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 MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 47 leading to an influx of visitors from nearby shore communities who are discouraged from sitting on the beach on those days. Based on data from a traffic and parking study conducted in July 1986, parking on the Mall in that year averaged 90% occupancy, which is less than average parking occupancy today. The finding that parking occupancy has increased in downtown Cape May, since 1986 is consistent with the increase of traffic volumes into Cape May over the same time period. Parking spaces are also well occupied at the Perry-Jackson Street Lot, at which occupancy ranged from 86 to 100%. The most under-utilized lot is Bank Street, at which occupancy ranged from 62 to 88%. Occupancy at the Acme lot ranged from 70 to 86%. Although more expensive than public parking, the Acme lot plays a valuable role in absorbing parking when public lots or on-street parking downtown is fully occupied. Parking occupancy was also surveyed on other streets throughout the city, albeit in a less comprehensive manner. Field views indicated that parking on Beach Avenue west of Madison Avenue is normally at capacity before 12:00 PM. Parking continues to fill up on Beach Avenue to the east of Madison Avenue in the afternoon, and is often fully occupied for all but the few blocks to the east of Pittsburgh Avenue. Field views also revealed that many other downtown streets, such as Bank, Venice and Elmira Streets, are regularly close to capacity. Streets in close proximity to the downtown and the beach, such as Broadway, Windsor and Grant Streets, are also close to 100% occupied on most summer afternoons. Parking Duration A parking duration count was conducted on August 23, 2002 to determine the number of motorists on the Mall that exceed the three-hour time limit. Most parking meters downtown limit motorists to a three-hour stay, but many motorists "feed the meter" and insert additional change when the meter expires. To determine the number of motorists that violate the three-hour limit, ORA staff circled the mall three times, every three hours, and recorded the license plate of the occupying vehicle. A comparison of the license plates indicates those vehicles that occupied spaces for at least three hours. There are a total of 158 spaces on Carpenters Lane, Lyle Lane and Mansion Street, and the three counts thus yielded a total of 474 available "parking slots." About 8% of the parking slots were occupied by vehicles that were parked illegally, or for more than three hours. This is almost exactly the same rate of parking violations recorded in the 1986 traffic and parking study. Of greater interest, seven (7) of the 158 spaces were occupied for at least six hours. Vehicles parked for this time span are more likely to be employees than those motorists parked for three hours. A basic principle of parking in any downtown environment is that spaces should be maintained for customers, not for employees. The illegal parking rate on Ocean Street between Lafayette Street and Columbia Street was found to be about 5%. The table below summarizes the illegal parking rate: TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 48 

Table IV-5: Illegal Parking Rate Street Spaces % Illegally Parked Carpenters Lane 94 9.0% Lyle Lane 56 6.5% Mansion Street 9 11.1% Ocean Street, between Lafayette Street and Columbia 19 5.2% Crash Analysis The Cape May City Police Department provided crash reports covering the year 2001, and January through June of 2002. There were a total of 223 crashes during this time period. The following table indicates the highest crash locations:

Table IV-6: High Crash Locations Street Crashes Sidney Avenue and Washington Street 7 Wawa (Texas Avenue) parking lot 7 Lafayette Street and Jackson Street 5 Lafayette Street and St. John Street 5 Beach Avenue and Perry Street 4 Acme Parking Lot 4 Franklin Street and Washington Street 4 Washington Street and Texas Avenue 4 As noted, the highest crash location is at the intersection of Sidney Avenue and Washington Street, on the North End "Rotary." The Rotary as a whole accounts for 22 crashes, or 10 percent of the total crashes in the City. This is due to the large volume of traffic at this location, the short segments within the rotary, and confusing signage. Motorists have little time to complete merging movements on their trips around the rotary, and this problem is exacerbated by the many first-time visitors who are unfamiliar with the city. Half of the motorists causing the crashes on the rotary lived outside the County. At Sidney Avenue and Washington Street, there were five rear-end crashes, the most common type of crash at this intersection. Motorists waiting to proceed at this stop-sign controlled approach often act in an uncertain manner. There were four side-swipe crashes, typically caused by motorists suddenly changing lanes on their way around the rotary. Given the large volumes of persons who walk and bicycle around the City, the number of pedestrian and bike crashes was relatively low. There were seven bike crashes and two pedestrian crashes in the period studied, and no concentration at any one location. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 49 Analysis and Recommendations Traffic Signals The traffic signals in the City provide for an orderly and safe movement of traffic and are well maintained. Except for the intersection of Ocean Street and Washington Street, and Franklin and Washington Street, all of the traffic signals are owned and maintained by Cape May County. Under agreement, the County also maintains the signals at the above-noted intersections. Beach Avenue The largest cluster of traffic signals is along Beach Avenue where there are seven closely spaced signals. The signals are synchronized during the summer months to avoid multiple stoppages along Beach Avenue and provide for adequate side street green time to accommodate vehicular and pedestrian traffic. During the off season, the signals go into a flashing mode, flashing yellow to Beach Avenue and red to the side streets. ORA has been advised that consideration is being given to having these seven traffic signals operate in a stop-and-go mode year round. If that program is advanced, consideration should be given to actuating all side street approaches and installing pedestrian pushbuttons so that side street approaches only receive a green signal upon demand; i.e., when a vehicle or a motorist is waiting. The actuation should only be used in the off-season. During the peak season, "fixed time" mode would be better suited to the large pedestrian volumes. Madison Avenue The two signalized intersections of Madison Avenue and Lafayette Street, and Madison Avenue and Washington Street operate in a "fixed time" mode. That is, they cycle through their timing schedule whether or not there are vehicles waiting on the side street, Madison Avenue. In order to make the traffic signals more traffic responsive so that they only service the side street upon demand, it is recommended that these signals operate on a "semi-actuated" mode; they would continuously provide green time to vehicles on Lafayette Street and on Washington Street until a vehicle stops at the Madison Avenue approaches. Vehicle detectors already exist at these locations, but would have to be activated by the County. To accommodate pedestrians, push buttons would have to be installed. The changes will have a positive effect on traffic flow on both Lafayette Street and Washington Street. Washington Street and Ocean Street Early in the study, ORA identified a significant conflict between pedestrians and vehicular traffic at this intersection, much of which could be traced to the exclusive pedestrian phase. Exclusive pedestrian phases are very unusual in New Jersey. There are only about 10 in the entire State. As a result, pedestrians are conditioned to cross at intersections during the non-conflicting phase. At this intersection, the phasing sequence consisted of a green signal for Ocean Street, followed by Washington Street, followed by the exclusive pedestrian phase. However, TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 50 pedestrians typically crossed Ocean Street during the Washington Street green and did not wait for the following exclusive pedestrian phase. As a result, traffic on Washington Street often encountered unnecessary delays. Based on the observations and recommendations made by ORA, the signal phasing has already been adjusted as follows: green signal for Ocean Street, followed by the exclusive pedestrian phase, followed by the Washington Street phase. Although this revision was made after the peak summer season, field observations indicate a significant increase in the percentage of pedestrians crossing the intersection during the exclusive pedestrian phase and not in conflict with vehicles. Observations at this intersection also revealed that all of the signal indications are post mounted at the curb line, not over the roadway. Although the vehicular signals are not as visible as they could be, there is no indication that this is causing a problem, based on the crash data. On the other hand, the pedestrian "Walk/ Don't Walk" signals are located on the same signal support just a couple of feet below the vehicular indications. The vehicular indications are much brighter than the pedestrian indications. When the pedestrians see the prominent green ball vehicle indications, they seem to overlook the less visible "Don't Walk" message. Separation between the two conflicting signal indications would help reduce pedestrian confusion. It is recommended that the "Walk/ Don't Walk" indications be remounted on an 8-foot arm or pipe extension from the existing signal pole so that they are located directly over the sidewalk area at the crosswalk and not in the same line of sight with the vehicular indications. It is also suggested that during peak periods, a crossing guard type person or police person be assigned to the intersection to ensure in a polite way that the pedestrians wait for their exclusive pedestrian phase. ORA understands that this has been tried in the past with minimal success, but more extensive efforts may yield more success. Transportation Center Traffic Signal The existing traffic signal at the Transportation Center entrance on Lafayette Street is located approximately 150 feet from the signal at Lafayette Street and Ocean Street. These two signals operate from the same controller to provide for what is known as an "inside clearance interval" which allows westbound vehicles that have passed the Transportation Center driveway to clear the Ocean Street signal before it turns red. This in turn allows for an unimpeded left turn movement into the transportation center. This inside clearance interval wastes 10 seconds of green time every 70-second signal cycle, adding to significant delays for westbound traffic. Traffic counts conducted on a Saturday afternoon between 2:00 and 6:00 PM showed an average of three vehicles per hour turning left into the Transportation Center. Field observations at other times corroborated this very low demand. If this traffic signal TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 51 were removed, these few vehicles would be able to make their turns in existing gaps in traffic. Eliminating this stopping point for westbound Lafayette Street traffic allows vehicles to proceed directly to the stop bar at Ocean Street. Motorists would further benefit if the signal at Ocean Street were changed to a lead green interval from the current lag green interval. It is, therefore, recommended that the traffic signal at the Transportation Center on Lafayette Street be removed. The stop bar should also be removed, and signs installed directing pedestrians to the crosswalks at Lafayette Street and Ocean Street. A lead green interval should be installed to replace the lag run interval. One-Way Streets One-way regulations are typically implemented to reduce congestion and increase the carrying capacity of a street network. They have been especially effective in downtown districts comprised of narrow streets, with on-street parking and high vehicular and pedestrian volumes. By eliminating opposing traffic movements, they are also effective in reducing conflicts (delays) and crashes at both signalized and non-signalized intersections. In addition, streets can benefit from the addition of parking lanes and dedicated bicycle lanes. Even with increased traffic volumes, studies have shown that conversion from two-way to one-way traffic flow reduces travel times and crashes by 10 to 50 percent. There are a few possible negative effects of converting to one-way operation. Some motorists may have to travel an extra distance to reach their destination. However, over time, most motorists will adjust their driving habits to minimize that inconvenience. Sufficient signing and pavement markings must be installed to clearly delineate the one-way operation in order to avoid wrong way movements. A good system of interconnected streets is beneficial. Transit operations will have to adjust their routes accordingly. The one-way system must take into consideration response times by emergency service personnel. Some business owners are concerned that a change in operation will reduce business by decreasing traffic flow. Studies have shown that the opposite in fact occurs. After a brief learning curve as motorists adapt to new traffic patterns, the customer base increases because it actually becomes easier and safer to reach a particular business. One-way street conversion has also been shown as having no effect on residential property values. Other benefits of one-way operations include: 1. Provides additional turning lanes without widening. 2. Simplifies traffic signal timings. 3. Reduces vehicle/pedestrian and vehicle/vehicle conflicts at intersections. 4. Meets changing traffic patterns almost immediately at a minimal cost; large capitol expenditures are not required. 5. Facilitates the unloading of commercial vehicles. 6. Since widening is typically not required, sidewalks, trees, etc. are not disturbed. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 52 7. At mid-block pedestrian crossings, pedestrians only have to look one way. There are already in existence several one-way streets in the City, all of which operate efficiently. The crash analysis shows minimal crash experience on the designated one-way streets, the one exception being the circular flow with multiple weaving areas at the east end of Lafayette and Washington Streets in the vicinity of Sidney Street and Texas Avenue. That area operates more like a traffic circle than a one-way street system. Carpenters Lane/ Lyle Lane and Decatur Street When ORA began this citywide traffic study, it was advised that the City had already determined that reversing the current one-way flow on Carpenters Lane and Lyle Lane would reduce a significant congestion point at the intersection of Ocean Street and Carpenters Lane. Based on collected data and field observations, ORA concurs that reversal of the current one-way flow on these two streets should provide a significant improvement to the overall traffic flow in the area without having any adverse impacts elsewhere. ORA also examined the commercial vehicle unloading situation in the area and the feasibility of prohibiting the left turn from Lafayette Street to Decatur Street to help reduce congestion on Lafayette Street. As a result of field views, it was recommended that Decatur Street be designated one way in the northbound direction between Carpenters Lane and Lafayette Street. This will provide the same effect as a no left turn prohibition and will complement the reversal of flow on Lyle Lane. Decatur Street should be marked for two lanes entering Lafayette Street, the left lane for left and through traffic, and the right lane for right turns only. Appropriate signing and pavement markings must be installed. It was also recommended to designate two loading zones on Decatur Street, one on the westerly curb line north of Lyle Lane, and another on the easterly curb line of Decatur Street for a short distance south of Lyle Lane. Both areas were recommended with the intent of maintaining adequate sight distance for pedestrians, and travel lanes for vehicles. Action has been taken on the above items as of the writing of this Circulation Plan. Bank Street Bank Street intersects Lafayette Street slightly offset toward the west from Decatur Street. Sight distance to the left from Bank Street is restricted by a wall. Vehicles exiting Bank Street and Decatur Street try to merge or cross Lafayette Street vying for the same gaps in traffic. This will be more pronounced after the implementation of the one-way on Decatur Street. The reversal of traffic flow on Lyle Lane will make for increased traffic volumes exiting Decatur Street. Further, Bank Street traffic will no longer be able to access Decatur Street. In order to provide for the safest possible traffic flow in the area, the short block of Bank Street between Lafayette Street and Broad Street should be made one-way away from Lafayette Street (northbound). That diverted traffic would then use Broad Street to Jackson Street to Lafayette Street, a minimal distance out of their way. As a result, a significant congestion point along a main arterial will be eliminated. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 53 Lafayette Street and Washington Street Washington Street and Lafayette Street are parallel east/west roadways approximately 1 1/2 miles in length that traverse the City from its entrance at Lower Township to the Washington Street Mall area. They are approximately 300 feet apart. At the easterly entrance to the City, Lafayette Street and Washington Street form a one-way couplet in the Sidney/Texas Avenue area. These two roadways are connected to each other by 10 cross streets, three (3) of which have signalized crossings: Madison Avenue, Franklin Avenue, and Ocean Street. Both Lafayette Street and Washington Street operate as two-way streets carrying one lane of traffic in each direction. Parking is permitted along Washington Street on alternate sides for most of its length. Parking is permitted on Lafayette Street in only two locations: in front of a residential neighborhood and the Elementary School. At both locations the curb line has been set back to shadow the parked vehicles. On both streets, numerous Sycamore trees growing between the sidewalk and the curbing lean out over the roadway. Advisory signs are placed advising motorists, especially truckers, of that condition. The two roadways are relatively narrow, with widths of 26 to 28 feet for Lafayette Street, and 30 feet for Washington Street. Because of their narrow widths, and because vehicles typically travel faster on these roadways than those downtown, they do not provide an amenable environment for bicycling. Few bicyclists choose to ride there. Traffic counts taken during the study revealed that 70 percent of all traffic coming into and out of the City from the north, as well as internal circulation movements, use Lafayette Street. Motorists tend to exit on the same street or driveway that they use to enter a city. Under the current street configuration, motorists that enter Cape May via Lafayette Street, exit via Lafayette Street. Field observations and traffic counts confirm this. For example, motorists exiting the beachfront area of the City via Madison Avenue were observed crossing Washington Street, then turning right onto Lafayette Street to exit the City, rather than follow the shorter route of Washington Street out of the City. Based on field observations and an analysis of the traffic volume data, it is recommended that Lafayette Street be made one way westbound and Washington Street one way eastbound from Sidney Street to Ocean Street. It should be noted that under this proposal, 20 percent of the traffic on the two roadways will be shifted to Washington Street, and the tour trolleys and buses accessing the Transportation Center from the west will have to change their route. However, the following positives can be achieved: There will be one lane of moving traffic on each street instead of the present two lanes. Parking can be permitted on one side of each street for its entire length, as opposed to the current situation, in which parking is only permitted on Lafayette Street for limited sections. Additional meters could be considered in the downtown area. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 54 A dedicated bicycle lane can be established along the entire length of both streets to accommodate two wheel and four-wheel bicycles, as well as horse drawn carriages, thus minimizing interference with vehicular traffic (Figures IV-4 and IV-5). The parking lane and bike lane will provide safe distance between moving vehicles and the overhanging trees. Emergency vehicles will be less affected by congestion since vehicles can pull to either side to allow them to pass. The City has expressed interest in physically widening Lafayette Street at Elmira Street to create a westbound through/left-turn lane and a right-turn lane. This action would no longer be needed since the one-way configuration will permit the westbound approach on Lafayette Street at Elmira Street to be re-striped to provide for an exclusive left-turn lane and a combination through/right lane. This lane configuration will also emphasize the termination of the one-way westbound flow on Lafayette Street at this intersection. A leading green arrow could be installed to facilitate the left turn onto Ocean Street. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 55 The left turn prohibition from Lafayette Street into the Acme parking lot currently presents both an enforcement and congestion problem, as many motorists choose to ignore it. This left turn can now be allowed, thereby eliminating that congestion point. Left turns at other key intersections such as at Madison Avenue and Franklin Street can have their own designated lane, thereby no longer blocking traffic. A number of issues must be addressed to facilitate the proposed conversion. A greater number of vehicles will now be turning left from Ocean Street onto Washington Street to exit the City. An increase in left-turn volumes at this intersection can be accommodated because the Washington Street phase of the signal timing can be eliminated. A lead left phase for Ocean Street traffic turning left onto Washington Street can be provided, and a few more seconds added to the pedestrian interval. Motorists desiring to make a U-turn can do so via the various connector streets, some of which are signalized. A formal signed U-turn can be established on Sidney Street by converting its one-way southbound direction to a two-way English style traffic system separated by a positive barrier (Figure IV-6). Some residents have expressed concern about one-way conversion in the past due to the perception that one-way streets would lead to faster traffic speeds. However, because only one lane of moving traffic is proposed on each street, not two lanes, differences in vehicular speeds should be minimal. Vehicles will not have the option of changing lanes to travel at a faster speed. It should be noted that the implementation of a one-way system will require the approval of the County, as well as the New Jersey Department of Transportation. It will require major changes to the signing and pavement markings. An extensive publicity effort will have to be made to ensure that everyone in Cape May, as well as the adjoining municipalities, TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 56 are aware of the impending change in traffic flow. Implementation should be considered in the off seasons of February and March, or October and November. Geometric Improvements While geometric improvements are much more costly than traffic control devices, there are times where they are needed to improve traffic flow and safety. Such improvements are usually considered longer term since they require detailed plan development, securing funding and possible right-of-way acquisition. Elmira Street The City is currently working on plans to widen Elmira Street between Lafayette Street and Broad Street in order to provide for two-way traffic, one lane in each direction. This traffic study endorses that project. This improvement would provide for better downtown traffic circulation and is compatible with a recommendation later in the study to direct traffic into the City from Ferry Road in Lower Township via Broadway, Central Avenue, and short sections of Park Boulevard and Leaming Avenue in West Cape May through Elmira Street. Broad Street The City is currently working on plans to widen Broad Street from the railroad tracks to St. Johns Street, by narrowing the sidewalk on the northerly side. The roadway widening here will improve overall traffic circulation in the downtown area. That widening should include an increase of the corner radius at the intersection of Broad Street and St. Johns Street. Ocean Street between Hughes Street and Carpenters Lane The easterly curb line of Ocean Street between Hughes Street and Carpenters Lane extends into the northbound travel lane of Ocean Street, creating a significant jog in the traffic flow. That alignment change is so significant that a northbound motorist not paying full attention to driving tasks could inadvertently ride up on the sidewalk. It should be noted that there was no crash data at this location which would indicate that this is a chronic problem. Cutting back the wide sidewalk area approximately five (5) feet would smooth out the northbound traffic flow while still leaving sufficient sidewalk width. This action should leave a slight jog, thus acting as a traffic calming feature as well as shadowing the trolleys parked at the Washington Street intersection (Figure IV-7). TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 57 Ocean Street between Washington Street and Carpenters Lane There is a designated CAT bus stop along the westerly curb line of Ocean Street at the corner with Carpenters Lane. This is an excellent location for the CAT bus stop which services the mall area. The location also provides very good visibility for promoting the CAT service. Buses stopped at this location interfere with through traffic as well as block pedestrian sight lines. The sidewalk area is extremely wide. Cutting into the sidewalk area for a width of eight (8) feet, for the length of one CAT bus, will improve traffic flow and sight lines. This would still leave ample sidewalk area for pedestrian traffic (see Figure IV-7). Lafayette Street and Ocean Street The Acme parking lot is located on the northeast corner of the intersection. At the corner, the parking lot is approximately 3 feet higher than the sidewalk area. The two are separated by a vertical concrete wall. Field observations have shown that many pedestrians walking from the Mall area/ Washington Street to Lafayette Street cut across the parking lot, heading toward the corner at Ocean Street. Once they reach the corner and see the elevation difference, about half of the pedestrians turn around and go another way while the other half jump off the wall. It is recommended that a couple of steps be installed to facilitate the pedestrian movement from one elevation to the other. Such construction should not interfere with any of the current parking spaces, and will be of more importance once the traffic signal at the Transportation Center is removed and all pedestrians directed to cross at the remaining signalized intersection. Washington Street at Texas Avenue On the two-lane Washington Street approach to Texas Avenue, there is a triangular concrete island which channelizes the right lane of Washington Street onto Texas Avenue and the left lane as a through movement leaving the City. A public comment suggested cutting back the island to give the right lane on Washington Street the option of going straight ahead or turning right. Based on traffic analysis, the cut back of the channelizing island is not recommended. Two lanes of vehicles entering the 90 degree left turn just beyond the island in advance of the one lane exit from the City could create TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 58 severe weaving conditions with the potential of increasing the crash experience in the area. Route 109 at Schellenger's Landing Road The most congested area in the region is not actually in Cape May City, but in Lower Township, on Route 109 at the westerly end of the Canal Bridge. At this point, two westbound lanes of traffic converge into one through lane. At the same point where the lanes merge, a very heavy left turn movement into Schellenger's Landing Road is introduced, as is a U-turn lane from under the bridge. The lane drop/heavy left turn combination creates extensive backups during peak periods and general slowing of traffic and erratic lane changes throughout the day. In the opposite direction, one very wide lane is provided for vehicles exiting the City. At this location during a 4:00 PM to 5:00 PM counting period on a Saturday in August, the following traffic volumes were recorded: Schellenger's Landing Road 1 (illegal) 230 239 958 135 826 These numbers are similar to field observations taken during other hours of the day and week. The roadway width from curb to curb is 50 feet. On Route 109 on the easterly side of the intersection, a narrow island comprised of back-to-back vertical curbing separates opposite directions of travel. Left turning vehicles wait adjacent to this curbing to make the left turn into Schellenger's Landing Road. If this dividing island is removed, there is sufficient width of pavement to create a painted 11- foot, left-turn storage lane and two through lanes of 12 and 13 feet in width which would merge beyond the intersection. A painted island would be installed on the westerly side of the intersection to keep traffic exiting the City in one wide lane until they are beyond the intersection (Figure IV-8). TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 59 As noted, this entire intersection which negatively impacts traffic entering Cape May City is outside of the City limits in Lower Township. There is also a split jurisdiction of the roadway between Cape May County and the NJDOT. All three jurisdictions would have to concur in these recommendation, with all likelihood the County taking the lead. Signing Studies have shown that most motorists make minimal reference to maps when traveling to unfamiliar areas, and rely primarily on signing once they reach their destination. Motorists also have a tendency to enter and exit an area via the same route without trying to see if there is a less congested or shorter route available. Such behavior causes congestion. Of more concern is the fact that a confused or lost motorist is more likely to get involved in an accident. All of the above creates undesirable traffic situations, especially in resort areas where many motorists are first time visitors or travel to the area infrequently. Good directional signing can alleviate most of the noted concerns, and disperse traffic such that a high percentage of motorists do not use the same route when entering and exiting an area. Good guide signing requires that signs are located sufficiently in advance and are legible so that motorists can make the proper decision before they must negotiate a turn. These signing practices are difficult to implement in urban areas with closely spaced streets, limited right-of-way, curbside parking, driveways, and overhanging trees. Such conditions are typical throughout the City. The following discussion highlights problem areas that were observed during our traffic studies and field observations and provides general recommendations which, once implemented, will significantly improve traffic operations and safety. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 60 General Guide Signing A very high percentage of the traffic entering the City comes from the Garden State Parkway, with much smaller percentages coming from the Cape May-Lewes Ferry, Route US 9 and Ocean Drive. All of this traffic is currently signed to enter the City via Route 109 and the Schellenger's Landing Bridge. Once within the City limits most motorists continue down Lafayette Street to the downtown area, then diverge to their final destinations, such as lodging, the beachfront or even the Cape May Point Lighthouse. If this traffic could be redirected to alternate, less congested routes, overall traffic congestion will decrease significantly. Automobile Traffic from the Ferry Vehicles from the Ferry should not have to enter the City via Route 109. Directional signing should be installed on eastbound Ferry Road directing that traffic onto Seashore Road (CR 626). Seashore Road becomes Broadway in West Cape May. Signing should be installed in advance of the intersection of Broadway and Central Avenue directing traffic destined for Cape May City to turn left onto Central Avenue. At the same location, straight through signing should be installed directing motorists to the West Cape May Business District, the beach, and the lighthouse. Signing for the beach and the Lighthouse should be installed at the intersection of Broadway and Sunset Boulevard (CR 606). Traffic for Cape May City that had been directed onto Central Avenue should be signed for a left turn onto Elmira Street. Until such time as Elmira Street is widened to provide two-way traffic, a turn to either the left or right at Broad Street will take visitors to the downtown area. A "Welcome to the City of Cape May" sign should also be installed at the Cape Island Creek Bridge. Reverse signing should direct motorists along these routes back to the Ferry, which will keep this traffic out of the downtown area. Cape May Lighthouse Although it is a significant destination for many motorists, directional signing to the Lighthouse is limited. Many motorists drive into the City, and only then ask for directions to the Lighthouse. Traffic on the Garden State Parkway, Ferry Road, and Ocean Drive should all be directed to the Lighthouse via Seashore Road to Broadway Avenue to Sunset Boulevard. Cape May Canal Bridge Area Although not directional signing, the installation of "Lane Ends" warning signs should significantly benefit inbound traffic flow. There currently is no notice to southbound motorists crossing the Cape May Canal Bridge that their two lanes will merge to one lane at the south end of the bridge. As a result, motorists continue in two lanes until the skip lines end, roughly at the same location where large volumes turn left onto Schellenger's Landing Road, and a southbound U-turn ramp is introduced. (This location is also discussed in the section on geometric changes.) This is a significant congestion point for inbound traffic. This matter has been discussed with the County Engineering Department and they have subsequently requested the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) to install a series of warning signs advising motorists that the left lane ends. These signs will not reduce all of the congestion, but will assist in smoothing out the traffic flow. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 61 Lafayette Street, Vicinity of Sidney Avenue Although there is some existing signing on Lafayette Street directing motorists to the beach area via Sidney/Texas/Pittsburgh Avenues, it could be better located and supplemented with business district signing straight ahead for emphasis purposes. The beach signings should also be segregated from the Coast Guard signing throughout this area. The current signing appears to cause confusion. Signing to the beach should also be installed in advance of the intersection of Lafayette Street with Madison Avenue. The directional signing facing Sidney Avenue at its intersection with Washington Street is very complex and in need of better organization and simplification. An additional cause of confusion on the motorist’s part may be the large bank of advertising signs directly behind the guide signage at this location. Perry Street and Jackson Street A southbound beach directional sign should be installed on Perry Street, west of the intersection with Jackson Street, directing traffic to continue on Perry Street instead of entering the downtown traffic mix via Jackson Street. Signage for Exiting Traffic Most of the previous signing discussions and recommendations involved entering traffic. Motorists desiring to exit the City should also be informed of alternate routes instead of relying entirely on Lafayette Street and Washington Street. Motorists should be directed via signing to exit the beachfront area via Broadway if they are destined for the Lighthouse or Cape May Point, Cape May-Lewes Ferry, and West Cape May. Motorists destined for the Parkway should be encouraged by signing to use either Madison Avenue to Washington Street or Pittsburgh Avenue to Texas Avenue. A few Parkway trailblazers with appropriate arrows should also be placed along Beach Avenue directing motorists to these alternate routes. General Signage Issues There are several global issues that these signing recommendations address. First, they spread entering and exiting traffic out which will relieve congestion in the downtown business district. Second, they expose motorists to other parts of the City, including businesses that they would not normally see. Third, they also expose motorists to additional parking opportunities, both metered and un-metered, that could be used both then and in the future to alleviate the parking crunch in the downtown area. While the change in the traffic signal timing sequence at the intersection of Ocean Street and Washington Street has had some very positive effects in decreasing the TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 62 pedestrian/vehicular conflicts, some visible signage to remind pedestrians to obey the signals could also help. It is recommended that signs with the message "Pedestrians, Be Courteous, Obey Walk Signals" be installed on the signal poles on all four corners of the intersection facing approaching pedestrians on the Mall, as well as those coming from the Washington Street approaches. Many of these signing recommendations involve county roads, so any implementation will require concurrence and coordination with the Office of the County Engineer. Pavement Markings Pavement markings provide an important, cost effective function in providing guidance and information for both motorists and pedestrians. As a general statement, the existing pavement markings throughout the City are properly placed and in relatively good condition, although a few were beginning to fade by the end of the summer. Once pavement markings are placed, they must be maintained since they do deteriorate rapidly due to weather and traffic flow. This is especially true for transverse markings such as stop lines and crosswalks. Certain types of crosswalk marking designs and materials can reduce labor and maintenance costs, while enhancing the visibility of the crosswalk. In addition to how they are placed, the composition of pavement marking materials is critical to their durability. NJDOT has done significant research into pavement marking materials and their durability. The following is a brief summary of those findings. There are four commonly used materials: paint, epoxy, thermoplastic, and inlaid tape. Paint is the least durable, lasting about one year; epoxy and thermoplastic pavement markings will last three (3) to five (5) years; and inlaid tape applied to new asphalt could last up to 10 years. The life cycle of all of these materials is increased significantly with the addition of glass beads to the mix. The beads also provide these materials with their nighttime retroflectivity. The State recommends that thermoplastic pavement markings be used for stop lines, crosswalks, and word and symbol messages and the other three materials for center lines and edge lines. To reduce long-term maintenance costs and work efforts, consideration should be given to using long life pavement marking materials in future applications. Beach Avenue The current positioning of the centerline pavement markings on a portion of Beach Avenue restricts the movement of traffic when motorists are entering and exiting parking spaces on the beach side of the street. The travel way is of sufficient width to allow for the shifting of the centerline to improve traffic flow. It is therefore recommended that the centerline on Beach Avenue between Grant Street and Broadway be relocated approximately five (5) to seven (7) feet to the north of its current location. Lafayette Street at St. Johns Street During periods of congestion on Lafayette Street, traffic backs up from the traffic signals at Ocean Street and the Transportation Center through this intersection, frequently blocking it. Because St. Johns Street is very narrow and this is a ‘T’-style intersection, many motorists do not notice it. In order to improve the visibility of the TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 63 intersection and inform westbound motorists of its width, it is recommended that crosswalks be painted across all three approaches and that two "Do Not Block Intersection" signs be installed, one on the near right side corner and one on the far right corner of the intersection. PARKING Paired Parking Parallel parking maneuvers along a curb line can cause significant congestion in high traffic areas, especially in areas where travel lanes are narrow. Studies have shown that typical curbside parking space lengths around 22 to 24 feet, similar to that found throughout the City, require motorists to consume 32 seconds maneuvering their car into a position where it no longer blocks the travel lane. This time can vary widely depending on the type of vehicle and driving skill of the driver. Such delays could cause following motorists to lose up to one-half of the available green time at the next signalized intersection. If this maneuver time obstructing a travel lane can be decreased, congestion will ease. In the 1970's, a new concept in curbside parallel parking was introduced. It shortens the individual parking stalls and provides for a distinct maneuver area between pairs of parking spaces. This system is most effective when implemented on streets which are, by design, too narrow for anything but parallel parking and too congested to accommodate it well. Studies of parking maneuvers with this type of paired parking shows that through traffic is obstructed less than five (5) seconds on average since most of the parking maneuvers, except for the initial slowing of the vehicle, are accomplished outside of the travel lane. This paired parking concept also lends itself to the placement of landscaping or street furniture adjacent to the maneuver area. With good engineering, the maneuver areas can be located to include curb cuts, or fire hydrants to minimize loss of parking spaces as the parking lane is reconfigured. Several configurations of the paired parking system have been evaluated over the years. The currently recommended configuration is composed of two, 17-foot spaces with a 14-foot maneuver area between each pair. A typical layout is shown on Figure IV-9. It is possible that a couple of existing spaces could be lost in the configuration of a block; however, the positive effects on traffic operations and aesthetics far outweigh that loss. In some cases, the loss of metered spaces could be offset by installing meters on another block in the same area. This parking configuration can be installed any place curbside parking maneuvers interfere with traffic movement, whether metered or not. To significantly reduce traffic congestion, it is recommended that this configuration be installed at the following locations: along Beach Avenue between Howard and Madison Streets and also between Decatur Street and Grant Street. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 64 Ocean Street, Vicinity of the Star of the Sea School During school days, school buses park along the westerly curb line of Ocean Street between Lafayette Street and Washington Street to pick up and discharge students attending the Star of the Sea School. Due to the narrowness of Ocean Street in this area, the buses block all but about five (5) feet of the southbound lane. As a result, all southbound vehicles must cross the centerline to pass the buses. City officials should work with the administration of the Star of the Sea School to see if the school bus loading area can be relocated to another location. Two possibilities are on-site, or to the school side of Decatur Street since that street has just been converted to one-way operation and the required travel way has thus been cut in half. Parking Demand One of the most significant traffic issues in Cape May is the difficulty of finding a parking space in the downtown. As noted in the Existing Conditions section, on-street parking spaces in the downtown are at capacity on most summer days. Indeed, it can be difficult to find a parking space in the entire western third of the city, roughly west of Jefferson Street. The parking situation, in turn, contributes to traffic congestion in the downtown, as motorists frequently circle blocks several times in the effort to find a parking space. While on-street parking on Beach Avenue east of Madison Avenue also fills up in the course of the day, it is generally possible in this area to find a parking space one or two blocks removed from the beach. Addressing the parking problem in the downtown, on the other hand, requires a comprehensive solution. As discussed earlier, the parking situation has worsened in the past 16 years, a trend that will likely continue. Parking Supply The City has increasingly limited options for creating new parking spaces in the downtown. A 1986 Cape May traffic and parking study recommended expanding the Perry-Jackson lot, and re-organizing the Bank Street lot to create more spaces. Both of these recommendations were implemented. The Department of Public Works has been active in re-striping on-street parking areas to yield a greater number of spaces, but these result in relatively few additional spaces compared to the demand. There are few TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 65 under-utilized lots in the downtown today. However, one possibility for a new surface or structured parking facility would be the site of Vance’s Bar. It is understood that the current owner may be interested in selling this property. This site could be developed in conjunction with the adjacent parcel occupied by the Wise Anderson Recreation Complex. This complex is in need of rehabilitation; if it is decided to develop a local park on another site, this site would be available for parking. Together, these two sites would comprise a parcel of approximately 320 by 300 feet. If the entire parcel could be developed as a surface lot, it would yield about 300 parking spaces, which would be a major asset in addressing the downtown parking shortage. Commercial land uses and parking lots in the downtown were examined to identify the possibility for sharing parking with private uses. Based upon field views, this alternative does not offer significant potential to create new spaces. The City is considering the possibility of developing surface parking in the vicinity of the intersection of Elmira and Venice Streets. Presuming that environmental and community impact issues could be addressed, the City has indicated that this lot could accommodate 100 spaces. This lot is about one-quarter mile from the Mall, and employees in downtown establishments would be very likely to use it if given the opportunity. Parking Enforcement As discussed in the Existing Conditions section, up to 8% of motorists park longer than the three hours permitted at most meters on streets around the Washington Street Mall. It may be possible to reduce this violation rate, and thus create greater turnover at these meters, through more rigorous enforcement of the three-hour limit. This can be accomplished simply by chalking tires. A parking enforcement officer would circle downtown streets and make a colored chalk mark on the tire of vehicles, and return three hours later to identify vehicles with these chalk marks. These vehicles would then be ticketed. Cape May City could maintain its image as a tourist-friendly community by waiving the first ticket, but treating the second parking ticket as a traffic offense. This would be especially advised since many visitors to the city would not necessarily be aware that "meter-feeding" is not permitted. The primary goal of this ticketing program would be to reduce the number of violations by downtown employees or regular visitors. It should be noted, however, that enforcement of the three-hour limits would have limited potential for addressing the parking problem downtown. Even if all employees currently parking on the streets adjacent to the Mall – Carpenters, Lyle and Mansion – moved their vehicles elsewhere, the spaces freed up would be far lower than the current excess parking demand. Satellite Lots and Shuttle System One of the most promising means for alleviating parking demand downtown would be the creation of an effective bus shuttle and satellite lot system. Either of these two strategies can be effective in reducing parking demand in downtown Cape May, but since they would be most effective in combination, they will be discussed together. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 66 A "satellite lot" refers to any lot outside the downtown where visitors, or employees living outside the downtown, could park their vehicle and thence walk, bicycle or shuttle to the downtown. Ideally, a satellite lot should be located to the north of the city so that motorists would not need to encounter the congestion on Route 109 between the Canal Bridge and Schellenger’s Landing Bridge, or on Lafayette Street in Cape May. There is an existing satellite lot on Lafayette Street at the Cape May Elementary School. There are 62 spaces at this school, including six handicapped stalls. In the summer, a sign is installed on Lafayette Street southbound in advance of the lot, as well as at the lot itself. A sign indicates that a CAT (Cape Area Transit) shuttle passes by the lot, although there is no information on the schedule or where the motorist should stand to wait for the shuttle. On field views, some motorists were observed apparently waiting for the shuttle in the parking lot, while the shuttle drove by on Lafayette Street. Further, as is true of the CAT shuttle itself, the existence of the satellite lot has been poorly publicized. Very few vehicles – less than 15 – were ever observed using the lot. A factor in the poor usage of the elementary school lot may be its location. It is about 1/2 mile to the Mall, and 0.6 miles to Beach Avenue. Studies show that people are reluctant to walk more than 1/4 mile after parking, although some people were observed to be walking to the downtown. Further, visitors have to pass through significant congestion – between the Canal Bridge and Schellenger’s Landing Bridge – to reach this lot, and may not see the point in parking outside the downtown once they have navigated the most congested roadways. Although the CAT shuttle services this lot, it runs relatively infrequently, at once every 30 minutes, and is relatively expensive at $2.00 fare. At this fare, a couple would spend $8.00 for a round trip, far more than the $4.50 that would be required to park at a downtown meter for six hours. For a larger family, it would, of course, be even more costly to use the CAT shuttle. ORA examined the possibility of locating a satellite lot outside Cape May City, at sites recommended by the Cape May Intermodal Ground Transportation Feeder Study, prepared by the South Jersey Transportation Authority in May 1995. Municipal officials from Cape May communities, including Cape May City, participated in this study along with other agencies. This study has been important in analyzing the potential for shuttle service in the region. For example, its recommendation for a "Downtowner Loop" shuttle service led directly to the creation of the Cape Area Transit system. Recommendations for improved shuttle service in the future should build upon this study. This traffic study will thus analyze some of the recommendations in that report, pointing out, when necessary, how strategies should be revised. The Feeder Study recommended three locations as being the most promising park and ride lots: • Historic Cold Spring Village • Rio Grande Mall • Elementary School #2 – Cape May Court House All three of these sites have limited potential as a successful satellite lots to be served by a shuttle. The distance that motorists on the Parkway would travel out of their way to reach Cold Spring Village is roughly equal to the distance to downtown Cape May. The TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 67 large majority of motorists would likely not travel out of their way to that extent, when within striking distance of downtown. Further, this attraction is most popular on summer weekends – when the need for satellite parking is greatest. Based on communications with Cold Spring Village, it appears that it would be difficult to use its parking lot as a satellite facility. Motorists would have to go well out their way from the Parkway, passing through the Cape May Court House business district, to reach Elementary School #2, and this site also does not seem feasible. Rio Grande Mall on Route 47 would be more feasible in terms of location, and should receive further consideration. One reason why these sites were identified in the 1995 report is their proximity to the Cape May Seashore Line rail service, which runs between the 4-H Fairgrounds and the Cape May Transportation Center. This excursion rail service is a welcome amenity and adds to the historic character of the Cape May area. The operator estimates its ridership at 22,000 to 24,000 per year, which is useful in reducing traffic and parking in Cape May City. The City should promote the availability of the Seashore Lines, just as it should better promote the CAT shuttle. However, the creation of any satellite lots outside the city should typically be planned with shuttle service in mind, not rail service. Shuttle service has greater potential for reaching a much larger audience than rail service. With round-trip adult fares ranging from $5.00 to $8.00, and child fares ranging from $4.00 to $5.00, depending upon the distance from Cape May, the Seashore Line is more costly than desired to attract a wide audience. Further, with only four trips per day into and out of the city, it runs far too infrequently to capture the many visitors. The City should thus not focus upon development of the Seashore Lines as a means for significantly reducing traffic flow into the city. Several of the sites identified in the study have some potential for use as park and ride lots that would be serviced by a shuttle. These include the Charles Sandman Consolidated School on Seashore Road in Lower Township, and the Carl Mitnick School, also on Seashore Road in Lower Township. Charles Sandman School has approximately 70 spaces. Carl Mitnick School offers greater potential as a satellite lot, with 127 spaces in its parking lot, and capacity for parking on a flat, grassy area next to the asphalt lot. It lies along Seashore Road south of Route 9, and thus would attract motorists who prefer not to travel out of their way, especially for those coming from the ferry. Although not analyzed in the 1995 report, the location with the greatest potential as a satellite lot would be the grassy lot owned by the NJDOT on Route 109 at the base of the Canal Bridge. This site would be visible and accessible, and would be particularly attractive to incoming motorists inasmuch as congestion on Route 109 through Schellenger’s Landing often starts at this point. However, this lot is across the roadway from a residential area, and a satellite lot here thus presents community impact issues that would need to be addressed. Major impacts would include traffic, lighting associated with the parking lot, and noise. Extensive landscaping would be needed to buffer this use from the residents. With roughly 54,000 square feet of this lot being developable – presuming environmental concerns could be addressed – this area could accommodate at least 180 vehicles. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 68 As noted earlier, the most promising means for intercepting both visitors and employees, and convincing them not to drive into the city, is a bus system, not a rail line. NJ Transit Routes 552, 313, 315, 316 and 319 all travel through Cape May County municipalities, terminating at the Cape May Transportation Center. However, none of these bus routes would likely attract the seasonal vacationer. These bus routes have been operating for many years, and have attracted only a small number of persons traveling to Cape May, most of them workers. The most frequent of these services runs hourly, and most of these routes take far longer to travel between the Wildwoods and Cape May than is desirable. The route with the shortest service between Wildwood Bus Terminal and Cape May only has four trips per day. Further, most families simply do not make the effort to investigate regular bus service on vacation. A special shuttle has the marketing appeal necessary to capture this audience. Two strategies for shuttles offer the greatest potential for attracting employees and visitors from their personal vehicles: 1. Improve attractiveness and awareness of the existing CAT shuttle; and 2 . Develop a regional shuttle to pick up vacationers and employees from other municipalities in Cape May County. To a large extent, these two strategies are intertwined. Greater success in promoting the use of the CAT shuttle within Cape May City will lay the foundation for a well-used regional shuttle. In the absence of an effective shuttle system – both locally and regionally – it will become increasingly difficult to address parking demand in downtown Cape May without investing in new facilities, such as a parking garage. A discussion of both strategies follows. Improve attractiveness and awareness of existing CAT shuttle The City of Cape May has contracted with a private bus company, Lion Tours, to operate the CAT shuttle, which it has done for four seasons. The City of Cape May does not subsidize the service, although NJ Transit essentially provides a subsidy by leasing the shuttle at no charge to Lion Tours. In 2002, the City Route shuttle operated on weekends from May 24 to June 23, and September 6 to October 13. Between June 24 and September 2, the summer schedule operates between 10:00 AM to 10:00 PM seven days per week. There is also a Lighthouse Point route, which operates from June 21 to September 2. For both routes the fare is $2.00 each way, and $6.00 for a daily pass. Official ridership data for 2002 is not available, but was estimated to range between only 15 and 100 riders per day. Assuming an TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 69 average of 50 riders per day, the service would have attracted roughly 4,900 riders in the summer of 2002. The largest boarding is at the Washington Street mall; the second largest boarding occurs at the Canyon Club Marina, to pick up visitors who have boated to the city. In picking up riders at the Washington Street mall, and those who have arrived via boat, the shuttle has very little impact in reducing the number of persons who park down-town. Given the large influx of visitors to Cape May in the summer, and the difficulty of finding parking down-town, the CAT shuttle should be able to attract a greater ridership than it currently does. The City of Cape May should take the following actions to better promote the shuttle: Create a more visible presence at the bus stop at the Washington Street Mall. There is currently only one small sign southbound on Ocean Avenue adjacent to the Mall, mounted below a "No Parking" sign. A small plastic pouch affixed to the signpost contains schedules. Neither the sign nor the pouch is very visible. A more prominent sign should be installed here. In addition to the schedules in the plastic container, there should be a sign depicting the CAT route. Ideally, there would be a bench and/or shelter associated with this bus stop. The CAT would also benefit if the wide sidewalk at this location were cut back to create a "bus pull-out." The bus could wait here without creating congestion on southbound Ocean Avenue, much as the MAC Trolley and horse-drawn carriages have curbside locations out of traffic on the northbound side of Ocean Street. Create a more visible presence at other key locations. A number of CAT signs are posted at other locations around the city. Similar to the recommendation made for the Washington Street Mall, these signs should be more visible, with an affixed route map and with associated benches and/or shelters. Reserved bus stops should be created along Beach Avenue. This may involve the removal of several parking spaces. The removal of parking spaces is less of an issue on Beach Avenue east of Madison Avenue, since parking demand here is less pronounced. However, even on Beach Avenue west of Madison Avenue, the City should consider that a more functional shuttle system may lessen the demand for parking. Promote the shuttle. Currently, many visitors remain unaware of the existence of the shuttle. As one example, ORA staff spoke to long-time annual visitors to the city, staying in a large hotel on Beach Avenue, who said they would have used the shuttle if they knew about it. Little effort is made to inform visitors of the shuttle. The availability of the CAT should be advertised on the web site for Cape May City, the Cape May City Chamber of Commerce, and other web sites. It should be described in literature sent to visitors. Participating members in the Chamber of Commerce should be encouraged to mention the CAT in their literature or on their web sites, and have CAT shuttle brochures in their shops and lodgings. Lower the price, and increase frequency. As discussed above, Cape May City can take many actions to promote use of the shuttle. To lower the price of the shuttle, however, coordination with the operator of the shuttle is required. Particularly for larger groups, there is an economic disincentive to use the shuttle, and many visitors thus choose to TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 70 drive and park at a meter. To encourage more visitors to use the shuttle, the fare should be lowered from $2.00 per trip. The fare was increased from $1.00 to $2.00 at the beginning of the 2002 summer season, and the operator reports that ridership did not seem to have been affected. However, the ridership currently is quite low, and does not represent a normal market in which consumers’ choice is affected by price. With greater awareness of the service, price will start to factor into the willingness of riders to use the service. The ideal situation would consist of greater promotional efforts by the City, and lower CAT fares. Among the most effective actions the City could take to increase shuttle ridership would be to institute free service. Free shuttle bus service is commonplace at many resort communities throughout the country. This would obviously require a subsidy by the City to the shuttle operator. Financially, this would be most realistic if the City approved a Tourist Tax, as discussed later. Develop regional shuttle to pick up vacationers and employees from other municipalities in Cape May County. The CAT City Route was only one of four potential shuttle services discussed in the 1995 SJTA Feeder Study. One route discussed with significant potential to reduce traffic and parking demand is the Route 9/ Beach Feeder Bus Service. Originating at the Rio Grande Mall, and concentrating on locations along Route 9/ Seashore Road, this shuttle would stop at a number of large campgrounds, such as Wildwood Canadian Campground and Green Holly Shore Campground. Campgrounds, in general, represent a potential major source of ridership. There are 47 campgrounds in Cape May County, with over 15,500 campground sites. A survey of campground visitors reveals that their willingness to take the shuttle is in direct proportion to the frequency and cost of service. A large majority of campground visitors interviewed indicated that they would use the shuttle if it had a 15-minute frequency and was free; even with a $1.00 fare, a majority of campground visitors indicated that they would use the shuttle, if service had no more than 30-minute headways. Other services discussed in the 1995 Feeder Study – such as a shuttle between Wildwood Convention Center and Cape May County Zoo, and the Atlantic City International Airport route, would have less impact on intercepting motorists traveling to Cape May. A shuttle route not discussed in the 1995 report – but which should be considered by Cape May City in its effort to create a regional service – would be a route which serves the largest resort areas to the north: Wildwood Crest, Wildwood, and North Wildwood. Depending upon further study, stops in these resort towns could be combined with stops in Stone Harbor and Avalon, or stops in the large campgrounds to the west of the Parkway. It would be advisable, at least initially, to focus on the feasibility of combining service to the Wildwood communities with the campgrounds clustered around the Route 9 corridor to the south of NJ Route 47. Through the Wildwood communities, the service would not replicate the existing New Jersey Transit routes with their regular stops along New Jersey Avenue. Rather, the shuttle would have a limited number of stops at major hotel/attractions in the Wildwoods. In addition to the marketing that should be carried out by the City of Cape May, Chamber of Commerce, and local businesses in Cape May, this service should be heavily marketed by the hotels, campgrounds and major attractions in communities to the north that it would serve. The service should be re-named so visitors can immediately understand the TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 71 focus of the route, such as Cape May Seashore Express. When presented as a service focusing exclusively on the needs of these communities, it will be easier to convince visitors who normally would shy away from the bus to avail themselves of this service. As noted above, the regional shuttle would focus on visitors staying in campgrounds and hotels in Cape May County to the north. It is not necessarily expected that the regional shuttle could be successful in intercepting visitors from a long distance driving into Cape May for the day or longer. Visitors driving long distances specifically for the purpose of seeing Cape May City and Cape May Point – particularly those visitors staying more than one day, and with correspondingly more baggage – are less likely to leave their vehicles at a lot outside the city and transfer to a shuttle. The shuttle should target those people who are already staying or live in the area. As discussed earlier, the existing CAT "City Route" should be better promoted and made more attractive to serve longer-term visitors who are already in the City. Although the DRBA shuttle between Lewes Ferry and the Cape May Transportation Center has often been cited as evidence that a shuttle system can be successful in the Cape May area, there are in fact better and more relevant examples, as discussed below. Case Study #1: Provincetown, MA Provincetown, Massachusetts is similar to Cape May City in a number of important respects. Both are very popular seashore resort communities that draw people not simply for their attractive beaches, but because of their historic ambience. As a result, both draw extensive traffic from visitors staying in adjacent seashore communities. Both are at a geographic terminus; Cape May lies on the extreme south of New Jersey, and Provincetown is at the tip of Cape Cod. Both are affected by heavy congestion on roadways heading into the city, and parking in the downtown is highly sought after. Indeed, at their two public surface lots downtown, Provincetown charges $2.25 per hour and $1.75 per hour, much higher than the $.75 per hour rate at Cape May public lots. To serve visitors in adjacent communities who wish to visit Provincetown, Cape Cod Transit operates "The Breeze," also known as the Provincetown Shuttle. Servicing areas roughly 10 miles from Provincetown, the Breeze transports visitors at campgrounds and hotels/motels into the city. Indeed, motel owners on the Cape regard The Breeze as a valuable amenity. Its fare for adults is $1.00, with a typical frequency of 30 minutes. It focuses on day-trippers, and has had little success in intercepting people from Boston or other metropolitan areas to the north. For the summer of 2002, it had a ridership of 115,000, which is 23 times greater than ridership on the CAT. Case Study #2: Rehoboth Beach, Delaware Rehoboth Beach lies across the Delaware Bay from Cape May. Rehoboth Beach is a very popular resort community, and it is difficult to find parking downtown. Many Cape May residents are familiar with the ferry service between Lewes, several miles north of Rehoboth Beach, and Cape May Point. However, the activity of the DART (Delaware Area Rapid Transit) First State Resort Transit Service in the Rehoboth Beach area actually holds more lessons for Cape May. DART Route 201 shuttles persons to TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 72 downtown Rehoboth Beach from a large campground outside the city, and a 525-space park-and-ride lot which is only about one mile from the beach. Ridership surveys have indicated that most vacationers chose to use the DART Resort Service due to the parking situation downtown. In the summer, it has a frequency of 10 to 30 minutes. One-way fare for the DART is $1.00, with an unlimited ride daily pass being $2.10. Visitors pay $5 to park their car in the DART park-and-ride lot all day; for this fare, everyone in the car is provided a free unlimited ride daily bus pass, and there is thus an economic incentive for families or groups of visitors to use the park and ride lot. This is very different from the CAT shuttle, in which relatively high individual fares present a major disincentive for large families. Visibility of and access to the park and- ride lot is excellent, being located 100 yards from Route 1, the major arterial leading to Rehoboth Beach. There is also signing along Route 1 before the park-and-ride lot. For the summer of 2002, ridership on the Route 201 shuttle was 166,265, which is 34 times greater than ridership on the CAT. Case Study #3: Burlington, Vermont Unlike the municipalities featured in the first two case studies, Burlington, Vermont is quite different from Cape May. However, it does serve as an example of a municipality that is using innovative techniques to discourage employees from parking in its downtown, which has a very popular pedestrian mall. A shuttle operated by the Chittenden County Transportation Authority picks up employees at a park and ride lot on the outskirts of downtown, at which 200 employees typically park. A monthly pass costs $15.00. Although parking costs downtown vary, the service provides an economic incentive for employees to use the shuttle. The shuttle operates at a frequency of 15 minutes for two-hour peaks in the morning and late afternoon, and at a frequency of 30 minutes for the rest of the day. The City has the goal of reducing the frequency of the off-peak service to 20 minutes. Conclusion: Shuttle Service Cape May City should coordinate with Cape May County and with other municipalities in the County on creation of a regional shuttle system. Such a system would help reduce the demand for parking in downtown Cape May, and obviate the need for land acquisition or construction of new parking facilities. Employees can be accommodated at locations outside Cape May City, freeing up a greater number of spaces for customers. Involvement of municipal officials and the local business community, in both Cape May and other municipalities, would be critical for this service to succeed. There is an incentive for other communities to cooperate on a regional shuttle system. It would reduce traffic and congestion on their roads, just as it would on Cape May streets. It would also provide a means for vacationers in Cape May to visit these towns. Although different in many respects, successful shuttle systems share certain characteristics: • They are well-publicized, through tourist literature, brochures at establishments, web site links, and other means; • They have prominent signage, both for associated satellite lots and the shuttle service stops; • They have a frequency of 10 to 30 minutes; TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 73 • They provide economic incentives to ride, with reasonable fares set at no more than $1.00 for a one-way trip, or through setting a fee to park at park-and-ride lots, and providing free shuttle service. Cape May City should strive to incorporate these features in both a local and regional shuttle service. Cape May should set the goal of attracting a ridership of 100,000 per year to an expanded shuttle service – both local and regional routes – up from the current ridership of 4,900. Experience in similar communities demonstrates that this goal is very achievable, but it will require much more promotion and coordination than has previously been attempted. Parking Garage A parking garage in the downtown is a long-term possibility for the City. It is currently not the most desirable option for the City, since the parking situation is most problematic within a relatively confined season. However, as parking demand grows in the future, and if the City is successful in lengthening its tourist season, a garage should be considered as an option. The most strategic location for a parking garage would be at the intersection of Lafayette Street and Jackson Street. This would be the first opportunity for parkers entering the downtown via Lafayette Street. The Perry-Jackson public lot could be combined with the lot currently occupied by Collier's Liquor Store lot. The ideal garage would consist of a three-store facility, with retail at the front of the ground floor, leaving the remainder of the ground floor and two stories above for parking. Such a facility could yield roughly 280 spaces in the garage; combined with 20 spaces in the remaining Perry-Jackson lot on the other side of Chestnut Street, there would be 300 total spaces, versus the 127 in the existing Perry-Jackson lot and Collier's lot combined. However, the facility would be quite expensive. Façade treatments would be more extensive than a typical parking garage, given the need to complement the Victorian architectural character of the city. Construction on a non-rectangular lot would likely also help drive up costs past the typical estimate of $10,000 per space. Construction costs for the garage portion alone - not including the cost of the retail space, and not including acquisition costs - could be as much as $4.2 million. The Bank Street lot could also be investigated as a structured parking facility. This could accommodate a parking garage with about 360 spaces, with approximate construction costs of up to $5.2 million. There would be not acquisition costs. It should be noted that the parking demand at this site would be somewhat less than the intersection of Lafayette Street and Jackson Street. Lease Restrictions One factor in the large demand for parking in some neighborhoods is the rental of single-family residential units to persons who share the unit with other adults. In such cases, there are often several vehicles parked in front of a house which lacks the parking facilities to properly accommodate them. It is thus recommended that the City ordinance regulating the rental of properties be amended, by requiring a clause in the rental lease stating TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 74 that the number of vehicles is limited to the greater of one vehicle or the number of off-street spaces provided. Bicycle Facilities Bicycling is a popular activity in Cape May in the summertime. Visitors and residents enjoy bike riding along the beach and through the many attractive neighborhoods, both for recreation and exercise. Further, given the difficulty in finding parking spaces on many streets, it is a highly practical transportation mode. For this reason, the City should maintain its strong support for bicycling. Bicycle activity in Cape May is so extensive that it is more characteristic of some European town centers than the typical U.S. city. Bicyclists are regularly found on every street, often riding the wrong way on a one-way street, or on the wrong side of a two way street. This is typically undesirable, but there are relatively few bicycle crashes in Cape May. Part of the reason for this is because non-motorized modes are so omnipresent. The mix of bicycles, pedestrians, surreys, and horse-drawn carriages, along with the short blocks, and narrow and parked-out streets, combine to create natural "traffic calming." As a result, vehicular speeding is rare on most Cape May streets. Motorists in Cape May quickly realize the importance of being cautious in driving around downtown streets, and are alert to the presence of these non-motorized modes. The mix of motor vehicles and bicycles is more of a concern on Lafayette and Washington Streets, where the visual cues for slower vehicular speeds are not as pronounced, and motorists pass bicyclists at higher speeds. Because the lanes on Lafayette Street and Washington Street are narrow, motorists pass uncomfortably close to bicyclists. For this reason, the creation of bicycle lanes would be desirable on these two roadways. However, bicycle lanes could only be striped on these two roadways if they were converted from two-way to one-way streets, as discussed earlier and depicted in Figures IV-4 and IV-5. (The proposed bicycle network system is depicted in Figure IV- 10.) Between the base of Lafayette Street and the border with West Cape May Borough, West Perry Street and Jackson Street could be integrated into bike route system, although the limited roadway width does not permit the creation of bike lanes. Cape May should also coordinate with West Cape May Borough in encouraging the marking of bike lanes on Sunset Boulevard in that community. Sunset Boulevard, which connects with West Perry Street in Cape May, leads to the Cape May Point Lighthouse and is an ideal TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 75 route for recreational bicyclists. The typical cross-section on Sunset Boulevard is two 10-foot travel lanes, an 8-foot westbound shoulder, and 6-foot eastbound shoulder. This cross-section is bicycle-compatible today and would benefit from bike lane markings. Bicycle lanes should be striped today on Pittsburgh Avenue. That street varies from 58 to 60 feet, with a typical cross-section being two 15-foot travel lanes, and two 14-foot shoulders. Within the existing shoulder configuration of 14-foot, 8-foot parking lanes could be striped together with a 6 ft. lane marked for bicycle use. The 15-foot travel lanes could also be narrowed to create wider bicycle lanes. This could be useful in slowing vehicles on Pittsburgh Avenue, where speeding is more extensive than on most Cape May roadways. Bike lanes could also be created on Madison Avenue south of Columbia Street, with its existing 48-foot cross-section. One possibility is two 11-foot travel lanes, with 13-foot shoulders, consisting of an 8-foot parking lane and 5-foot bicycle lane. Between Lafayette Street and Columbia Avenue, Madison Avenue could be signed as a bike route but without bike lane markings, accompanied by "Share the Road" signs. As a link through the Mall area, Ocean Street could also be signed as a bike route. Beach Avenue, a popular corridor for bicyclists just as it is for pedestrians, could also be signed as a bike route. Neither roadway cross-section would permit the addition of bicycle pavement markings. However, the installation of bike route signage would alert motorists to the importance of "sharing the road." As depicted earlier in Figure IV-3, these two roadways carry more bicyclists than other roadways in the City, and the signage also acknowledges their de facto use as bike routes.   TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 77 The City has installed bicycle racks at many places throughout the downtown and along Beach Avenue. Based on field views at various times during the summer, demand for bicycle parking continues to exceed supply. Demand is heavier at intersections than at the relatively few bike racks installed in mid-block locations. Examples of intersections with excess demand include Beach Avenue and Madison Avenue, Beach Avenue and Perry Street, Beach Avenue and Queen Street, and Beach Avenue and Broadway Avenue. There is slightly less demand at the bike racks on Beach Avenue east of Decatur Street, but even here the racks are often at capacity. The City should continue to increase the supply of bike racks, particularly west of Decatur Street. Drainage grates with bars parallel to the roadway can catch the front wheel of a bicycle and cause loss of steering control. Bicycle wheels can drop into wider slots. For this reason, the City should replace these drainage grates with "bicycle friendly" drainage grates where practicable. In the interim, markings should be placed on the roadway to direct the bicyclist around the unsafe grate (Figure IV-11). TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 78 Pedestrian Facilities The City of Cape May provides an amenable environment for pedestrians. The City is compact and built on a grid system. Because of this, pedestrians find it easy to walk around the downtown. The combination of narrow streets and, in many places, short blocks also facilitate safe, frequent pedestrian crossings. The pedestrian crash history is quite minimal given the large number of pedestrians in the summer months. The major mid-block crossings throughout the Mall are typically well marked. The City should also make an effort to install crosswalks at all unsignalized downtown intersections that currently accommodate large pedestrian volumes, both for stop and non-stop controlled approaches. As a typical example, the City should install crosswalks at the intersection of Decatur Street and Carpenters Lane (shown in photo). Major pedestrian crosswalks in the City should be emphasized with prominent pavement markings. One type which is becoming more popular due to both its added visibility as well as its durability is known as the continental crosswalk pavement marking. It is comprised of two-foot wide white, typically thermoplastic stripes with two-foot gaps between them. They should be installed so that the gaps coincide with the vehicular wheel tracks, thereby creating minimal wear and increasing the life expectancy of the material significantly. Such markings should be considered for all midblock crosswalk areas and for high volume crosswalks at intersections, especially in the business district of Beach Avenue. Figure IV-12 depicts a typical intersection with continental crosswalks. The placement of "Yield to Pedestrians" signage on stanchions in the middle of the street, especially at the unsignalized major pedestrian crossings in the Mall area, act as reminders to motorists that they are obliged by State law to yield. Since they are in the middle of the street they also act as traffic calming devices to slow down traffic. These signs contribute to the lack of recorded conflicts between motorists and vehicles in the Mall area, and their use should be continued, and expanded to other proximate crossings as appropriate. While the change in the traffic signal timing sequence at the intersection of Ocean Street and Washington Street has had some very positive effects in decreasing the pedestrian/ vehicular conflicts, some visible signage to remind pedestrians to obey the signals could also help. It is recommended that signs with the message "Pedestrians, Be Courteous, Obey Walk Signals" be installed on the signal poles on all four corners of the intersection facing approaching pedestrians on the mall as well as those coming from the Washington Street approaches. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 79 Pedestrian-Friendly District As part of its work on this Master Plan, ORA examined the feasibility of creating a "pedestrian-friendly district" for downtown streets. This district would prohibit vehicular traffic during peak pedestrian hours, perhaps through the use of movable bollards placed across a street entrance. This district would logically extend from the existing Washington Street Mall, since this area has the heaviest pedestrian volumes downtown. After field observations and data review, it is recommended that no such district be created. Based upon an analysis of crash reports, the streets around the Mall are currently safe for pedestrians. Vehicles driving on streets through the Mall, such as Decatur Street and Jackson Street, travel at relatively slow speeds in the summer season. In the 1 1/2 years studied, there was one reportable pedestrian crash downtown, at the intersection of Ocean Street and Washington Street. However, vehicular movement through this intersection is critical to downtown circulation, and as such would not be a candidate for closure. It is also a concern that closing streets around the Mall would reduce access to the parking supply, and unnecessarily complicate traffic patterns, increasing volumes on other, equally narrow streets in close proximity. TRAFFIC AND PARKING MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 80 Implementation and Funding This section provides a summary of all recommendations made in the Traffic and Parking Chapter. The recommendations have been categorized based on the amount of time projected to design, secure sufficient funding and physically implement the improvements. The recommendations, therefore have been separated into short term, intermediate, and long term improvements. Many of the recommendations can be implemented in fairly short order, since they only require changes in pavement markings or signage. Although much of the proposed conversion of Lafayette and Washington Streets into a one-way couplet can be accomplished with appropriate signage and markings, it will also require detailed preparation and publicity and thus cannot be accomplished immediately. Other improvements, especially geometric changes or the improvement of the CAT shuttle system, will require more funding. The most expensive item is a parking garage, but that is also the longest-term, and ideally would not be required if parking demand could be alleviated in other ways, such as a more effective shuttle system. Major items could be funded through a tourism tax. Tourism is vital to the Cape May City economy, and is responsible for creating a large percentage of the jobs in the community. However, tourists do not contribute directly to city revenues, even as they place a large demand on city services. To help subsidize a more active shuttle service, which would largely benefit tourists, or to finance construction of additional parking facilities and infrastructure improvements, consideration should be given to a "tourism tax", whether in the form of a modest tax on hotel rooms, on other services, such as restaurants, frequently used by tourists. Many resort communities have implemented these taxes. Given Cape May City’s reputation as a premier tourist destination, it is not believed that creating a tourist tax here would discourage visitation. Following is a definition of improvement categories, followed by a summary of improvements: Short-Term Improvements - Recommended improvements which could be completed prior to the 2003 summer resort season, such as pavement marking and some signage changes. Intermediate Improvements - Recommended improvements which can be completed in approximately 18 months or by the 2004 summer resort season. This would include items such as roadway widening and major revisions in traffic flow. Long-Term Improvements - Recommended improvements which may take two or more years to complete, such as a regional shuttle or parking garage. RECOMMENDATION RESPONSIBLE PARTIES FUNDING SOURCES TIME FRAME Traffic Signals Change signals at the intersections of Madison Street with Lafayette and Washington Avenue to semi-actuated mode, and install pedestrian pushbuttons. County County Intermediate Revise signal phasing at Ocean Street and Washington Ave. County County Completed Relocate pedestrian indications at Ocean Street and Washington Ave. County County Short Remove traffic signal at Transportation Center. County County Short Install detectors at signalized intersections along Beach Avenue. County County Long One-Way Streets Reverse one-way flow on Carpenters Lane and Lyle Lane. Designate Decatur Street as one-way between Carpenters and Lyle Lanes, and mark loading zones. City City Completed Designate Bank Street as one-way. City City Intermediate Designate Lafayette Street and Washington Street as one-way. City/County City/County Intermediate Geometric Changes Widen Elmira Street. City City Intermediate Widen Broad Street. City City Intermediate Reduce sidewalk in travel lane on Ocean Street Between Hughes and Carpenters Lane. City City Long Provide CAT bus pull-out at Ocean Street Between Washington Street and Carpenters Lane. City City Long Install steps at Lafayette Street and Ocean Street. City City Intermediate Install westbound left-turn lane on Route 109 at Schellenger's Landing Road. State/County State/County Long Install Sidney Avenue channelization. County County Intermediate Signs Install signing from Ferry Road to City via Seashore Road. City/County City/County Short Install signing to Lighthouse. City/County City/County Short Install signing advising of Canal Bridge (Rt. 109) lane drop. NJDOT NJDOT Short Reorganize signing in vicinity of Sidney Street. City/County City/County Short Install signing for Perry Street traffic. County County Short Install exit signing for beach traffic. County County Short Pavement Markings Relocate centerline markings on Beach Avenue. County County Short Install crosswalks and "Do Not Block Intersection" signs at Lafayette Street and St. Johns Street. County County Short Parking and Shuttle Mark paired parking stalls along Beach Avenue between Howard and Madison Streets, and Decatur and Grant Street. City City Short/ Intermediate Evaluate potential for parking lot in vicinity of Elmira and Venice Streets. City Short Enforce three-hour parking limits. City Short Evaluate potential of satellite lots at Charles Sandman School and Carl Mitnick School in Lower Township. City Medium Evaluate potential of grassy lot at base of Route 109 for satellite lot. City/County/State Long Increase attractiveness of existing CAT service, through better promotion, signing and facilities, and lower fares. City Short Develop regional shuttle to run between Cape May City and major attractions and lodgings in Cape May County. City/County Long Evaluate feasibility of parking garage. City Long Amend rental ordinance to limit number of vehicles for rental parties. City Short Relocate school bus parking at Star of Sea School. City City Short Bicycle Facilities Create bicycle network with signed bike routes and bike lane markings. City/County Short Increase bicycle parking facilities. City Medium Install bicycle friendly grates, and install markings directing bicyclists around unsafe grates. City/County Short/Medium/ Long Pedestrian Facilities Install ladder type crosswalk markings. City/County City/County Short Maintain pedestrian signage at the Mall, and install additional signing as needed. City City Short Station part time crossing guard at Washington Street and the Mall City City Short S:\Word Processing\Project Files\2002_045\Reports\2002_045_IV-Cape May ver3.doc THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 84

V. Housing Element

Legal Background As required by the Fair Housing Act, signed into law in July of 1985, municipalities, which chose to enact and enforce a zoning ordinance, were mandated to prepare a housing element as part of the community's master plan. As of August, 1988, the required elements of a Master Plan included a statement of objectives and principles upon which the physical, economic and social development of the municipality are based; a land use plan which takes into account the environmental conditions, intensity of development, and existing zoning of a community; and a housing element which includes an analysis of housing, demographic and employment characteristics, and an analysis of municipal lands appropriate for affordable housing. Along with setting the basis for a housing element, the Fair Housing Act also created the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) to administer and implement affordable housing policy among local governments. COAH established both procedural and substantive rules for communities to create a fair share plan to address the affordable housing obligation that is based on a regional fair share allocation formula. COAH was charged with reviewing and, if appropriate, certifying the municipal fair share plan. With certification, a municipality's zoning ordinance carries a presumption of validity against future legal challenges. COAH's initial regulations on calculating a community's affordable housing obligation covered the time period of 1987-1993. On June 4, 1994, COAH adopted revised substantive rules setting forth the requirements for the second cycle of affordable housing plans that covered a cumulative time period from 1987-1999. COAH has released interim regulations, as substantive rules have not been released for the third cycle of affordable housing plans. Any plans receiving certification during this time prior to the release of new numbers will only be certified for a period of one year following the release of new numbers. Affordable housing is defined as a dwelling, either for sale or rent that is within the means of households of either low or moderate income. Low income households are those with annual incomes that were equal to 50% or less than the median income for the region in which they are located. Cape May is in COAH's Region 6 that includes Atlantic, Cape May, Cumberland and Salem Counties. Moderate income households are those earning between 50% and 80% of the regional median income. The key to determining whether the cost of housing meets "affordable" guidelines is the proportion of monthly household income spent on housing. Renters are expected to use no more than 30% of their income for housing while homeowners' housing expenses are limited to 28%. These monthly housing costs include utilities and, in the case of sale housing, mortgage principal and interest, taxes, and insurance. The current COAH 2002 income standards as applied to Cape May, as well as the maximum payments for a household at the upper limits of the low and moderate income HOUSING ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 85 categories are shown in Table V-1: Affordability Limits for Low and Moderate Income Households. Table V-1: Affordability Limits for Low and Moderate Income Households Region 6 Low Income Moderate Income Maximum Maximum Maximum Maximum Household Upper Limit Monthly House Upper Limit Monthly House Size Income Rental Payment Income Rental Payment 1 $18,464 $462 $431 $29,542 $739 $689 1.5 $19,783 $495 $462 $31,652 $791 $739 2 $21,101 $528 $492 $33,762 $844 $788 3 $23,739 $593 $554 $37,982 $950 $886 4 $26,377 $659 $615 $42,202 $1,055 $985 4.5 $27,432 $686 $640 $43,890 $1,097 $1,024 5 $28,487 $712 $665 $45,578 $1,139 $1,063 6 $30,597 $765 $714 $48,954 $1,224 $1,142 7 $32,707 $818 $763 $52,331 $1,308 $1,221 8 $34,817 $870 $812 $55,707 $1,393 $1,300 Source: Council on Affordable Housing – 2002 Regional Income Limits adopted April 3, 2002 Housing, Demographics and Employment A municipality's housing element should include the municipality's strategy for addressing its present and future housing needs, with particular attention to low and moderate income housing. In addition, COAH requires the following as part of a municipality's housing element: • An inventory of the municipality's housing stock and a projection of the housing stock for the next six years; • An analysis of the municipality's demographic and employment characteristics; • A determination of the municipality's fair share for low and moderate income housing; and • A land use analysis of City lands appropriate for affordable housing, along with any applicable environmental analysis and an assessment of public utility service for each site. HOUSING ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 86 Housing Stock Inventory According to census data, the number of dwelling units in Cape May increased 0.3% between 1990 and 2000, from 4,052 units to 4,064 units. The number of occupied units, however decreased from 1,868 units in 1990 to 1,821 units in 2000. The City’s population showed a decline between 1990 and 2000 from 4,668 people to 4,034 people. Household size decreased slightly between 1990 and 2000 from 2.13 persons per household to 2.02 persons per household. Table V-2: Population and Dwelling Units, summarizes this information. Table V-2: Population and Dwelling Units 1990 2000 % Change Population 4,668 4,034 - 13.6 Dwelling Units 4,052 4,064 0.3 Occupied Dwelling Units 1,868 1,821 - 2.5 Household Size 2.13 2.02 - 5.2 Source: 2000 Census of Housing There were 4,064 dwelling units in 2000. This is an increase of only 12 units since 1990. The slow growth in the housing stock is expected to continue due to the lack of land for new construction. The vast majority of Cape May’s housing stock, 75%, was built prior to 1980. Approximately 40% of the housing units are single family detached units and an additional 22% are single family attached units. Of the 1,821 occupied housing units in Cape May in 2000, 1,034 or 56.8% were owner occupied and 787 or 43.2% were renter-occupied. There were 2,243 vacant housing units, 2,089 of which are listed as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use. There was a vacancy rate of 1.1% for homeowner units and 9.7% for rental units in 2000. Cape May has a relatively high percentage of rental units, 43.2%, compared to the County as a whole, which has 25.8%. The value of Cape May’s owner occupied housing is shown in Table V-3: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing. This figure shows 1990 and 2000 Census data. The median housing value of all owner occupied housing in 1990 was $156,800 and $212,900 in 2000. These figures are a self-reported sample from the census and it is the consensus of the Board that these values are too low. HOUSING ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 87 Table V-3: Value of Owner-Occupied Housing 1990 2000 Range of Housing Values Units Percent Units Percent Less than $50,000 8 1.1% 7 0.8% $50,000 to $99,999 118 15.5% 60 7.3% $100,000 to $149,999 231 30.4% 132 16.0% $150,000 to $199,999 167 22.0% 178 21.6% $200,000 to $299,999 158 20.8% 238 28.8% $300,000 to $499,999 78* 10.3% 163 19.8% $500,000 to $999,999 -- -- 47 5.7% $1,000,000 or more -- -- -- 0.0% Total 760 100.0% 825 100% * 1990 Census category is $300,000 or more Source: 1990 and 2000 Census In 2000, more than one-third, 36.3%, of existing residents in Cape May are paying more than 30% of their monthly income for housing. This data is displayed in Table V-4: 2000 Selected Owner-occupied Housing Costs as a Percentage of Monthly Income. Table V-4: 1999 Selected Owner-occupied Housing Costs as a Percentage of Monthly Income Percentage of Income Number of Households Percentage of Households Less than 15 percent 284 34.3 15.0 to 19.9 percent 132 16.0 20.0 to 24.9 percent 52 6.3 25.0 to 29.9 percent 58 7.0 30.0 to 34.9 percent 59 7.2 35 percent or more 240 29.1 Source: 2000 Census of Housing As shown in Table V-5: Rental Values, there are moderately priced rental properties in the City. In 2000, more than 65% of the rental units in Cape May had a gross rent of less than $750. The median rent for all rental units in 2000 was $564. HOUSING ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 88 Table V-5: Rental Values 1990 2000 Range of Rental Values Units Percent Units Percent Less than $250 136 17.4% 34* 4.4% $250 to $499 393 50.3% 183 23.2% $500 to $749 231 29.5% 297 38.0% $750 to $999 14 1.8% 122 15.6% $1000 or more 8 1.0 -- -- No cash rent 147 18.8% Total 782 100% 100% * 2000 Census is less than $200 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Housing, Approximately 44% of people renting housing in Cape May pay less than 30% of their income on housing. Rental housing costs as a percentage of monthly income for 2000 are shown in Table V-6 below. Table V-6: 1999 Gross Rent as a Percentage of Monthly Income Percentage of Income Number of Households Percentage of Households Less than 15 percent 113 14.5 15.0 to 19.9 percent 78 10.0 20.0 to 24.9 percent 61 7.8 25.0 to 29.9 percent 94 12.0 30.0 to 34.9 percent 91 11.7 35 percent or more 183 23.4 Not computed 161 20.6 Source: 2000 Census of Housing Age of Housing Stock According to 2000 census figures, nearly 75% of the housing in Cape May was built prior to 1980, and 94% was built prior to 1990, as shown in Table V-7: Age of Housing Stock. HOUSING ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 89 Table V-7: Age of Housing Stock Year Structure Built Number Percent 1999 - March 2000 30 0.7% 1995 - 1998 95 2.3% 1990 - 1994 115 2.8% 1980 - 1989 785 19.3% 1970 - 1979 797 19.6% 1960 - 1969 468 11.5% 1940 - 1959 593 14.6% 1939 or earlier 1,181 29.1% Total 4,064 100.0% Source: 2000 Census of Housing Demographic and Employment Characteristics Age Distribution The age distribution of the population can have important implications for the housing plan. Communities with a relatively large proportion of children have a need for larger family units while those with high proportions of senior citizens may have a need for smaller units. As shown in Table V-8: Age Distribution of Cape May's Population - 1990 and 2000, the population of Cape May has aged between 1990 and 2000. The percentage of each age group under age 35 has decreased, and the percentage of each age group over 35 has increased. In 1990 more than 47% of the population was under 35 years of age, while in 2000 that had changed to just over 37% of the population. The median age in 1990 was 37.2, compared to 37.6 for the County as a whole. In 2000 the median age had risen to 47.4 compared to 42.3 for the County. Table V-8: Age Distribution of Cape May's Population 1990 and 2000 Age Group 1990 Percent 2000 Percent under 5 250 5.3% 167 4.1% 5-19 813 17.4% 654 16.2% 20-34 1,166 25.0% 684 17.0% 35-54 795 17.0% 902 22.4% 55-64 479 10.3% 479 11.8% 65 and over 1,165 25.0% 1,148 28.4% Total 4,668 100.0% 4,034 100% HOUSING ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 90 Source: 1990 and 2000 Census of Population Household Income The 2000 median household income in Cape May was $33,462, up from a median of $27,560 in 1990. As shown in Table V-9: Household Income, 34% of all households in Cape May in 2000 had incomes of less than $25,000. Table V-9: Household Income 1990 2000 Range of Income Households Percent Households Percent Less than $10,000 235 12.6% 174 9.5% $10,000 to $14,999 289 15.5% 148 8.1% $15,000 to $24,999 274 14.7% 300 16.4% $25,000 to $34,999 359 19.3% 315 17.3% $35,000 to $49,999 267 14.4% 256 14.0% $50,000 to $74,999 295 15.9% 254 13.9% $75,000 to $99,999 77 4.1% 159 8.7% $100,000 to $149,999 16 0.9% 79 4.3% $150,000 to $199,999 48* 2.6% 74 4.1% More than $200,000 67 3.7% * Range for 1990 Census $150,000 or more Source: 1990 and 2000 Census Cape May’s Calculated Housing Obligation Cape May’s Housing Plan was certified by COAH on July 9, 1997. The housing obligation was 33 units. The Precredited Need was 91 units, of which 33 units were rehabilitated and 58 were inclusionary. Due to the lack of available land in Cape May for new construction, a vacant land credit of 58 units was granted, leaving Cape May with an affordable housing obligation of 33 units. Cape May, through the rehabilitation of existing units since 1990, has met its affordable housing obligation and, in fact, has 25 units in excess of its obligation. These figures are based upon COAH’s Round II allocation, which technically expired in 1999. The COAH certification of Cape May’s Housing Element will expire on July 9, 2003. COAH has not yet released its next round of municipal fair share allocations and there is some concern that Round III numbers may not be released for another year or two as COAH reevaluates its methodology for computing regional housing need. Because of this uncertainty, COAH has established a procedure that allows municipalities to petition it for interim certification. This certification is recommended for Cape May. It would be valid for a period of one year from the date that COAH releases its Round III numbers. THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 91 

VI. Community Facilities and Recreation Element 

The City of Cape May faces an unusual challenge. Its year-round population is just over 4,000 people and yet it must provide a full range of municipal services to meet the needs of hundreds of thousands of seasonal visitors. The City has accomplished this mission through aggressive use of grant funding (facilitated by its designation as a "Center" in the State Plan); through a cooperative police service agreement with the adjacent municipalities of West Cape May and Cape May Point; and through innovative approaches to difficult problems, such its construction of the first water desalination plant in the Northeastern United States to provide an adequate supply of drinking water. In 2001 Cape May’s voters supported a government reform initiative that for the first time authorized the direct election of a Mayor for a full four-year term, to serve alongside a four-member City Council, whose members serve a three-year term. At the same time, the voters also elected a five member Government Study Commission that was charged with the task of reviewing other local government options. A final report has not been issued, but the Commission has preliminarily voted by a 3-2 margin to recommend a Council-Manager form of government, as provided for under the Faulkner Act. The two dissenting members of the Commission voted to support a Mayor-Council form of government. Once a final report is agreed to, it will be submitted to the City Clerk and a ballot question would be placed before the voters in 2003. Any approved changes would not become effective until 2004. The City Government principally operates out of its City Hall, an older building at 643 Washington Street that was originally constructed as the local high school. As such, the building’s design is inefficient for use as a modern government office building and it does not have adequate space to house all City functions. Police headquarters and most City administrative offices are located in City Hall, but the Recreation Department operates out of cramped quarters in Convention Hall and the offices of the Public Works Department are located at a separate complex, on Canning House Lane. The former high school auditorium serves as a meeting room for City Council, the Planning and Zoning Boards, and other official township meetings, but its balcony separates sections of City Hall’s second floor. It must be used as a passageway between various second floor offices. Nonetheless, the current city hall has the advantage of being centrally located at the edge of the downtown area. Further, it is located near a concentration of other public facilities, including the Fire Department building at Washington and Franklin Streets, COMMUNITY FACILITIES & RECREATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 92 and the former Franklin School. A City-owned parking lot connects these facilities. A community-group has been given a 50-year lease on the Franklin School and is attempting to raise sufficient funds to renovate that building and to establish a Center for Community Arts. The Recreation Department continues to use the school’s gym for its activities. The Fire Department building is adequate for its current needs and contains a public meeting room as well as a small fire museum. Alternative sites are limited due to the built-up character of the City. An immediate solution to the administrative needs of the City is not proposed here, but the City should remain alert to opportunities for future options, including the potential redevelopment of this entire complex of public buildings in the half-block bounded by Lafayette, Franklin and Washington Streets. This area of approximately two acres is shown in the accompanying aerial photograph. Other structures within the area include the headquarters of the Cape May Historical Society and two properties not now owned by the city: Alexander’s Inn and the Macedonia Baptist Church. A number of the buildings in this area are historic and deserve careful future study. The City’s Recreation Department serves a number of users, both in the city and in surrounding communities, through fee-based programs. Discounts are offered to City residents, but all activities of the Recreation Department programs are self-sufficient COMMUNITY FACILITIES & RECREATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 93 and the department receives no budget from the City, though the City does provide for park maintenance and special events. The Recreation Department’s year-round programs include youth sports, youth dance, adult softball leagues, youth soccer, a martial arts program, aerobics, a swim team and an independent Little League program. Direct Users (individuals in unstructured programs) include those who avail themselves of open programs in the Elementary and Franklin School gymnasiums, and with swimming programs at the pool at the Elementary School and on the Coast Guard Base. An expanded program is offered to seasonal users. These activities are geared toward families and include a summer day camp and the children’s playhouse. Special events, crafts festivals, and other attractions are conducted throughout the year, principally at Convention Hall. A Wednesday night concert series is held on summer evenings at the band shell at Rotary Park, near the Washington Street Mall. Trips are also offered to local attractions such as the Cape May Nature Center, the Cape May Point State Park, and the Cape May County Zoo at Cape May Court House. Because city-owned recreational land in Cape May is limited, the Department makes use of other nearby facilities. Athletic fields in Lower Township and at the Cape May Elementary School are used once school is out for summer recess. The swimming pool and fields at the Coast Guard Base are made available when they do not conflict with base activities. County softball fields and outings to the County Zoo are also utilized in the department’s activities. There is no official relationship with the privately operated attractions such as the Cape May Environmental Center or the Cape May Bird Observatory. There is a question regarding the future of Cape May’s Convention Hall. The current building was constructed in 1965 to replace an earlier historic convention center that was destroyed by a hurricane. The present building is in need of repair, but structural improvements have been programmed. Some local leaders have suggested rebuilding Convention Hall, but that decision should not be approached lightly. The total interior floor area of Cape May’s Convention Hall is 8,240 square feet, but most activities are limited to the 5,400 square foot area of the main wooden floor. The building provides the only significant publicly owned assembly area in Cape May, but it’s limited floor area cannot compete for large conventions and other attractions with either the 500,000 square foot Atlantic City Convention Center or even the 72,000 square feet of exhibition space available at the new Wildwood Convention Center. Nor is the demand for a new facility clear at present. Smaller conference facilities are available at several local hotels: Congress Hall, the Marquis de Lafayette and the Grand Hotel. COMMUNITY FACILITIES & RECREATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 94 Another issue is that Cape May’s Convention Hall extends on piers over the beach, as shown in the photo below. This presents two problems: (1) it is highly susceptible to damage from future hurricanes and other severe storms and (2) new construction may not be permitted to extend southward beyond the limited footprint of the existing building. Careful future study is therefore needed before any decisions are made to replace the current facility. The City owns adjacent buildings west of Convention Hall that provide rental income. Other nearby privately owned buildings to the east could potentially be acquired. This would allow the provision of continued entertainment and restaurant uses along the Promenade and would supply rental income to help defray construction and maintenance costs for a new convention center. A second level exhibition hall could maximize the available assembly area, but care needs to be taken to protect ocean views. Parking is also very limited in this area. Again, a market research and environmental study should be undertaken before any further actions are contemplated. Cape May‘s greatest recreational asset is its beach strand, which attracts thousands of visitors to the community on a year-round basis. The exact acreage of the beach is difficult to determine, because it varies based upon both tidal conditions and erosion. Nonetheless, the City offers its visitors more than two and a half linear miles of a broad white sand beach. This area is exclusive of those portions of the beach that are protected as part of the dune stabilization effort or for which access is restricted because it occurs within the limits of the U.S. Coast Guard base. The City has entered into a 50- COMMUNITY FACILITIES & RECREATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 95 year contract with the State and the Army Corps of Engineers to replenish the beach on a biennial basis, thus safeguarding this principal resource. The beach is protected during summer months by lifeguards and the Beach Patrol has sand wheelchairs available to promote handicapped access. Ocean rescue is facilitated by motorized craft, a wave runner, and ten lifeboats. Beyond the beach, the City’s recreational assets are somewhat limited. The largest single tract of City-owned recreational land is approximately 9.5 acres of contiguous land that extends east of Madison Avenue, generally between Washington Street and Michigan Avenue. This site contains the historic and architecturally significant Emlen Physick Estate at 1048 Washington Street, which has been leased to the Mid-Atlantic Center for the Arts. In addition to conducting tours of the Physick Estate, the Mid-Atlantic Center conducts a number of other year-round tourist-based activities, including its operation of the Cape May Lighthouse (which is located outside of the city limits). A portion of COMMUNITY FACILITIES & RECREATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 96 this 9.5-acre site is also leased to a private tennis club. Active city-managed recreational use is limited to approximately three acres, which is developed as Kiwanis Park. This Madison Avenue park features a tot lot and an attractive sitting area with a Gazebo and small pond. The entire 9.5 area tract is shown on the aerial photograph above. The only other city owned outdoor active recreational facility is the 1.05-acre Wise- Anderson Park, located on Lafayette Street, west of Jefferson Street. The front of the site is developed as a picnic and sitting area, with basketball courts to the rear. However, the park has limited landscaping and its overall appearance of the park is unattractive and uninviting. This park needs attention. Wise-Anderson Park is adjoined to the east by two parcels, Block 107, Lots 52 and 53, which total 1.7 acres of land. This site is principally occupied by a legal nonconforming use, Vance’s Bar and Liquor Store. Further, Block 107, Lot 51 is a 0.25 acre parcel that is located in front of a portion of the basketball courts at Wise Anderson Park. This lot is occupied by a now-abandoned former dwelling, which previously experienced environmental contamination that is now being remediated by Public Service Electric and Gas (PSE&G). If these three lots were to be acquired by the City, the total area of COMMUNITY FACILITIES & RECREATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 97 Wise-Anderson Park could be expanded to three acres. This could be used for an enhanced park site or, if found to be necessary, a portion could be used for additional satellite parking. This site would be approximately 1,000 feet closer to the downtown area than the existing school parking lot that is currently being used with limited effectiveness during the summer months. (See the Traffic and Parking Element.) Moreover, acquisition of this land would make the expanded Wise-Anderson Park contiguous to the 35.2 acre holdings of the Cape May Board of Education. The Board of Education’s land extends back to Cape Island Creek and much of the rear portion is unusable wetland. However, the area closer to Lafayette Street contains the elementary school, its parking lot, and extensive athletic fields. The combined area, as shown on the aerial photograph above, would make a significant community asset. The importance of additional parkland acquisition is underscored by the fact that there are few other opportunities for active recreational plan development in Cape May. All other public recreational land is passive, including the 0.34 acre Fisherman’s Memorial and the 1.27 acre Harbor View Park, both located in East Cape May. Dune stabilization areas and the potential acquisition of large wetland areas in East Cape May will serve to enhance passive recreation holdings but are unsuitable for active use. It is recommended that the City seek grant funding to expand Wise-Anderson Park while the opportunity exists. Cape May’s other community facility needs seem to be well provided for. The City has constructed a water desalination plant that provides an adequate supply of public water. This plant is operating effectively and currently insure that an adequate and safe supply of drinking water is available to the City’s residents and visitors. Nonetheless, the plant is expensive to operate and water conservation efforts must continue to be encouraged. The City provides sanitary sewer collection and treatment services to almost all residents and businesses. Although the system is old and maintenance remains a continual concern, the system is adequate to meet the needs of Cape May. THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 98

VII. Historic Preservation Element

During the 2000 Master Plan Reexamination Report special attention was paid to the status of the City’s historic preservation efforts because of its importance to the city’s vitality. The HPC should be recognized for its contributions to the economic well being of Cape May, of which much of its economy is based on its historic landscape. This research has been updated by Wise Preservation Planning and is included here as the Historic Preservation Element. The earlier effort involved review of the existing regulations, meetings with officials of the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and discussions of the city’s efforts with the National Park Service. More recently, Wise has reviewed new historic preservation design standards that were recently prepared by others and suggested amendments to the 2000 recommendations. Both Wise and the HPC found that the preservation ordinances were generally working as intended. However a number of general concerns were identified, as noted below: 1 . There had previously been some confusion regarding the "flow" of an application. The new historic design standards will have a flow-chart which will improve the process. Applications are first reviewed as concept plans by the HPC then forwarded on to the ZHB or PB. The application then comes back to the HPC for final approval. The new Historic Design Standards were enacted on December 17, 2002.. 2. There needs to be stronger – and codified – liaison between the boards and council. Informal reviews should be encouraged to prevent problems later on. 3 . Demolition by neglect had been a concern. A property maintenance code that addresses the issue of demolition by neglect was adopted by Council in 2000. It references the BOCA code and authorizes the use of liens to mandate improvements if owners are unable to cooperate. Had HISTORIC PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 99 such an ordinance been in effect years ago, key historic structures such as the Admiral Hotel might have been prevented from becoming so deteriorated that renovations were no longer feasible. A more successful effort has been the restoration of the Congress Hotel, which reopened in 2002. 4. The HPC had previously recommended that the historic district be expanded to the whole city but that effort was not endorsed by the Planning Board. Current efforts have focused on a consolidation of the previous primary and secondary historic districts into a single unified district, following the previous boundaries. This boundary has been refined and is shown on the attached map. The HPC should serve as an advisory board for activity impacting historic resources outside of the current district. The critical concern is to explain how the review process would not include noncontributing properties. 5 . City should explore how the HPC could assist with design decisions regarding new construction outside of the historic district. It is true that the widespread introduction of new construction, built in an unsympathetic style, may threaten the character of the City. However, it is important to remember that many parts of Cape May are not characterized by Victorian design. Architectural features that are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood are of the greatest concern. 6 . It is recommended that the HPC look into the cost of hiring an architectural/historic administrator. This is done in other municipalities that review a similar number of applications. An additional inspector would also be helpful. Funding may be available from CLG grants. A professional education rotation should be created for HPC members to maintain the status of the CLG. 7. A more effective follow-up system should be developed between the HPC and Construction Official. This would ensure that resources receiving a Certificate of Appropriateness are completed within the terms of the Certificate. 8 . The recently completed design guidelines are an important means of disseminating vital information about appropriate methods for and the importance of historic preservation in Cape May. The City and HPC should ensure that the guidelines are properly distributed and, when necessary, additional copies are professionally printed when the supply runs low. 9. The public is often unaware that they are in the Historic District or that they own a historic resource. There is a need to a produce handbook of the historic resources and to advise new owners that they own a historic structure. Key structures should have plaques. These recommendations are already being approached in two phases. HISTORIC PRESERVATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 100 10. The City should promote a better understanding with regard to the public and other governmental entities regarding the importance of the HPC in the planning and regulatory process and the economic well-being of the City. 1 1 . The HPC and City is continuing to pursue grants, particularly through the CLG program, to conduct a city-wide survey of historic resources. Given the scope of the project, consideration might be given to conducting the survey in phases, thereby spreading the cost of the project over more than one year. Cape May must continue to jealously protect its status as a National Historic Landmark. These recommendations, coupled with the newly adopted design guidelines, will advance this goal. THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 102

VIII. Recycling and Solid Waste Element 

Cape May, like all New Jersey municipalities, participates in a mandatory recycling program. Cape May participates in the Cape May County Municipal Utilities Authority Regional Recycling Program and the goals of that Plan, as well as the goals of the New Jersey Source Separation and Recycling Act, are hereby incorporated by reference. Cape May contracts to collect recyclables from residential properties, at curbside. The City is divided into five zones, with collection in each zone one day of the week. The City also maintains a drop-off station at the Public Works Facility on Canning House Lane where residents and owners of commercial properties may bring their recyclable materials. This facility is open daily during the week in season, and has reduced hours out of season. Recyclables are transported from the Public Works Facility to the County’s regional processing facility for recycling. The Public Works Facility accepts paper, glass, metal, plastic along with scrap metal, metal appliances and leaves and other yard clippings. The City is responsible for the trash and recycling collection for the public areas of Cape May, including the mall, promenade and public parks and beaches. In season, from April to September, the city is responsible for several hundred trash and recycling containers and empties them on a daily basis. Off-season these containers are emptied four times a week. Currently glass, metal, and eligible plastic containers can be commingled in a recycling container. Paper and cardboard must be packaged separately in a paper bag or cardboard box and placed in a reusable container marked for recycling. Leaves and grass clippings are collected seasonally between April 15th and December 31st. Leaves and grass clippings are recyclable and are to be placed in reusable marked containers or compost able paper bags. The Public Works Department encourages residents to compost their own leaves and grass clippings and will provide information upon request. The following regulations pertain to the treatment of recyclables collected or dropped off at the Public Works Facility: • Paper may be placed in paper bags or in cardboard boxes. Paper must be uncontaminated newspaper, magazines, corrugated boxes, brown paper bags or writing paper. • All food and beverage containers made from glass, aluminum, plastic or tin are acceptable, but not flat (window) glass, mirrors, crystal, china or ceramics. • Leaves and grass clippings must be bagged in compost able paper bags or tarped to be placed in a dumpster. No plastic bags are permitted. Branches and tree limbs must be shorter than 6 feet in length and less than four inches in diameter. • Large metal appliances such as refrigerators, freezers, washers, dryers and hot water heaters are collected once a month on the regular recycling day in the first full week of the month. • Doors must be removed from refrigerators and freezers. RECYCLING AND SOLID WASTE ELEMENT MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF CAPE MAY THE WAETZMAN PLANNING GROUP DRAFT PAGE 103 The success of the recycling program is critical in reducing both the cost and volume of solid waste that must be disposed of. It is therefore of concern to all citizens. The goal for the State was to be recycling 65% of the total solid waste by the year 2000. In 1997, 61% of the solid waste was being recycled, but this had decreased to 53% by the year 2000. Cape May County was above average for the State at nearly 60%. The City of Cape May believes that it has a high recycling rate, but it recognizes that the commitment to recycling of many residents and businesses may not be matched by seasonal renters who may not bother to separate out the recyclable material.