance at both the local and County levels of a physical and social sense of community.

It is of great importance, as population increases and grows more mobile, that communities be

planned on a scale which helps each resident achieve a sense of pride and belonging. It is equallyimportant for any necessary social change and improvement that residents retain the belief that their towns, communities and neighborhoods are accountable to and controllable by themselves.

People are sensible and their actions are rational. Starting from that belief,our plan is to accommodate public preference to the extent that they can bediscerned, so long as they do not work unfair disadvantage to others. Thus,we wish people to select their housing, rather than impose a choice made

by government or elite groups. Likewise we want entrepreneurs to chooselocations for commerce to the best interests of the economy. However,

some public intervention is needed to maintain direction toward regionalgoals. In combination, these private and public actions lead to a pattern of land use that best serves the general welfare. (Regional DevelopmentGuide, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission, p. 10.)



The goals formulated above are expected to retain their validity over a considerable period of time. The objectives which follow, however, constitute what the Morris County Planning Boardfeels should be its position for the next several years. This position should be periodically reviewedand revised to take into account conditions which are constantly changing. Since, according to

present legislation, the Planning Board is actually able to do very little to implement its ideas, andsince, in any case, the Board stands firmly against imposing its ideas either on local government or

the private sector, the objectives outlined here are stated only in the form of recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: The Morris County Planning Board recommends:

1. Those future economic activities be located within existing economic concentrations, and withinfeasible utility networks. The low-density scatteration of any but residential, agricultural or open

space uses constitutes a waste of limited natural resources, renders unviable the existing urbanconcentrations, and relegates much needed public transportation to the status of "the impossible

dream."

2. That more intensive use be made of lands which are to be used at all, such that intense useswould be gathered in concentrations, with decreasingly intense uses radiating outward from

them. Such use would render municipal services both cheaper and more efficient, would facilitate public transportation collection points, and would create a sense of community identification.

3. That, consonant with its Open Space Element, acquisition of adequate open space for future population should proceed without delay. The board rejects the notion that large open spaces

should exist, de facto, only on the periphery of urban areas, but insists that such areas should beintegrated into other forms of development. While not meaning to minimize the necessity for developed recreational areas, we feel that at the present time, limited capital resources are bestused for acquisition.

4. That future water supply, in the form of major watersheds, prime aquifer recharge areas,

reservoir or well-field areas, headwaters of major streams, steep slopes, wetlands and major wildlife habitats be preserved from urban encroachment and pollution. Those which cannot be preserved by direct public acquisition or regulatory legislation should at least be zoned for leastintensive uses (large lot residential). "Low density zoning is the least costly governmental action

to preserve openness in the form of private open space."

5. That Morris County recognize its obligation to a regional housing crisis, and respond by creatinghousing types (apartments, townhouses, etc.) which do not exist in reasonable numbers in the

County at present. Corollary, that some effort be made to encourage housing at a cost viable for the low-moderate income workers, the young and the elderly, who already live and work in

Morris County and who are necessary to the County's continued prosperity.

6. That Morris County assume its responsibility as custodian of a unique and valuable historicalheritage, and that it make every effort to preserve that heritage intact, to be passed down as a gift

to its future generations; that to do this, it rely on the recommendations of the forthcomingHistoric Preservation Element of the Morris County Master Plan.

Rev. 12/4/75



7. Finally, that Morris County strive in its planning, both at the local and County level, to achieveconsistency of objectives with those organizations planning for the entire region of which theCounty is a part, and that the Morris County Planning Board take responsibility for fostering anattitude of mutual cooperation among the municipalities of Morris County.



SECTION II: BACKGROUND

Perhaps more than by any abstract statement of long range goals and objectives, the shape andstyle of a future Morris County will be largely determined by the shape and style which hasevolved in the County in the past. In turn, this style has evolved as a response to the naturalconditions with which the County has been either blessed or afflicted. In large measure, past

"givens" determine future conclusions. There is a planning axiom which states that "Wheredevelopment exists it will probably persist." One store tends to attract others; proximity of utility

service networks tends to attract development of all kinds, and, similarly, the transportationarteries, product of planning decisions made long ago, will continue to influence the planningdecisions made years from now. This is all as it should be; the desire for economy and efficiency isfundamental value of contemporary society, and it is most easily actuated when the existing

structures of the past are used and built upon for the advantage of the present and future.

The existing conditions which will influence the future of Morris County are of two generaltypes: natural and man-made. The former includes three specific areas: topography and geology,

hydrology and ecology. Since natural conditions have a certain historical priority, they will betreated first.

NATURAL DETERMINANTS

1. Topography and Geology

By topography, this study means the surface land forms which influence any kind of

development; correspondingly, by geology is meant the subsurface structures (soil types, bedrock,etc.) which have a similar influence. In practice, they are not easily separable, since certain surfacemanifestations are often associated with certain subsurface characteristics, and it is sometimesdifficult to say whether a developmental limitation is being imposed strictly for a topographical or ageological consideration.

In a previously published analysis, Land and Its Use, Part I: Physical Characteristics, the Morris

County Planning Board has analyzed in detail the topographical and geological conditions existingin Morris County. Furthermore, the Morris County Soil Conservation District has completed anexhaustive soil analysis (detailing as well degrees of limitation to various kinds of developmentimposed by various geological conditions) for the entire County. These two studies are invaluable

inputs into the present document, and are recommended to any reader interested in more refinedinformation than the general conclusions presented here.

In attempting to determine the limitations on both the scope and location of future development,

negative topographical and geological conditions were mapped (Physical Constraints). These

negative determinants were of three general types: a) slope, b) depth to bedrock, and c) drainagecharacteristics (including seasonal high water tables). In isolating various conditions, a deliberatelyconservative approach was adopted. Thus, where certain soil types might often have a deleteriouseffect on development, they were not isolated, but only those types were mapped where such adeleterious effect would always (or almost always) be the case. Similarly, slopes which would

negatively affect certain types of development but not others were not removed from the availableland reserve; only those were removed which would present problems to all (or almost all) types of

development. Finally, no criterion laid down is meant either as a blanket prohibition or as a blanket



endorsement for any development whatsoever. In our technological age, if we have learned onething, it is certainly that NO natural obstacle absolutely cannot he overcome. Rather, bearing inmind our previously stated values of economy and efficiency, the negative characteristics mappedsuggest unfeasibility rather than impossibility.

a) Slopes

Slopes of 15% and greater (i.e., land rising vertically more than 15 feet in a horizontal distanceof 100 feet) were removed from the available land pool. Land in the lower end of this category canusually be used for detached residential dwellings on medium or large lots, but is generallyconsidered too steep for small lot residential use. Occasionally, such areas could be used for apartment buildings, but only if extreme care is employed in site planning. Lands at the higher end

of the spectrum (greater than 25~) except for very minimal development, are normally suited onlyfor wildlife and woodland uses. About 46,000 acres, or 15% of the County, fall into the 15% and

greater category.

In addition to the obvious difficulties of trying to place relatively high intensity uses on areashaving extreme slopes, other difficulties may be encountered with construction in such areas. These

include a likelihood of increased excavation costs due to close bedrock (depth to bedrock tends to be shallower as slope is steeper), restricted internal drainage which tends to reduce theeffectiveness of septic tank operations and increase installation costs, and increased water supply problems because of hard rock ridges normally underlying these lands.

Low intensity uses, especially low density residential uses, can be developed on all but the verysteepest slopes if soil conditions are satisfactory and if the added costs make it worthwhile.However, the more intense the use, the more likely costs and difficulties are to increase when building on steeper land.

b) Depth to Bedrock

Inadequate depth to bedrock reduces development potential by increasing the difficulty of

excavation, hampering the effectiveness of septic systems, making ground water difficult to tap, or by increasing the cost of providing municipal water and sewer systems. Generally in Morris

County, shallow-lying bedrock occurs in areas where slope is 15 or greater, and the PhysicalConstraints Map employs a separate designation for the overlapping of these two categories.Obviously, either presents difficulty; their concurrence presents twice as much.

Occasionally, however, certain soils are encountered with shallow bedrock even when slope isnot severe. These areas have also been isolated and mapped.

It is important here to point out that for certain uses, depths to bedrock of, for instance, 10 feet

would present problems; however, a conservative approach was adopted again, and only thoseareas having bedrock lying at less than 6 feet have been isolated.

c) Drainage

Finally, within the broader categories of topography and geology, the drainage characteristics

which negatively influence development have been isolated and mapped. Within this area areincluded most flood plains (associated generally with major water courses), areas where soil type



does not allow the percolation of normal storm water (i.e., areas of ponding, and retention of storm water at or near the surface), and areas with a seasonally high water table. As with other

categories, cases can be made that a water table at 6 feet could be a severe developmentallimitation, but adopting the conservative approach, only those having a water table at 2 feet or lesshave been mapped.

It need hardly be stated why drainage conditions ought to be considered of paramountimportance in assessing the development potential of a given area. Morris County in the past has been all too familiar with the hazards of building on the flood plain. Furthermore, the inability of saturated soils to accept effluent, or else to discharge it by seepage as a pollutant into the ground

aquifers is so obvious as to require no comment. Finally, the instability of saturated soils for foundations and roadbeds makes almost every intense use of wetlands quite unacceptable.

Thus, the Physical Constraints Map represents four categories (one of which is a combination of two others), each of which is sufficient to function as a major deterrent upon development.

2. Hydrology

Another of the primary natural determinants to any future land use policy, as it has been to

previous County development, is the hydrology of the region. The water resources of a given areaare the product of a complex cycle involving rainfall, ground cover, surface topography and

subsurface structure. Changes to any one of these things - the removal of trees or the paving over of a single acre - have serious repercussions to the cycle as a whole. This does not mean that no treeshould be removed or that no further development should take place, but it does mean that seriousconsideration should be given to the long range effects on the hydrological cycle of any proposed

development. The primary concern for the future must be to insure sufficient water of acceptablequality for the needs of Morris County's residential and industrial population.

At present, the largest percentage of Morris County's potable water comes from subsurface

aquifers. Surface supplies in the past have been developed for out-of-County consumption,although future surface supplies are planned to be developed for in-County use (see the Water

Supply Element of the Morris County Master Plan). However, even if all presently contemplatedsurface supplies are developed, the major source of water for the County will continue to be theground supply.

In a study done in 1956 (Future Water Supply Requirements for Morris County) the MorrisCounty Planning Board analyzed the safeyield capacity of the subsurface aquifers. Table 1 attemptsto use this information, as well as currently available information regarding surface supplies (fromthe Water Supply Element of the Morris County Master Plan) and estimates of future per capita

consumption (from the Regional Development Guide, Tri-State Regional Planning Commission) toarrive at a population figure safely supported by the water resources of Morris County.

To do this, certain assumptions have been made, some of which are only tenuously supportable;

therefore, the final figure should be regarded as an indicator only, and not as an emphaticconclusion. For purposes of indication, it was assumed that:



--- All subsurface aquifers were equally available, irrespective of the physical andeconomic feasibility of tapping them.

--- The feasibility of transporting water from its subsurface source or its surface

storage point to the point of its demand was not considered.

--- No other surface supplies than those presently approved would be developed.

--- No qualitative or economic distinction between surface and subsurface supplieswas taken into account, although it is patently true that subsurface supplies tendto be purer, thus requiring less treatment, and tend to be cheaper to develop.

--- Water presently taken out of Morris County would continue to be withdrawn in

the same volume.

--- No water would be brought into the County other than that presently brought inor approved presently to be brought in.

--- Per capita daily water consumption by the year 2000 would be in the range of

150-200 gallons per day.

--- No major change would occur in the reuse of water. (The state of currenttechnology indicates that water reuse plans are presently too tentative to figure

into future projections. This is, however, not to minimize the importance of suchreuse technology.)

Given these assumptions, the per diem safe yield of the subsurface aquifers was added to the

safe yield of the surface supplies available for in-County use; that figure was divided by the per capita per diem consumption figure; the result is the population accommodated by the safe yield of

all presently available water resources.

It is important here to emphasize that the ability of the subsurface aquifers to produce variesinversely with the demands made upon them. That is to say that development, regardless of type,

tends to make water demands on the subsurface supply, i.e., the draw from the aquifer is greater. Atthe same time, however, the very fact that development exists at all decreases the yield capacity of the aquifer; i.e., development implies paving, or lawns, or roof area, all of which interfere with therecharge ability of the subsurface supply. In fact, this process is already well under way, and one of

the reasons cited in the Water Supply Element of the Morris County Master Plan, (at page 20) for developing surface supply is that the water table in some sections of the County has been declining

over the last 30-40 years. In anticipating population for 1990-2000, the Element pointed out that toaccommodate that projected population, Morris County would have to import water from outside

its own borders. It is not the position of this study to deplore that necessity, but it is imperative thatthe ramifications of that solution be constantly in mind when all future development is

contemplated.



3. Ecology

A final natural determinant to future land use policy, which must be treated briefly, is theecology of the region as a whole. Here there is a problem, first because the very term has, in its too

frequent and indiscreet application, been utterly devalued to the point where it has become the jingoistic rallying cry for every minor preservation project in the County; second, because there isan inherently unquantifiable element to "ecology"as opposed to topographical or hydrological data.

"Ecology" is the interfunctioning of man with his environment, and simply stated, it means that"everything is related to everything else." A plan which regards ecology as a natural determinant toits policies and conclusions is simply one which commits itself to taking account of as much as

possible, from the natural water cycle to the housing needs of an expanding population. It isintended that this be such a plan.

MAN-MADE DETERMINANTS

The importance of man-made existing conditions in determining the shape of the future cannot be overemphasized. Unfortunately, the situation encountered by the "new-town" planner, where allfacilities are laid out on a virgin site by the same agency at the same time, is not the general rule.

Rather, the planner usually must cope with the physical manifestations of planning decisions madeand implemented long ago, generally by someone with whom he disagrees. Thus, in planning for the future of Morris County, existing land use, which represents the wisdom (or lack of it) of previous generations must be taken as prime. Future plans will either be an effort to capitalize on past workable solutions or to correct what are now seen as past mistakes. Continuing an analysis of background conditions for a future land use plan, three further categories will be examined: 1)

existing land use, in order to locate present economic and residential concentrations, and equallyimportant, in order to locate the best available resources of vacant land; 2) zoning, which will givesome indication of what current municipal governments see as the desirable growth patterns for thefuture, and 3) transportation, the effect of which on future land use is tremendous and the control of

which is often farthest removed from municipal or county control.

1. Existing Land Use

In the 1966 report, Land and Its Use, Part 2, the Morris County Planning Board undertook an

inventory of various land use categories on both a County-wide and a municipal basis. Thisinventory has been most recently updated for the year 1970. Table 2A summarizes the conclusions

of the updated inventory.

Several conclusions are demonstrated by this data:

--- That as of 1970, only 37~ of the land area of the County has been developed.

--- That of all uses, residential uses have been the most predominant, and that amongthe various residential uses, low density residential use has consumed the greatestland area.

--- That the historical importance of agriculture in Morris County, althoughdiminished over the last several decades, was still significantly retained as of 1970.



--- That to the present time, the major concentration of development has been in theeastern and central sections of Morris County.

Table 3 seeks to locate and characterize by Region the vast quantities of undeveloped land

indicated by Table 2A.



In deriving "Developable Land" from the gross vacant land figures, the considerations outlinedin the Environmental Constraints section have been drawn upon. Thus, those vacant areas which

were seen to have steep slopes, shallow depth to bedrock or drainage problems were subtractedfrom vacant land to obtain the "Developable Land" fiqures. However. the Table must be qualifiedas follows:

The figures given for "Swamp and Water are taken from the 1970 land use analysis prepared bythe Morris County Planning Board. These figures are derived from a process of aerial photographicinterpretation and represent only those areas having surface manifestations of some drainage related problem. The Physical Constraints Map, however, which is based on soils analysis, delineates all

those areas having drainage related problems, whether or not they are visible to surface photography. Thus, while Table 3 shows only approximately 20% of the County's area affected by

some drainage related constraint, the map indicates that the figure should be roughly 75 to 100%again as large. The figures for "Developable Land" on Table 3 should be reduced accordingly.While Table 2A indicates that nearly two-thirds of the County consisted of vacant land, Table 3,taken together with the Physical Constraints Map, indicates that approximately half that land, for

one or another physiographic reason, has distinctly limited development potential.

On a regional basis, it can be seen that vacant developable land is most plentiful in Regions 2, 5and 8, and only slightly less so in Regions 6 and 7.

It is important here to note, however, that one significant consideration has not been reflected inthe foregoing tables: that vast amounts of land technically classified as vacant are not really unusedat all, since they are presently fulfilling vital functions as major watersheds - insuring that theground water supply is recharged and maintained at an acceptable quality, and fulfilling the samefunction for various surface supplies, both reservoirs and streams, which are used as sources for potable water. Future policy for the use or disuse of such lands will be discussed elsewhere.

The existing land use map appearing in this report is a schematic representation of County landuse derived from computer maps based on 1970 updating of the Planning Board's existing land useinformation. The format of squares results from the fact that the computerized information is based

on a one-quarter square mile grid, the grid utilized by the then Tri-State Transportation Committee(now the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission) in its original land use survey covering Morris

County. The original 1962 information has been corrected and updated to 1970 by the CountyPlanning Staff. (See Land and Its Use, Part 2 Existing Land Use, 1966 and 1970 computer print-out, Morris County Planning Board.)

The purpose of the map is only to show the very general pattern of land uses in Morris County

as a whole - it is not presented for the purpose of being able to pick out land uses in particular partsof municipalities. What it does show is the concentration of the County's development in theroughly triangular area between Butler and Riverdale in the northeast, Chatham in the southeast

and Netcong in the western part of the County. It also shows the areas in the County in whichfarming is a significant land use.



The following cautions should also be used in regard to this map:

1) While on the map it is only possible to allocate one use to each square, in most cases there isactually more than one use within each quarter-square mile; four categories of land use per squareis not unusual, and in some cases there may be six or eight. For mapping purposes, an attempt was

made to pick the most significant (rather than the most extensive) use in each square, giving highest priority to "industrial" and "commercial and service," and the lowest to "vacant land." Thus, thecolor of each square does not necessarily represent the largest use in terms of land area within that

square, but rather the most significant. For example, in both Morristown and Dover there aresquares including parts of the central business districts that have between 31 and 40 of land area in"high density residential" and less than 10% in "commercial and service," but in both cases thelatter was picked as the most significant use. Had such a priority system not been incorporated, it is

possible that between two-thirds and three-quarters of the squares on the map would have shown upwith "vacant" as the most extensive single use, and there would have been only two "commercial"

squares in the entire County

2) The grid lines forming the squares on the map are actually only a representation of a modifiedgrid which was used to collect the land use data. Except in major water bodies and solidly-forested

areas, the modified grid lines follow visible features on the ground, such as roads, streams, power lines, edges of fields, etc. Because of this difficulty of finding suitable visible boundaries toapproximate the geometric grid, in some parts of the County there may be a noticeable offset between the two grids, any particular square on the map may show a land use in a somewhat

different location than the place of that use on the ground.

It must be emphasized again that the purpose of this map is only to show the general pattern of development in the County, and not to delineate exact uses at precise locations.

Viewed historically, the growth of Morris County has proceeded in a logical fashion largely as aresult of the following factors: 1) availability of vacant developable land, and 2) proximity to theolder and larger economic concentrations of Newark and New York. The pattern of that growth has proceeded east to west, with pressure for development felt first in the areas closest to the urbancenters. Presently existing land use reflects that pattern, in that development is both older and more

intense in the ring closest to Newark and New York, decreasing in intensity as distance from theMetropolitan area increases. The pattern is usually one of changing uses, with agricultural usesgiving way to residential uses, and with commercial and industrial uses added later.

The historical pattern of land use in Morris County has been the development of well-defined

towns (Morristown is the best example) with a clustering of commercial and high density

residential uses near the center, and lower density residential uses fanning out from them. Thedevelopment of the towns of Dover, Butler and Boonton has been comparable, where industrialfacilities functioned to create a center with decreasingly intense uses around them.

The catalyst for past growth has often been transportation; generally a road created access to an

area (later a canal or railroad might do the same thing) and a town grew around it. The location of several services in one place created a magnet which drew additional concentrations of relatively



mobile population. These factors were responsible for Morris County's growth, and the pattern of that growth, well into the twentieth century.

What has happened in the last several decades does not necessarily violate the logic of the past,

but it has changed the pattern. Increased prosperity and advanced technology have created a highlymobile population, and the automobile has become standard equipment for the average citizen.Thus, the transportation network has been drastically expanded, opening, as a result, vast tracts of

hitherto inaccessible land. It is no longer necessary to live within walking distance of services andfacilities, since good roads and fast cars can get us anywhere easily and quickly. The result of thisconstellation of factors can be seen in the existing land use in Morris County (see map: "Existing

Land Use, 1970"). The older towns are still visible as concentrations on the map, but there are alsogreat scatterings and discoordinations of land uses. Commercial land uses no longer have anyreason to cluster around one another, and they exhibit a dispersed pattern along major roads.Residential facilities no longer have any reason to cluster around commercial facilities, and they

too exhibit a dispersed pattern. Other characteristics of existing land use in Morris County areimpossible to represent graphically, and yet they are equally important to any discussion of land

use: the physical and economic decay of the historical centers, the increased pollution andcongestion of the major roads, the added costs of providing municipal services to scattered

residential and commercial facilities, the increased pollution of rivers, streams and lakes.

The factors which have influenced the growth of Morris County in the past are still present:vacant land, proximity to an urban core, and the existence of a transportation network. Analysis of existing land use gives a fair indication of where such pressures for growth are most likely to be feltand what such growth is likely to look like, unless policies governing future land use are altered.

2. Zoning

If existing land use shows the visible consequences of past developmental decisions, municipalmaster plans and zoning ordinances as they function to implement these master plans indicate what

local officials see presently as acceptable future developments. Before examining zoning in anydetail, however, it is necessary to note that zoning is merely a tool for carrying out land use policy;it should never be allowed to be a determinant itself of that policy. Corollary to this, it cannot beoveremphasized that local land use policy (and hence zoning) has been influenced to a tremendousextent by the still-current localized land taxing system. Under this system, municipalities have been

forced to try to limit school enrollment (the school being the recipient of the major share of the taxdollar) while at the same time maximizing the number of tax ratables within the municipality. This policy has several dubious consequences.

Because more houses generate more children, the municipalities have sought to limit the number

of houses; they have done this primarily through the device of large lot zoning - requiring that most

future residential construction be allowed only at a density of one dwelling unit per acre or more.At the same time, industry has been encouraged to locate within most municipalities, on theassumption that it would provide high tax returns while demanding relatively few services. It must be emphasized that the tax structure has given the municipalities the impression that they had littlechoice in the matter of land use policy, but it must also be emphasized that this program had several

drastic consequences.



Large lot zoning, especially in very recent years, has guaranteed that the houses built are withinthe reach of only upper income families, thereby contributing to the low, moderate and middle

income housing crisis which exists within the County and the entire Metropolitan region. And evenwith large lot zoning where houses tend to have several bedrooms, and are therefore attractive to people with more children, school enrollments (and taxes) have continued to rise, with the added

disadvantage that providing municipal services to scattered low density residential communities has become increasingly expensive. On the other hand, in competing with each other for industrialratables, municipalities have zoned industrially areas not necessarily suited to the character of the

land, the availability of a labor force or of public transportation. When such industrial facilitieshave been built, they have strained the highway system, and their workers have created housingdemands which aggravate already serious housing difficulties.



A recent landmark court decision (Judge Theodore Botter, in Robinson v. Cahill, N.J. Sup. Ct.A-58) has declared the present tax system to support local schools inequitable and, therefore,

unconstitutional under the State Constitution another decision (Oakwood at Madison v. Townshipof Madison 117 N.J. Super 11 Superior Court 1971, still on appeal as of Sept. 1974) declared thatlarge lot zoning based solely on a desire to limit school enrollment was unconstitutional; several

other cases challenging the right of municipalities to fail to provide a residential mix (i.e., to fail to provide multi-family housing) are still before the courts. In view of these actions, extensiveanalysis of local zoning is pointless.

Table 4, however, gives an indication of the zoning trends operative in the last 20 years. The two

most significant facts to be seen from this table are that areas zoned residentially for one acre or more have increased dramatically, and that areas zoned industrially have trebled, to the point that if

all such zoned areas were so developed, the proportion of industrial usage would far exceed the percentage recommended for these uses by the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission. Table 5further refines these figures for the year 1970. Commercial zoning has increased over this time period as well (from 3.0% in 1950 to 4.8~ in 1970). It is significant to note that the commercial

growth accommodated by this zoning has not occurred in the older town centers, but rather as stripdevelopment along major roads.

It remains to be added that the zoning picture in Morris County is not entirely negative. Severalmunicipalities have begun to use their zoning power creatively and to good ends. Conservationzones are being added to protect unique and valuable ecological assets, historical zones are being

contemplated to afford the same protection to historical buildings and districts, cluster zoning seeksto preserve common open space, and PUD ordinances seek to create communities offering alternatehousing types in close proximity to support services and employment. In many cases, however,zoning in Morris County persists as an extension of questionable former practices.

3. Transportation

Existing land use and transportation exhibit a mutual dependence on one another, and will bothhave a major effect on future land use. The trend of the last decades toward spread development has

increased dependence on the automobile. At the same time, the development of the highway systemhas encouraged spread development. In the foreseeable future it is not likely that the preeminence

of the private automobile will be seriously challenged. Two things, however, are of vital concern.The first is that the automobile must be put back in its proper place as only one part of acoordinated transportation system, and not be viewed as the only part of that system. Second, theexpansion of the highways presently under way must be completed, and the new roads (287, 80,

etc.) must be preserved for their primary purpose of carrying through traffic, and not have their

functions perverted as were the functions of the older Routes 10 and 46, which have been allowedto become unsafe, inefficient, extended shopping malls.

At present, Morris County has the other elements of a coordinated transportation system. Exceptin the northeastern section of the County, most older centers are supplied with passenger rail

service. Thanks largely to a substantial State subsidy program, suburban passenger service on theErie-I.ackawanna has remained reliable and well patronized. In the last seven years, the use of theRailway has been increasing, and the New Jersey Transportation Master Plan calls for the re-



electrification and modernization of both the Morristown and Gladstone branches to moderatedensity suburban service standards. In addition, plans have been formulated to electrify the E-L between Dover and Netcong, thus allowing extension of electrified passenger service to the westernedge of the County. A further result of these improvements, currently projected by E-L officials for

completion in 1978, would be direct access of at least some E-L trains to Penn Station in MidtownManhattan. In addition, a new park and ride station in Parsippany-Troy Hills to serve the Littleton

area and the Route 10 corridor of the County has been proposed; and the feasibility of a new

transportation center in the Netcong area is also being studied. While no new rail lines arecontemplated, expanded utilization of the existing lines appears to be a reality for the near future.

Morris County is served on a daily basis by seven bus companies, five of which are primarilyinter-county and/or inter-state carriers whose routes for the most part connect various sections of Morris County with New York, Newark or Paterson. Of the thirteen routes providing at least somedegree of intra-County transportation, the three County-sponsored bus routes offer the most

extensive and most frequent service. The schedules of the County routes have been geared tocoordinate as much as possible with existing rail service and employment hours of the major

industries and institutions in the County. Additional County-sponsored bus routes are beingconsidered to serve areas in need of public transportation where none currently exists. Local bus

service (as opposed to longer distance express service) is very rarely self-supporting, and it isanticipated that additional existing bus routes may have to come under County-State operation in

the near future.

In addition, the Morris County Department on Aging has applied for funds to institute a County-wide "Dial-A-Ride" service for senior citizens for certain necessary types of trips, and six

municipalities have recently started their own local bus services, two of which are limited to senior citizens only. Several other municipalities are contemplating inaugurating similar services in the

near future.

Even with all of the existing and proposed services enumerated above, large portions of the

population of Morris County do not and will not have adequate public transportation available. Tothe extent that Morris County continues to grow in a pattern of spread-out, low-densitydevelopment, the less feasible it will be to provide satisfactory public transportation. On the other hand, to the extent that future growth can be guided to take place in accessible centers of higher density, the greater the percentage of the County's population that will be able to have public

transportation available .

According to the New Jersey Transportation Master Plan, aviation is increasing, and willcontinue to increase, in importance as a mode of transportation over the next several years.Statewide, all existing facilities were already operating at 70% capacity by 1971, with completeutilization expected within 5 years. The Plan places two-thirds of Morris County within the critical

service area needing expanded airport facilities. At present there are only two private airports in theCounty serving general aviation, in addition to the publicly-owned Morristown Airport, theCounty's major aviation facility. The State is in the process of developing a General AviationAirport System Plan, which will include both Morristown and Lincoln Park Airports as members.A new facility in the Dover area is also a potential part of this Plan.

In sum, the primary problem with transportation in Morris County today is that the dispersal of development during the last quarter century has created near-exclusive dependence on private



automobiles, as well as rendering unsubsidized public transportation (which relies onconcentrations of people at collection points) unfeasible. In turn, deterioration of publictransportation systems creates further dependence on private transportation. While the present railsystem is still functioning efficiently, and efforts are being made to revitalize bus service, the

success of both will depend extensively upon future land use planning.



SECTION III: PROJECTIONS

In any future-oriented activity, there is often a radical disjunction between what appears, on the basis of past trend analysis, to be going to happen, and what, on the basis of a developed set of goals and objectives, ought to be happening. This kind of disjunction is apparent in the land use policies of Morris County. For example, with population, by using past population trends and

distribution, and a demographical analysis of gross population, it is possible to predict withreasonable accuracy the gross population, both its distribution and its demographic composition for

some future point in time. Analysis of the trend ratio between population and employment, andanalysis of employment distribution and present trends, will furnish reasonably accurate indicationsfor the future.

In making such predictions, however, it is important to note that changes in values or policiesare not taken into account. The projection may show clearly, for example, a growing disproportion between employment opportunities and population, utterly at variance with some goal. The projections, then, are valuable as indicators, but they are not to be considered inevitable. They

indicate what is likely to happen if present trends continue.

1. Population

In 1970, the last date for which reliable figures are available, the population of Morris Countywas 383,454. This figure is nearly half again as large as that for 1960, which in turn represented adoubling of population from as recently as 1940, with the greatest percentage of growth occurringin the 1950-60 decade. Since then, the rate of growth has declined somewhat (a significant fact

which is often overlooked since gross population continues to rise) and will continue to decline.

Population increase is the product of two factors: natural increase, and net in-migration. InMorris County for the last several decades, the latter has exceeded the former. In the decade 1960-70, for example, net in-migration was responsible for 69% of the County's growth.

Population projections for Morris County were determined by the Cohort Survival Method of

population projection, modified by local and regional growth factors. These projections werechecked against projections of other private and governmental agencies for consistency. The gross population was distributed according to the method outlined on the following page. Total birth ratewas estimated using the Series "E" Fertility Rate (2.11) of the U.S. Bureau of the Census. This rate

represents the "replacement level" fertility - in other words, a rate which approaches zero population growth. To determine total deaths, the Census Bureau's mortality rate was used. The product of these two factors yields net natural increase.

Several assumptions, related to local and regional growth factors, were made to project net in-

migration. They were as follows:

--- Access to and from Morris County will be positively influenced by the completion of

Interstates 287, 80 and 280.

--- Over one-half of Morris County is still vacant.

--- The zoning of several municipalities in Morris County indicates a willingness to accept newgrowth.



--- Recent building trends are higher than during the same period of the previous decade.

--- Out-migration from the Tri-State Metropolitan Core continues.

It is anticipated that growth in the County will continue at a rapid rate into the 1980's, and then begin a gradual decline. 1990 is the projected point at which natural increase will exceed netinmigration. Table 6 sets forth population projections for Morris County to the year 2000; projected

distribution of population by municipality to 1980 as shown in Table 7.

2. Distribution and Density

Through 1950, the bulk of population in Morris County was located in older town centers:Morristown, Dover, Boonton, Butler, Madison and Chatham. By 1970, however, the proportion of population contained in centers had decreased dramatically, with the bulk of population nowcontained in dispersed residential sub-divisions. It is not anticipated that this trend will changewithout a County-wide change in goals toward encouraging clustered growth. The distribution of population reflected in Table 7 assumes no such change, and has been developed from trends inrecent building activity, zoning availability of vacant land, access, and physical features.

County-wide population densities have been developed and are set forth in Table 8. It isanticipated that gross densities (person per acre of all County area) will increase from 1.3 persons per acre in 1970 to 2.1 persons per acre in 1990. If population density is projected only over landconsidered to be developed and "developable", the ratios increase forthe same time span from 1.7 in1970 to 2.8 in 1990.

The last figures on Table 8 show an interesting and possibly alarming situation. If population

projections for 1990 are accurate, Morris County may anticipate 246,000 more residents than it hadin 1970, or 61,500 more families of four. If each of these new families was to be housed in a newsingle-family housing unit at the 1973-74 average lot size for new subdivision in the County(approximately 1 acre), by 1990 the assumed residentially-available land in the County would be

completely used up - in fact, demand would exceed supply. Fortunately, not all of the housing unitscurrently being built are single family - in fact, in three of the five years between 1969 and 1973,multi-family units in the County amounted to between 38 and 55% of total new housing units(based on building permits issued). However, in the other two of those years, including 1973, building permits for multi-family units amounted to less than 13% of this total, meaning that over 87~ of dwelling units authorized by building permits were for single family units. It is the position

of this plan that the kind of spread development symbolized by these figures represents a veryundesirable pattern of growth for the future of Morris County, and a pattern that must be reversed.

3. Employment

Between 1940 and 1970, the population of Morris County tripled, while the number of employment opportunities quadrupled, reflecting the previously discussed trend of Morris County'smunicipalities to zone for, and encourage, industry. Even so, the 1970 Census indicated that half

again as many people traveled out of the County to work as traveled into it.

As the County becomes more urbanized and offers greater and more diversified employmentopportunities, however, it is anticipated that the flow of in-commuters will more closely approach

the flow of out-commuters.



Between 1970 and 1990, total employment opportunities in Morris County are expected toincrease from 121,000 to 195,300. These figures, set forth in Table 9, were derived from

projections made in the Population and Economic Base Study of Morris County, prepared for theMorris County Planning Board in 1969 by Sidney Hollander Associates. Utilizing the ratio of population to employment indicated by the Hollander study, the projections for employment were

adjusted to conform with the population projections refined since the publication of that report.Further refinement of the gross employment projections by category is considered unwarranted atthis time; however, the Hollander report projected certain categories of employment ("non-

manufacturing") to grow at above average rates, with which trend the present study agrees. Suchgrowth reflects the trend of finance, trade and research organizations, and of the managementfunction of national corporations, to locate in suburban areas in campus-style facilities.

4. Open Space

The Open Space Element of the Morris County Master Plan, adopted in 1972 and amended in1973, contains a detailed inventory of County open space. More importantly, it enunciates a set of

goals and objectives which are compatible and vital to the philosophy of the present report.Accepting the standards developed by the New Jersey State Open Space Master Plan, the CountyElement recommends the following ratios of publicly owned open space per 1000 population:

Federal 16 acres

State 24 "

County 12 "

Municipal 8 "

TOTAL 60 acres

Thus, for the 1970 population, the standards dictated 22,940 acres of publicly-owned open

space; the 1970 total, 21,180, was respectably close to that. Applying these standards to the currentadjusted population projections, 37,800 acres of publicly-owned open space will be required by1990, an increase of roughly 15,000 acres. These figures are to be regarded as a minimum, andactual acquisition should probably far exceed them.

It is suggested that the emphasis of the open space program in the near future should beacquisition, and that development of facilities should follow at a later date. It is further anticipatedthat means of open space acquisition other than purchase in fee simple - the employment of, for

instance, conservation easements and leasing, which are little used at present - will achieve greater importance in the future. Finally, it is proposed that much of the energy to be devoted to open space

will take the form of implementing the proposed system of linear parks and exploring the possibilities of compatible use of other publicly-owned lands

(e.g., watersheds) which is recommended in the Open Space Element.



5. Water Supply

Analysis of present water consumption in conjunction with projected population indicates a needfor developing additional water supplies on a long-term basis. In 1968, the estimated total water

consumption in the County from public water supplies was slightly over 30 million gallons per day,

resulting in a per capita consumption of approximately 100 gallons per day for the populationserved. It is projected that both the number of persons served by public supply and the per capitaconsumption will increase, to the point that by year 2000, per capita consumption should fall withinthe range of 150-200 gallons per day.

At present, practically all public purveyors within the County derive water supply from wells,with the greatest concentration of use paralleling areas of densest population (eastern and centralMorris County). There is observable here a gradual decline in the water table, indicating that theground supply (at least in projected areas of greatest population concentration) will be insufficientto meet projected demand. To this date, the major surface supplies developed in Morris Countyhave been primarily for out-of-County consumption.

The Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority has developed plans for an extensive surfacesupply system combining reservoirs with interconnecting transmission mains, and land acquisitionfor its implementation is well under way. General information relative to this system is containedon the water and sewer map with detailed information available in the Water Supply Element of the

Morris County Master Plan.

6. Sanitary Sewerage Facilities

At present, there are approximately eighty-five waste treatment plants in Morris County, serving45% of the present population. While a review of available stream water analyses indicated that at present County surface water is generally acceptable as a source of raw water supply, the low-flowconditions in certain streams and the volume of waste water from individual sewage treatment

plants, particularly in the Passaic Watershed, dictate the need for a higher degree of treatment in practically every plant in the County, especially since new stream quality criteria established by the

New Jersey Department of Health and the Department of Environmental Protection must be met.Although average flows are sufficient to provide adequate dilution of present volume of wastewater discharged, during periods of low-flow, dilution ratios of less than 1 to 1 are obtained, and atsuch times high coliform counts and low dissolved oxygen preclude the safe use of many streams

for water contact sports or the propagation of game fish.

Thus, in the future not only will new facilities have to be constructed to meet future demands, but existing facilities will have to be brought up to acceptable standards. This necessity grows even

more important when it is understood that dilution is no longer considered an acceptable means for bringing effluent quality up to required standards. It is anticipated that regional and sub-regional

facilities are to be constructed as warranted by population growth. A distillation of these plans iscontained on the Water and Sewer Plan map, and details are contained in the Sanitary SewerageFacilities Element of the Morris County Master Plan.



SECTION IV: DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN

From the foregoing projections, it is possible to see that the Morris County of 1990 is expectedto have 630,000 people - nearly 250,000 more than in 1970. These new residents will be housed inapproximately 75,000 new housing units, and will require, in order to achieve a healthy economic balance, nearly 75,000 new jobs. On the other hand, there are at the most, about 172 square miles

of developable land remaining, almost as much as is developed. According to an analysis made bythe County Planning Board of several urban areas similar to Morris County and several new town

proposals which represent current recommended ratios among various land uses, fully half thatland, or 86 square miles, will probably be available for residential construction, another 10% for commercial and industrial facilities, 18% for public open space, and the remainder taken up withstreets, highways and other public facilities.

According to the Regional Development Guide of the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission,the past sociological preference of the residents of the region - and of Morris County - is for singlefamily detached housing, and there seems little reason to suppose that a sociological preference so

strongly held is likely to change over the relatively short life of the Plan. Therefore, the RegionalDevelopment Guide projects housing types of the future in the following proportion: single family

detached - 60%; all remaining types, including garden apartments, townhouses, mediumriseapartments and the like - 40$. These figures are reflective of the entire Metropolitan Region,however, and there is no reason to assume that they would necessarily apply in this ratio to MorrisCounty. Since income is higher here than in the Region as a whole, and since, according to the

Regional Development Guide, the desire for more space is a function of increased income, it seems possible that the proportion of single family detached units might very well be higher in Morris

County than for the entire Region. However, as an indicator, and since greater specificity isimpossible, the 60-40 ratio has been assumed in this report.

Projections, however, are meaningless unless some attempt is made to indicate where and how

those projections will materialize on the ground. While in theory, at least, it would be possible to

assign specific land uses to every square miles in Morris County, and thus to arrive at a plan whichwould be impressive in its detail, there are several reasons for not doing so. In the first place, inorder for any plan to be meaningful, there should be at least some possibility of its implementation.

Utopian planning is a diverting intellectual exercise, but very little more. Present politicalorganization leaves the power of land use regulation in the hands of the municipalities; thus,

decisions of detail should also be left there. Secondly, in the past no municipal agency has really been free to plan, since each has had to contend with a tax base that is both inequitable andinexorable. Before detailed plans are presented, the tax base must be radically modified.Meanwhile, in response to the present structure, compromise decisions go forward, and the trends

toward strip commercial development and impossibly up-graded residential zoning continue toexist. When the tax base is finally changed, all of these interim decisions will have to be taken into

account and will undoubtedly affect any future policies.

Thus, it is felt that great detail at this time is both inappropriate and premature. However, thegoals and objectives which began this report, when viewed again in light of the analyses of existing

conditions and future projections, can yield a meaningful generalized future land use pattern whichcan serve as a valuable guide for the planning decisions of today.



As discussed in detail in Section I. of this report, the recommended objectives for the future of Morris County are these:

1) Location of new economic activities within existing economic concentrations,

related to transportation and utilities.

2) The gathering of intensive land uses into clusters, with progressively less intense

uses radiating outward from them.

3) Acquisition of sufficient public open space.

4) Adequate water management.

5) Creation of a variety of housing types and densities; provision for lower costhousing.

6) Preservation of Morris County's historical heritage.

7) Coordination of plans with other agencies and governmental levels.

If these foregoing objectives are accepted as desirable, it is evident that they must necessarily

alter those projections which were made assuming a continuance of the present trends. Projectingforward any analysis of present trends shows two things clearly: that to a large extent the older

town centers are petrifying; and that the greatest pressure for new growth is being felt in thewestern section of the County, primarily in the Mendhams, Chesters, Washington Township,Mount Olive, and Western Roxbury, where there are large reserves of land suitable, on a strictly physical basis, for all types of development. Population growth estimates for the decade 1970-80,

based on current trends, indicate that old centers such as Morristown, Dover and Chatham willgrow by less than 7~, while Mendham Township is estimated to grow 70%, Washington Township

74% and Mount Olive over 300%. While these figures are misleading to the extent that in a

relatively sparsely populated area like Mendham Township, a 70~ increase represents only slightlymore than 2500 people, nevertheless they do present a telling picture of what appears to behappening.

As an objective for the future, the Morris County Planning Board is committed to the cluster

concept , i.e., that new economic activity be located within existing economic concentrations, thatmore intensive use be made of lands which are to be used at all, and that in the interest of economy

and efficiency, new growth show some coordination with transportation systems and utilitynetworks. Thus, the first recommendation for future land use must be that the trend toward the

devitalization of the older town centers be reversed.

In the subsequent discussion of the Plan, the following three general designations have beenemployed: traditional centers, growth centers and villages. By definition, a "center" is meant to

suggest an area of flexible physical size, not necessarily conforming to any existing municipal boundaries, but with a population (by the time of the Plan's implementation) of 10,000 or more,which shares a common, primary, self-sufficient commercial focus and which has a high degree of integration among various land uses. Morristown is already a "center", while Morris Township and

Harding are not. A "village" on the other hand, is an area also of flexible physical size, but with a population (by the time of the Plan's implementation) of generally less than 10,000, and not



necessarily containing a self-sufficient commercial focus. As it presently exists, Gillette is such avillage, and is proposed to remain so. Butler is also a village at present, but is proposed to become acenter.

"Centers" are further distinguished as being "traditional" or "growth centers." A traditionalcenter is one which not only has existed for several decades, but which, for all of that time, hasmaintained social and economic importance to a significant area surrounding it. The traditional

centers discussed here are expected to retain their importance. "Growth centers" are areas whichmay not have existed, or may have had relatively little importance, in the past, but which areexpected, during the life of the Plan, to achieve such importance.

Finally, it must be stated that other designations, like "town," "cluster" and "concentration" are

used in the following discussion and are meant to retain only the associations they have in commonspeech. Only "center" and "village" are used with precise definition.

TRADITIONAL CENTERS

1. Morristown Area

Historically, Morris County has been oriented toward Morristown, its County seat. At present,the Town still offers the greatest variety of goods and services within a concentrated area of

anywhere else in the County. It is well and efficiently supplied with municipal services, with publictransportation (both rail and bus) and represents the junction of several important highways. The

completion of I-287 through the Town, and the Route 24 Freeway around it, can only serve to makeit easier to get to for those who want to get to it, and, equally important, easier to avoid for thattraffic which presently passes through it on its way elsewhere. At present, roughly 20% of Morristown itself is undeveloped, but nearly half of Morris Township, which totally surrounds it,

and 45% of Morris Plains are also vacant. Of course, not all of this land is available or suitable for development, and it is not proposed that even in the County's largest center no vacant land should

be allowed to remain. Neither is it supposed that all future development should take place on presently vacant land, ignoring the possibilities of redevelopment and renewal. Rather, these percentages are given merely to indicate that even here, in the center, land reserves exist inquantities large enough to accommodate proposed future growth.

Describing the Morristown center of 1990 is difficult to do, and comparing it with theMorristown of today is even more difficult. This is due in large measure to the fact that up to nowdevelopment has proceeded along municipal lines; each municipality views itself as separate and

distinct from its neighbors; master plans stop at municipal borders. Statistics, which give a ready profile of any area, likewise normally conform to a municipal base.

The proposed center, however, is transmunicipal, and will include not only Morristown, but also

parts of Morris Township, Morris Plains, and Harding. It will not, however, include all of the areaof Region 4, which is made up of these four municipalities. The entire region encompasses about

32 square miles; its population as of 1970 was 45,865. Taken together, the four municipalitiesoffered roughly 15% of the job opportunities available in the entire County.

By 1990 it is proposed that the Morristown center contain between 50,000 and 70,000 people. If

present trends continue, the lower figure will be reached for the region as a whole~ by 1980.



However, this proposed population is not for the entire region, but for the center only, which center should include no more than half the area of the region. With careful planning the influx of thisnumber of people need not radically alter the character of the area as it presently exists.

For the most part, Morristown would be an office employment and commercial center, providingroughly 25 to 30% of the County's job opportunities, something more than double the number which presently exist. These office facilities, etc. would ideally be located near the center of town.

Intermingled with them would be the area's highest density housing, which normally need notexceed six stories, thus keeping the essentially low profile Morristown's present residents seem to prefer. Radiating outward from the center of town, residential densities would decrease rapidly

through town houses and garden apartments to single family detached dwellings. If such gatheringof activities can be accomplished in the future, it is certain that Morristown's economic viabilitywill be maintained. It is also likely that the net residential densities of Morris Township, MorrisPlains and Harding need not be unduly different from what they are presently. While it is

imperative that Morristown continue to grow and retain its designation as the County's mostimportant town, and while this will necessitate more intensive land uses within the town and around

it, nevertheless, it is equally necessary that the character of particular neighborhoods, villages andmunicipalities be retained.

2. Other Traditional Centers: Dover, Boonton, Madison, Chatham and Butler.

The same reasons given for the revitalization of Morristown are operative, on a somewhat lesser scale, for the other older centers named here. Each has a well-defined historical identity, and eachcontains to a very positive degree those features which could contribute to its revitalization. All are

connected to the Metropolitan Area by rail, each is served by at least one major highway, and eachhas some bus transportation. Although Madison and Chatham are fairly well developed at present,having only 15 and 10% vacant land respectively, they are, however, surrounded by ChathamTownship, Florham Park, and portions of Morris Township, where the developable land reserves

are significantly higher. Dover, on the other hand, is still more than 20% vacant, Boonton is 40%

vacant, and Butler is 40% vacant. Again, it is not implied that all of this vacant land is either suitable or available for development, but only that a significant amount is. Boonton, furthermore,is in physical proximity to Boonton Township and sections of Montville Township, and Butler ishalf surrounded by Kinnelon; each of these surrounding areas has large amounts of developableland. Dover is at the center of four other well-developed communities: Mine Hill, Wharton,

Rockaway and Victory Gardens. By 1990, lt is suggested that total populations for these older centers should reach the following quantities:

1970 Municipal Population 1990 Center Population

15,039 Dover Area 28,000

9,261 Boonton Area 15,0007,051 Butler Area 13,000

16,710 Madison Area 22,000

9,566 Chatham Area 15,000



(NOTE: Throughout this section, 1970 populations are given for comparison. These are for themunicipality, or municipalities, expected to be most affected by a proposed center. The proposed populations, however, are for the centers and may be either sub-municipal or trans-municipal).

Here it is important to emphasize that these entire populations need not be concentrated in thedowntown area of each municipality named. As with Morristown, each town center should contain

a concentration of office and commercial uses, mixed with the highest density housing for the particular area. Such high density housing might range from townhouse types at 15 units per acre inMadison or Chatham, to three or four story apartments of from 45-60 units per acre in the Dover

area. Radiating outward from these centers would be increasingly less dense residential types,terminating in conventional single family detached dwellings.

It must be emphasized-here that in singling out particular older municipalities and distributing

among them various percentages of future population, absolutely no judgment is being madeagainst any other existing, well-defined community. In saying, for instance, that the projectedgrowth of the Dover area in two decades will be 13,000 or 80%, there is no reason to insist thatDover itself should, or will, absorb that figure. It is equally possible that 6000 should be

accommodated in Dover with a corresponding adjustment in densities, and that of the remainder,2000 be located in Wharton, 2000 in Mine Hill, and 2000 in Rockaway. It is impossible to say that

a certain number of people is necessary for a town to retain its health or character; it is equallyimpossible to say that any municipality in Morris County is, with careful planning, incapable of accommodating considerably more growth than is presently contemplated. Generally, what can besaid is that there are positive advantages to locating facilities in well defined clusters; the feasibility

of public transportation, for instance, depends upon this. The economics of municipal services,which will grow more important with any increase in population, also depends upon it. The

provision of social services, the necessity of providing a variety in housing types - all depend uponthe existence of compact communities. Morris County's older communities, both those mentioned,and others in Stirling, Gillette, Millington, and Whippany, offer the future the advantage of

building upon what is already well under way. Those communities mentioned have already begun by providing municipal services, and they have at least the beginnings of a public transportationsystem. It is only common sense to build on what is already there.

GROWTH CENTERS

Before proceeding, it is necessary to point out that strictly speaking, the Morris County PlanningBoard is not proposing the building of any new towns in Morris County. Thus, those centersdiscussed under this heading are not new; in fact, several of them are as old as any Morris Countymunicipalities. However, future projections indicate that certain areas will continue to grow andachieve an importance with respect to the County as a whole which they did not formerly have; it is

thus, with respect to their importance that they are classified as "growth centers." Such places are:Parsippany, Netcong, Towaco, Mount Freedom,Denville, Succasunna, Long Valley, Chester andMendham. Unlike the traditional centers, each of these towns has been included for singular reascns, and it is difficult to generalize among them.

1. Parsippany Center



What the American poet, Gertrude Stein said of Oakland, California, can be said with equal justice of Parsippany: "The problem with Parsippany, when you are there, is that there is no there,there." By that is meant that apart from two large and reasonably well-defined communities of 1akeParsippany and Lake Hiawatha, most of the rest of the development of Parsippany has been

especially diffuse, following in strip fashion the five major roads which traverse it: Routes 10, 46,202, 80 and 287. For all of that, however, Parsippany is the heart of the most populous region in all

Morris County, a position which this region is not expected to relinquish during the life of this

Plan. (In 1970, Region 2, which includes the Hanovers, the Boontons, Denville, Mt. Lakes andMontville, as well as Parsippany-Troy Hills, contained slightly more than 30% of the entire County population; while populatior. distribution will alter somewhat during the life of the Plan, Region 2

will COAtinue to contain more people than any other.) Notwithstanding severe physiographiclimitations which remove from developmental consideration more than 9,000 acres of this region,

vacant developable land is still in excess of 17,000 acres, or nearly 16% of the total vacantdevelopable land for the entire County. The projected percent of increase in population for thedecade 1970-1980 for Parsippany-Troy Hills alone is 18%, however, considering the present levelof population it must be pointed out that in terms of actual numerical increase, the number of new

residents is greater than for any other municipality with the exception of Mt. Olive. Equallyimportant in the growth patterns of Parsippany is the fact that it has not become an unbalanced

residential community, for as well as containing more people than any other municipality, it alsocontains a preponderance of the County's industrial facilities.

In planning for the future of Parsippany, the more salient points of consideration are these:

--- It is, and will continue to be, the population center of the County.

--- It is, and will continue to be, the industrial center of the most industrialized Region of theCounty.

--- It is well served by highway transportation.

--- Physically, more growth is both possible and likely.

--- "There is no there, there".

Clearly then, the recommendation for the future of Parsippany is the creation of a physically

defined Regional center, with the anticipated residential and non-residential growth clusteredaround that point. The exact location of such a center is probably beyond the scope of this plan and

is a decision better left to the government of the Township itself, however, one such possible sitemight be in the vicinity of the area formed by the intersections of Routes 46, 80, 287 and 202.While this area has been previously rejected as a regional center by one independent planningagency, on grounds that 1) it was unsupplied with rail service and 2) the highway pattern prevents

effective transcommunication between one section and another, nevertheless, given the projectedgrowth of the area, it is the feeling of the Morris County Planning Board that these essentially valid

points may have to be compromised.

The projected Parsippany center could achieve a size of from 50,000 to 75,000 people. While insize the Parsippany center would rival the Morristown center, the two would be different enough,



and would attract people from large enough discreet areas, that there would not necessarily bedetrimental competition between them.

As well as containing more than 50,000 people, the Parsippany center should also provide

26,000+ jobs, most within the center limits, but a substantial number in nearby sub-clusters of industrial facilities. Residential facilities within the center should range from 6 or 8 story buildingsto single-family detached houses.

2. Netcong Area Center

Of all Morris County municipalities, Mount Olive Township recently has been experiencing themost dramatic growth. (For purposes of planning, it is assumed that Mount Olive Township and

Netcong Borough share a similar enough orientation to be treated together). Projections for the year 1980 show a population of 46,000 for this area, yielding a percent of increase for the decade 1970-1980 of roughly 250%. It is appalling to suppose that the growth rate indicated by such a percent of increase could continue into the following decade, but nevertheless it must be taken as an indicationthat this single area will be veritably innundated in the near future. As of 1970, considerably morethan half (60%) of Mt. Olive Township's land was vacant and more than 30% of Netcong is; in fact,

with Washington Township, these three municipalities contain nearly one-fifth of all vacantdevelopable land in the entire County.

In planning for the future, therefore, it is imperative that much of the growth being activelysolicited in this area be located in one well-defined town center, where necessary future municipal

services and mass transportation may be efficiently and economically provided. The proper location for such a center will be around the old town of Netcong. The area is already providedwith rail service, and there are presently plans to extend electrified service to this area as well as plans being developed for relocation and expansion of the Netcong Railroad Station. Within theBorough is the junction of two major highways - Route 46 and 206, and immediately south, the junction of Interstate Route 80 with 206, and west of that, the junction of Route 80 with 46. To the

west again lies the site of the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority's proposed PulaskiReservoir, and north and west of that the State's proposed Hackettstown Reservoir; finally there isthe proximity of the Musconetcong Regional Sewer Plant to this area, assuring that in the futuresurface water supplies and sewage waste disposal will be available for the area's projected needs.

The expanded Netcong Center is proposed to contain between 30 and 40,000 people by

implementation of the Future Land Use Plan, at densities necessary to yield a fairly compact urbanunit. It is anticipated as well that the Netcong area will also function as a fairly importantemployment concentration with +12,000 of the County's jobs located in, or in an area immediate to,the center. Radiating outward from the intensely developed economic-residential core would be

increasingly less intense residential uses. It is especially important in the Mt. Olive area generally

that much area be preserved in low density development, given areas of seasonal high water tableand Mt. Olive's general position in the headwaters of the Raritan.

3. Towaco Center

The community of Towaco, in Montville Township, is serviced by Route 202, by the Erie-Lackawanna Railway~ and will be serviced by Route 287 when that road is completed. Thus,it is

well situated with respect to transportation services. It is projected that at full implementation of the



Future Land Use Plan, the size of Towaco could increase to some 10 - 15,000 people. Here it must be immediately emphasized that final size is neither particularly important nor particularly binding.What is important is that Montville Township, of which Towaco is a part, is still more than one-half vacant, is possessed of large quantities of developable land, and is projected to continue to

increase substantially in population in the next decade. An area the size of Montville (which, for purposes of orientation includes portions of southern Kinnelon as well) clearly must have available

a variety of commercial and service opportunities.

Towaco could, and should function in this way. Furthermore, in an area as large as Montville-Kinnelon, where l-acre+ residential zoning understandably predominates, some provision should be

allowed for higher density housing, and the development of such housing types around acommunity center and rail transportation would be in the interest of economy and efficiency.Finally, it must be pointed out once again that assigning such a sizeable population to what is at present a small village need not be taken absolutely literally. Some of this growth will undoubtedly

be absorbed by the neighboring community of Lincoln Park; some of it may even detach into theformation of a presently uncontemplated new village. The inclusion of Towaco serves to point up

the advantage of clustering related facilities, and the necessity of providing services at reasonable proximities to residential concentrations.

4. Mount Freedom Center

The relationship of Mount Freedom to Randolph Township is similar to the relationship of Towaco to Montville Township. Like Montville, Randolph is still more than one-half vacant, withmuch good land remaining. It is projected that in the current decade, the population of Randolph

will increase 65%. In the past, commercial and industrial facilities in Randolph have been allowedto string out along Route 10, and while Randolph has provided a substantial number of gardenapartments, nevertheless the predominant zoning is for l-acre+, and the predominant impression isone of uncoordinated facilities, with most of them located in the northern half of the Township. The

addition of more commercial facilities to those presently existing in Mount Freedom and provision

for a variety of housing types could create in Mount Freedom a viable center with localsignificance, and a focus for the diffuse community existing in the area at present. The size of sucha community is projected at 10,000 with roughly half accommodated in high and medium densityhousing applicable for that region).

5. Mendham, Chester and Long Valley Centers

The three towns grouped together here share much in common. They are old, picturesque,historical, and probably represent to the majority of Morris County residents what the desirablecharacter of the County is really all about. They also share other characteristics as well: they are all

located within the area of the County's best developable land, and within one of its most important

watersheds. Finally, these three concentrations are the three "major" towns of an area where pressure for development is severe and where new growth seems likely to occur. In short, thefactors pushing toward the development of southwest Morris County are very great, and almostequally balanced by the factors militating against development. Whatever is done here must bedone slowly, carefully, and with consideration for every possible consequence.

While large lot zoning predominates in the area, there are sound planning considerations to back up this policy. The area covers the headwaters of three major branches of the Raritan River system,



which is used extensively for water supply for a major portion of the State; it is the only part of theCounty in which there can be any hope of preserving farming as an economic activity over anysizeable area; and it is the least well-served area of the County in terms of transportation facilities.

As a complement to its predominantly large-lot zoning, the area has also been notable for itsdisinclination actively to solicit industry, although with its generally low population density, thereseemed little need to provide a significant number of employment opportunities.

However, in the 1970-1980 decade alone it is projected that the population of Mendham willincrease by about 55%, Mendham Township by 70%, Chester by 31~, Chester Township by 45%,and Washington Township by 74%. And although after 1980, the County-wide rate of growth willabate considerably, it is the western section which will still contain the major land reserves (and

where most growth is still likely to be absorbed).

In planning for the western section of Morris County, the Morris County Planning Board isespecially aware of the following:

--- That the choice in this area is not one of development versus no development, but rather of

what kind of development.

--- That highly respected groups, such as the watershed associations in the area, have legitimate

concerns for the long-term effects of development of any kind upon an extremely importantaquifer. They are joined in this concern by the Regional Development Guide of the Tri-State

Regional Planning Commission, which advocates the preservation of all headwater areas, and bygeneral policies of the Morris County Soil Conservation District.

--- That residents have through their historical land use policies, expressed a genuine and long-

standing preference for smaller communities at essentially open densities.

In view of these facts, it is especially important here to recommend the clustering of newgrowth. Firstly, such clustering, while acquiescing to the economic pressures put upon the area as a

whole, would serve to channel some of that pressure away from the larger land reserves. Secondly,if a significant number of this area's future residents were housed on more intensely-used land,there would be rendered feasible the public utilities (especially sewer) which are largely absentfrom the region today. While the safe yield from the underground aquifers in this area is generally

high and of exceptional quality and while the ability of the sub-soils to accept septic effluent (withcertain exceptions) is likewise generally high, it is, according to most authorities, only a matter of

time before the negative effects of septic systems upon the aquifers must necessarily be felt.

Therefore, the Morris County Planning Board recommends that the three centers in this region be encouraged to grow, such that at full implementation of the plan their sizes approach:

1970 Municipal Population 1990 Center Population

3,729 Mendham Area 10,000

1,299 Chester Area 15,000

6,962 Long Valley Area 15,000

(Washington Twp.)



Once again, in the latter two cases especially, it need hardly be said that these future populationsare not expected to be situated within an arbitrary circle of some certain radius generated aroundthe existing geographical center of town. It is entirely possible that each of these gross figuresmight be actualized in the form of two or three discreet but interrelated communities within the

same general area. The goal toward which we are reaching is communities containing the necessaryservices, facilities and opportunities likely to be demanded by an increased population, located in

such a way that utility networks could efficiently and economically operate over them. One such

service, public transportation, at present is totally lacking in this region, although limited busservice hopefully will be started in the foreseeable future.

Thus, the three centers of Mendham, Chester and Long Valley, should grow to be fully servicedcommunities. Except perhaps for some presently unforeseen Planned Residential Development,they should contain within themselves those provisions for higher density housing, variety of housing types (townhouses, etc.), and special housing categories (elderlv housing) which must be

provided in an area as large as this.

Considering the highway system and the essential characteristics of the community, no industryis foreseen in either Mendham Borough or Mendham Township. Chester, however, is better

situated with respect to transportation connections, and will be still better situated with thecontemplated improvement of Route 206. Further, both Chester Borough and Chester Township

have shown a previous willingness to zone industrially (+300 acres and +500 acres respectively)not shown by Mendham. It is both likely and desirable, then, that closely related to the newresidential growth, and the necessarily expanded commercial facilities, there should be as wellexpanded industrial employment. It is important here that industries be encouraged which are

completely non-polluting, in deference to the situation of these municipalities within the watershed.

In Long Valley, the industrial situation is somewhat similar to that in Chester, for while the onlymajor highway service is Route 24, Long Valley has what Chester does not: a rail line. Likewise,

Washington Township has shown a willingness to zone industrially (presently +1700 acres).

Therefore, industrial facilities in reasonable relationship to the expansion of other land uses should be planned.

6. Denville and Succasunna Centers

There are enough similarities between the town of Denville and the "town" of Succasunna that

they may be treated together. Each is well supplied with transportation connections: Routes 10 and46, and the Central Railroad of New Jersey in the case of Succasunna, and Routes 80, 46 and 53,and the Erie-Lackawanna Railway in Denville. Each is the commercial focal point of a large area:all of Roxbury Township, Mr. Arlington and parts of Mt. Olive and Jefferson Townships in the

case of Succasunna, and all of Denville Township, parts of Mountain Lakes and western

Parsippany in the case of Denville. Roxbury is presently more than half vacant, Denville is nearlyhalf vacant, with at least part of that vacant land free for development from all physiographicrestraint. In the decade 1970-1980 there is projected a percentage of increase for Denville of 30$and for Roxbury of just under 50%, yielding the following gross populations for each Township:



1970 1980

14,045 Denville +18,000

15,754 Roxbury +23,500

Zoning in both Townships shows reasonably mixed permitted uses, lacking in both cases only provision for multi-family housing.

A definable town center has existed in Denville for a considerable time, and recently

Succasunna has developed into a viable economic concentration. It is proposed that by the time of implementation, both Denville and Succasunna become centers of 15 to 20,000. More importantthan actual numbers, however, is the desirability of clustering a significant amount of the projectedincrease in each Township within center limits, thus preserving the essentially open densities

prevailing in the remainder of each Township.

Each center should contain commercial facilities commensurate with the requirements of thegross area populations, and each should contain industrial activities. The aggregate employment

opportunities represented in each center should be around 5 to 10,000. Both centers should providethe necessary higher density housing, as well as the variety of housing types, required in their areas,

with approximately 70% of incenter residents accommodated in the high and medium densitycategories appropriate to the area.

VILLAGES

The channeling of large segments of the population to major centers does not preclude the

development or maintenance of other commercial residential clusters, scattered throughout the

County. These communities are called "villages" and while they are expected to vary considerablyin size, they can be broadly classified as having populations of between 5 and 10,000, or less than5,000. Included within the former range are: Pompton Plains, Lincoln Park, Lake Hiawatha, LakeTelemark, Milton, Lake Hopatcong, East Hanover, Mine Hill, Wharton, Whippany, Florham Park,Morris Plains, Hickory Tree and Flanders. The latter category includes: Riverdale, Mt. Arlington,

New Vernon, Millington, Stirling, Gillette and Brookside.

The villages would provide, on a distinctly limited basis, goods and services necessary for dailylife. Economically, however, they need not be self-sustaining. While the larger might function as

employment centers, all need not. The proposed relationship of the villages to the centers can beseen in the relationship of Mendham to Morristown as they exist today. With its shopping center

and its small specialty shops, its professional offices, drugstore, etc., Mendham is adequate to theeveryday needs of its residents. However, most of these residents commute elsewhere to work, and journey to Morristown (or Bernardsville) on a fairly regular basis to find the variety of goods andservices needed on, for instance, a weekly rather than a daily basis.

The villages will continue to be important at full implementation of the plan. They will providethe "small town" or rural atmosphere which is preferred by some residents - holding open yet



another option for variety of life styles. The larger ones can also offer, without violating the smalltown atmosphere, a limited variety of housing types and densities.

COUNTY-WIDE CONCLUSIONS

With a projected population for 1990 of 630,000, it is imperative that careful planning be

employed if Morris County is to retain the character which it has today. Since significant amounts

of new growth should be contained in economic and residential clusters, the future land use planhas sought to insure that by the time of implementation at least more than half (375,000 or 60%)will be so located. The density (persons per square mile of developable land) for the entire County by 1990 will be 1800, as compared with 1096 in 1970. In projecting employment needs, 60% of all jobs were assumed to be in centers, with the remainder dispersed throughout the County.

SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS

The Future Land Use Plan may make it appear that the Morris County Planning Board'srecommendations for the future are extensive; they are not. Rather, each specific recommendation

is merely one more particularization of the few constant principles which undergird the plan. In

short, the recommendations for the future are these:

1) Any development to proceed only after environmentally restraining factors are

accounted for.

2) The expansion and revitalization of older town centers.

3) The clustering of future growth around definable town centers, to includecommercial and office employment (and industrial in certain cases) as well asresidential, with land use intensity decreasing as distance from the center increases. Such major centers to occur for the most part in areas serviced by more

than one major highway and where possible by rail.

4) More than half of 1990 population located in centers; more than one-half of employment opportunities located in centers.

5) Major centers to be fully provided with municipal services by 1990.



SECTION V: IMPLEMENTATION

Where the power of land use regulation is vested in the municipality, the implementation of anyfuture land use plan is vested there as well. Thus, any discussion of implementation must be on twolevels: what County government can do, and what municipal government can do.

1. County Government

What Wilfred Owen said of poets can be said as well of New Jersey Counties: "All the Countycan do today is warn." Essentially, that is true - but it can mean a great deal. For in warning of the

consequences of local development policies, the County Planning Board brings to the municipalitya regional perspective and a concern for regional considerations not found at the local level.Ideally, in this mutual exchange, the County will succeed in persuading the municipality to modifyits policies in the interest of regional harmony, and the municipality will succeed in persuading the

County to modify its plans by bringing forth an in-depth analysis of its own particular area whichthe County cannot be expected to have. The key here is dialogue, and cooperation - without which

no implementation is possible. To a very great extent, the present plan is the product of just such adialogue, begun with the municipalities in the Future Land Use Concept Plan, and being carried

forward through the recently-established Citizens Advisory Committee to the Morris CountyPlanning Board. It must be emphasized here that so long as there is a future, there must be planning

for the future; the process is never complete, and any published plan is still subject to revision. Thedialogue must never stop.

On the more practical level, the County will implement the Future Land Use Plan in the

following ways:

a) Operating through its various agencies, it can expend government funds for projects and inways consonant with the principles outlined in the Plan. For instance, the County MunicipalUtilities Authority can encourage development along the recommended lines by planning its

services compatibly. The Park Commission can do likewise, and the County HousingAuthority can plan its projects to achieve maximum effect on implementation. The effect of theexpenditure of government funds and the location of services can often have a beneficiallydisproportionate effect upon future policies. As a corollary, County Government can ofteninfluence State and Federal expenditure on projects likely to have maximum effect upon futuredesirable conditions.

b) b) As reviewing agency for local plans utilizing Federal funds (A-95 Review Process), for localmaster plans, and for subdivisions and site plans affecting County facilities, the Morris CountyPlanning Board can examine the consistency of all these projects with its Future Land UsePlan, and recommend accordingly.

c) c) Finally, County government and the Morris County Planning Board can bring as muchinfluence to bear as they deem appropriate to work toward the establishment of a tax systemwhich is not built upon a local property tax base. Related to the needed change in the taxstructure, County government must seriously evaluate proposals like the proposed Community

Planning Law. If they deem such a law to be in the interest of sound regional planning, thenthey must try to generate local support for it. On the otherhand, if the law is not acceptable,

renewed efforts must be made to find another, more acceptable solution.



d) Since in the next decade the principal instrument of land use control, the zoning ordinance, islikely to come under repeated attack in the courts, County government, and the Planning Board as arepresentative of County government (as well as any other involved County agencies), mustdevelop a clearly articulated position with respect to such cases. It is suggested that such a position

be formulated according to the recommendations of the Future Land Use Plan.

2. Municipal Government

Municipal government is ideally suited to implement future land use policy through themechanism of zoning, as it reflects municipal master planning. The first step toward any suchimplementation is general agreement. Therefore, it is suggested that all municipalities give carefulconsideration to the Plan, and that disagreements be discussed and compromised to the point where

the County and the municipalities reach an acceptable level of agreement on future land use policy.It is suggested, thereafter, that local master plans and zoning ordinances be updated and revised to

reflect such agreement (at the same time as the County Future Land Use Plan is so revised).

Beyond that, certain implementation procedures available to the County are equally available tothe municipality, primarily the planning of projects involving municipal funds (housing projects,

sewer extensions, open space, etc.) such that they will achieve maximum effect on future land use.

Finally, certain kinds of incentive programs might be employed to encourage cooperation fromthe private sector: density bonuses, variances for the purpose of testing innovative constructiontechnology, etc.



AFTERWORD

Chalcedon was called the country of the blind, because its founders rejectedthe nobler site of Bysantium lying at their feet. The need for vision of the

future in the government of cities has not lessened with the years. The

dweller within the gates, even more than the stranger from afar, will pay the price of blindness.

Justice Cardoza,United States Supreme Court

The challenge facing Morris County in the next 20 years is tremendous, and it is exciting. Our moment has come late enough that we may profit from the experience of others who have gone before, and soon enough that we may serve as an example to those who will follow. Whether our example will be viewed with envy or disgust is in our own hands; we will create our future.

The Future Land Use Element of the Morris County Master Plan is not proposed as the onlyanswer, or even as the best answer, to the future of Morris County. As human expectations change,and as technologies change, plans change as well, and even a published document should be

regarded as tentative. The value of the present document lies not so much in the answers it gives asin the questions it poses.

morris county master plan: future land use element

Documents