City of Cape May

GO TO FULL MASTER PLAN - Requires PDF Viewer and takes several minutes to load with a direct high speed connection 

GO TO TEXT VERSION OF MASTER PLAN 

Following is a text version of Cape May's Master Plan. In order to provide reasonable download speed, no maps or graphics are shown. To access any of the Elements, click on that area associated with that section. Complete copies of the Plan are available at the Cape May Library and the Construction office. 

DRAFT
Master Plan 

Prepared for the City Planning Board City of Cape May, Cape May County, NJ Technical Support Provided By: THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP, INC. In Association With ORTH-RODGERS & ASSOCIATES (TRAFFIC AND PARKING) And WISE PRESERVATION PLANNING (HISTORIC PRESERVATION) December 2002 THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP

Table of Contents 

Introduction .............................................................................................................................1
Master Plan Purpose ....................................................................................................1 
Regional Location.........................................................................................................4 
I. Background Studies ...........................................................................................................4 
Local and Regional Growth.........................................................................................4 
Population ...............................................................................................................4 
Housing ...................................................................................................................9 
Income ...................................................................................................................11 
Natural Features.........................................................................................................13 
Floodplain .............................................................................................................13 Wetlands................................................................................................................13 
Shade Trees ...........................................................................................................15 
Beaches ..................................................................................................................15 
State Development and Redevelopment Plan .........................................................16 
II. Goals and Objectives, Principles, Assumptions, Policies & Standards................18 
Traffic Circulation and Parking.................................................................................19 
Community Services and Facilities...........................................................................19 
Residential Land Use .................................................................................................20 
Commercial Land Use................................................................................................20 
Oceanfront and Harbor front Land Use ....................................................................21 
Recreation and Open Space.......................................................................................21 
Environmental Protection..........................................................................................22 
Historic Preservation..................................................................................................22 
Regional Planning ......................................................................................................23 
III. Land Use Element ........................................................................................................24 
Definitions of Dwelling Types ..................................................................................24 
Protecting Residential Neighborhoods: MU & HD.................................................27 
Revisiting the R-3 District ....................................................................................30 
The R-4 District .....................................................................................................31 
Avoiding the McMansion ....................................................................................31 
Fine Tuning Existing Residential District Boundaries ............................................33 
Residential Site Improvement Standards.................................................................33 
Nonresidential Districts.............................................................................................33 
Table of Uses...............................................................................................................35 
IV. Traffic and Parking ......................................................................................................38
Introduction ................................................................................................................38 
Existing Conditions....................................................................................................39 
Road Classification ...............................................................................................39 Volumes.......................................................................................................................40 
Parking Conditions...............................................................................................46 
Analysis and Recommendations...............................................................................49 
Traffic Signals........................................................................................................49 
One-Way Streets ...................................................................................................51 
Geometric Improvements ....................................................................................56 Signing...................................................................................................................59 
Pavement Markings..............................................................................................62 PARKING..............................................................................................................63 
Bicycle Facilities....................................................................................................74 
Pedestrian Facilities..............................................................................................78 
Implementation and Funding ...................................................................................80 
V. Housing Element..........................................................................................................84 
Legal Background.......................................................................................................84 
Housing, Demographics and Employment..............................................................85 
Housing Stock Inventory .....................................................................................86 
Age of Housing Stock...........................................................................................88 
Demographic and Employment Characteristics................................................89 
Cape May’s Calculated Housing Obligation ...........................................................90 
VI. Community Facilities and Recreation Element........................................................91 
VII. Historic Preservation Element....................................................................................98 VIII. Recycling and Solid Waste Element ........................................................................ 102 
Tables  
Table IV-1: Road Classification ............................................................................................39 
Table IV-2: Functional Classifications of Streets within Cape May City..........................39 
Table IV-3: Average Daily Traffic Volumes........................................................................40 
Table IV-4: Parking Occupancy............................................................................................46 
Table IV-5: Illegal Parking Rate............................................................................................48 
Table IV-6: High Crash Locations........................................................................................48 
Table V-1: Affordability Limits for Low and Moderate Income Households ................85 
Table V-2: Population and Dwelling Units........................................................................86 
Table V-3: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing.................................................................86 
Table V-4: 1999 Selected Owner-occupied Housing Costs...............................................87 
Table V-5: Rental Values .....................................................................................................88 
Table V-6: 1999 Gross Rent as a Percentage of Monthly Income .....................................88 
Table V-7: Age of Housing Stock........................................................................................89 
Table V-8: Age Distribution of Cape May's Population ...................................................89 
Table V-9: Household Income.............................................................................................90 
Figures 
Figure I-1: Percent Change in Population 1990 - 2000......................................................5 
Figure I-2: Comparison of City and County Age Cohorts...............................................7 
Figure I-3: Age Cohorts for Shore Municipalities.............................................................8 
Figure I-4: Median Age .......................................................................................................9 
Figure I-5: Year Housing Units Were Built .....................................................................11 
Figure I-6: Median Household Income............................................................................12 
Figure IV-1: Vehicular Volumes .........................................................................................43 
Figure IV-2: Pedestrian Volumes........................................................................................44 
Figure IV-3: Bike Volumes...................................................................................................45 
Figure IV-4: Lafayette St. Concept Improvements............................................................54 
Figure IV-5: Washington St. Concept Improvements .......................................................54 
Figure IV-6: Sidney Ave. Improvements............................................................................55 
Figure IV-7: Ocean St. Improvements ................................................................................57 
Figure IV-8: Route 109 Improvements ...............................................................................59 
Figure IV-9: Paired Parking Dimensions ...........................................................................64 
Figure IV-10: Vehicular Volumes .........................................................................................76 
Figure IV-11:Typical Bicycle Lane Pavement Markings.......................................................77 
Figure IV-12:Typical Intersection and Mid-block Crosswalk Treatments ........................79 

Introduction Master Plan Purpose 

This Master Plan has been prepared in accordance with the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law. The purpose of Cape May’s Master Plan is to provide a guide to accomplish a coordinated and harmonious development of the City. It is based on an analysis of present and future needs. The Master Plan is designed to promote the health, safety, and general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the land development process, and the maintenance of property values. Specifically, the Master Plan is to identify land use constraints and opportunities and serve as a formal statement of Cape May’s policies regarding future land use and development while maintaining Cape May’s historic character. The Plan is designed to encourage sound growth and redevelopment, to strengthen and sustain Cape May's economy, and to establish appropriate criteria for the location of housing, commerce and light industry coordinated with the protection and enhancement of existing natural resources. The Master Plan serves as a basis for zoning as well as for reviewing development applications. It is a listing of priorities and preferences which, when instituted as an integral part of the decision-making process, can help to ensure sound, high-quality land use in Cape May. This report has been designed to meet the statutory provisions of the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (Chapter 291, Laws of New Jersey, 1975, as amended), and will provide Cape May with an up-to-date, meaningful planning program designed to permit orderly residential and non-residential development and redevelopment within the municipality. This 2002 Master Plan represents a continuation of the City’s planning efforts, which include the 1988 Land Use Element, the 1991 Harbor front Enhancement Master Plan and Historic Preservation Element, the 1994 Land Use Element, the 1995 Housing Plan and the 2000 Reexamination Report. These earlier plans and their background studies have been reviewed to put in perspective the historical pattern of planning and development policies in Cape May. 

Regional Location The City of Cape May is a 2.2 square mile community located at the southern end of New Jersey and Cape May County. Cape May’s southern shoreline is formed by wide, white sand beaches that border the Atlantic Ocean and the City is influenced by sensitive environmental features that are described below. Wetlands occur throughout all sections of the city and limit development on vacant lands, particularly near Cape May Harbor in the east end. Protection of fragile dunes is essential to protection of the valuable beach resources. INTRODUCTION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 2 Cape May considers itself to be America’s first resort community. Settlement occurred in the early nineteenth century but few structures remain from that period. However, it is Cape May’s extraordinary collection of late-nineteenth century Victorian architecture that has led to the City’s designation as a National Historic Landmark. Summer remains Cape May’s busiest season, with vacationers being attracted by a combination of its historic ambiance and its beachfront location. Although most of the New Jersey coast is occupied by resort communities, Cape May receives the second largest number of visitors, after Atlantic City. Unlike many other beachfront towns, a wide-range of activities have led to Cape May’s emergence as a year-round resort. Cape May benefits from its proximity to major population centers and visitor attractions in the Mid-Atlantic Region. It is approximately 50 miles south of Atlantic City, 80 miles southeast of Philadelphia and 150 miles south of New York City. Both Route 9 and the Garden State Parkway terminate in Lower Township, near the Schellenger’s Landing Bridge, which provides the main route for vehicular traffic approaching Cape May. A secondary street access is available via Seashore Road, through West Cape May. The Cape May-Lewes Ferry, which provides service between the southern end of New Jersey and Lewes, Delaware, is located at the western end of the Cape May Canal. Buses connect the ferry with C a p e M a y ’ s Transportation Center, which is located near the City’s main shopping district, the Washington Street Mall. The Transportation Center is also serviced by the Cape May Seashore Railroad, which provides service between the City and Cape May Court House, via the historic Cold Spring Village. Cape May is separated from the New Jersey mainland by Cape May Harbor and the Cape Canal, which is part of the Intracoastal Waterway. This island is shared by the City of Cape May, the Boroughs of West Cape May and Cape May Point, and a portion of Lower Township. Cape May City shares municipal borders with the Borough of West Cape May and Lower Township. The eastern end of the city is occupied by a U.S. Coast Guard base, which occupies approximately 20% of the land area in the City. Cape May’s regional location is shown on Map 1.   THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 4

I. Background Studies 

The 2000 Reexamination Report detailed the changes in development conditions since the 1988 Master Plan was adopted. A number of other changes have occurred either on a regional or statewide basis that have also changed the conditions for development. The most significant of these are: Local and Regional Growth Population According to the 2000 Census, the City of Cape May lost 634 persons in its population between 1990 and 2000, more than a 13% decline. This was the largest percentage decline of any municipality in Cape May County. As shown in Table I-1: Population in Cape May County Municipalities, four other municipalities also saw their populations decline. These were Cape May Point Borough, North Wildwood City, Ocean City, and West Wildwood Borough. The remaining eleven municipalities experienced growth in the same time period, ranging from approximately 1.5% in Woodbine to more than 21% in the City of Wildwood. Cape May County as a whole experienced 7.6% growth over the decade. These changes are shown in shown in Figure I-1: Percent Change in Population 1990 – 2000. Table I-1: Population in Cape May County Municipalities Municipality 2000 1990 % Change Avalon Borough 2,143 1,809 18.46% Cape May City 4,034 4,668 -13.58% Cape May Point Borough 241 248 -2.82% Dennis Township 6,492 5,574 16.47% Lower Township 22,945 20,820 10.21% Middle Township 16,405 14,771 11.06% North Wildwood City 4,935 5,017 -1.63% Ocean City 15,378 15,512 -0.86% Sea Isle City 2,835 2,692 5.31% Stone Harbor Borough 1,128 1,025 10.05% Upper Township 12,115 10,681 13.43% West Cape May Borough 1,095 1,026 6.73% West Wildwood Borough 448 453 -1.10% Wildwood City 5,436 4,484 21.23% Wildwood Crest Borough 3,980 3,631 9.61% Woodbine 2,716 2,678 1.42% Cape May County Total 102,326 95,089 7.61% LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 5 Figure I-1: Percent Change in Population 1990 - 2000 Avalon Borough Cape May City Cape May Point Borough Dennis Township Lower Township Middle Township North Wildwood City Stone Harbor Borough Upper Township West Cape May Borough West Wildwood Borough Wildwood City Wildwood Crest Borough Woodbine Cape May County Total Sea Isle City Ocean City -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Cape May’s decline in population is a continuation of a trend that began in the 1980’s. The 1970 population of 4,392 grew more than 10% in 1980 to 4,853. Between 1980 and 1990, however, the population declined nearly 4% to 4,668. The current population of 4,034 brings the population to more than 8% below the 1970 population. These declines do not reflect any lessening of Cape May’s viability. To the contrary, real estate in Cape May remains desirable and vacancy rates are low. Few new homes are being built (other than the redevelopment of existing residential lots.) The decline probably reflects the increasing number of residential properties that are used as second homes. The census data reflects residency on Census Day (April 1, 2000) and the owner’s census data has been recorded at the location of the primary residence. As noted below in the housing section, 51.4 % of Cape May’s homes were designated for seasonal use in the 2000 census. This is an increase of 968 seasonal homes since 1990, when seasonal homes accounted for 27.7% of the housing stock. Cape May County prepares population projections to the year 2020. The projections for the City of Cape May show slightly less than 4% increases every five years to achieve a population of 4,692 by the year 2020. This is a 16.3% increase over the course of twenty years. The projections for the entire county show a similar increase. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 6 The apparent discrepancy between this forecast and recent trends was discussed with County Planning Director James Smith. He indicated that his projection is based on countywide trends towards suburbanization and increased birthrates. The County projection did not specifically account for the dramatic upturn in the number of seasonal housing units in Cape May City. On the other hand, it is possible that a number of the new seasonal homeowners are purchasing homes in anticipation of future use as a retirement home. Cape May was cited recently by a national magazine as one of the ten best places in America to retire, a fact that has already been discovered by a number of local residents. As noted below, 28.4% of Cape May City residents are age 65 or older, as compared with 20.2% of the total County population. Once a proportion of current seasonal homeowners actually do retire in Cape May, they will be listed as permanent residents. This may help reverse the trends of declining population and increased seasonal homeownership that were found in the last census. The Census breaks the population down by age cohorts. Table I-2: 2000 Age Cohorts shows the break-down for the City of Cape May and Cape May County. This table is shown graphically in Figure I-2: Comparison of City and County Age Cohorts. Generally, in comparison to the County as a whole, Cape May has an older population. The population age 65 and older has just been cited. In addition, children under the age of 19 make up 24.3% of the County’s population as compared with 20.3 % of the City’s population. The largest discrepancy between the City and County is in the 35-44 year old cohort. This group constitutes 10.3 % of the City’s population and 15.3% of the County’s population. 

Table I-2: 2000 Age Cohorts Age Population City of Cape May % of Population Population Cape May County % of Population under 5 167 4.1% 5,244 5.1% 5-9 188 4.7% 6,541 6.4% 10-14 198 4.9% 7,103 6.9% 15-19 268 6.6% 6,082 5.9% 20-24 301 7.5% 4,450 4.3% 25-34 383 9.5% 10,473 10.2% 35-44 415 10.3% 15,606 15.3% 45-54 487 12.1% 14,354 14.0% 55-59 240 5.9% 6,239 6.1% 60-64 239 5.9% 5,553 5.4% 65-74 576 14.3% 10,662 10.4% 75-84 429 10.6% 7,394 7.2% 85+ 143 3.5% 2,625 2.6% Total 4034 100.0% 102,326 100.0% LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 7 

Figure I-2: Comparison of City and County Age Cohorts 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% under 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Age Percentage of Population Cape May City Cape May County The age cohorts for the City of Cape May were also compared to five other shore resort municipalities that were thought to be similar to Cape May in terms of year-round occupancy. These are Avalon, Ocean City, Sea Isle City, Stone Harbor, and the Wildwood communities combined. This is graphically shown in Figure I-3: Age Cohorts for Shore Municipalities. In this comparison, rather than the County as a whole, Cape May’s population is younger. Only the Wildwoods have a larger percentage of people less than 19 years of age. Cape May has the largest percentage of people in the 15-24 year old age group, 14.1%. This compares to the other shore towns with a range of 5.2 – 12.1% in this age group. In the 65 year old plus age bracket, both Avalon and Stone Harbor have a higher percentage of population at 32.7% and 38.7% respectively. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 8

Figure I-3: Age Cohorts for Shore Municipalities 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% under 5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 85+ Age Percentage Cape May City Avalon Ocean City Sea Isle City Stone Harbor Wildwoods The median age for Cape May County is 42.3 years. The range of median ages for the County municipalities is a low of 35.5 years for Wildwood City to a high of 64.2 years for Cape May Point. The median age for the City of Cape May is 47.4 years. The median age for each of the municipalities in the County is shown in Figure I-4: Median Age. Five municipalities in the County have a higher median age than Cape May; Ocean City, Sea Isle City, Avalon, Stone Harbor and Cape May Point. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 9 

Figure I-4: Median Age 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Avalon Borough Cape May City Cape May Point Borough Dennis Township Lower Township Middle Township North Wildwood City Ocean City City Sea Isle City City Stone Harbor Borough Upper Township West Cape May Borough West Wildwood Borough Wildwood City Wildwood Crest Borough Woodbine Cape May County Total Age Housing Cape May has 4,064 housing units according to the 2000 Census. Of these units 1,821, or 45%, are occupied units, 2,089 housing units (51.4%) are for seasonal use. The remaining units are considered vacant. Comparing these figures with the 1990 Census, there were 4,052 housing units, 1,868 of which were occupied (46%), and 1,121 (27.7%) were considered for seasonal use. The percentage of owner-occupied units increased between 1990 and 2000. Of the occupied housing units, 57% are owner-occupied and 43% renter-occupied. In 1990 52% of the occupied housing units were owner-occupied and 48% were renter occupied. The average household size in Cape May is 2.02 persons per household, compared with 1990 when average household size was 2.13 persons per household. This follows a national trend to smaller household size. Only three municipalities in the County have the same or a smaller average household size, Ocean City, Cape May Point and Stone LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 10 Harbor. All three have an older population that tends to have a smaller household size. Cape May County has an average household size of 2.36 persons per household. The median housing value for owner-occupied units from the 2000 census is $212,900 in Cape May. This compares with a median value of $137,600 for the county as a whole. Five of the other shore communities, Avalon, Cape May Point, Ocean City, Sea Isle City and Stone Harbor, have higher median housing values ranging from $224,700 to $445,300. Median values for municipalities in Cape May County are shown in Table I-3.

Table I-3: Median Housing Value 2000 Municipality Median Value Avalon Borough $443,300 Cape May City $212,900 Cape May Point Borough $301,400 Dennis Township $135,500 Lower Township $95,900 Middle Township $116,200 North Wildwood City $129,600 Ocean City $224,700 Sea Isle City $280,100 Stone Harbor Borough $445,300 Upper Township $161,700 West Cape May Borough $174,100 West Wildwood Borough $87,600 Wildwood City $84,000 Wildwood Crest Borough $147,600 Woodbine $80,600 Cape May County $137,600 The vast majority of houses in Cape May were built more than twenty years ago. Of the 4064 housing units from the 2000 census, 3039 of these units, nearly 75%, were built prior to 1980. Less than 6% of the housing units have been built since 1990. A breakdown by year built is shown in Figure I-5. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 11

Figure I-5: Year Housing Units Were Built Prior to 1940 28% 1940 to 1959 15% 1960 to 1969 12% 1970 to 1979 20% 1980 to 1989 19% 1990 to 1994 3% 1995 to 1998 2% 1999 to 3/2000 1% Income Income from the 2000 census is for the previous year, 1999. The median household income in 1999 for Cape May was $33,462. This is less than the median household income for the County, $41,591. A comparison of median household income for the municipalities in the County is shown in Figure I-6. The median family income for 1999 was $46,250, which compares to a countywide median family income of $51,402. Eighty families, about 7.7%, in Cape May were considered to be below the poverty line in 1999. Approximately 6.4% of the families in the County as a whole were below the poverty line. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 12 Figure I-6: Median Household Income $41,591 $30,298 $36,579 $23,981 $33,393 $37,500 $60,942 $51,471 $45,708 $44,158 $32,582 $41,533 $38,977 $56,595 $55,313 $33,462 $59,196 $0 $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 Cape May County Woodbine Wildwood Crest Borough Wildwood City West Wildwood Borough West Cape May Borough Upper Township Stone Harbor Borough Sea Isle City City Ocean City City North Wildwood City Middle Township Lower Township Dennis Township Cape May Point Borough Cape May City Avalon Borough LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 13 Natural Features Cape May is designated in the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan as an Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area, which is apparent on Map 2 – Natural Features. The vast majority of land in Cape May is environmentally constrained by floodplain, wetlands or both. These environmentally sensitive lands, and the wildlife habitats that they support, are very much a part of what makes Cape May an attractive area to live and vacation. Floodplain The low-lying barrier island is, not surprisingly, located almost entirely in the one hundred year floodplain. Zoning regulations require that the lowest floor level of any building be not less than ten and one-half feet above mean sea level to minimize property damage. Wetlands A substantial portion of the eastern half of Cape May is preserved wetlands. There is great concern regarding the potential development of these wetlands in East Cape May. This is the last concentration of undeveloped land in Cape May. Much of this land is zoned residential and only the state’s wetland protection policies have so far prevented development. A large residential subdivision plan has been filed but it has been in litigation with the State over the extent of the wetlands for a number of years. The City is now proposing to acquire this land, which would assure its permanent protection. Wetlands not only store water and help to control runoff and flooding, they support numerous wildlife habitats, some of them threatened or endangered species. Cape May is an integral part of the Atlantic Flyway. Millions of birds migrate each fall to warmer climates and stop, rest and feed in Cape  May to fortify themselves to continue the journey southward. This presents a unique opportunity to observe numerous species each autumn and again in the spring, and many tourists come to the area to observe the migrating birds. The habitats that support these birds are not o n l y i m p o r t a n t environmentally, but economically as the migrating birds draw numerous tourists to the area. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 15 The Cape May Environmental Commission has advocated a proactive policy regarding wetlands. They have suggested acquisition of all environmentally sensitive wetlands within the City Limits, and the protection of the east Cape May wetlands will go a long way towards advancing that goal. The adoption of a 300-foot wetland buffer has also been recommended, provided that it conforms to State guidelines. Shade Trees The City recognizes the importance of protecting existing vegetation and replacing vegetation that is removed when land is developed. Cape May has a landscaping ordinance that requires up to 60% of a lot be left in vegetation and tree replacement for larger trees that are removed. The City participates in Tree City USA and has also adopted a "Community Forestry Management Plan" authored by the Shade Tree Commission with the intent of increasing the community’s understanding of the urban forest and increasing the public’s appreciation of trees on public and private land that benefit the entire community. Beaches Cape May’s beaches are vital to both the environmental and physical protection of the City, as well as being one of its most valuable economic resources. The beaches are the first line of protection from storms approaching from the sea. Like all coastal communities, Cape May recognizes the fragility of dunes and has invested heavily in beach replenishment projects in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It has also adopted special land use controls designed to l i m i t f u r t h e r encroachments along the beach strand. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 16

  State Development and Redevelopment Plan The State Planning Commission was created by the State Planning Act in January, 1986 to create a guideline for the future growth of New Jersey called the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. The aim of the legislation was to ensure that New Jersey remained a desirable place to live and work, that a positive business climate was maintained, and that public expenditure for improvements to roads, sewers, water supply and the like was spent in the most efficient manner possible. The plan is to be designed to protect the natural resources of the state, identify areas for growth, limited growth, and agriculture or conservation, and to establish state policy on housing, the use of land, and economic development. To achieve the legislative goals, the State Planning Commission, now the Smart Growth Commission, and its staff, the Office of State Planning, have developed plans with considerable public comment and formal negotiations (the cross-acceptance process) on points of contention. Following years of review, the first Plan was adopted on June 12, 1992. The current Plan was adopted on March 1, 2001. It is a policy document on growth management that seeks to coordinate the provision of public services for development and redevelopment in the most efficient manner and direct growth to the most appropriate locations. The organizing concept of the Plan is to designate planning areas and centers. There are five planning areas, including: Metropolitan Planning Area (PA 1), Suburban Planning Area (PA 2), Fringe Planning Area (PA 3), Rural Planning Area (PA 4) and its subset Rural Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA 4B), and Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA 5). In addition to the planning areas, the Plan defines five types of centers; Urban, Town, Regional, Village, and Hamlet. Centers are embedded within planning areas and are intended to be the focus of growth in the State. Ideally, centers are to be developed in a manner that creates "communities of place". Cape May is designated as a Town within the Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area (PA5). Designation as a Town Center was as a result of a petition prepared by the City and adopted by the State Planning Commission in October of 1999. As a result, the City is included in the 2001 Plan as a Designated Existing Town. This designation has given Cape May a priority in competing for state grant funding. The current State Plan has eliminated the concept of Centers Designation in favor of a process known as Plan Endorsement, but the City’s 1999 designation carries within a six year grace period before any further certification would be required. The State Plan’s intention in the Environmentally Sensitive Planning Area is to • Protect environmental resources, through the protection of large contiguous areas of land; • Accommodate growth in Centers; and • Protect the existing character of stable communities. Cape May’s master plan and development ordinances are generally consistent with the State Plan but the plan endorsement policy will require a detailed analysis of specific policies.   THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 18

II. Goals and Objectives, Principles, Assumptions, Policies & Standards 

The Municipal Land Use Law requires that the Master Plan contain a statement of objectives, principles, assumptions, policies and standards upon which the constituent proposal for the physical, economic and social development of the municipality is based. Cape May continues to be recognized as one of the premier resorts on New Jersey’s Atlantic Coast. People are attracted to Cape May not only for its beautiful beaches but also for birding, fishing and other associated recreational opportunities; for the Victorian ambiance that has made the city famous and has given it its National Historic Landmark status; for the numerous cultural activities that are taking place in the community year-round, and for its dining and shopping opportunities. This plan is based upon the assumption that Cape May will continue to be a major resort destination, attracting a large number of visitors who are well in excess of the number of year-round residents. Further, the number of seasonal homes now represents a majority of the housing stock. Nonetheless, the City must continue to provide a full range of services to its year-round residents, including recreation and utilities. Cape May’s success has created its own set of problems, in terms of traffic congestion, parking shortages, and increasing pressure for the private redevelopment of relatively small lots. These issues have created problems for year-round and seasonal residents as well as for tourists. There is even some speculation that visitation to the City may have peaked and that future success will be dependent upon the resolution of these issues. The plan assumes that these problems can be mitigated, if not totally resolved, and their resolution has been given the highest priority in the planning process. Protection of the environment continues to be an underlying assumption of the City’s Master Plan. In this way, the plan will continue to advance the objectives of the State Plan as well. The City Master Plan, the development policies as contained in this plan, and the City ordinances which govern the use of the land within the municipality, reflect the collective goals of the community. These adopted goals not only state the desires of City residents, they are also the criteria against which all land use and development activity should be measured. The goals are consistent with the earlier master plan and reexamination reports, with minor modifications. The nine categories correspond to elements of the Master Plan. The objectives are the specific policies that will help achieve the specified goal. As Cape May has evolved, the objectives for the City have changed. Some of the objectives have remained the same, but others have been removed as the objective has been completed, or added as a need was identified. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 19

Traffic Circulation and Parking Goal - Develop a coordinated circulation system within a local and regional planning context to provide for the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. Objectives A. Encourage alternate circulation modes and networks to minimize and efficiently move auto traffic into and out of the city. B. Evaluate county, state and federal transportation and circulation planning in order to coordinate them with local planning, giving particular emphasis to City entrances and exits. C . Encourage restoration of railroad traffic and other high volume transportation modes as alternative means of accessing the City. D. Minimize the negative impact of bus traffic on the City’s street system. E. Continue to explore the feasibility of centralized and satellite parking, and expanding parking supply. F. Explore the feasibility of a shuttle service tying together parking lots and destinations in both Cape May City and Cape May County. G. Study the feasibility of encouraging traffic to use alternate routes into Cape May City other than Lafayette Street. H. Study the feasibility of converting Lafayette and Washington Streets into a one-way couplet. I. Investigate grant programs available for designated "centers", such as Smart Growth Grants. J. Encourage the use of bicycles and walking as alternatives to the automobile. Community Services and Facilities Goal - Ensure the provision of an adequate range and availability of community services and infrastructure to accommodate existing and future City residents and visitors. Objectives A. Continue to provide all land uses with adequate service of water, sewerage, storm drainage and other utility systems in an economically feasible and coordinated manner. B. Continue to provide water supply from the desalinization plant while encouraging continued water conservation efforts. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 20 C . Continue to provide public safety services, in cooperation with adjacent municipalities. D. Evaluate the future use of the Franklin School. E. Evaluate the adequacy of City Hall and its facilities to meet the needs of the residents of the City now and in the future. Residential Land Use Goal - Preserve established residential districts and provide a wide range of housing types to meet the varied income and age level needs of residents and vacationers. Objectives A. Maintain opportunities for residents to obtain satisfactory housing at affordable prices through encouraging the existence of a wide range of housing types. B. Provide housing alternatives for the elderly, such as age-restricted development, assisted living facilities, nursing homes and congregate care facilities. C. Ensure that residential land use is compatible with the City’s natural and historic environment by reevaluating residential development and redevelopment patterns and adopting revised performance standards and bulk and area requirements as needed. D. Ensure that adequate parking is provided for any new development. E. Protect the remaining wetland areas in the City. Commercial Land Use Goal - Maintain Cape May’s unique appeal by offering varied activities and services in appropriate areas while maintaining the City’s character and quality of life. Objectives A. Encourage the continuation of a variety of types of commercial land use within the City’s existing commercial districts. Promote the development of commercial areas that enhance the City’s pedestrian scale and encourage access by means of alternate forms of transportation other than the private automobile. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 21 B. Enhance the City’s economy and provide employment opportunities by encouraging appropriate commercial uses in commercial districts and other areas where appropriate access for such uses is available. C . Promote varied and convenient shopping opportunities for residents and tourists, including appropriate design features to enhance access for the physically challenged. D. Maintain the City’s environmental and historic quality by control of commercial land use patterns and adoption of improved design and performance standards for land use in all of the areas regardless of whether they are in the historic district. E. Support continued existence of the Coast Guard and fishing and tourism industries so as to enhance their important economic contributions. Oceanfront and Harbor front Land Use Goal - Protect the environmental quality of the oceanfront and harbor front land while encouraging public access. Objectives A. Preserve environmental integrity of natural resources in harbor front and oceanfront area. B. Implement design guidelines for hotels, motels, and other uses in this area as permitted by zoning. C. Improve access opportunities for the physically challenged. D. Determine if uses permitted by zoning are appropriate considering the character of the area. Recreation and Open Space Goal - Preserve and enhance the City’s open space system and upgrade recreational land use to protect Cape May’s environmental resources and meet the needs of residents and visitors. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 22 Objectives A. Continue to acquire open space, including private bathing beaches, to increase the amount of recreational space available for use by residents and visitors. B. Create an open space and pedestrian network that connects points of interest and encourages non-vehicular means of transportation. C. Continue to upgrade and diversify the recreational uses and facilities offered by municipal parks. D. Provide controlled access to wetland areas to promote environmental protection and public education. E. Improve access and maintenance of beach areas. Environmental Protection Goal -To protect the quality of the City of Cape May’s natural and manmade environment in order to preserve the balance of its ecological systems and safeguard the future health and welfare of residents and visitors. Objectives A. Conserve and protect environmentally sensitive resources including natural, scenic and historic areas in the City by requiring that new land uses be subject to performance standards designed to minimize potential adverse impacts. B. Minimize negative effects of land use upon the City’s built environment through evaluation and implementation of performance standards for environmentally sensitive lands. C. Encourage the preservation of environmentally sensitive lands in order to protect the environmental integrity of unique resources. D. Pursue the acquisition of wetlands by the City and a consortium of public and private environmental groups. E. Encourage recycling in order to meet the County’s goal of recycling 65% of the total waste stream. Historic Preservation Goal - Maintain the City’s National Historic Landmark status through preservation of historic and architecturally significant sites. Objectives A. Investigate the possibility of revising area and bulk regulations for historic resources. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 23 B. Develop the Historic Preservation Commission’s role in choosing "street furniture". C. Encourage businesses to retain the historic character of the streetscape by obtaining "Victorian" lights, benches and similar items. D. Developing an historic plaque purchase program. E. Coordinate the efforts of the Historic Preservation Commission, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board and Council. F. Continue to implement the 1991 preservation plan. Regional Planning Goal - Encourage a cooperative planning effort among the various jurisdictions within the area to formulate mutually acceptable development policies, realizing that adjacent development may have a significant impact on the City’s goals and objectives. Objectives A. Interact with officials in Lower Township, in devising a plan of action for alleviating the existing traffic situation at Schellenger’s Landing Bridge. B. Review the Master Plans of surrounding communities to ensure compatible land policies and promote a sound regional planning effort. C. Continue existing programs of intergovernmental cooperation in areas such as water supply and public safety, while exploring new opportunities for further cooperation. THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 24

III. Land Use Element Cape May’s patterns of land use have been established over the course of the City’s long history and dramatic changes in land use patterns are not anticipated. The emphasis of this Land Use Element is to stabilize existing development and to protect it from encroachments that threaten to alter the existing character of Cape May, in areas of the City that are both within and outside of the historic district. This section proposes amendments to the Land Use Element that ultimately must be implemented through amendments to the zoning ordinance. This section contains specific suggested changes but the entire zoning code is in need of a complete overhaul and rewriting. This is recommended as a next step in the planning process if funding can be obtained from City Council. The Land Use recommendations are found on Map 4, and they correspond to proposed zoning amendments that are shown on Map 5. Definitions of Dwelling Types The current ordinance definitions of dwelling types are somewhat at variance from common usage and lead to an imprecision of regulation and the potential for confusion. Accordingly, suggested amendments are proposed to the definition of various dwelling types. These revisions would better reflect common zoning usage and improve housing diversity within the city. The definition of "dwelling, single-family detached" does not need to be adjusted. Cape May’s definition of a "dwelling, single-family attached" refers to "one of two dwelling units" separated by a party wall. This building type is more typically referred to as a "single-family semi-detached dwelling" or a "twin home." It is suggested that the current definition be renamed "dwelling, semi-detached" and that it continue to be permitted in all zoning districts where attached dwellings are now permitted. Some ordinances also permit two family detached dwellings or duplexes. These buildings contain two dwelling units in a single structure, each intended for occupancy by a single family, with one unit located above the other unit. This dwelling type is not now specifically permitted in Cape May, except as a multiple dwelling. It is recommended that these units be permitted in the R-3 District. The definition of quads does not need amendment, but it is recommended that they be restricted to the R-4 District. This dwelling type does not work well with a grid street system. The term "dwelling, attached" is more commonly applied to townhouses in other communities, but Cape May’s ordinance now includes this dwelling type as a "dwelling, multiple." Most ordinances make a distinction between townhouses and apartment-type multifamily dwellings because the apartments tend to have higher densities. It is recommended that the current definition for a "dwelling, multiple" be abandoned in favor of two new definitions. The revised definition for "dwelling, attached" would be "three to six single family dwellings constructed in a row, with 
  LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 27 each dwelling separated by a common wall from at least one other dwelling." A new definition for "dwelling, multifamily" would be "a building other than a single family attached dwelling that is designed to accommodate three or more dwelling units within a single structure." A maximum density of 8 dwelling units per acre is suggested for single-family attached dwellings. Townhouse design standards should also require the articulation of architecture so that building facades are offset by architectural detailing resulting in at least a two-foot change in the building plane not less than once every twenty-four feet. The minimum width of townhouse units would be established at twenty-four feet and no more than six units would be permitted in an unbroken row. A minimum separation between buildings of twenty feet is proposed, with a minimum side yard of ten feet for each end unit. Current building setbacks and rear yards in each district would remain as now permitted for multiple dwellings. Height would be as currently permitted in each district. The maximum density for multifamily dwellings is proposed to be 12 dwelling units per acre. Articulation of building planes is encouraged and the predominant plane of a building in any one direction would not be permitted to exceed one hundred feet without a 90°change in the direction of the predominant building plane for at least thirty-five feet. A minimum separation between adjacent buildings of twenty-five feet is proposed, with a minimum side yard of twenty feet for perimeter buildings. A minimum twenty-five foot building setback and rear yard is proposed. Building heights would remain as now permitted in each district. Protecting Residential Neighborhoods: MU & HD The 2000 Master Plan Reexamination Report identified several zoning districts that required attention. These were the MU Mixed Use District, the HD Harbor District and the R-4 Residential District. During the course of this study, several additional changes were suggested, as described below. The current Mixed Use district primarily encompasses Yacht Ave but also includes both sides of Washington Avenue where it makes a 90° turn and heads north toward Lafayette Street. The district now permits marine-related retail sales, auto service stations, marinas, fishing piers, and clubs. There is a marina at the end of Yacht Avenue as well as the Coast Guard Auxiliary, but most uses on this street are residential. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 28 Yacht Avenue is unique in the City in that it is the only residential street where lots on both sides of the street adjoin water. The uses on Washington Street are non-residential and include a gas station. Lots on the north side of Yacht Ave. are generally quite small, with some lots having an area of less than 1,000 square feet and lot widths of 15 feet or less. Lots are deeper and have a larger lot area on the south side, but many are less than 50 feet in width. Older development is characterized by small cottages, but increasing land values have led to lot consolidation and the construction of larger buildings, including multiple dwellings. The street is not part of the historic district but some have suggested that it has a special character that is worthy of preservation. However, that character is more one of small New England sea shanties than of the Victorian homes that characterize the existing historic district. The master plan does not make a recommendation on the inclusion of Yacht Avenue in the historic district. That issue should be determined by the Historic Preservation Commission. However, the master plan does recognize that the character of Yacht Avenue is threatened by current zoning regulations. In addition, there may be a safety concern. The right-of-way width of Yacht Avenue is just 16.5 feet wide at entrance and expands to 33 feet beyond the throat. These widths may not be adequate for increased residential densities. The Fire Department has noted that these conditions are a matter of concern if density is allowed to increase on this street. Zoning rules for the adjacent Harbor District pose a similar potential threat to its existing character. The 1988 Master Plan recommended the establishment of a water dependent mixed use Harbor front district that would combine the uses permitted in the existing MU and C-6 districts. The plan stated that "the harbor front district should extend the entire length of the City’s harbor." It also recommended a more detailed Harbor front Enhancement Master Plan, which was prepared in 1991. The principles of the Harbor front Enhancement Master Plan remain valid and are applicable to more than the current Harbor District. It is recommended that they be applied instead to a Harbor overlay district that would apply to a wider area, as described below. The Harbor District is now limited to the area along the Harbor, from Harbor Lane to Missouri Avenue, east of Pittsburgh Avenue, and the north side of Delaware Avenue , from Baltimore to Buffalo Avenues. The south side of Delaware Avenue is also included from Brooklyn to Wilmington Avenues. Land use in the Harbor District is primarily limited to public parkland and single family detached dwellings built on lots of approximately a quarter acre in area. Many of these homes are within a development built in accordance with the Planned Waterfront Residential Option. Other uses include a 2.3-acre tract at the northeast corner of Missouri and Pittsburgh Avenue, which is devoted to a U.S. Navy LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 29 communications antenna, and the Nature Center of Cape May, which is located at 1600 Delaware Avenue. The Harbor District regulations now permit a number of uses not currently present in the district, including clubs, lodges and fraternal organizations, fishing piers, marinas, commercial uses (in conjunction with Planned Waterfront Residential Option), and the retail sales and rental of goods and services related to recreational or marine uses (as a conditional use). There is a concern that these uses would threaten the predominantly residential character of the Harbor District as it now exists. Public access uses are provided for at the Fisherman’s Memorial Park, and there are no other remaining large tracts for commercial or marina development that would affect the character of nearby residential properties. However, it may be unwise to encourage the redevelopment of existing sites for nonresidential uses through attractive zoning incentives. It is recommended that the MU Mixed Use and HD Harbor District be deleted from the zoning map and the following suggested map amendments are proposed. First, a Harbor Overlay would be established over all zoning districts adjacent to Cape May Harbor and Cape May Inlet, to the depth of the first row of properties. A full variety of water-dependent uses would be permitted, including marinas with accessory sales, yacht clubs, piers and docks. The existing NC Neighborhood Commercial district on the north side of Texas Avenue (anchored by the Wawa) would be extended to include properties on Yacht Avenue, prior to its 90° turn, and on both sides of Washington Avenue, where it makes its westward turn towards Lafayette Street. The NC regulations now permit single-family detached and attached dwellings by right and multiple dwellings as a conditional use, thus protecting existing dwellings in this area. It is recommended that three nonconforming properties on the south side of Texas Avenue be included in this NC District as well, in order to make the existing uses conforming. The properties are now used as a restaurant/tavern and as professional offices. The balance of Yacht Avenue would be designated within a proposed new R-5 District that would permit single-family detached and semi-detached dwellings on lots of 1,500 square feet per unit. Other bulk standards would be consistent with those now existing in the MU District. Single-family attached and multifamily dwellings (as defined by the proposed new definitions) would be prohibited, but existing dwellings of these types would be protected as legal, non-conforming uses. Marina uses could continue by virtue of the Harbor Overlay. The west side of Harbor Lane is also now in the MU District, but its character is substantially different than that of Yacht Avenue. Newer homes, representing a mixture of dwelling types, are present in this portion of the district and access is less of a concern. It is proposed that this area be rezoned to R-3. The permitted uses would be revised to reflect the proposed new dwelling definitions and quads would be deleted as a permitted use in this district. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 30 Revisiting the R-3 District The R-3 Medium Density Residential District is now one of Cape May’s largest residential districts in terms of land area and it is the most permissive in terms of the range of uses that it permits. Based upon the current definitions, the R-3 District permits single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, two-family detached dwellings, tourist/guest houses, multiple dwellings, and quads. Houses of worship, historic conversions, municipal uses, and schools are also permitted by right in this district. Many areas now zoned R-3 have developed in accordance with a broad sampling of the dwelling types now permitted by the R-3 District regulations. No changes are proposed for these areas. However, the portion of the R-3 District that is west of Madison Avenue and south of Lafayette Street is, with a few exceptions developed almost entirely with single-family detached dwellings. Some the larger homes, particularly those in or near the historic district, have been converted to tourist/guest homes. This is an option permitted in the R-3 and R-S districts but not in the R-2 or R-1 districts. This core of single family dwellings is located in the portion of the R-3 District that is west of Madison Avenue and south of Lafayette Street. It is supportive of the character of the historic district, even though some of the homes in this District are not actually in the historic district. A proliferation of multiple family dwellings, attached dwellings and two family dwellings would undermine the character of these neighborhoods and should be discouraged. The most famous local example of the havoc that unsympathetic development could bring to the surrounding neighborhood is the so-called Christmas Island development on the triangular block formed by Swan, Wenonah and Madison Avenues. The small site got its name from the fact that it was once entirely occupied by a nonconforming Christmas shop. Developers acquired the site and submitted plans for a multiple dwelling that fully complied with the R-3 regulations. The site plan was approved by right, but many thought it to be out of character with the surrounding area. To avoid similar situations, it is recommended that a new R-3A Restricted Medium Density Residential district be established in the areas now zoned R-3, which are west of Madison Avenue and south of Lafayette Street. The R-3A District would maintain the same bulk standards as now permitted for single- family detached dwellings in the R-3 District, but the only permitted residential uses would be single-family attached and tourist/guest houses. Permitted nonresidential uses such as houses of worship, historic conversions, municipal uses, and schools would also be permitted. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 31 Ironically, this area includes Christmas Island. However, there are no adjoining districts that would permit multiple dwellings if this zoning recommendation were adopted. To avoid a spot zone, it is recommended that this and other uses that are not in concert with the proposed zoning change would be designated as legal nonconforming uses. The R-4 District The R-4 district is found only in the Village Greene, an area with a distinctive character that is not found elsewhere in Cape May. Homes are a mix of single-family detached dwellings, single-family attached dwellings and quads, on lots that are a minimum of 6,250 square feet for single family detached homes, 5,000 square feet for attached homes, and 11,250 square feet for four unit quads. These are the only dwelling types permitted in the District. It should be noted that what the current ordinance defines as attached homes would be defined as single-family semi-detached dwellings under the proposed definitional changes. Most dwellings in the area were built as one-story units but some have been expanded to two stories. These increased building heights created some controversy, again by those who felt that two story buildings detracted from the special character of the Village Greene section. The height of principal buildings in the R-4 district was limited to 20 feet in 1993, but some felt that even this restriction was being subverted by clever renovations that were designed to comply with the ordinance but which nonetheless added an additional level of living space. The master plan proposes no changes to the R-4 bulk standards but addresses the issue of roof slopes in the following section. Avoiding the McMansion One of the concerns that has arisen in Cape May and many other communities is the issue of people buying an existing home, tearing down the dwelling, and then building a new home on the lot that is the maximum permitted by current zoning regulations. Such homes are often out of character with the surrounding neighborhood and are sometimes referred to as "Monster Homes" or "McMansions." Rising real estate values, the desirability of Cape May, and the scarcity of undeveloped, buildable lots makes this an increasingly attractive option. Currently, Cape May’s zoning ordinance controls building mass by regulating setbacks, building height and lot coverage. This may not be sufficient. One measure of building LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 32 mass is the floor area ratio (FAR). The Cape May Zoning Ordinance already defines FAR as "the sum of the area of all floors of buildings or structures compared to the total area of a site." However, the area and bulk regulations do not presently control FAR in residential districts. (Lot usage ratios and habitable floor area usage ratios are regulated, but only in the R-4 District.) Controlling floor area ratio is one way to insure that the size of a redeveloped home does not grossly differ from those of other nearby homes. Determining the correct FAR is important however. Aerial photographs of existing development were studied, as were records of floor area and corresponding lot area supplied by the City Assessor’s office and a local realtor, who sits on the Planning Board. Following that research, it is recommended that a base floor area ratio of 0.40 be established for single- family detached dwellings in all zoning districts. The differences in minimum lot area will account for distinctions between zoning districts. It is important not to penalize existing homes, particularly older homes in the historic district where some existing homes already have a large FAR. Accordingly, it is suggested that in every instance the permitted FAR be established as the greater of the base FAR or the FAR of an existing dwelling on a lot, which was constructed prior to 1950 in all residential districts except R-4, and prior to 1970 in the R-4 District. The recommended base floor area ratio for other dwelling types is 0.45 for single-family semi-detached dwellings (and two family detached, if authorized); 0.50 for single family attached and multi-family dwellings, and 0.55 for quads, in accordance with the proposed definitional changes. As with single-family detached dwellings, the permitted FAR would be established as the greater of base FAR or the FAR of an existing dwelling on a lot, that was constructed prior to 1950 in all residential districts except R-4, and prior to 1970 in the R-4 District. The definition of floor area ratio should be amended to clarify that it only applies to the principal structure on the lot and that it excludes the floor area of both attics and basement or ground level areas that are not designed for human habitation. One suggestion would be to base it on habitable area and to define that as "a finished room, enclosed by a floor, ceiling and permanent weather-resistant walls; which has a minimum floor to ceiling height of 6.5 feet; and which is intended primarily for occupancy by human beings." This would exclude garages (whether attached or detached from the dwelling) as well as sheds, parking areas, storage areas, and mechanical equipment shelters. The amendments to the floor area ratio definition would approximate the current habitable floor area usage ratio definition, but are more consistent with common zoning usage. It is recommended that those standards be deleted from the code. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 33 Another approach would be to regulate roof pitch as a means of preventing unaesthetic flat roofs. This could be an issue in all zoning districts as builders attempt to fit the maximum livable area into district height limitations but it has already been noted as a problem in the R-4 district. A predominant roof pitch of not less than 4 inches in 12 and not more than 12 inches in 12 would be appropriate and would eliminate nearly flat and very steep rooflines in non-historic sections of Cape May. Mansard roofs should also be permitted. Fine Tuning Existing Residential District Boundaries Several other small changes to residential zoning boundaries are proposed. One area that is recommended for a zoning map amendment is the block bounded by Pittsburgh, Beach, Baltimore, and New Jersey Avenues. This block had been zoned C-3, reflecting its former use as the site of the large Christian Admiral Hotel. The hotel was razed, despite its historic status, because it was in too poor a state of repair to be salvaged. The land was then subdivided into 75 by 150 foot lots, on which large oceanfront single family detached homes have been constructed. Given the current land use, this block is more properly zoned R-1. Another proposed map amendment would rezone both sides of Ohio Avenue, between Philadelphia and Reading Avenues, to the R-2 District. This would better conform to existing patterns of development. This area is now zoned R-4 but is not part of the Village Green Development. Residential Site Improvement Standards An area of great concern to the Planning Board has been the excessive demands for off street parking that is generated by summer rentals. It is not uncommon for multifamily groups or even unrelated individuals to share a summer rental and to arrive in Cape May with far more vehicles than there are available off-street parking permits. Parking issues will be treated in more detail in the Circulation Element. It is important to note here, however, that the City is not able to directly amend its zoning regulations as they affect off-street parking standards for residential uses. These are now regulated by the New Jersey Residential Site Improvement Standards (RSIS), which apply the same per-bedroom parking standards to every municipality from urban cities such as Newark and Camden, to rural communities such as Lower Alloways Township, and to seashore resorts like Cape May. The zoning ordinance should be amended to reflect all applicable RSIS standards. Nonresidential Districts No significant changes are proposed to the boundaries of the nonresidential districts, other than the aforementioned removal of the former Christian Admiral Hotel Block from the C-3 District and the fine-tuning of the Neighborhood Commercial District on Texas Avenue. Instead, it is recommended that attention be turned towards improving the aesthetics of these districts and avoiding the unintended encroachment of commercial uses into residential districts. LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 34 The master plan recognizes that a number of nonconforming nonresidential uses exist in residential districts. Those nonconforming uses that existed prior to the establishment of any zoning regulations in the City; those that were conforming under the zoning regulation in effect at the time the use was established; and those for which a use variance was obtained are all legally protected nonconforming uses. However, as a matter of public policy, the master plan views the further expansion of nonconforming uses onto new lots in residential districts, even if adjoining or close to existing nonconforming uses, to be a threat to the integrity of the residential district that should be discouraged by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Another concern is the lack of architectural detailing that is present on the rear of some older commercial buildings. Views from rear streets are as important as those from the front of the building and need to be appropriately treated. Section 32-46.1 of the zoning ordinance should be revised to require that building treatments avoid long uninterrupted façade planes without architectural detailing or changes in the direction of the façade plane. All elevations that are visible from a public street should be treated. Section 32-46.10 already gives the Planning Board approval power over the exterior design of a large number of nonresidential and multiple-dwelling buildings. This provision should be expanded to include townhouses, when that definition is added to the ordinance. Buffer and landscape standards are equally important and should be upgraded when the new zoning ordinance is prepared. Section 32-46.8, Screening, is particularly in need of attention. Different standards should be established for the degree of screening required, based upon the proposed land use and the land use from which it is to be screened. The landscaping standards in Section 32-46.9 are more complete, but should be reviewed to insure a better mix of deciduous, evergreen, and ornamental trees, as well as both high and low level shrubs. Signage regulations for residential and commercial properties are limited but are generally appropriate for the character of the city. Only minor adjustments to these regulations are required. At the same time, it is recognized that directional signage for tourists needs to be improved and specific LAND USE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 35 recommendations are made in the Circulation Element. This is particularly important for a community like Cape May where a high percentage of motorists during the summer season may be first-time visitors who are unfamiliar with the city. The confusion of these motorists only serves to compound traffic congestion. Adequate signage is only part of the answer, however. It must be present in a graphically simple but recognizable family of signs, against a background that does not compete with other messages for the motorists’ attention. The photo above, of the existing condition at the intersection of Sidney and Washington Avenues, is an example of what to avoid. Table of Uses It has been recommended that the entire zoning ordinance be rewritten and re-codified. The following table of uses reflects the recommendations of this Land Use Element.

IV. Traffic and Parking Introduction 

This section discusses the existing traffic and parking conditions for the City of Cape May, followed by an analysis of issues, and recommendations for improvements. This analysis is largely based upon field views and data collection conducted in the summer of 2002, during the months of July and August. During the summer, motorists encounter significant congestion entering Cape May, between the Canal Bridge and Schellenger’s Landing Bridge, and also on Lafayette Street, typically between Franklin Street and Ocean Street. Further, finding an available parking space in the downtown and on many beachfront blocks during the summer season can be extremely difficult. Outside of the summer season, traffic and parking concerns in the City are generally minimal. For all these reasons, the Traffic and Parking chapter focuses on addressing summer conditions. It is not anticipated that the City would be able to completely eliminate traffic congestion, or should even try to do so. The moderate level of congestion on many downtown blocks helps ensure that motor vehicles travel at an appropriate pace, allowing them to safely share the roadway with the large number of two-wheel and four-wheel bicyclists, pedestrians, horse-drawn carriages, trolleys and other transportation modes. Similarly, while the parking demand downtown can be alleviated to some degree, it will always be difficult to provide the number of parking spaces needed to accommodate all visitors within a short distance of their destination. The goal of the recommendations in this chapter is to improve traffic and parking conditions across the City, but to maintain the historic character of the community that makes it such a popular resort community. Many of the recommendations set forth in this section involve streets and intersections under the jurisdictional control of Cape May County. Therefore, the implementation of any of these recommendations must be approved by and coordinated with the Office of the Cape May County Engineer. Specific recommendations for all parties are highlighted in italics. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 39 Existing Conditions Road Classification The usage of a roadway should be tied to its "functional classification." Below is a general description of the functional classification of roadways:

Table IV-1: Road Classification Freeway/ Expressway Limited or no access to abutting land uses. Access only from major streets at interchanges. Major Arterial An inter-regional road that conveys traffic between centers. Should be excluded from residential areas. Minor Arterial Conduct and distributes traffic between lower-order residential streets and arterials and expressways. Designed to promote free traffic flow; therefore, parking should be prohibited and direct access to homes should be avoided. Should be designed so they cannot be used as shortcuts by non-neighborhood traffic. Collector Provides frontages for access to lots and carries traffic of adjoining residential access street. Is not intended to interconnect adjoining neighborhoods or subdivisions. Should not carry regional through traffic. Local Access Provides frontage for access to lots and carries traffic having destination or origin on the street itself. Carries least amount of traffic at lowest speed. The functional classification of the streets in Cape May City is summarized below. 

Table IV-2: Functional Classifications of Streets within Cape May City Freeway/ Expressway: There are no freeways or expressways located within Cape May City. Major Arterial: There are no major arterials located within Cape May City. Minor Arterials: There are no minor arterials located within Cape May City. Collectors: Beach Avenue (CR 604) Pittsburgh Avenue (CR 622) Washington Street Local Access: All other roads not indicated above are local access roads. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 40

Volumes The following discussion of traffic volumes is based on traffic counts conducted by ORA in July 2002. ORA conducted automatic traffic recorder counts in mid-block locations, as well as manual turning movement counts at key intersections. Following are the estimated Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volumes for select roadways in Cape May:

Table IV-3: Average Daily Traffic Volumes Roadway Average Daily Traffic Volume Lafayette Street, west of Sidney Street 12,700 Washington Street, west of Union Street 5,450 Pittsburgh Avenue, north of Vermont Avenue 11,450 Madison Avenue, south of Cape May Avenue 4,450 Elmira Street, north of Lafayette Street 1,100 Elmira Street, border with West Cape May 4,650 Ocean Street, north of Carpenters Lane 4,975 Jackson Street, north of Mansion Street 5,400 Perry Street, south of Lyle Street 2,275 Decatur Street, south of Carpenters Lane 2,738 Beach Avenue, east of Perry Street 8,350 Traffic volumes on Lafayette Street follow a predictable pattern; the lowest daily volumes are registered on Sunday, at about 11,600, and volumes increase on every subsequent day through Saturday, cresting to about 13,900. Interestingly, the westbound volumes are heavier than eastbound volumes during every hour of every day, even on Sunday when it would be assumed that many people would be departing the city. On a typical day, the westbound volumes are about 1 1/2 times the eastbound volumes. Traffic volumes on Washington Street follow a similar pattern to Lafayette Street. The numbers of vehicles increase throughout the first part of the week, although volumes appear to plateau from Thursday through Saturday. Volumes range from 5,200 to 5,700. In a reverse image of Lafayette Street, eastbound volumes on Washington Street are heavier than westbound volumes during every hour of every day. On a typical day, the eastbound volumes are about 1 1/2 times the westbound volumes. On Pittsburgh Avenue, traffic volumes follow a less defined pattern than other roadways studied. Volumes are highest on Friday, with Saturdays and Mondays being the next heaviest days. Volumes range from 10,600 to 12,700. On a typical weekday, northbound volumes exceed southbound volumes for all but the period of 5:00 AM to 8:00 AM. Northbound volumes also consistently exceed southbound volumes on the weekend. On most days, daily northbound volumes exceed southbound volumes by 30%. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 41 Weekly traffic volume patterns on Broadway Avenue in West Cape May mirror those of Lafayette Street in Cape May, with volumes increasing Monday through Saturday. Sunday volumes are somewhat less than Friday or Saturday. Volumes range from 14,600 to 17,800. On a typical weekday, the predominant traffic flow is split at 2:00 PM; southbound volumes are greater before 2:00 PM, and northbound volumes are greatest after this point. On Elmira Street, southbound volumes predominate until 3:00 PM, and northbound volumes after 3:00 PM. This same pattern is followed on the weekends. Volumes range from 3,900 to 5,400. Daily volumes fluctuate to a greater degree than on other roadways studied, with the peak on Friday. On Madison Avenue, volumes increase Monday through Saturday. Except for 7:00 AM through 10:00 AM on a typical weekday, southbound volumes surpass northbound volumes. On Saturdays, southbound volumes exceed northbound volumes throughout the day, with the exception of 10:00 PM through 12:00 PM. Volumes range from 4,200 to 5,100. As indicated by the traffic count data, Lafayette Street and Pittsburgh Avenue are the most heavily trafficked roadways in Cape May City. Lafayette Street is the predominant roadway used by motorists to access the city, with inbound volumes 70% greater than Pittsburgh Avenue. Leaving the city, a greater number of motorists choose Pittsburgh Avenue than Lafayette Street. Fewer motorists use Washington Street to depart the city than Pittsburgh Avenue or Lafayette Street, although these numbers are 50% greater than those motorists who enter the city using Washington Street. On a typical day, the inbound volumes on these three roadways – Lafayette Street, Pittsburgh Avenue, Washington Street – roughly equal outbound volumes. It should be noted that a significant proportion of traffic also enters Cape May City through Broadway Avenue in West Cape May Borough. ORA also conducted hourly counts over two Saturdays in July 2002 to document turning movement volumes at key intersections. Figure IV-1 provides volumes from 12:00 to 1:00 PM on Saturday, which was indicated as being the common peak hour. However, volumes for the Cape May Transportation Center were collected from 2:00 to 3:00 PM. Pedestrian volumes were also collected as part of the turning movement counts on Saturdays in July 2002, as indicated on Figure IV-2. The heaviest pedestrian volumes recorded were for the intersection of Washington Street and Ocean Street, with 1,756 pedestrians crossing the three legs of that intersection between 12:00 and 1:00 PM. Over 80% of those movements were across Washington Street. Other heavy pedestrian movements recorded were across Carpenters Lane at Ocean Street (389 in the peak hour) and across Beach Avenue at Perry Street (322 in the peak hour). Of course, significant pedestrian flows are found at many other points in the downtown in the summer. Figure IV-3 indicates bicycle volumes in the peak hour. Volumes are heaviest on Ocean Street, followed by Beach Avenue. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 42 For a 1986 traffic and parking study, the intersection of Lafayette Street and Sidney Avenue was counted on the second Saturday in July. In that year, peak hour (12:00 to 1:00 PM) westbound through volumes on Lafayette Street were 528. As indicated earlier in Figure IV-1, southbound through volumes on Lafayette Street from 12:00 to 1:00 PM on Saturday, July 20, 2002, were 593. Although a greater amount of historic data would be needed to definitively establish traffic trends, based on this single comparison between counts conducted in 1986 and 2002, traffic volumes entering the city have increased 12%, or about .75% per year. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 43 TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 44 TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 45 TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 46 Parking Conditions Parking Occupancy Parking counts were conducted at various times and days in July and August 2002 in order to monitor the occupancy of parking spaces downtown. Parking duration counts were also conducted, in order to identify the number of motorists that park longer than the three hours permitted at downtown meters. Following is a summary of parking occupancy counts: Table IV-4: Parking Occupancy Street or Lot Spaces Percent Occupied Date and Time Bank Street 120 62% 7/12/02, 11:30 AM 85% 7/13/02, 3:00 PM 88% 8/8/02, 4 PM 81% 8/9/02, 8 AM 69% 8/21/02, 2 PM Perry-Jackson Street Lot 107 86% 7/13/02, 11 AM 93% 7/13/02, 5:30 PM 100% 8/21/02, 2 PM Carpenters Lane 93 98% 7/13/02, 10 AM 98% 7/13/02, 12:30 PM 97% 8/8/02, 4 PM 98% 8/23/02, 10 AM 99% 8/23/02, 1 PM 97% 8/23/02, 4 PM Lyle Lane 56 100% 8/8/02, 4 PM 100% 8/23/02, 10 AM 98% 8/23/02, 1 PM 98% 8/23/02, 4 PM Mansion Street 9 100% 8/23/02, 10 AM 100% 8/23/02, 1 PM 89% 8/23/02, 4 PM Ocean Street, between Lafayette and Columbia 19 100% 8/23/02, 10 AM 100% 8/23/02, 1 PM 100% 8/23/02, 4 PM Acme Lot 224 70% 7/13/02, 3 PM 86% 8/8/02, 4 PM 84% 8/9/02, 6 PM As indicated above, on-street parking spaces in the downtown are typically at full capacity in the summer season. With few exceptions, after 10:00 AM on-street parking in the downtown is at full capacity, from 97% to 100%. (For parking occupancy above 90%, motorists typically need to circle a block on numerous occasions to detect open parking spaces. Parking occupancy at this level is thus often referred to as full capacity.) It should be noted that most of the above counts were conducted during pleasant weather. Based on reports from Cape May residents, traffic into the downtown is heaviest, and parking most sought after, when weather is inclement, TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE M