Morris County Planning Board Long Range Committee Isobel W. Olcott, Chair Matthew Sprung Ted Eppel Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology The following individuals assisted with the development of this document: Walter P. Krich, Jr. Director Joseph Falkoski, Chair Matthew Sprung, Vice Chair Steve Rattner, Secretary Steve Hammond, County Engineer Stu Klatzman Margaret Nordstrom, Freeholder Isobel W. Olcott Jack J. Schrier, Freeholder Everton Scott William J. Chegwidden, Freeholder Alternate Ted Eppel, Alternate #1 Tom Russo, Jr., Alternate #2 Raymond Zabihach, Planning Director Barry Marell, Planning Board Attorney Christopher Marra, Executive Director Division of Planning Raymond Zabihach, Director Christine Marion, Assistant Director Anthony Soriano, Supervising Planner Kevin Sitlick, Senior Planner Gene Cass, Supervising Cartographer Division of Transportation Gerald Rohsler, Director Deena Cybulski, Assistant Director John Hayes, Assistant Planner Eric DeLine, Assistant Planner Andrea DeRose, Senior Planning Aide Division of Community Development Cheryl Bartow, Director Sabine von Aulock, Housing Coordinator Morris/Sussex/Warren Workforce Investment Board Jack Patten, Director The Division of Planning gratefully acknowledges the following former employees for their contributions to this document: Cynthia Sopka, Environmental Planner Amy Wexler, Transportation Specialist Patrick Franco, Senior Planner Daniel McHugh, Assistant Planner Nora Santiago, Assistant Planner Jennifer Loller, GIS Specialist Tina Travers, GIS Specialist Trainee Preservation Trust Frank Pinto, Director Barbara Murray, Program Specialist Ray Chang, Supervising Planner Peter Williams, Program Assistant Division of Information Technology Steve Rice, Assistant Director Janice Peal, GIS Specialist II Stuart Walter, GIS Specialist III Morris County Economic Development Corporation

2007 Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders
Margaret Nordstrom, Director John Inglesino, Deputy Director Douglas R. Cabana William J. Chegwidden Gene F. Feyl John J. Murphy Jack J. Schrier Morris County Planning Board


1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND A Basis for Planning Role of County Planning Goals and Objectives of the 1975 Future Land Use Plan Element of the Morris County Master Plan Long Term Goals Recommended Short Term Goals Accomplishments and Activities Morris County Master Plan and Reports Regional Planning Initiatives Other County Initiatives Regulatory Changes Since 1975 Federal and State Laws / Regulations 2. POPULATION, HOUSING AND HOUSEHOLDS Population Population Growth Age Groups Trends/Issues Housing and Households Household Growth and Size Trends/Issues Housing Units Rooms per Housing Unit Trends/Issues Housing Types Housing Tenure Trends/Issues Housing Conditions Trends/Issues Housing Values and Affordability 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-4 2-4 2.5 2-6 2-6 2-7 2-7 2-7 2-8 2-8 2-9 1-1 1-2

1-3 1-3 1-4 1-6 1-6 1-7 1-7 1-8 1-8


Trends/Issues Organizations Providing Housing Primary Housing Organizations Special Needs Housing Morris County’s Housing Role Morris County Division of Community Development County Homeless Strategic Plan Morris County Housing Authority New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing Trends/Issues 3. LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Land Use Overview Vacant Land Residential Land Commercial and Industrial Land Parks and Open Space Agricultural Land Public / Semi-Public Land Roads and Highways Laws Governing Land Use Local Development Regulations / Zoning Local Redevelopment and Housing Law Redevelopment Areas in Morris County of Morris Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act State Development and Redevelopment Plan Fair Housing Act and COAH New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Future Development Potentially Developable Lands Environmental Constraints Infrastructure Constraints Market Factors 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 3-6 3-9 3-10 3-10 3-13 3-15 3-15 3-16 3-16 3-17 3-18 3-20 2-11 2-12 2-12 2-12 2-13 2-13 2-14 2-14 2-16 2-16


Development Projections Trends/Issues 4. WATER SUPPLY AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT Water Supply Morris County MUA County Water Supply Planning Public Water vs. Private Wells Public Water Supply Systems Major Water Supply Activities Morris County Water Balance Modeling Scrub Oaks Mine Storage Concept Plan Wastewater Treatment Municipal Regional Systems Wastewater Management Planning Agencies Non-Municipal Systems On-Site Disposal – Septic Systems Highlands Act Impact on Wastewater Facilities Trends/Issues 5. CIRCULATION Transportation Planning in Morris County of Morris Morris County Division of Transportation The Transportation Network Roadways Federal State County Municipal Bridges Public Transit Passenger Rail 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 5-2 5-3 5-3 5-3 5-3 5-4 5-4 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-3 4-4 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-5 4-6 4-8 4-8 4-9 4-10 3-20 3-21


Bus Service Facilities Supporting Public Transit Other County Support for Public Transit Aviation The Morristown Municipal Airport Lincoln Park Airport Heliport and Helistop Facilities Morris County Airport Advisory Committee Paratransit MAPS Municipal Paratransit Bicycle / Pedestrian Freight Movement Commuter Characteristics Means of Transportation to Work Journey to Work Place of Work and Commuting Patterns Trends/Issues 6. OPEN SPACE AND FARMLAND PRESERVATION Preserved Open Space Morris County Preservation Trust Fund County-Owned Open Space Morris County Park Commission Other County Open Space Trends / Issues Farmland Preservation Trends/Issues 6-1 6-1 6-3 6-3 6-4 6-4 6-5 6-6 5-5 5-5 5-6 5-7 5-7 5-8 5-8 5-9 5-9 5-9 5-10 5-10 5-11 5-12 5-12 5-13 5-14 5-15


7. EMPLOYMENT, EMPLOYERS, AND INCOME Employment and Employers Labor Force Occupations of Morris County Residents Industries Employing Morris County Residents Employment in Morris County Major Employers Job Growth by Industry Job Growth by Occupation Unemployment Jobs to Housing Ratio Income Poverty Trends/Issues 8. HISTORIC PRESERVATION Historic Preservation Planning Morris County Heritage Commission Morris County Historic Preservation Trust Fund County Owned Historic Sites and Structures Local Historic Commissions, Committees and Historic Preservation Groups Local Historic Preservation Plan Elements Municipal Funding for Historic Preservation Trends/Issues 9. EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL FACILITIES Educational Facilities Public Elementary and Secondary Education Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Education Charter Schools Vocational-Technical Education 9-1 9-1 9-2 9-2 9-3 8-1 8-1 8-2 8-3 8-4 8-4 8-5 8-5 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-3 7-4 7-6 7-7 7-7 7-8 7-9 7-9 7-11 7-11


Higher Education Other Specialized Education Cultural Contributions Cultural Activities Arts Council of the Morris Area Trends/Issues 10. REFERENCES 9-4 9-5 9-6 9-6 9-7 9-8


VISION STATEMENT Vision Statement – Morris County Planning Board
Achievement of a superior quality of life for the people of Morris County through cooperative planning.

The facilitation of regional land use decision, consonant with the protection of natural resources, mindful of our cultural heritage, and pertinent to the needs of the residential and business communities.

P romote equitable policies and procedures. R espect the opinions of board members and staff. O ffer technical resources to planning partners. G ive information and advice to municipalities and the general public. R eview pending legislation for comment and input. E ncourage cooperation from other agencies and organizations. S upport our vision and mission through the Morris County master plan. S erve the public with integrity and goodwill.


The County Planning Act (N.J.S.A. 40:27-1 et seq.) requires that County Planning Boards “make and adopt a master plan for the physical development of the county.” Morris County’s Master Plan is not contained in a single document, but is formed by a collection of individual plan elements, the oldest of which is the “1975 Future Land Use Element.” Since that time, the Morris County Planning Board has continued to develop and adopt various master plan elements, which together comprise the Morris County Master Plan. The 1975 Future Land Use Plan Element was the last master plan document to present a comprehensive summary of overall physical and demographic conditions in Morris County. Obviously, conditions have changed greatly over the years. Many of these conditions have been captured in the varied county master plan elements adopted since 1975, but none have attempted to summarize and update overall current county conditions, analyze trends, and identify potential issues. In addition, several decades have seen the creation of many new state and federal laws and regulations directly impacting the role and responsibility of the Morris County Planning Board and the Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology.1 These changes provide the necessity for reexamining major planning-related physical and contextual situations in Morris County. As a step toward recognizing these changes and identifying both current and potential long range planning areas of interest, a description of the current “State of the County” has been compiled. The primary purposes of this summary report are to identify changes in major conditions in Morris County and to identify major planningrelated trends and issues for future consideration by the Morris County Planning Board. The report also illustrates significant achievements, actions and activities undertaken by the county planning board and related agencies to address past issues and objectives.

1 The Morris County Planning Board operates within the context of the Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology which includes the Divisions of Community Development, Preservation Trust, Transportation, Information Technology and Planning.


Role of County Planning
Although county planning boards are required to adopt a plan for the physical development of the county, the New Jersey State Constitution and Municipal Land Use Law give ultimate authority over land use decisions to municipalities via zoning. While limited to an advisory role on most land use issues, the county does influence local land use decisions in a variety of ways. The Morris County Planning Board has responsibility for the review of projects impacting county roads and drainage facilities, and in doing so, provides partial regulation of local development activity. The Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology provides staff to the Planning Board and facilitates interaction between the Board and other Divisions within the Department, including the Morris County Preservation Trust, Division of Transportation and Division of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The Preservation Trust provides support and funding assistance for local farmland, open space and historic preservation. The Division of Transportation coordinates regional transportation planning with state agencies and provides technical assistance for local transportation planning. Early investments in GIS technology and staff have placed Morris County at the forefront of GIS capability, which is accessible to municipalities for use in making land use decisions. The Morris County Division of Planning, Development and Technology also assists municipalities through the State Development and Redevelopment Plan Cross-Acceptance process, provides guidance for stormwater management planning and provides technical and other assistance to municipalities in many areas. It also works with other Morris County entities that influence development and preservation in the county such as the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, the Morris County Housing Authority, Morris County Engineering Division and the Morris County Park Commission. The county planning board has a primarily advisory role in guiding the physical development of the county. Proposals to amend the County Planning Act to provide county greater authority have been proposed, but never enacted. Even so, the county planning board’s responsibilities have increased over the years with the passage of laws such as the State Planning Act, State Transfer of Development Rights Act, the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, and the adoption of a multitude of state agency regulations, particularly by NJ Department of Environmental Protection, all requiring increased county involvement in regional and local planning. As the amount of regulation increases and becomes more complex, the role of the county planning board in providing guidance and assistance in these matters will expand.





Goals and Objectives of the 1975 Future Land Use Plan Element of the Morris County Master Plan2
The 1975 Future Land Use Plan included a summary of long and short term goals, which reflected the prevailing opinion of Morris County citizens at that time. The long term goals were expected to remain fairly constant, with the short term goals or “objectives” to constitute recommendations intended to further these goals. These long term goals were listed as follows:

Long-Term Goals for the future of Morris County
1. Support the establishment of an equitable tax base – find a more feasible alternative to a property tax system which dictates planning and zoning on the bases of fiscal necessity. 2. Provide for balanced and diversified economic growth, coordinated with transportation, utilities and environmental limitations – achieve an equitable number of employment opportunities with respect to population. 3. Encourage increased suitability of municipal services to land use and adequate capacity of both physical and social support systems. 4. Increase the scope of public transportation.

5. Maintain “human” standards in housing, employment, income and education. 6. Provide for a variety of individual choices in life-styles and living spaces. 7. Preserve adequate open space, unique natural features, historical assets and provision for sufficient recreational facilities. 8. Maintain, at both the local and county levels, a physical and social sense of community.




Recommended Short-term Goals, i.e. Objectives
Objectives supporting the long term goals were presented in the 1975 Future Land Use Plan in the form of recommendations for consideration by local government. 1. Focus future economic activity within areas of existing economic concentration and associated utility networks. Reduce the dispersion of economic activity from these areas, allowing economic densities which support public transportation and prevent the waste of limited natural resources. There has been some concentration of economic activities within established communities, particularly in the major regional center of Morristown, which has grown and experienced significant redevelopment in the past decade. Even so, large business complexes such as the Foreign Trade Zone and the Prudential Business Campus have occurred outside traditional centers. Growth occurring outside of centers has been supported by the completion of improvements in major roadways such as Route 24, Route 287 and Route 80 and the resultant increased interconnectivity between municipalities and regions. 2. Make more intense use of lands that are anticipated for development, with decreasingly intense uses radiating outward from these areas, increasing efficient municipal services, encouraging public transit and promoting a sense of community. With an exception for Morristown, the intensification in existing concentrations has not occurred in any substantial manner in the county. The State Plan designation of Centers has provided some context for this to occur; however, development in these areas usually occurs as infill projects developed at a similar scale and intensity as existing construction. In areas served by individual onsite wells and septic systems, municipalities have substantially increased the minimum lot size for single family dwellings to as much as ten acres. 3. Acquire adequate open space for future populations, focusing on acquisition before developing existing sites for recreation. Integrate recreation opportunities throughout urban, suburban and rural areas. Substantial gains have been made in the area of open space acquisition, with approximately 44,000 additional acres preserved by federal, state, county and municipal governments over the last 30+ years. Although not considered “open space,” over 6,000 acres of preserved farmland have also been added. Additional lands have been preserved by private non-profit groups. 4. Preserve water supply sources from urban encroachment and pollution. Preserve major watersheds, prime aquifer recharge areas, reservoirs or well-field areas, headwaters of major streams, steep slopes, wetlands and wildlife habitats by direct public acquisition, regulatory legislation, or finally, through zoning for “least intensity uses.” The county is addressing this goal by participating in programs at the State and regional level aimed at the protection of water resources. Such efforts include the Whippany River Watershed pilot program, the Rockaway River Cabinet, and the Raritan Highlands Compact. The county has also initiated a water balance study to determine


the amount of water available for consumption. Most recently, this issue has been highlighted by passage of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, which designates 32 municipalities within the county as critical for water resource protection. 5. Create a variety of housing types (apartments, townhouses, etc.) which do not exist in reasonable number to meet regional housing needs, while also encouraging housing for low-moderate income workers, the young and elderly, who already live and work in the county. Single family residential development continues to be the dominant housing type; however, there have been increases in the production of townhouses, apartments, dedicated senior housing and state-mandated affordable housing due to COAH requirements. 6. Assume responsibility as a custodian of Morris County’s historic heritage and make efforts to preserve that heritage in accordance with the County Historic Preservation Plan Element of the Master Plan. Twenty-two of the county’s 39 municipalities have established official Historic Commissions or Landmark Advisory Committees with many more private associations, foundations and societies devoted to local historic preservation. The Morris County Heritage Commission completed a historic sites survey for the entire county in 1987, and the creation of the Morris County Historic Preservation Trust in 2002 provides ongoing funding for historic preservation project throughout the county. 7. Strive to achieve consistency of objectives with organizations planning for the entire region of which Morris County is a part, and foster an attitude of mutual cooperation among Morris County municipalities. Municipalities are encouraged to participate in regional planning initiatives, for example, the Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Association and Raritan Highlands Compact. The Planning Board has a policy of informing neighboring communities of developments and master plan revisions with significant impacts. Municipal cooperation has also been advanced through the development of shared services between some communities. Overall, there has been progress in meeting these recommended “short term” goals through a variety of municipal, county and state actions. There has been relatively limited success in containing new development in existing centers or intensifying development in these centers. These goals have been hindered due to an unchanging property tax system that requires continued expansion of ratables, which in turn greatly influences local planning and zoning.


Accomplishments and Activities
Morris County Master Plans and Reports
To provide support to municipalities in meeting identified goals and objectives, the Morris County Planning Board and the Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology have prepared formal studies, reports and master planning efforts to assist municipal planning endeavors. These reports and plans provide background data and identify needs, specific strategies and recommendations to promote the county’s goals and the goals of its individual municipalities. Historic Preservation Element (1976) Wastewater Management Element (1985) Open Space Element (1988) Stormwater Management Technical Guide (1989) Circulation Element (1992) Water Supply Element (1994) Land Use and Rail Database (1996) Bicycle & Pedestrian Element (1998) Transit Guide (2000) Natural Resource Management Guide (2000) Bicycle & Pedestrian User Guide (2000) Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Element (2003) Circulation Plan Update (2005 – draft) Historic Preservation Element Update (under development) County Data Book – Annual County Development Review Activity Report – Annual

The Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology has also provided substantial technical and funding assistance to municipalities to support the preservation of open space, farmland and historic resources through the creation of the Morris County Preservation Trust, established in 1992. Trust activities are discussed in the body of this report.


Regional Planning Initiatives
The Morris County Planning Board and Department of Planning, Development and Technology have also engaged in a number of regional and sub-regional planning initiatives supporting both inter- and intra-county planning efforts. As an active participant and supporter of various regional planning groups, Morris County has provided technical and policy guidance in a number of efforts that support the underlying goals and objectives identified in the 1975 Land Use Plan. A sampling of regional planning initiatives in which the Morris County Planning Board and Department of Planning, Development and Technology have participated includes: Ten Towns Great Swamp Watershed Committee Whippany River Watershed Action Committee Rockaway River Watershed Cabinet Raritan Highlands Compact Morris Tomorrow (formerly Morris 2000) Housing Partnership for Morris County TransOptions (formerly McRides) Morris County Economic Development Corporation (formerly Morris Area Development Group) Lake Musconetcong Regional Planning Board Lake Hopatcong Commission Six County Coalition report, examples of new or expanded county facilities and services include: Capital Facilities (Added / Expanded) Morris County Library - (Hanover Twp.) Morris View Nursing Home and Adult Day Care – (Morris Twp.) County Administrative Offices - (Morristown) Morris County Youth Shelter - (Morris Twp.) Morris County Juvenile Detention Facility - (Morris Twp.) Morris County Correctional Facility - (Morris Twp.) Greystone Park Redevelopment - (Parsippany-Troy Hills Twp.) Mennen Arena – (Morris Twp.) County College of Morris – (Randolph Twp.) Morris County Trash Transfer Stations – (Parsippany Twp. and Mt. Olive Twp.) Morris County Housing Authority – (Various) Morris County Recycling Facility – (Dover) County Services (Added / Expanded) Office of Health Management Office of Emergency Management & Hazmat Services Morris County Improvement Authority Geographic Information Systems Morris County Nutrition Project

Other County Initiatives
As the activities of the planning board have changed, so have the activities of county government as a whole. County facilities and services have evolved to respond to increases in population, changes in the needs and desires of county residents, and changes in state and federal requirements. While not the focus of this


Regulatory Changes Since 1975
Since 1975, a multitude of laws have been passed regulating land use, development and environmental protection in New Jersey. One of the most significant laws affecting land use was the enactment of the Municipal Land Use Law in 1975, but as demonstrated by the length of list below, the amount of legislation and regulation to which both counties and municipalities must adhere has increased significantly. Each new law has had, and continues to have, far reaching impacts on the pattern of growth and preservation in Morris County. The ever expanding list of major new laws and regulations includes: Clean Air Act [Amendments] (1990) Inter-modal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (1991) Local Housing and Redevelopment Law (1992) New Jersey Redevelopment Act (1996) Federal Telecommunications Act (1996) NJ Wellhead Protection Program (1991) Residential Site Improvement Standards (1997) NJ Brownfield Remediation Act (1998) Garden State Preservation Trust Act (1999) Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (2000) Stormwater Management Rules (2004) NJ Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Stormwater Regulation Program Rules (2004) State Transfer of Development Rights Act (2004) Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (2004) Changes in the legislative landscape have had significant impacts on both development and preservation throughout the State, and have changed considerably the responsibilities of both local and county governments. As a result, the Morris County Planning Board and Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology have taken on many activities that were not part of the county enabling law in 1975. For example, the passage of the “Agricultural Retention and Development Act” in 1983 set the framework for New Jersey’s Farmland Preservation Program, and subsequently resulted in the creation of the Morris County Agricultural Development Board. Using a combination of state and county funding, the Morris County Agricultural Board, with the assistance of county planning staff, has overseen the permanent preservation of over 6,000 acres of farmland. Funding for this program has been augmented by the adoption of the “New Jersey Garden State Preservation Trust Act” in 1999 and by

Federal and State Laws / Regulations:
Municipal Land Use Law (1975) State Uniform Construction Code Act (1975) Water Quality Planning Act (1975) Safe Drinking Water (Clean Water) Act (1977) Water Pollution Control Act (1977) Water Supply Management Act (1981) Air Safety and Zoning Act (1983) Agricultural Retention and Development Act (1983) Right to Farm Act (1983) Fair Housing Act (1985) [COAH] Federal Safe Drinking Water Act [Amendments] (1986) NJ Freshwater Protection Act (1987) State Planning Act (1985) Federal Clean Water Act Amendments (1987) Statewide Source Separation and Recycling Act (1987) State Highway Access Management Act (1989) State Transportation Development District Act (1989) NJ Standards for Individual Subsurface Sewage Disposal Systems (1989)


the establishment of the Morris County Open Space and Farmland Preservation Trust Program in 1994. More recent legislation and regulation continue to expand the role of the Morris County Planning Board. For example, the adoption of 2004 Stormwater Management Rules by the NJDEP requires review and approval by county planning boards of local stormwater management plans. Another example is the 2004 “State Transfer of Rights Development Act,” which requires the county to review complex TDR ordinances and approve or deny local development rights transfer plans. Recently, the NJDEP proposed new “Water Quality Management Planning” rules. These will have a significant impact on development in Morris County and throughout the state. The “Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act” (2004) is another recent law that will have a profound impact on local and county planning board activities. Of Morris County’s 39 municipalities, 32 are included in the Highlands Region. The entire Highlands Region includes 88 municipalities and portions of seven counties. The Highlands Council, created by this Act, is charged with developing a Highlands Regional Master Plan addressing the Highland Region in consultation with local and county planning boards. In addition, county master plans and land development standards are required to be amended to conform to the Highlands Regional Master Plan, creating additional county planning board responsibilities. Throughout the years, the county planning staff has provided analysis and comment during the formative period in which much new legislation has been developed. The Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology continues to work with representatives of state government, other counties and local governments to help craft and amend legislation, and ultimately, provides assistance to municipal officials in interpretation of these laws, their impacts and the responsibilities associated with their passage. New legislation has significantly broadened the responsibilities of local and county government, particularly in the field of planning, and this has been reflected in the projects and expanding duties of the Morris County Planning Board and Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology. With 39 individual municipalities and approximately 481 square miles of land area, identifying the myriad of physical and socioeconomic conditions found in Morris County can be a complex task. The main body of this report is dedicated to providing a basic summary of these conditions so that they may be analyzed in relation to county planning goals, now and in the future.


The information found on the following pages attempts to give an overview of the current county “state of affairs”; thereby providing a basis for review of current conditions and highlighting trends and potential issues that may be of concern to the Morris County Planning Board. This analysis will provide a foundation for identifying and prioritizing future study and review topics for the planning board. The next sections include an overview of the following major topics as they relate to general conditions in Morris County and, to the extent possible, how these conditions have changed over the last three and one half decades. 3 Population, Housing and Households Land Use and Development Regulations Water Supply and Wastewater Treatment Circulation Open Space and Farmland Preservation Employment Employers and Income Historic Preservation Educational and Cultural Facilities

3 The 1975 Future Land Use Plan was based largely on 1970 US Census and Land Use data. When possible, a comparison to 1970 characteristics is presented to illustrate the degree of change since the 1975 Future Land Use Plan was completed. However, comparative information is not available for all topics and/or may not be necessary to illustrate all conditions. In some cases; therefore, this comparison is omitted or limited.



Population Growth
Between 1970 and 2000, the population of Morris County rose by 23%, up from 383,454 in 1970 to 470,212 in 2000. Although this is a significant increase, it is less than was originally projected in the 1975 Land Use Plan, which anticipated a population of 725,000 by the year 2000. This difference illustrates the difficulty in projecting long range trends in an ever-changing regulatory, political and economic environment. Major factors and trends contributing to the lower growth rate include: A reduction of household size reflecting the trend toward fewer children, combined with an aging population. A sewer moratorium restricting the expansion of sewage treatment plants, use of maximum treatment capacity, and increased connections to existing facilities. The passage of numerous environmental protection laws, resulting in a smaller pool of “developable” lands, combined with new local environmental ordinances. Delays in the completion of Highway I-287, the elimination of the proposed Route 24 extension to western portions of the county, and delays in implementation of direct rail to NYC. Inception of aggressive open space and farmland preservation programs at all levels of government.

Greater resistance to new growth due to the anticipation of increases in service costs, school costs and resulting higher local property taxes. A continuing trend toward larger single family residential lot size requirements in suburban and exurban areas. Even though Morris did not grow at the rate projected, its population grew faster than New Jersey as a whole, which grew by only 17.4% between 1970 and 2000. The county population density, given in persons per square mile (ppsm) rose from 806 ppsm to 1,003 ppsm during this period. (For comparison, Bergen County reached this density some time between 1920 and 1930. As of the 2000 census, its population density was 3,776 ppsm.). Recent census estimates place the 2005 Morris County population at about 481,139.1

Morris County Population Growth

Source: U.S. Census Bureau







July 2005,American Community Survey, US Census Bureau.



Age Groups
Between 1970 and 2000, the number of children in the county dropped while there were significant increases in persons over 35 years old and older. One contributor to this trend is the fact that vacant land supporting major new single family construction accommodating new families is becoming increasingly scarce. Also reflected is the aging of the baby boom generation, born between 1946 and 1964, which is included in the 35-54 age brackets for the year 2000. The significant rise in the number of persons aged 55 and above also reflects a population that is living longer and aging in place. By group, younger children (aged 4 and under) dropped by 8% and school age children (age 5-19), dropped by nearly 19%. As a proportion of the total, children aged 19 and under made up around 39% of the population in 1970 and only 27% of the population in 2000. Young adults (age 20-34) rose by about 9% during this period while persons aged 35 to 54 (the babyboomers) rose by about 63%. The number of persons aged 55 to 64 rose by about 55% and the percentage of persons aged 65 to 84 rose by about 83%. While making up just over 1% of the population in 2000, those aged 85 and over increased by 182% over 1970 figures. These trends are also illustrated by change in county median age. According to the U.S. Census, in 1970, the median age of county residents was 28.1 years old. By 2000, this rose to 37.8 years old. The estimated median age for 2005 is 39.5 years old.2

Age Groups 1970 - 2000
180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 (0-4) (5-19) (20-34) (35-54) (55-64) (65-84) (85+)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau



U.S. Census, 2005 American Community Survey.


The rate of population growth in the county is anticipated to decline as available developable land becomes scarcer. As this change occurs, future housing growth in the county will gravitate toward redevelopment areas. The amount of persons 65 years old and older will continue to expand as the leading edge of the baby boom population moves upward. With a continuously aging population, there will be an increase in demand for senior housing, services and amenities. There is a trend by some municipalities to rezone areas for age-restricted housing. This helps to meet some senior housing needs, but can also provide a benefit to the municipality since such developments typically do not generate school age children. This can reduce demands on local school systems. As the availability of developable vacant land diminishes, population growth associated with new single family development will decrease. This decrease may be offset by the emerging trend of redevelopment of higher density housing and mixed-use communities in developed areas and town centers that is being supported by various state planning and legislative initiatives. The degree to which this higher density redevelopment occurs will be limited by a number of factors, not the least of which is the ability of existing infrastructure to accommodate proposed redevelopment and development intensification. Where such infrastructure exists, it will be up to local governments to define acceptable development and redevelopment policies.

Franciscan Oaks Assisted Living, Denville Township


Household Growth and Size
Between 1970 and 2000, the number of households in the county increased from 109,823 to 169,711 or 55%, while the average number of persons in each household fell by 20%, from 3.4 persons per household to 2.72 persons per household. New Jersey households grew by 38% during this period, with a average person per household figure of 2.68 in 2000. This figure is estimated at 2.79 for 2005.3
Household Size 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7+ Person Total Households 1970 12,070 28,705 19,951 22,029 14,581 7,402 5,085 109,823 2000 36,555 53,911 29,923 30,012 13,173 3,987 2,150 169,711 Change
3 P ers o n

proportion of three person households remained constant while larger household sizes dropped.

Household Size 1970 vs. 2000
7+ P ers o n



6 P ers o n


5 P ers o n

18% 20% 18% 18%

4 P ers o n

2 P ers o n

26% 11%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%


1 P ers o n

25% 30% 35%

+0% -2%



-5% -5% -4% +55%

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

Increases in one and two person households reflect changing social patterns in which single persons, couples without children and seniors make up a greater part of the population. This trend may result in a demand for smaller units and increase demand for non-family oriented housing with associated services, activities and amenities.

As a percentage of total households, only one and two person households have increased in the county. One person households increased by 11% followed two person households at 6%. The
3 As per Census definitions, a household includes all persons who occupy a housing unit. .http;// U.S. Census American Community Survey, 2005.


Housing Units
The number housing units in Morris County rose from 116,032 in 1970 to 174,379 in 2000, a 50% increase overall. Census estimates place the number of housing units at 182,328 in 2005.4 Based on the recent analysis, as many as 14,414 additional units may be constructed by 2025, bringing the potential total to 196,742 units.5
Municipality Long Hill Township Madison Borough Mendham Borough Mendham Township Mine Hill Township Montville Township Morris Township Morris Plains Borough Morristown Town Mountain Lakes Borough Mount Arlington Borough Mount Olive Township Netcong Borough Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Pequannock Township Randolph Township Riverdale Borough Rockaway Borough Rockaway Township Roxbury Township Victory Gardens Borough Washington Township Wharton Borough
Source: US Census Bureau

Housing Units 1970 2,100 4,865 988 1,086 1,031 3,122 5,055 1,589 6,579 1,183 1,389 3,317 890 16,541 3,828 4,547 814 1,932 5,800 4,688 290 2,200 1,755

Housing Units 2000 3,206 5,641 1,828 1,849 1,388 7,541 8,298 1,994 7,615 1,357 2,039 9,311 1,043 20,066 5,097 8,903 940 2,491 8,506 8,550 588 5,890 2,394


Percent (%) Change 53 16 85 70 35 142 64 25 16 15 47 181 17 21 33 96 15 29 47 82 103 168 36


Housing Units 1970 2,953 975 2,110 3,089 2,561 405 1,202 4,178 4,907 2,018 2,045 2,955 1,000 5,429 2,061 2,555

Housing Units 2000 3,352 1,510 2,923 3,232 4,019 627 2,377 6,178 5,568 3,895 3,342 4,818 1,243 7,527 3,123 4,110


Percent (%) Change 14 55 39 5 57 55 98 48 13 93 63 63 24 39 52 61

1,106 776 840 763 357 4,419 3,243 405 1,036 174 650 5,994 153 3,525 1,269 4,356 126 559 2,706 3,862 298 3,690 639

Boonton Town Boonton Township Butler Borough Chatham Borough Chatham Township Chester Borough Chester Township Denville Township Dover Town E. Hanover Township Florham Park Borough Hanover Township Harding Township Jefferson Township Kinnelon Borough Lincoln Park Borough

399 535 813 143 1,458 222 1,175 2,000 661 1,877 1,297 1,863 243 2,098 1,062 1,555

2005 American Community Survey, US Census Bureau. Morris County Final Cross-Acceptance Report, March 2005. Not adjusted for NJDEP Highland rules.



Rooms per Housing Unit6

Between 1970 and 2000, there was a small increase in the percentage of one and two bedroom housing units. One room units rose by only .2% while two room units rose by 1.2%. The percentage of three, four, five and six room units all fell during this period, down .4%, 4.8%, 4.7% and 6.0%. This downward trend halts abruptly, however, with larger dwellings as the number of 8+ room units rose significantly (15.9%) during this same period. The rise in the number of larger single family dwellings reflects the trend toward more upscale “luxury” housing, which is occurring through new development, the expansion of existing dwellings and teardown/rebuilds. Increases in required lot sizes and rising land costs have supported the construction of larger homes. Declines in “mid-size” housing units reflect decreases in the production of entry-level detached housing suitable for families of lower or median income.

Rooms Per Housing Unit 1970 vs. 2000
40% 35% 16.5% 16.2% 20.4% 30% 15.4% 10.6% 11.8% 25% 20% 2.5% 15% 1.0% 10% 5% 0% 1 Room 2 Room 3 Room 4 Room 1970 5 Room 2000 6 Room 7 Room 8 Room 0.1% 1.3% 8.1% 7.7% 21.3%

The increase in the amount of larger homes occurred over the same period that one and two person households rose and the median size of households in general declined.


Source: U.S. Census Bureau

The US Census Bureau defines a housing unit as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant is intended for occupancy) as separate living quarters. .http;//




Housing Types
The predominant housing type in the county remains single family detached. The amount of attached single family housing (e.g. townhouses) has also risen sharply. Multifamily housing has also seen gains, some of which may be attributed to the growth in specialized housing (such as senior and assisted living).
Housing Type 1 Unit, Detached 1 Unit, Attached 2 Units 3 and 4 Units 5 or More Units Mobile Home and Other Total
Source: U.S. Census Bureau

anticipated that more new housing will be proposed as part of redevelopment of underutilized properties. This trend is already evident in Morristown, the Boroughs of Butler and Netcong and in the Town of Dover, where residential redevelopment in the form of higher density attached and multi-family housing is occurring or has been proposed.

Housing Tenure
1970 85,739 580 7,840 3,663 14,864 347 113,033 % 75.9 0.5 6.9 3.2 13.2 0.3 2000 120,885 11,952 7,315 6,353 27,307 567 174,379 % 69.3 6.9 4.2 3.6 15.7 0.3

Home ownership has increased in number and proportion of overall tenure over the last 30 years while renter occupied units have fallen as a proportion of total housing units. For the period between 1970 and 2000, available vacant, for-sale units remained fairly consistent, reflecting the long term strength of the housing market in the county and throughout the region.
Housing Unit Tenure Owner Occupied Renter Occupied Vacant for Sale8 Vacant for Rent
Source: U.S. Census Bureau




Regarding specialized housing for seniors, an informal countywide data base was developed in 2006 to assess senior housing opportunities in Morris County. A total of 94 senior-oriented projects were identified as either existing, under construction or proposed, containing a total of 11,450 senior housing units. While not a complete inventory, this assessment indicates the relative strength of this specialized housing type.7

80,142 29,681 660 608

73% 27% 0.8% 2.0%

129,039 40,672 727 1,209

76% 24% 0.6% 2.9%

3% -3% -0.2% 0.9%

As developable vacant land becomes increasingly scarce, and the demand for housing continues or increases, it is
Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology. Excludes most nursing facilities.
7 8 “Vacant for Sale” and “Vacant for Rent” refers to unoccupied units that are on the market for sale or rent as opposed to other unoccupied housing units that are not on the market or that may be abandoned or otherwise unavailable for sale or rent. These figures do not include occupied units that may be for sale or rent.


Housing Conditions
Overall, Morris County’s housing structures are in good condition. The U.S. Census identifies housing units lacking complete plumbing facilities, housing units lacking complete kitchen facilities and occupants per room as indicators of overall housing conditions. Occupied housing units with more than one person per room are considered crowded and units with over 1.5 persons per room are considered severely crowded.9 Overcrowding in the county is typically lower than that found in the state overall, particularly in owner occupied units. In renter occupied units; however, the number of persons per room rises significantly, suggesting some rental overcrowding. Relatively few units in the county are without complete plumbing or kitchen facilities. Percentages for owner occupied units are nearly identical with state figures. While lower than state figures, the number of Morris County rental units with incomplete plumbing and kitchen facilities again rises when compared to owner occupied units. product of high rental rates and lack of sufficient affordable rental units.
Conditions of Owner Occupied Housing Units 2000 Census Morris County New Jersey Characteristics(percent of total) (percent of total) 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room (crowded) 0.6 1.3 1.51 or more persons per room (severely crowded) Lacking complete plumbing facilities10 Lacking complete kitchen facilities11







Conditions of Renter Occupied Housing Units 2000 Census Morris County New Jersey Characteristics (percent of total) (percent of total) 1.01 to 1.5 persons per room (crowded) 4.2 5.9 1.51 or more persons per room (severely crowded) Lacking complete plumbing facilities Lacking complete kitchen facilities
Source: US Census Bureau Complete plumbing facilities include: hot and cold piped water, a flush toilet and a bathtub or shower. Complete kitchen facilities include a sink with piped water; a range or cook top and oven; and a refrigerator.
11 10



Rental unit overcrowding or “stacking” has been an issue of increasing concern for many local municipalities. This practice can result in public safety issues, rapid deterioration of buildings and subsequent deterioration of neighborhoods. This condition may be seen as a by-





Occupant per room is obtained by dividing the number of people in each occupied housing unit by the number of rooms in the unit.



Housing Values and Affordability
While home ownership rose, so did the median value of homes, rising 782% between 1970 and 2000. This reflects both the rise in home values in general as well as the rise in the size of newly constructed homes in the county. Rents in the county rose as well, but at a slower overall pace than for-sale dwellings. Median Morris County Housing Values 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005
Source: US Census Bureau

$29,194 $81,500 $216,400 $257,400 $463,500

Housing Unit Value Owner Occupied Median Value

1970 $29,194

2000 $257,400

Change% 782%

As prices have risen, the ability to meet the housing needs of middle and lower wage earners has been an increasingly formidable task. The factors driving supply and demand and resulting cost increases, include, but are not limited to: Dwindling supply of developable land Increasingly restrictive environmental regulations Increasing minimum residential lot sizes Local opposition to higher density housing Low mortgage rates and speculative residential investing Income has clearly not kept pace with housing costs. While median home values went up 782% from 1970 to 2000, median household income went up only 506% in roughly that same period. Proportionally, “median” income households are paying much more for “median” cost homes. As a result, homes have become significantly less affordable in relation to household income. To illustrate, the median housing value reported in 1970 of $29,194 is equal to about two and one-third times the median household income at that time, generally corresponding to the common guideline estimating home affordability at about two and one half to three times annual income. By 2005, a median income household would have to devote a sum over five times their annual income to

Renter Occupied Contract Rent13
Source: U.S. Census Bureau




From 2000 to 2005, Census estimates indicate that county housing values rose by 80%. This reflects regional trends driven by rising land costs, a reduction of available and developable land, lowered interest rates and, locally, Morris County’s ability to attract higher income residents. 2005 estimates report a median sales value for a housing unit in Morris County of $463,500 and a gross median rent of $1,107.14

Such units are occupied by the owner (s) of a property. The median value is the “middle value, i.e. one half of recorded housing values fall below this value and one half of recorded housing values fall above this value. 13 Contract rent is the median monthly rent agreed to or contracted for, regardless of any furnishings, utilities or other services that may be included in the rental contract. 14 U.S. Census, 2005 American Community Survey



obtain a median valued home.15 There is a significant disparity between rising incomes and home values. housing cost for the State of New Jersey was reported as $378,992.

Median Housing Value16 1970 1980 1990 2000 2005 $29,194 $81,500 $216,400 $257,400 $463,500

Median Household Income $12,758 $26,626 $56,273 $77,340 $84,010

Ratio of Value to Income (rounded) 2.3 to 1 3.1 to 1 3.8 to 1 3.3 to 1 5.2 to 1

Rise in Median Housing Value vs. Rise in Median Income
9% 17 10 11

200% 150%

16 9% 1%



50% 0% 1970-1980 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2005

Source: US Census of Population and Housing, 2005 American Community Survey

Although Census figures provide a comparison of past values and incomes, it should be noted that the values reported are not based on actual sales prices, but on survey respondent’s estimates of their housing value for existing homes of all types. For comparison, recent sales data published by the New Jersey Builders Association (NJBA) reported the new home median price in Morris County at $564,145 for 2005, a figure substantially higher than census estimates of value and 6.7 times the estimated median household income for this year.17 This price was the third highest median new home cost reported for counties in New Jersey, just behind Bergen County ($580,000) and Hunterdon ($644,002). For this same period, the median new

Median Housing Value Rate of Increase

Median Income Rate of Increase

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community

This rise in prices has substantially impacted housing affordability in the county. Affordability for owner occupied homes is commonly defined as not more than 28% of household income for mortgage, interest, taxes and insurance.18 Using this standard, it is estimated that it would take a household income of about $133,000 to afford a home with the 2005 value of $463,500 and an income of about $156,000 to afford a home costing $564,145.19 Recent estimates
18 Meck, Stuart, , Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statues for Planning and the Management of Change, American Planning Association, 2002, p.4-79. 19 $463,500 – $46,350 (10% down) = $417,150 mortgage. Principal and interest @ 6% 30 year fixed = $2,501/month + $600/month (est.) for tax and insurance = $3,100 total monthly payment x 12 = $37,200/.28 = $132,857. $564,145-56,415= $507,730 mortgage. P & I @6%, 30 yr. fixed = $3,044/month + $600/month for tax/insurance = $3,644 x 12 = 43,728/.28 = $156,171.

US Census - 2005 American Community Survey Estimates. 16 US Census defines this value as the respondent’s estimate of how much a property (housing unit and lot) would sell for if it were for sale. Includes all types of owner occupied housing. 17 NJBA website. Information based on analysis of all new home warranties reported to the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs.










indicate that 42% of households have incomes of $100,000 to $149,999 and only 21% have incomes of $150,000 or more.20

Although homeownership rates rose between 1970 and 2000, this trend may reverse in response to the significant rise in housing costs experienced over the last few years. Despite the recent market slowdown and rising mortgage rates, this rise in housing prices may continue, as rising demand for limited available housing persists. The trend in construction of ever larger homes, the expansion of existing homes and the teardown/rebuild phenomenon will continue to make Morris County homeownership affordable to primarily higher income households. The price of housing limits the amount of low, moderate and middle income persons and household types that may live in Morris County. Much of the employment base of the county must therefore live outside the county, increasing traffic congestion during the morning and afternoon workday commute. A lack of affordable housing in the county may impact the ability of some existing businesses to expand and may prove a disincentive for substantial new businesses to locate in this area. High housing costs may also have an impact on employee retention as individuals seek employment in areas where housing is more affordable. Stacking or overcrowding of older, smaller housing units, may continue to be a problem as fewer lower cost housing opportunities exist for lower wage workers, particularly those with limited means of transportation.

Rise in Median Housing Value vs. Rise in Median Income
$500,000 $450,000 $400,000 $350,000 $300,000 $250,000 $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $50,000 $0 $29,194 $12,758 1970 $26,626 1980 $56,273 1990 $77,340 $84,010 $81,500 $216,400 $257,400 $463,500



Median Housing Value

Median Income

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey


US Census Bureau American Community Survey, 2005.


Organizations Providing Housing Assistance
There are a number of public and private/nonprofit organizations working in Morris County that provide assistance to communities seeking to build affordable housing and to individuals seeking to purchase such housing. These organizations provide the bulk of housing support in the county, many with the assistance of Morris County. While not meant to be a complete, the following sample list provides some sense of the extensive variety and scope of such organizations within Morris County.

Special Needs Housing:
Allegro School Allies, Inc. The ARC/Morris Chapter Cheshire Homes, Inc. Community Hope, Inc. The Eric Johnson House NewBridge Services, Inc. The Rose House St. Clares Hospital Residential Services

Primary Housing Organizations:
Affordable Harding Corp. Homeless Solutions, Inc. Headquarters Development Housing Alliance of Morris County Morris Habitat for Humanity Housing Partnership for Morris County Lutheran Social Ministries of New Jersey Madison Affordable Housing Corporation Northwest New Jersey Community Action Program (NORWESCAP)

The Eric Johnson House, Morristown


Morris County’s Housing Role
Morris County’s chief role in promoting the development of affordable housing is that of providing assistance to municipalities, nonprofits and individuals through various means. The principal means of assistance involves the direction of federal funding to the many deserving projects and organizations whose primary purpose is to provide such housing. Community Development administers three major programs that support the development of community facilities and affordable housing: Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG). Funding for these programs comes from the federal government and varies from year to year. Federal funding administered by the county for 2005 included $2,587,903 for the CDBG program, $1,203,386 for the HOME program and $99,920 for emergency shelter grants (ESG).21 All programs provide housing assistance to persons meeting HUD income requirements. The amount of available funding and subsequent ability of the county to provide assistance is determined by annual federal funding decisions.

Morris County Division of Community Development
The Morris County Division of Community Development is a Division within the Department of Planning, Development and Technology. It helps to provide affordable housing opportunities to low- and moderate-income residents, including the elderly and disabled, by overseeing and dispensing Federal HUD funding to communities and qualifying individuals. Operations are conducted within the structure of a five-year Consolidated Plan, which it carries out through a network of partnerships with governmental and nonprofit agencies, such as the five Morris County housing authorities, the Housing Alliance of Morris County, the Housing Committee of the Morris County Human Relations Commission and the Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Strategy Committee.

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG):
CDBG program funding may be used by communities to make infrastructure improvements that support the development of housing, e.g. sidewalks, street repair, sewer, water, site improvements. Funding is also available through CDBG grants for housing rehabilitation to address major systems failures in owneroccupied homes for qualifying individuals. Up to $15,000 per unit may be provided. Typically, about 80 awards per year are made.

Morris County Consolidated Plan 2005-2009, Morris County Division of Community Development, May 2005, Section III, pgs. 4-8.



Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME):
This program provides funding for the creation and maintenance of affordable (HUD qualified) housing. About six to seven projects are awarded per year and a typical award is about $200,000. County Homeless Strategic Plan which outlines a planning process (the Continuum of Care Strategy) to address homelessness prevention throughout the county. Committee members include state and local government representatives, non-profit representatives, consumers and other community members whose role is to advocate and plan for the availability of a continuum of housing including emergency, transitional and permanent housing options.

Emergency Shelter Grant (EMS)
The Community Development Division also receives HUD funding to help prevent homelessness and to assist homeless persons. It distributes this funding to area nonprofit agencies that address this need, such as the Jersey Battered Woman’s Service, Interfaith Council for Homeless Families New Jersey, Homeless Solutions, and the Market Street Mission of the Salvation Army.

Morris County Housing Authority
The Morris County Housing Authority was created by the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders in 1972 to provide housing for low and moderate income residents. This is one of five housing authorities operating in Morris County making housing available to lower income residents. At present, the total number of units provided by the Morris County Housing Authority is 423, all constructed within the last 30 years. The combined total of all authority units is 1,160.22

County Homeless Strategic Plan
The Morris County Homeless Strategic Plan is a joint effort sponsored by the Morris County Division of Community Development and Morris County Department of Human Services. The plan is developed to define actions for assisting residents who are homeless or who are in danger of becoming homeless and supports various nonprofit agencies devoted to this issue. This effort is lead by the Morris County Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Systems (CEAS) Committee. The CEAS Committee reports to the Morris County Human Services Advisory Council, which in turn, reports to the Morris County Freeholders. CEAS is the lead entity in the planning process for developing various opportunities designed to reduce homelessness and assist homeless persons. Working with the Morris County Department of Human Services and the Division of Community Development, CEAS compiles the annual Morris

Dean Gallo Congregate Living, Morris Township

Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Housing Authority, 2005.


The Morris County Housing Authority inventory was constructed and is managed and owned by the Housing Authority. Its properties include the following:

Family Housing:
Peer Place, Denville Twp. 57 rental units. Green Pond Village Family Complex, Rockaway Twp. 40 rental units. Bennett Avenue Family Complex, Randolph Twp. 32 rental units.

Affordable Housing Units Provided by Housing Authorities
74 59 134 Boonton Housing Authority Dover Housing Authority 470 M adison Housing Authority M orristown Housing Authority M orris Housing Authority
Source: Morris County Housing Authority, 2005

Senior Housing:
India Brook Village Senior Citizen Complex, Randolph Twp. 100 rental units. Morris Mews Senior Citizen Complex, Morris Twp. 100 rental units. Pleasant View Village Senior Citizen Complex, Rockaway Twp. 75 citizen units. Dean Gallo Congregate Living Housing, Morris Twp. 19 rental units. Funding for the Authority is received primarily from the federal government, but it also receives some state and county funding, including HOME and CDBG funding from the county via the Community Development Office. In addition, the Authority also oversees 634 “Section 8” federal housing vouchers. Other housing authorities in the county include: the Boonton Housing Authority, the Dover Housing Authority, the Madison Housing Authority and the Morristown Housing Authority



New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing
The New Jersey Fair Housing Act of 1985 resulted in the creation of the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH). COAH’s mission is to: “Facilitate the production of sound, affordable housing for low and moderate income households by providing the most effective process to municipalities, housing providers, nonprofit and for profit developers to address a constitutional obligation within the framework of sound, comprehensive planning.”23 Morris County’s collective COAH housing obligation (precredited need) for the period 1987 to 1999 is 6,561 units of affordable housing, affordable to persons making between 80% and 50% of median regional income, adjusted for number of persons per household. Median incomes and associated affordable housing income limits are determined on a regional basis and Morris County is part of the Council’s “Region 2, which includes Morris, Essex, Union and Warren Counties. (See end chart). The 6,561 unit obligation includes a rehabilitation requirement of 1,500 units and an obligation to produce 5,061 units of new construction. Of the 5,061 units of new construction, COAH allows half to be developed outside the county via Regional Contribution Agreements (RCA). According to COAH, about 4,550 units of new construction have been completed, including RCA units transferred out of county.24 The components of COAH’s present third round methodology include 1) the rehabilitation share 2) the prior round (1987-1999) obligation that has not yet been addressed and 3) the growth share generated by residential and nonresidential development during the period from 1999 through 2014 and delivered from 1/1/2004 to 1/1/2014. Of Morris County’s 39 municipalities, 35 have received or have petitioned for COAH substantive certification, providing plans intended to meet their COAH affordable housing obligations.25 These certifications protect these municipalities from potential lawsuits from builders seeking a “builder’s remedy,” i.e. court imposed affordable housing subsidized by market housing. In January of 2007, the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior Court voided the COAH third round formula for determining how much affordable must be produced by each municipality. Among other issues, the court decided that the “growth share” methodology was insufficient to provide an adequate opportunity for affordable housing and ordered that COAH revise its methodology for determining affordable housing requirements. COAH is appealing parts of this decision and is revising other portions of its third round methodology. In the meantime, all pending applications for substantive certifications are on hold.

Notwithstanding the recent court decision regarding the validity of COAH current fair share methodologies, the existing third round “growth share” rules resulted in the adoption of “growth share” ordinances by some communities. Under the current growth share rules, such

23 24 COAH memo of July 18, 2005, confirmed April 2007.

As of November, 2005.


ordinances may require all new development to provide a pro-rata share of affordable housing, by new construction or in-lieu contributions. Until such time the appeal process is completed, or until the revised rules are created and accepted by the court, the status of municipalities seeking substantive certification will be uncertain. This will likely halt plans for implementation of related housing plans and stall the construction of some anticipated affordable housing developments. The scarcity of vacant developable land will generate increased emphasis on redevelopment as a method of accommodating both affordable and market rate housing. Provisions of the Highlands Act may require amendment of various COAH plans as various affordable housing sites may not be developable under Highlands restrictions. Affordable housing alternatives to “inclusionary construction” will become more important in the postHighlands environment. The role of redevelopment in affordable housing production will be subject to the ability of communities to improve or expand existing facilities. Additional limitations on redevelopment may be enacted by communities seeking to maintain a defined community character. Assuming the “growth share” rules continue to assign an obligation based on number of new employees, some communities may encourage nonresidential development with minimal employee generation or reduce nonresidential densities to lessen their associated COAH generating impacts.

2006 Regional Income Limits for Households of Various Sizes in Region 2 - (Essex, Morris, Union and Warren) 1 person 1.5 person 2 person 3 person 4 person 4.5 person 5 person 6 person 7 person 8 person $47,206 $50,578 $53,950 $60,694 $67,438 $70,135 $72,833 $78,228 $83,623 $89,018 $29,504 $31,611 $33,719 $37,934 $42,149 $43,834 $45,520 $48,892 $52,264 $55,636 $17,702 $18,967 $20,231 $22,760 $25,289 $26,301 $27,312 $29,335 $31,358 $33,382

Moderate Income Low Income Very Low Income

Moderate Income: Household earning between 50% and 80% of area median income Low Income: Household earning less than 50% of area median income. Very Low Income: Household earning less than 30% of area median income. Source: COAH



In Morris County, as elsewhere, the existing use of land and the intensity of that use is the result of a number of historic, environmental, regulatory, and market-related factors. Morris County encompasses about 308,000 acres (481 square miles). Land use in the county has changed dramatically since the last comprehensive land use survey was conducted in 1970, with that information subsequently included in the 1975 Morris County Future Land Use Plan. As documented in the 1975 Plan, only 37% of the county was considered “developed” as of 1970.1 In contrast, approximately 81% of the county is currently developed; with only 19% remaining that is assessed as either vacant land or farmland, based on current tax records. As illustrated in the accompanying charts, the use of land in Morris County has undergone substantial transformation. Vacant land, previously accounting for nearly two-thirds of the county, now comprises about 9% of land area. This change is nearly matched by the doubling of land devoted to residential use, which is now the largest land use in the county. Land devoted to parkland and preserved open space has increased over seven-fold to become the second largest use of land in the county.

1970 Land Use

Residential Commercial Industrial Parks and Preserved Open Space Farmland (Preserved and Unpreserved)

4% 8% 3% 16% 1% 1% 4%

Public / Semi Public Vacant Public Right of Way

2005 Land Use

Residential Commercial Industrial

13% 10%

9% 6%

Parks and Preserved Open Space Farmland (Preserved and Unpreserved) Public / Semi Public

22% 2% 5%


Vacant Public Right of Way


Morris County Master Plan, Future Land Use Element, 1975, pg. 20. At that time, land devoted to agriculture was also considered “developed land.”

Source: 1975 Morris County Future Land Use Plan Element and Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology. All figures rounded.


Vacant Land
For the purposes of this report, vacant land is defined as all undeveloped properties listed as vacant in the county tax records that is in private ownership.2 Making up approximately 63% of the county in 1970, by the end of 2005 vacant land accounted for only 9% of all county land. This land is scattered throughout the county in relatively small parcels. As expressed herein, the vacant land category does not include lands reserved for watershed protection or devoted to wellhead protection, (such as the Alamatong well fields); even though tax assessment records sometimes identify these as “vacant” lands. These lands are included in this analysis in the public / semi-public category. Agricultural lands are also not considered vacant and are indicated separately in this report. settlements. More recent years have seen increased development of senior-oriented housing, primarily in attached housing types and assisted living facilities. With the rise in land devoted to residential use there has also been a rise in the density of housing units and residential population. In 1970, there were 113,033 housing units of all types in the county, with a resulting housing density of 235 housing units per square mile.4 By 2000, the number of housing units rose to 174,379, generating a housing density of 372 units per square mile.5 During this same period, population density rose from 818 persons per square mile to 1,003 persons per square mile.6 While residential land use is dispersed throughout the county, the highest concentrations are generally located in the central and eastern portions of the county.

Commercial and Industrial Land Residential Land
Land devoted to residential development currently represents the greatest amount of developed land in the county, rising from 16% to 33% between 1970 and 2005. Single family detached housing was and continues to be the dominant residential use. It currently makes up 69% of all county housing, down slightly from 76% in 1970.3 The bulk of this difference may be attributed to a significant rise in the development of attached housing types (townhouses and condominiums). Much of this new attached housing was completed in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, often in response to state affordable housing mandates and related court
2 Morris County MOD IV Real Property records. 2006 Morris County Data Book, No. 28. U.S Census Bureau, Census 2000. 2 Morris County Census Trends 1970-1980, State Data Center, pg. 34, US Census of Population and Housing. 3 Morris County Census Trends 1970-1980, State Data Center, pg. 34, US Census of Population and Housing.

Overall, land in commercial use (non-farm, office and retail) and industrial uses rose from a combined total of just 2% in 1970 to about 7% in 2005.

Commercial land use rose from 1% in 1970 to 5% in 2005. This rise represents a significant expansion of corporate office and business campuses, generally in the eastern portion of the county, followed by gains in retail and service uses, located primarily along established highway corridors.

Ibid. 2006 Morris County Data Book, No. 28. U.S Census Bureau, Census 2000. NJ Department of Labor, Census Bureau 2000 SF1. NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Population Density, NJ Counties 1930-1990.
5 6



Morris County has long been a prime location for quality office development, and is currently leading the state in office space with over 27 million square feet.7 Much of this office and business development occurred in response to the northeast New Jersey economic expansion of the 1980’s and the completion of the interstate highway system (including Routes 287, Route 80 and nearby Route 78), and major state highways such as Route 24. In more recent years, office development has slowed considerably. In fact, the county has been experiencing relatively high office vacancy rates for several years for all classes of office, particularly higher quality and more expensive “Class A” and “Class B” space.8 The declining amount of vacant lands combined with a large supply of unused space indicate a nearterm future in which new large scale development of office use is likely to be relatively modest. million square feet of combined commercial, office and industrial space located in Morris County.9

Parks and Open Space
In 1970, parks accounted for less than 3% of total land area; by 2005, public parkland and preserved open space in Morris County accounted for about 22% of the county.10 This increase is primarily the result of local and county open space funding initiatives, aggressive parkland/open space acquisition, and the purchase of large tracts of land by the state for wildlife management purposes. Examples of federal open space holdings include the Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and the Morristown National Historic Park (Jockey Hollow). State parks and wildlife areas are located primarily in the western and central areas of the Morris, while county and municipally-owed parklands are more widely dispersed.

The amount of land devoted to industrial uses has risen slightly, up from 1% of total land in 1970, to just 2% in 2005. While traditional heavy manufacturing uses have declined here and throughout the state, there have been some increases in smaller specialty manufactures, assembly operations and associated warehousing. Examples of significant contributors in this category include the Sussex Turnpike Industrial Campus in Randolph Township, the Iron Mountain Industrial Park in Mine Hill and perhaps most notably, the International Trade Center and Foreign Trade Zone in Mount Olive, which includes nearly 684 acres and 7 million square feet of mixed office, industrial and warehouse development. In 2005, there were approximately 116

Agricultural Land
The 1975 Land Use Plan reported that 8% of Morris County was devoted to agricultural use. By 2005, this figure rose to 10%. Given the amount of development that has occurred, one would intuitively expect the current amount of farmland to be less than reported in 1975. This “increase”; however, more appropriately represents a difference in the manner in which agricultural land was defined in 1970 and how it is defined today. The earlier analysis of agricultural lands was determined by interpretation of aerial photographs, while the current land use analysis of agricultural lands, and all other land use categories, is based primarily on tax assessment records, which include specific parameters as to what is to be considered in the

7 8

Morris County Economic Development Corporation. Ibid.


115,896,610 s.f. 2005 Morris County Cross Acceptance Report, amended 3/2/06. Not including farmland.


definition of farmland and farm qualified.11 For this study, “agricultural land” was defined as farm “assessed” lands. The majority of these farm assessed properties are located in the northern and southwestern portions of the county. have resulted largely from population growth and subsequent demands for public services.

Roads and Highways
Road and highway rights-of-way increased from about 4% of the county in 1970 to about 6% in 2005. Part of this increase can be attributed to major road building projects, including Route 287, Route 80 and Route 24. Other improvements reflected in this figure include state and county intersection improvements, road realignments and roadway widening. Other contributing factors are the many new “local” roads constructed as part of new residential and commercial subdivisions. With the relatively developed state of the county and the fiscal, regulatory and political difficulties associated with new highway construction, significant additions to this land use category are not anticipated. Most additions are likely to be from local roads constructed as part of the subdivision of remaining developable lands.

Public / Semi-Public Land
Public / Semi-Public is a broad land use category encompassing a variety of public and other semi-public uses. Semi-public uses are publicly or privately owned, typically providing a specific public benefit and often tax exempt. Public and semi-public uses are defined in this report to include railroads, schools, libraries, municipal facilities (excluding parks and open space) and other local, county, state and federal non-park properties, communications facilities, churches, correctional facilities and cemeteries. Additionally, this category includes properties used for watershed and wellhead protection, including all utility authority properties. These watershed protection lands currently account for over 1,600 acres throughout the county. Finally, this category also includes the federally owned Picatinny Military Reservation, which covers nearly 6,300 acres. The 1975 Land Use Plan reported that about 4% of the county was devoted to public and semi-public use in 1970 while 13% of the county was devoted to this use in 2005.12 Increases in this land use category reflect the additional of public facilities that

Based on tax assessment of farm qualified (3B) lands - Morris County GIS Database, May 2005. Includes farmhouse “exception” (3A) properties. Current tax requirements require that land must be actively devoted to agriculture for 2 years, must be at least 5 acres and gross sales must average at least $500 plus $5 per cropland acre and $.5 per woodland acre for each acre over 5, or provide evidence of anticipated yearly gross sales amounting to the minimum requirements. 12 The 1975 Land Use Plan includes separate categories for public / semi public, transportation/utilities/communications and cemeteries. These 3 categories are combined into public / semi-public to make comparison with 2005 figures.




Local Development Regulations / Zoning
The ability of land to accommodate different types of development is shaped by many factors, including natural features and constraints, infrastructure capacities, natural systems capacities, and access. Assuming that natural conditions and available infrastructure allow land to be developed, regulatory factors then come into play. Of these, most notable are local zoning and subdivision regulations, adopted in accordance with the New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL).13 The MLUL provides the basis for the local master plans and development regulations that have been the primary driver of allowable types, intensities and patterns of development. The basis of most local zoning starts with identification of existing and appropriate locations for residential and nonresidential lands uses, the defining of appropriate intensity of use and densities, and development of standards which seek to increase compatibility within and between these land use categories. In general, overall zoning policy in Morris County has remained relatively constant with regard to the amount of area zoned for residential purposes versus non-residential purposes. The majority of all land was, and continues to be, zoned primarily for residential use. Category of Land Residentially Zoned Non-residentially Zoned 1970 78% 22% 2005 76% 24%

Residentially Zoned Land
Although the overall amount of land zoned for residential purposes has remained fairly constant, the required maximum density of residential uses has changed significantly. This is illustrated by required minimum lot sizes for residentially zoned land. In 1970, a lot size of between 1 and 2.99 acres was the dominant residential lot area requirement, accounting for 52% of residentially zoned land. At that time, zoning for larger lots of 3 acres or greater applied to only 16% of residentially zoned land. In contrast, 41% of all residentially zoned land now requires a minimum lot size of 3 acres or above, and land zoned for residences on lots of between 1 and 2.99 acres represent only 24% of residentially zoned land.

Residential Zoning - Minimum Lot Sizes
60 50 40

52% 41% 31% 24% 16% 6% 1% Over 3 Ac. 1 Ac. - 2.99 Ac. 1970 Under 1 Ac. 2005 M ulti-Family 29%


30 20 10 0

Source: 1975 Morris County Master Plan, Future Land Use Element, 2005 Generalized Zoning Data, Morris County Department of Planning Development and Technology. Figures rounded.

Source: Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology.

NJ Municipal Land Use Law (Chapter 291, 1975 – 40:55D-1 et. seq.)


The period between 1970 and 2005 also saw an expansion of multifamily zoning, up from 1% of residentially zoned land in 1970 to about 6% in 2005. This change reflects the rise in townhouse and condominium development in the 1980’s as well as increases in age-restricted multifamily zoning in the 1990’s. Regarding residential lands zoned for lots under 1 acre, there was very little change. Most of this land was already subdivided and/or developed in 1970 and current zoning continues to reflect these existing land use patterns. increased the amount of land devoted to public purposes, accompanied by associated zoning designations.

Non-residentially Zoned Land
80 70 60 Pe rc e n t 50 40 30 20 10 0
Retail - Service Office - Research - Public / Institutional / Industrial Park 1970 2005 23% 12% 7% 70% 51% 37%

Non-residentially Zoned Land
Non-residentially zoned land increased by just 2.8% over 1970, yet there were significant changes within this category. The amount of area currently zoned for retail, service, and office/research/industrial purposes is half of that in 1970. During this same period, land zoned for institutional use, government use, and other public uses increased significantly. Part of this change may be due to an earlier over-zoning of vacant land for industrial or commercial use where in fact there was a lack of adequate infrastructure and/or demand needed to generate actual development. Also, aggressive preservation efforts have

Source: Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology.




Local Redevelopment and Housing Law
As the amount of vacant land in the county continues to decline, redevelopment of underutilized properties will take on an ever increasing importance in meeting both residential and commercial development needs. The growing trend toward redevelopment of previously developed and/or underutilized properties is anticipated to generate even greater momentum as more undeveloped land is preserved through open space and farmland preservation programs, as environmental regulations become more prohibitive and as more pressure is exerted by state agencies to increase conformance with the State Development and Redevelopment Plan and the Highlands Regional Master Plan. Several municipalities are promoting major redevelopment proposals under the provisions of the New Jersey Local Redevelopment and Housing Law.14 Using this law, municipalities may designate “Areas in Need of Redevelopment” or “Areas in Need of Rehabilitation” and then implement a Redevelopment Plan for such areas. An Area in Need of Redevelopment might include relatively well-maintained properties with structurally sound buildings and viable commercial and residential uses. However, these sites may exhibit “obsolete design or layout” with regard to poor on-site circulation, inadequate parking, nonconforming building setbacks, or excessive building and lot coverage. Although there has been recent debate as to the application of these criteria, under current law, these conditions can make such sites eligible for as “Areas in Need of Redevelopment or Rehabilitation.” As an alternative to designating an Area in Need of Redevelopment, a municipality may designate an Area in Need of Rehabilitation. In this case, the municipality is granted all of the powers of redevelopment except for the power of eminent domain. The criteria for designating an Area in Need of Rehabilitation are also less stringent than the criteria for designating an Area in Need of Redevelopment. The fact that eminent domain is not a factor may assist in avoiding future political opposition to the designation of Areas in Need of Rehabilitation vs. Areas in Need of Redevelopment. Recently there have been many pieces of proposed legislation that would further limit the use of eminent domain for economic development. Increased limitations may lead to greater interest of the “Areas in Need of Rehabilitation" portion of the law.

River Place at Butler (former Butler Rubber Factory site)


N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-1 et. seq.


Redevelopment Areas in Morris County
In Morris County, nine municipalities have designated “Areas in Need of Redevelopment” and six have completed Redevelopment Plans. Municipality Boonton Town Butler Dover East Hanover Harding Morristown Redevelopment Area Main Street Redevelopment Area Main Street Redevelopment Area N. Sussex St. Landfill Redevelopment Area Varityper Redevelopment Area New Vernon Village Redevelopment Area 1) RZ-1 Redevelopment Zone 1 (Vail Mansion), 2) RZ-2 Redevelopment Zone 2 (George Washington School), 3) Redevelopment Area (Block Bounded by North Park, Speedwell, Cattano, Washington), 4) Sub-Area 1 (Speedwell Redevelopment Area), 5) Sub-Area 2 (Speedwell Redevelopment Area), 6) SubArea 3 (Speedwell Redevelopment Area), &)Redevelopment Area (Vicinity of Epstein's Department Store) Station Area Redevelopment Area Route 46 Corridor Redevelopment Area Redevelopment Area

Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act
The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act was signed into law in August of 2004.15 The overall intent of the Act is to protect the drinking water supply generated within the New Jersey Highlands by limiting development on over 800,000 acres defined by the Act as the Highlands Region. This region includes 88 municipalities and portions of seven north and central New Jersey counties. The Act also establishes the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council, which has the preliminary task of developing a regional master plan for the entire Highlands Region. The Act divides the Highlands Region into the Highlands Preservation Area and the Highlands Planning Area, each area representing approximately half of the entire Region. In the Preservation or “Core” Area, future development is severely limited. In the Planning Area, growth is encouraged where water and sewer capacity are available, and discouraged in environmentally sensitive areas. In Morris County, 32 of the county’s 39 municipalities are within the Highlands Region. Of these, 13 are included, in whole or in part, within the Highlands Preservation Area. The Preservation Area impacts 188 square miles or about 39 percent of the total area of Morris County. The Preservation Area contains the most of Morris County’s remaining vacant land and unpreserved farmland, which will now be subject to substantial limitations on future development.

Netcong Parsippany-Troy Hills Wharton

Source: Morris County Division of Planning Development and Technology, 2005


Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, P.L. 2004, c. 120.


Morris County Highlands Region Designations
Highlands Planning Area 50% Outside of Highlands Region 11%

Municipalities Partially or Wholly within Highlands Preservation Area
Boonton Township Jefferson Township Mount Arlington Borough Randolph Township Chester Township Kinnelon Borough Mount Olive Township Rockaway Township Washington Township Denville Township16 Montville Township Pequannock Township Roxbury Township

Municipalities within the Planning Area Only
Highlands Preservation Area 39%
Town of Boonton Town of Dover Mendham Borough Morris Plains Borough Mountain Lakes Borough Riverdale Borough Butler Borough Hanover Township Mendham Township Morris Township Netcong Borough Rockaway Township Wharton Borough Chester Borough Harding Township Mine Hill Township Morristown Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Victory Gardens Borough

Source: Morris County Department of Planning Development and Technology

The Highlands Act has direct and immediate consequences on future land use, development and preservation. In the designated Preservation Area, municipal compliance with the Act is mandatory and both municipalities and counties will be required to revise their master plans and land use regulations to conform to the Highlands Regional Master Plan. Also, in coordination with the Act, the NJDEP has adopted a series of special rules and standards related to development intensity and environmental restrictions that seriously limit the development of new housing and businesses in the Preservation Area. With exceptions for preapproved projects and for uses specifically exempted by the Act, little new construction is anticipated in the Preservation Area.

Municipalities Outside the Highlands Region
Lincoln Park Borough Madison Borough E. Hanover Township Chatham Borough Long Hill Township Florham Park Borough Chatham Township

A portion of the Beaver Brook in Denville is included in the Preservation Area; however, no Denville land area is located in the Preservation Area.




In the Planning Area, compliance with the Highlands Regional Master Plan is intended to be voluntary and the Act provides incentives to encourage local governments to voluntarily opt into conformance with the Highlands Regional Master Plan. In doing so, municipalities will be required to revise their master plans and zoning ordinances to conform to the Highlands Plan. The Highlands Regional Master Plan is also required to identify voluntary receiving areas for the transfer of development credits from the Preservation Area to the Planning Area. Municipalities may voluntarily change their land use policies to accommodate these receiving areas based on additional incentives provided in the Act. The State Plan contains goals, strategies and policies for the development and redevelopment of the state. It defines “planning areas” that have common characteristics and identifies specific policies for development and/or redevelopment and preservation. It also defines the types and intensities of “centers” – mixed use, compact, transit-oriented, and pedestrian-friendly communities - as the preferred form of development for the state. The State Plan identifies five major Planning Areas: Metropolitan (PA1), Suburban (PA2), Fringe (PA3), Rural (PA4/4B) and Environmentally Sensitive (PA5/5B).19 According to the State Plan, the Metropolitan and Suburban Planning Areas are where future development and redevelopment are encouraged and where development should be retrofitted to emulate centers to the greatest extent feasible. In the Fringe, Rural, and Environmentally Sensitive Planning Areas, growth is to be focused in designated centers. For implementation of the State Plan by state agencies, the Metropolitan and Suburban Planning Area as well as all Centers have been designated as “Smart Growth Areas.” Various state agencies have modified their programs, funding formulas and regulations to encourage development in Smart Growth Areas, while concurrently limiting funding and restricting infrastructure and utilities expansion into non-Smart Growth areas. Other State Plan Planning Areas located in the county include Parks (PA6, 7, and 8), Water Bodies (PA9) and Military Installations (PA11). Unlike Planning Areas one through five, these designations are not “Planning” areas per se, but instead represent features that are mapped for informational purposes.

State Development and Redevelopment Plan
Mandated by the State Planning Act, the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan (State Plan) is prepared and regularly updated by the State Planning Commission. 17 The State Plan is created through a process called “Cross-Acceptance” whereby state, local and county governments compare and negotiate differences between their plans and policies. The purpose of the State Plan is to:
“…coordinate planning activities and establish Statewide planning objectives in the following areas: land use, housing, economic development, transportation, natural resource conservation, agriculture and farmland retention, recreation, urban and suburban redevelopment, historic preservation, public facilities and services, and intergovernmental coordination.”18

17 18

State Planning Act, P.L. 1985, c. 398 (C52:18A-196 et. seq.) (N.J.S.A. 52:18A-200(f).


Planning Area 5B (PA5B) designates coastal barrier islands and is therefore not found in Morris County.


Morris County State Plan Planning Areas 2001 State Development and Redevelopment Plan

11% 1% 2% 49%

PA1 PA2 PA3 PA4 PA4B PA5 PA6,7,8 PA9 PA11

For example, the Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) recently amended its regulations for “substantive certification,” which guarantees protection against builders’ remedy lawsuits, by requiring municipalities to obtain “Plan Endorsement” from the State Planning Commission within three years of filing its third round housing element and fair share plan. Maintaining substantive certification is necessary for communities to protect against potential “builders remedy” lawsuits and the unwanted zoning changes which may result from losing such lawsuits. “Plan Endorsement” is a process by which municipalities, counties or regional planning agencies submit their master plans, capital improvement plans, zoning ordinances and other relevant planning documents to the State Planning Commission to determine if local plans and implementing ordinances are consistent with the State Plan. By working with state agencies to develop a planning implementation agenda to increase consistency with and further the goals of the State Plan, municipalities and counties are entitled to “higher priority for available funding, streamlined permit reviews, and coordinated state agency services.”20

25% 6% 4% 0.01% 2%

Source: Morris County Department of Planning Development and Technology

The State Plan Policy Map serves as the underlying land use planning and management framework that directs funding, infrastructure improvements, and preservation for state programs throughout New Jersey. At present, the State Plan does not have a direct impact on local zoning; however, the Municipal Land Use Law requires a statement in the municipal master plan indicating the relationship of the proposed development of the municipality to the State Development and Redevelopment Plan. State agencies are required to evaluate their plans, policies, programs and funding to determine the extent to which they advance the objectives of the State Plan. As state agencies amend their regulations and permitting processes to reflect state plan goals, these actions will influence local land development and preservation policies.



Fair Housing Act & COAH
The Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) was created by the Fair Housing Act (N.J.S.A. 52:27D-301 et seq.) enacted in 1985 as a legislative response to the New Jersey Supreme Court “Mount Laurel” decisions of the 1970s and 1980s concerning exclusionary residential zoning.21 These court decisions and subsequent COAH regulations have had a significant impact on residential development throughout New Jersey and will continue to influence local housing policy for the foreseeable future. COAH is responsible for determining the methodology of calculating each municipality’s fair share affordable housing obligation. They also regulate and monitor related affordable housing plans and programs throughout New Jersey. Although a voluntary program, municipalities that fail to participate in the COAH process run the risk of “builders remedy” lawsuits that can result in unwanted large scale residential developments. Several thousand “Mount Laurel” and COAH affordable housing units have been constructed in Morris County since 1985, and more will be required to meet existing and anticipated requirements. COAH rules and regulations are constantly evolving. The first and second rounds of affordable housing obligation (covering the years 1987 to 1999) were determined through a set of local and regional calculations developed by COAH. Requirements for the third and current COAH obligation have changed and are based on local growth in residential and nonresidential uses for the period between 1999 and 2014. For municipalities in Morris County, the total COAH housing obligation for the years 1987 through 1999 is 6,561 units of affordable housing, of which 5,061 are to be new construction.22 According to COAH’s status reports, over 4,550 new affordable housing units have been constructed.23 The number of units needed to address the third round (1999-2014) obligation is being estimated by municipalities as they create new housing plans to address their projected “growth share” COAH obligation. As previously noted, portions of this methodology have been invalidated by the New Jersey Superior Court, and the issue is now under appeal. As a result, the advancement of third round housing plans is temporarily stalled.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Through its many permitting programs, the NJDEP plays an often subtle but undeniably key role in determining the character of existing land use at the local and regional levels. In recent years, the NJDEP’s regulatory authority has increased through the adoption of various new state environmental regulations. Most local development approval is conditioned upon the receipt of permits or other approval from one or more of the various divisions of the NJDEP. The NJDEP exerts considerable control on land development by regulating such issues as: sanitary sewer extension, sewage treatment plant expansion, freshwater wetlands disturbance, floodplain development, environmental remediation standards, Category 1 waterway buffers and stormwater management. In
22 Figure as per COAH, July 2005. “Affordable” to persons making between 80% and 50% of median regional income, adjusted for number of persons per household. 23 These include units transferred out of county via approved Regional Contribution Agreements. Figure as per COAH, July 2005. Update unavailable as of May 2007.

So. Burlington County. NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 67 N.J. 151. (1975) and So. Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 92, N.J. 158 (1983).



addition, the NJDEP is a key player in preserving land for open space through its Green Acres program and other land preservation activities. An extensive discussion of NJDEP influence on existing and future land use in Morris County is not appropriate for this report, but acknowledgement of NJDEP authority and its ability to determine whether local land development decisions are implementable cannot be overstated. Much of the remaining vacant land in Morris County contains some degree of environmental limitation, frequently making it difficult or even impossible to develop. Yet, as the remaining developable vacant land in the county diminishes, much of this “difficult” land will be subject to increased development pressure. The degree to which this land is ultimately developed will be significantly influenced by current and future NJDEP policies and decisions. With passage of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, the NJDEP has been given an expanded role in regulating development of Morris County municipalities within the Preservation Area of the Highlands Region and a potential for greater future regulation in the Highlands Planning Area. The Highlands Act requires the Highlands Council to develop a regional master plan that: “shall also include, with respect to the preservation area, a land use capability map and comprehensive statement of policies for planning and managing the development and use of land in the preservation area, which shall be based upon, comply with, and implement the environmental standards adopted by the Department of Environmental Protection…” 24

The NJDEP has already enacted special rules affecting land use in the Preservation Area.25 Allowable development densities are determined by NJDEP standards restricting septic system installation to one septic system per 25 acres in a non-forested areas and to one septic system per 88 acres in forested areas. With limited exceptions, extension of public water systems and sewer service is prohibited in the Highlands Preservation Area. The regulations also place limits on the amount of development based on various other factors including the presence of steep slopes, wetlands, forests, rivers and streams. When the Highlands Regional Master Plan is adopted, there may be additional regulations proposed by the NJDEP. Combined with recently proposed amendments to the wastewater management planning process, the NJDEP can be expected to broaden its influence on the location and intensity of development throughout Morris County.

Future Development
Potentially Developable Lands
Vacant lands and large unpreserved farm assessed lands provide the bulk of potentially developable land remaining in the county. Available vacant lands, (i.e. lands that have not been previously developed) and all unpreserved farmland combined make up roughly 52,800 acres or 17% of all county land.26 Not addressed in

Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act at C.13:20-12.

N.J.A.C. 7:38 As of 2005, vacant land accounted for about 27,500 acres and unpreserved agriculturally assessed land accounted for about 25,300 acres. Agriculturally assessed lands included related residential structures. Note: Successful farmland preservation efforts by state, county and local government continues to reduce the amount of farm assessed land that may b3e



this amount are potential redevelopment lands, i.e., underutilized commercial areas, abandoned industrial sites and brownfields, parking lots or other underutilized property that may provide opportunities for redevelopment.27 The amount of “vacant land” has diminished substantially over the years, and where these parcels still exist, most are relatively small, infill properties. Many are undersized or contain other constraints to development. Remaining unpreserved agriculturally assessed parcels are often larger and typically more likely to be developable, although some parcels with agricultural assessment may be relatively small with little additional development potential. For larger farmland assessed properties, the same attributes which make them suitable for farming (well-drained, relatively free of steep slopes and significant wetlands), often make them generally capable of sustaining development. The combined total of vacant and unpreserved farmland assessed properties provides only an indication of potential developable lands. Environmental constraints impacting these properties often reduce their overall development potential. Environmental features influence the location, type and intensity of development throughout the county, and have played a large part in the placement of roads, sewer and water infrastructure and the historic development pattern of the county. They will continue to influence development of the remaining potentially developable lands in Morris County. Of all vacant land and unpreserved farm assessed property,28 about 32% can be readily identified as constrained by specific environmental features. Constraints considered include steep slopes, DEP identified wetlands, Category One streams, water bodies and 100 year floodplains.29 This leaves roughly 68% or about 36,100 acres “potentially” available for development.30 This remainder may be further restricted from substantial development due to the shape and geometry of individual parcels and/or the specific location of environmental constraints on these parcels. Some of these lands may also have been targeted for preservation or have existing development approvals. Land may also be restricted due to other environmental constraints or local environmental standards not identified in this analysis. Still more land may be restricted by other state environmental regulatory programs, such as those addressing septic systems, wellhead protection, and sewer system extensions and treatment upgrades. Finally, of the estimated 36,100 acres of “potentially” developable unconstrained land, the Highlands Act places more than half i.e.
28 52,800 acre figure rounded from Morris County GIS. Does not include brownfields, underutilized and other potential redevelopment sites. No adjustments have been made for lands with development approvals or lands currently being considered for preservation as open space or farmland. 29 25% slope and higher. Includes estimates for associated required buffer areas. 30 Of vacant and unpreserved, about 16,700 acres are identified as constrained and approximately 36,100 acres are identified as unconstrained by Morris County GIS.

Environmental Constraints
Environmental conditions for Morris County are documented in the Morris County Natural Resource Management Guide, prepared in 2000. The report includes text and maps addressing a variety of environmental features, including: geology, topography, soils, groundwater, surface water, vegetation, wildlife and climatology.
developed for non-farm purposes. These acreage figures are in a constant state of change as land is developed or preserved. Methodologies for assessing properties with redevelopment potential are currently being reviewed by MCDPDT staff.


19,000 acres (53%), within the Highlands Preservation Area. Development potential in this area is extremely limited due to NJDEP standards for septic systems, impervious cover, land disturbance and other restrictions. or other designated areas, but the extent to which this may be permitted is not presently known.

Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor determining the extent of both existing and future land use and growth is the capacity of infrastructure systems to accommodate development. Wastewater treatment, potable water supply and transportation systems are the most significant infrastructure components impacting land development.

Potentially Developable Vacant and Unpreserved Farm Relationship to Highlands Region
19,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Preservation Area Planning Area 15,900

Wastewater Treatment and Septic Capacity
Wastewater treatment and septic capacity have influenced past development patterns and intensities and will largely determine the extent and location of future growth. While initially providing the foundation for high density development and the suburbanization of many areas of the county, in later years, sewer moratoriums and treatment plant capacity limitations have been responsible for slowing the rate of growth that might have otherwise occurred in some parts of the county. NJDEP is also enacting stricter water quality standards and has limited discharges of treated effluent into certain rivers and streams. The amount of new development and redevelopment will continue to be constrained by the ability of existing treatment plants to treat new inflows in accordance with NJDEP requirements. The ability of land to accommodate septic systems also affects development potential. In areas without sewers, required lot sizes for new residential subdivisions have been steadily rising, due in large part to concerns over groundwater contamination from individual on-site septic systems. Many areas previously zoned for minimum one or two-acre single family residential lots have been rezoned to three, five and ten acres minimum lot sizes in response


6,800 2,800 1,200

Outside Highlands

Estimated Constrained

Estimated Unconstrained

Source: Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology

Unconstrained vacant and unpreserved farm assessed lands located in the Highlands Planning Area equal about 15,900 acres. While no additional restrictions are placed on these lands at present, they too may eventually be subject to increased NJDEP environmental restrictions on development as a result of Highlands Regional Master Plan recommendations. The Highlands Regional Master Plan and related NJDEP standards may allow additional development or redevelopment in designated centers, brownfields,


to these concerns, further reducing the number of new homes that can be built. Recent standards adopted by the NJDEP in response to the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act have created even further and more substantial limitations on subdivisions and development in those areas not served by public sewer, seriously limiting land development in septic service areas. In addition, these rules restrict the extension of new sewer infrastructure or expansion of existing systems throughout the Highlands Preservation Area; so that intensification of use in the thirteen impacted Morris County municipalities may be severely restricted.31 approximately 62 MGD in 2014.34 The 1994 plan projected that there would be sufficient supplies of potable water to meet the demand through this period. Based on an analysis of the most current information available, as of 1999, water consumption for the county was estimated at 61 MGD.35 The amount of water available in the county for consumption will be clarified by the county’s “Water Balance Model” project, which is due for completion by the end of 2007. At that time, a more complete assessment of water supply and water resources will become available.

Transportation Infrastructure
Transportation infrastructure, principally the ability of the roadways to accommodate traffic, is an influencing, if not direct factor, on further development potential throughout suburban Morris County. Significant peak hour delays and traffic congestion are already prevalent throughout the county. Major expansion of roadway infrastructure is not anticipated; therefore, as more cars are added to the roadways from within or outside the county, delays and peak-hour travel times will increase. Municipalities often consider these traffic impacts when making land use decisions. The availability of mass transit may also alter development patterns. Continued support for expansion of mass transit and the creation of mixed-use transit villages can help promote downtown redevelopment in some areas. Improvements in the existing mass transit system, such as the opening of Midtown Direct rail passenger service to New York Penn Station in 1996, may further support more compact, mixed-use, transit-oriented development.

Water Supply
Water supply was identified in the 1994 Morris County Water Supply Master Plan Element as a factor limiting growth. About 95 percent of Morris County’s water supply, and all self-supplied water, is produced from wells that tap into available groundwater supplies.32 Surface water reservoirs are located in the county but these are owned by outside interests and most of this water is transferred out of the county.33 Due to difficulties in the creation of new water supply reservoirs and limitations on inter-basin water transfers, development will be limited by the availability of ground water. In 1994, the demand for water supply in the county was approximately 57 million gallons per day (MGD). The demand for water was projected to increase by 10% over 20 years to

31 32 33

Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act Rules, N.J.A.C.7:38. Morris County Water Supply Element, 1994, pg. 1-1. In 1992, the MCMUA signed a purchase agreement with Jersey City to divert 7.5 MPG from the Boonton Reservoir for 40 years. MC Water Supply Element, 1994 pg. vi.

Ibid. pg. 3.6 U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey website, as compiled by the Morris County Dept. of Planning Development and Technology, 9/2005.



Market Factors
Changing market and economic conditions will influence future development. For example, the national and regional economic expansion of the 1980’s prompted a demand for corporate office space, stimulating a powerful wave of office construction throughout Morris County and northeastern New Jersey. During the 1990’s, excess office construction and economic recession contributed to high office vacancy rates and an end to this building trend. By this time, however, this period of construction had substantially changed the physical and economic landscape of the county. Although new office construction has not ended, it is no longer the driving force it once was. In more recent years, market trends have supported the development of more contemporary retail commercial development such as big-box retail, power centers, national chain retailers and service uses, often challenging the viability of smaller, independent retailers. With regard to residential development in the 1980’s, market forces resulted in the creation of many large scale townhouse and condominium developments, although single family housing development continued to dominate the market. In recent years, the overall decrease in the amount of developable land, coupled with Morris County’s desirable location, has increased land values significantly. With the increase in land values, the size of single family homes has also increased. On many older developed lots, the value of the land is frequently greater than the dwelling. Often when these properties are sold, the smaller homes are razed and replaced by much larger houses. Another trend is the purchase of several adjacent lots, the removal of all structures, and their replacement with very large and expensive dwellings. If this trend continues, many moderately priced homes may be removed from the county’s housing stock. Also of note is the increasing market for senior-oriented housing. The demand for senior living arrangements, from smaller “emptynester” single family dwellings to large scale congregate care and assisted living facilities, has greatly increased throughout New Jersey. Following demographic patterns, the market for this housing continues to be strong and some municipalities, conscious of the ratable benefits associated with type of development, have been receptive to senior housing proposals. This market should continue to be strong as increasing numbers of baby boomers seek alternative housing for their retirement years.

Development Projections
During creation of the Morris County State Development and Redevelopment Plan Cross-Acceptance Report in 2005, local municipalities were surveyed to identify existing and projected residential and nonresidential development to the year 2025. Given the current scarcity of vacant developable land and the demand for housing, Morris County may be essentially “built-out” by 2025. The survey reported the existence of about 184,000 housing units and approximately 116 million square feet of commercial and industrial use in Morris County.36 When asked to anticipate future development, municipalities projected an overall increase of over 14,000 housing units and 17 million square feet in additional commercial and industrial use by the year 2025.37 Morris County is developing a parcel based “build-out” model that will be used to estimate build-out potential for all municipalities.
36 2005 Morris County Cross Acceptance Report. The number of units reported is slightly higher than U.S. Census Bureau sampling data. 37 These projections were made prior to the release of NJDEP Highlands rules; therefore, figures may be considerably overstated given Preservation Area development restrictions.


This model will not specifically target the year 2025, but will attempt to define the ultimate and practical full build-out potential of remaining lands within the county, including vacant properties, unpreserved farms and the likely redevelopment and/or intensification of currently underutilized properties. Future land use projections are necessary to prepare for future needs, but due to the changing nature of state and local government regulations, altered market conditions and increased sensitivity to environmental constraints, these projections can only guide prudent planning. The fact that Morris County is largely developed may reduce the margin of uncertainty, but changing social and economic demands and increased redevelopment pressures will assure a constant state of land use evolution and a need for appropriate government response. development. In existing centers, pressure to re-zone land to accommodate higher density and mixed land uses will continue, where there is adequate public water and sewer infrastructure to serve the development. Where public sewer and water are available, local land use decisions will be increasingly targeted toward maximizing the value of remaining developable land, particularly nonresidential lands used to support the local ratable base. In residential areas, increasing pressures for multi-family homes and very large single family homes will have to be weighed against the desire to maintain the land use “status quo” in many communities. Requests for higher density rezoning and variances to support redevelopment will likely increase. Reliance on property taxes to fund local services and, in particular, education, remains one of the most important, if not the most important, determinant of local land use decisions. This dependence on property taxes has driven the “ratable chase” of communities, has influenced decisions on acceptable housing densities and supported preservation efforts since open space and farmland place only limited demand on local services. Continued reliance on the property tax as the basis for local funding substantially limits the ability of local governments to change the way they consider land use and zoning decisions, making significant changes in land development patterns extremely difficult.

There is relatively little vacant developable land within the county. Coupled with continuing pressure to preserve remaining open space and farmland, the pace of future development will be significantly slower than in years past. Dwindling supplies of undeveloped land will likely increase the value of remaining vacant and developable properties. Due to higher land costs, pressures to build larger and more expensive homes and more upscale and/or intense commercial uses will persist. Due to the scarcity of vacant developable land, some infill lots and land previously considered too expensive or too difficult to develop may become more attractive for


2005 Morris County Tax Data38 Parcels Percent Assessed Value 12,009 7.22 $1,965,640,550 Vacant and Farm 146,621 88.14 $47,311,255,130 Residential (including Apts.) 6,726 4.04 $10,455,808,911 Commercial 996 0.60 $2,564,928,201 Industrial 166,352 100 $62,027,632,792 Total

Accurate assessments of water supply and sewer treatment capacities will be critical to redevelopment efforts.
Percent 2.73 76.27 16.86 4.14 100

Source: Morris County Economic Development Corporation / Morris County Division of Taxation

Increasing infill and redevelopment will result in a need to promote greater compatibility between the new and more intensive uses and existing lower density uses. Greater emphasis on compatible building design, landscape buffering and consideration of adjacent land uses will be required as infill development is proposed in substantially developed areas. Further interest in the development of transit friendly mixed-use communities and senior-oriented housing can be anticipated.

A combination of reduced availability of vacant lands, environmental constraints and restrictions by local and state governments will make redevelopment of underutilized and abandoned properties more desirable as a location for new construction. To meet the demand for housing and commercial space, future development will increasingly rely on redevelopment and intensification of uses. Redevelopment pressures will be of particular benefit to downtowns and older commercial/manufacturing sites. The adaptive reuse of former industrial, manufacturing and obsolete retail sites for other commercial and/or residential development will become more commonplace. The intensity of redevelopment and infill development will depend largely on the availability of water and sewer.

In some areas, land values will encourage the replacement of older modest dwellings with new and much larger homes. In established communities this type of redevelopment may substantially alter existing neighborhood character. Shortages of housing affordable to middle and lower income residents, coupled with rising rents, may result in increased pressures to allow the conversion of existing single family homes in higher density neighborhoods to multi-family dwellings. Affordable housing shortages can also result in increased occurrences of home and apartment overcrowding. Increased minimum residential lot sizes, the trend to develop larger and more expensive homes and the rising costs of existing homes, may result in ever greater numbers

2005 Return on Investment Report, Morris County Economic Development Corporation, March 2006.



of commuters to Morris County as more employees of Morris County businesses are unable to find affordable housing in the area. The retirement of baby-boomers and trends toward more empty nester households will result in increasing pressure to locate and build senior housing. Age-restricted communities are often constructed as multi-unit developments and/or assisted living/congregate care facilities. While many municipalities may embrace senior housing as a net ratable, high concentrations of senior populations in any one community can influence local school budget proposals and increase demands on emergency services. construction of substantial new office uses. While fewer instances of large scale office development are anticipated, office development on a smaller scale may continue. With some exceptions, inclusion of smaller scale office use in proposed mixed-use developments and the partitioning of existing large scale office structures to accommodate smaller-scale users will likely dominate this category for the foreseeable future. Although some large-scale construction will still occur; a substantial rise in future large-scale speculative office building is unlikely. Mixed-use redevelopment will continue to be supported by local planners and municipal officials seeking to reduce auto dependence, to increase the use of mass transit and to make more efficient use of land. Increased support for the development of “transit villages” is anticipated. Transit villages typically include both nonresidential and specialized residential development in an integrated setting with connections to existing train stations.

Changing economies, costs and operational requirements can result in the relocation of major corporate and industrial employers, sometimes leaving large and underutilized facilities behind. Depending on their age and design, some facilities and sites may no longer be suitable for their original use. Adaptive reuse of these sites and facilities to meet current and future demands will be needed to maintain a desired local balance of land use and employment opportunities. Where such facilities and sites exist, municipalities should anticipate and consider desirable reuse options and future design parameters. These may then be used to help generate potential redevelopment proposals that are substantially consistent with local planning goals. Existing high office vacancy rates and the reduced availability of developable vacant land may limit the

Open Space / Farmland
With the supply of available, developable vacant land and farmland decreasing through conversion to other use or successful preservation efforts, supply and demand factors may cause remaining land prices to rise. This will make subsequent preservation efforts more costly, yielding fewer preserved acres per dollar. This may be particularly true in sections of the county outside the Highlands Preservation Area since developable land in these areas will not be restricted by NJDEP Highlands rules. Within the Highlands Preservation Area, vacant land values for some larger tracts of land may fall due to Highlands-related limitations on development.


Regulatory / Highlands
Continued state and regional planning and NJDEP environmental initiatives are likely to continue to limit the development potential of remaining undeveloped land throughout the county. Development of the Highlands Regional Master Plan and associated NJDEP regulations will substantially curtail new development in the Highlands Preservation Area. General economic pressures that might have generated development in the Highlands Preservation Area will likely be channeled to areas within the Highlands Planning Area or outside the Highlands region. While severely reducing some economic opportunities, agriculture in the Preservation Area may find some support as the state prioritizes funding for the purchase of farmland development rights, as more farms are preserved and as efforts are undertaken to increase agritourism and eco-tourism opportunities in the region. Increased preservation of farms and agriculture will require increased funding from all potential sources. Local redevelopment efforts anticipated outside of the Highlands Preservation Area but within the remainder of the county may be supported by the identification of TDR (Transferable Development Rights) receiving areas as required by the Highlands Act. Monetary and other incentives are offered by the Highlands Act to communities for accepting such areas, but only where specific density requirements are met. While this concept has been reviewed by several Morris County communities, TDR has not been incorporated into local zoning. The potential for acceptance of this concept into local zoning in coordination with Highlands Regional Master Plan is not yet known. Many of the Highlands Regional Master Plan recommendations will be based on an assessment of water supply, water protection and wastewater treatment capacity for the region. With the availability of this new data, the anticipated findings of the county’s water balance model project and data expected from NJDEP efforts (e.g. required Water Quality Management Plan updates), it is likely that capacity based planning decisions will become more prevalent throughout the region. Database development, mapping and maintenance of accurate information will become even more significant in a “capacity-based” planning environment. Maintaining accurate inventories of environmental constraints, systems capacities for wastewater treatment, water supply/distribution facilities and circulation networks will become increasingly important. Critical and ongoing analysis of these systems will be required. Current and accurate systems capacity information will also be required if TDR programs are pursued or if legislation concerning “timed-growth” or capacity based zoning is ever enacted. Maintaining the economic health of Morris County within the emerging regulatory context of the Highlands Act remains a serious issue. One of the impacts of the Highlands Act may be a substantial reduction of development of nonresidential uses in the Preservation Area. As the ratable curve flattens in these areas due to slower rates of development, existing properties will face an increasing tax responsibility. Balancing local economic needs against the development limits imposed on communities by the Highlands Act will require the identification and advancement of redevelopment


opportunities in the Preservation Area, coupled with enhanced property tax stabilization measures.



The availability of a clean and abundant water supply was critical in the early development of Morris County, and this resource continues as an increasing issue of concern within the region. Not only does the availability of water provide a significant basis for development and commerce in Morris County, it is also one of the county’s primary exports. In 1994, it was reported that over 50 million gallons of water were exported from Morris County reservoirs daily and sent eastward to support major urban areas, including Jersey City, Newark and their environs.1 This role as “water provider” continues, and the importance of the region as a supplier of water has resulted in new regulatory actions for Morris County and the six surrounding counties with lands encompassing the “New Jersey Highlands Region,” the physiographic province recently redefined by the 2004 Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act. As a result, water supply issues will continue to be a major factor in determining the future of Morris County. Morris County’s government officially began addressing water availability issues in 1956 due to concern about available water supplies and the impact of outside control of these resources.2 At that time, Jersey City and Newark had sole control of the major surface water supplies of the Rockaway and Pequannock Rivers watersheds in Morris County. Today, surface water resources are still largely controlled by out-of-county water purveyors. As a result, about 95% of county public water supplies and all residential self-supplied water provided for Morris County residents is drawn from aquifers.3

Morris County MUA
The Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders created the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority (MCMUA) in 1958 as part of the effort to address water supply issues.4 The MCMUA was created for the primary purpose of developing and distributing an adequate supply of water for the use of the county’s inhabitants. To this end, the MCMUA obtained control of various lands and developed a well system enabling them to supply bulk water to the many water supply systems existing throughout the county. At present, the MCMUA maintains wells with a production capacity of about 10.2 million gallons of water per day. This water is provided to ten municipal and commercial water purveyors.5 The MCMUA uses a system of pumps, booster stations, and pipelines to transmit water to the following purveyors: Denville Township Jefferson Township Mine Hill Township Mount Arlington Borough N. J. American Water Company Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Randolph Township Roxbury Township Wharton Borough Southeast Morris County MUA


1994 Morris County Master Plan Water Supply Element, Camp Dresser and McKee, Inc., pg. 1-17. 2 Ibid, page. iii.


Ibid., pgs. 1-1, 5-2. An aquifer is a water bearing rock, rock formation or group of rock formations that contain water. 4 Ibid. pg. iv. 5 Morris County MUA website.


Township and Chester Township, is the primary source of bulk water supplied by the MCMUA. The following 1982 Water Supply Element reported that most water purveyors and communities in Morris County had sufficient groundwater sources for the immediate future provided these sources were properly managed.8 The 1982 Plan also recommended additional steps needed to assure long term water availability, including extending the existing regional water system and the development of additional well fields. In response, regional water supply interconnections were made with Mendham Borough, Denville Township, Roxbury Township, and the Southeast Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority. In addition, a new wellfield was developed, located on the Flanders Valley Golf Course in Mount Olive Township and Roxbury Township, creating a second source of groundwater for the MCMUA.9 The latest Morris County Water Supply Element was adopted in 1994 to address water distribution, water quality and the protection of water supplies. The 1994 Plan, using a 20 year time frame, estimated that water demand would increase from the 1994 demand of 56.7 MGD (million gallons per day) to a 2014 estimated demand of about 61.8 MGD. The Plan indicated that water supply would be sufficient to meet the needs of the anticipated population, which was projected as 446,000 persons by the year 2010. The Plan did not comment on the ability to meet demand post 2010.10 In actuality, the population of Morris County reached 470,212 by the year 200011 and total water demand for 1999 was estimated at 60.9

Source: MCMUA website

County Water Supply Planning
While the county had developed earlier water supply studies,6 the Morris County Planning Board, working in conjunction with the MCMUA, adopted the first Morris County Water Supply Master Plan in 1971. The Plan proposed the development of four new surface water reservoirs, diversion of water resources from a reservoir located outside the county, and the development of one groundwater source.7 Only development of the Alamatong Wellfield was completed. This wellfield, located in Randolph
6 Report Upon Long Range Water Requirements for Morris County, Morris County Board of Freeholders, Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc. 1958. 7 1971 Morris County Master Plan – Water Supply Element, Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc., pgs. 25-31.

8 9

1982 Morris County Master Plan – Water Supply Element, Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc. 1994 Morris County Master Plan Water Supply Element, pg. vi. 10 Ibid., pg. 5-3. 11 2000 Census, U.S. Census Bureau.


MGD.12 The 2005 estimated population of Morris County is 481,130, an increase of 2.3%.13 Assuming a corresponding percent increase in water use, current demand is estimated at about 62.3 MGD, slightly exceeding the demand estimated for 2014. Water use figures derived from the 1971, 1982 and 1994 Morris County Water Supply Elements illustrate the steady rise in total water demand, which has increased in relation to population increases and the development of new commercial and other nonresidential uses.
Year 1971 1982 1994 1999 Population 309,015 407,630 421,353 470,21215 Total Estimated Demand (public and private sources)14 39.8 MGD 48.0 MGD 56.6 MGD 60.9 MGD

leaving approximately 22,294 MGY to serve residential and nonresidential activities within Morris County. Exported water is primarily from surface water sources.

Public Water vs. Private Wells
In the early 1970s, about 68% of households in Morris County received their water from a public water supply provider. The remainder relied on individual onsite wells.17

Public vs. Domestic Water Supply
100% 32% 80% 20% 18% 25%

Estimates of water demand are available from the NJDEP, Division of Water Supply, which is the state agency responsible for managing water in New Jersey. Water purveyors must apply to NJDEP for consideration of water withdrawal permits. Data summarizing water withdrawals for Morris County as reported to NJDEP for the period (1990-1996) indicates annual average withdrawals of 42,027 Million Gallons per Year (MGY) in Morris County.16 Of this, about 53% is drawn from ground water sources and the remainder is from rivers and reservoirs. Of the total withdrawn, it is estimated that about 47% is exported,

60% 40% 20% 0% 1971 WSE 1982 WSE 1994 WSE 1999 USGS Data 68% 80% 82% 75%

Population Served By Public Water

Population Served by Domestic Wells

Last data available for NJDEP estimates of water demand is 1999. 13 July 2005, American Community Survey, US Census Bureau. 14 Public and nonpublic, community and non-community, residential and nonresidential. 15 2000 Census 16

Source: Morris County Master Plan – Water Supply Element(s) 1971, 1982, 1994, and the NJDEP.

17 1971 Morris County Master Plan – Water Supply Element, Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc. May 1969, May 1970, reprinted Oct. 1971, Table 1.


Over the next two decades, the proportion of households serviced by domestic wells decreased as opportunities to connect to a public water supply system increased. As illustrated, this trend recently reversed, as the percentage of households relying on individual wells has increased to levels not seen since before 1982. One reason may be that much of the development occurring over the last ten years has been in more rural areas of the county, often on larger lots, where onsite wells may be the only source for water.
Jefferson Township Kinnelon Boro. Lincoln Park Boro. Madison Boro. Mendham Boro. Mendham Twp. Mine Hill Twp. Montville Twp. Morris Twp. Morris Plains Boro. Morristown Town Mt. Lakes Boro. Mt. Arlington Boro. Mount Olive Twp. Mt. Shore WD, Jefferson WD, Jefferson Twp. Water Utility (Lake Hopatcong, Milton & Padere), Sun Valley Kinnelon WD, Butler WD, Fayson Lakes Water Co. Lincoln Park WD, Lincoln Park Jacksonville System, Pequannock WD (Main and Cedar Crest) Madison WD NJ American Water Co. (Short Hills), Randolph WD, Sisters of Christian Charity Southeast Morris County MUA, NJ American Water Co. (Short Hills) Mine Hill WD, Wharton WD, Dover WD Montville MUA, Boonton WD, United Water Jersey City, Plausha Park Water Co. Southeast Morris County MUA, Sisters of Charity South Elizabeth Southeast Morris County MUA Southeast Morris County MUA Mt. Lakes WD, Denville WD, Parsippany-Troy Hills WD Mt. Arlington WD (Kadel & Main System) Roxbury WD (Shore Hills)), United Water (Arlington Hills) Mt. Olive WD (Goldmine, Sand Shore, Pinecrest, Lyn, Jucket, Tinc Farm, Carlton Hill, Village Green and Main Systems), AWM Country Oaks, Mt. Olive Villages WD, NJ American Water Co. West Jersey, Short Hills and ITC) NJ Vasa Home Water, Hackettstown MUA Netcong WD Parsippany Troy Hills WD, Denville WD, Mt. Lakes WD, NJ American Water Co. (Shore Hills.) Pequannock WD (Main and Cedar Crest) Randolph WD, Denville WD, Morris County MUA, Dover WD Riverdale WD Dover WD, Rockaway Water Utility Rockaway WD, Denville WD, Wharton WD, Picatinny Arsenal –ARDEC, Hoffman Homes Roxbury WD (Evergreen, Lookout Mountain, Say View, Shore Hills) Kenvil Works Site, Netcong WD, Roxbury Water Co. Dover WD Washington MUA (Hager, Schooleys Mountain), Hackettstown MUA, Sherwood Village, Cliffside Park Assoc. Inc. Dover WD, Wharton WD

Public Water Supply Systems
At present, the NJDEP identifies 59 separate public water systems serving the county’s 39 municipalities.18 Morris County municipalities and their public water supply sources are identified in the following table.
Municipality Boonton Town Boonton Twp. Butler Boro. Chatham Boro. Chatham Twp. Chester Boro. Chester Twp. Denville Twp. Dover Town East Hanover Twp. Florham Park Boro. Hanover Twp. Harding Twp. Major Water Systems 19 Boonton WD Denville WD, Boonton WD, Boonton Twp. WD, Mt. Lakes WD Butler WD Southeast Morris County MUA, Chatham Boro. WD NJ American Water Co. (Short Hills) NJ American Water Co., Randolph WD NJ American Water Co. (Short Hills.), Four Seasons at Chester Denville WD, Mt. Lakes WD, Rockaway Boro. Water Utility Dover WD, Rockaway Water Utility E. Hanover WD NJ American Water Co. (Short Hills.) Florham Park WD Southeast Morris County MUA Southeast Morris County MUA, NJ American Water Co. (Short Hills), Lake Shore Water Co.

Netcong Boro. Parsippany Troy Hills Long Hill Twp. Pequannock Twp. Randolph Twp. Riverdale Boro. Rockaway Boro. Rockaway Twp. Roxbury Twp.

Victory Gardens Boro. Washington Twp.

Wharton Boro.

18 19

Mobile home parks excluded. NJDEP Source Water Assessment Program and NJDEP Division of Water Supply.


Major Water Supply Activities
Morris County Water Balance Modeling
While some data exists concerning water demand characteristics, the actual or potential amount of water available for county use or for export poses an extremely difficult question which has, to date, not been adequately addressed due to the complexity of the many factors that must be considered. Morris County is currently engaged in an effort to develop a comprehensive water balance model that can be used to estimate the current amount and quality of ground and surface water supplies in Morris County. The model will help determine the long term sustainability of water supply sources in the county and will address watersheds, aquifers, stream flow, water quality, groundwater levels, geology, rainfall, aquatic biology, riparian ecosystems and discharges to waterways. Water supply sources will be determined on the basis of each of the six major watersheds located in the county (Rockaway, Upper Passaic, Raritan, Whippany, Musconetcong and Pequannock). The model is anticipated for completion by the end of 2007. Its use will help guide decisions regarding future development, the ability to meet near term and long term water supply needs in the county, and the ability to transfer water out of the county. dependency on Inter-Basin Transfers.20 One alternative proposes to utilize an abandoned mine as a water storage reservoir. The proposed site, Scrub Oaks Mine in Mine Hill Township, could be utilized to store as much as 1.8 billion gallons of water from ground water sources and surface water diverted from the Musconetcong River, Lake Hopatcong and the Rockaway River during high water periods. The county is undertaking a feasibility study for this project, which is expected to be concluded in 2007.

Wastewater Treatment
The availability of potable water is a necessity for residential and nonresidential development. Equally critical is the ability to adequately treat and dispose of wastewater. Higher density residential and higher intensity nonresidential developments are particularly dependent on advance wastewater treatment capabilities. Wastewater treatment is generally accomplished by one of three main systems; municipal/regional systems, non-municipal systems (package plants) and on-site systems (septic systems). The limits of treatment and disposal are governed by the NJDEP permitting criteria, by wastewater treatment technologies and by the capacity of land and waterways to assimilate treated waste within parameters necessary to maintain public health and natural ecosystems.

Scrub Oaks Mine Storage Concept Plan
The Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority is pursuing supplemental water sources in an effort to augment the current ground water inventory supplied from the Raritan River Basin and to comply with the State Water Supply Policy of reducing

Municipal Regional Systems
Municipal/regional systems include the sanitary sewer conveyance system, i.e., the pipelines that run under the streets, and the sewage treatment plants where sewage is treated and later discharged. A “sewer service area” includes areas that have sewer infrastructure,
20 The MCMUA’s main supply of water is from the Raritan River Basin; however, most of its service area is in the Passaic and Delaware River Basins.


and/or have an NJDEP approved Wastewater Management Plan, allowing for the extension of sewer infrastructure. During the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, Morris County was served by 15 major municipal/regional sanitary sewer facilities, providing approximately 25 million gallons of wastewater treatment per day.21 These major municipal/regional systems served about 20% of the land area of the county.22 In addition, the county contained many smaller “package” plants that served individual industries, schools and medical institutions and residential developments. The 1971 Morris County Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element supported the replacement of many of the smaller, privately owned package plants with larger regional sewerage collection and disposal systems. Subsequently, the Federal Water Pollution Act of 1972 provided both the financial and the regulatory support for the expansion and upgrade of many public sewer treatment facilities and the expansion of sewer treatment areas. Following passage of this Act and subsequent amendments, ongoing facility upgrade and expansion provided service to previously un-served areas. These changes allowed the elimination of many small package treatment plants as the users of these systems began connecting to the new or expanded municipal and regional sewage treatment systems. During the last 20 years, the capacity of sewage treatment facilities in the county has been limited by the NJDEP and the courts. Even so, permitted expansions since the 1970’s have significantly increased the aggregate capacity of these facilities and the amount of land area served by public sewer systems in the county. At present, 19 public sewer service facilities serve Morris
21 22

County and approximately 43% of Morris County is within an approved sewer service area.23 The 19 current sewage facilities have an estimated treatment capacity of about 67 million gallons per day (MGD).24 Much of this capacity is; however, already being used and/or is committed or otherwise restricted by NJDEP requirements. Adjusting for existing flows, committed but unused capacity and NJDEP operating requirements, the remaining available “hypothetical” capacity to serve new development is estimated to be about 11.6 MGD or about 17% of the total capacity.25 This composite figure can be characterized as “hypothetical” since its use is limited by individual facility situations. Some facilities have little or no remaining capacity, while others have capacity but may be unable to utilize it due to physical, contractual or regulatory limitations.

Wastewater Management Planning Agencies
There are 24 Wastewater Management Planning Agencies in Morris County that oversee local sewer service planning and associated wastewater treatment facilities.26 These agencies are currently responsible for the preparation of Wastewater Management Plans (WMP), which must be consistent with the overall Statewide Water Quality Management Plan and State Water Quality Management
Based on NJDEP GIS data found at This information is currently being reviewed by the county as part of an effort to confirm NJDEP sewer service information. 24 NJDEP – ( Some plants located outside of Morris County. Not all capacity available to serve Morris County. Excludes Skyview in Roxbury as no longer active. MCDPDT analysis. Includes NJDEP permitted capacity less unused but dedicated flow. 25 MCDPDT analysis of NJDEP Sewerage Treatment Permits. Includes NJDEP permitted capacity less unused but dedicated flow. 26 NJDEP Division of Watershed Management website 5/06 (

1971 Morris County Master Plan – Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element, Table 1. 1971 Ibid., pg. 3.


Plan Rules (N.J.A.C.7:15) overseen by the NJDEP. The location of sewer service areas, treatment facilities, expansion of facilities and levels of treatment must be consistent with the Statewide Wastewater Quality Management Plan and associated rules. In most cases, these agencies own and manage treatment facilities, but in other cases, they contract with outside treatment facilities to provide service. It should be noted that treatment plants are not necessarily located in the municipality they serve, and one treatment agency may be associated with wastewater treatment in several municipalities. There are also instances where a treatment facility serving a portion of Morris County is located outside of the county. The wastewater treatment agencies and facilities are often within the direct control of the municipalities through their local department of public works. In other cases, a regional authority has been established to provide sewerage treatment services to multiple municipalities. Municipalities often address their treatment needs by using a combination of their own treatment facilities and that of a regional authority.

Municipal Regional and Non-Municipal Systems as Defined by the NJDEP NJDEP Adopted Sewer Service Area Mapping 10/2006


Wastewater Management Planning Agency
Chatham Township Chester Borough Chester Township Florham Park Sewerage Authority Hanover Township Sewerage Authority Harding Township Jefferson Township Long Hill Township Madison-Chatham Joint Meeting Mendham Borough Mendham Township Mine Hill Township Morristown Town Morris Plains Borough Mount Olive Township Mount Arlington Borough Musconetcong Sewerage Authority Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Pequannock River Basin Regional Sewerage Authority Pequannock, Lincoln Park and Fairfield Sewerage Authority Rockaway Valley Regional Sewerage Authority

Municipalities Served by Agency
Chatham Township Chester Borough Chester Township East Hanover Township, Florham Park Borough, Hanover Township, Morris Township Hanover Township Harding Township Jefferson Township Long Hill Township Chatham Borough, Madison Borough Mendham Borough Mendham Township Mine Hill Township Morris Township, Morristown Town Morris Plains Borough Mount Olive Township Mount Arlington Borough Jefferson Township, Mount Arlington Borough, Mount Olive Township, Netcong Borough, Roxbury Township Mountain Lakes Borough, Parsippany-Troy Hills Butler Borough, Kinnelon Borough, Riverdale Borough Butler Borough, Kinnelon Borough, Lincoln Park Borough, Montville Township, Pequannock Township, Riverdale Borough, Boonton Town, Boonton Township, Denville Township, Dover Town, Mine Hill Township, Parsippany Troy Hills, Rockaway Borough, Rockaway Township, Victory Gardens Borough, Wharton Borough Roxbury Township Chester Township Washington Township

Non-Municipal Systems
Non-municipal systems provide treatment for individual or small groups of uses. These are small dedicated treatment systems designed to accommodate the needs of a specific user. Typically identified as “package plants,” these systems can be constructed and operated at a relatively low cost. The 1971 Sanitary Sewerage Facilities Element of the Morris County Master Plan reported that there were about 70 package treatment plants operating in the county, serving individual users such as an industries, schools or shopping centers.27 With the expansion of municipal/regional sewage treatment plants in the 1970’s, many of these non-municipal systems were eliminated. About 35 are still in operation, all located outside areas currently served by public sewer.

On-Site Disposal – Septic Systems
Uses not served by municipal-regional or non-municipal systems are served by individual on-site wastewater disposal systems. These systems are most commonly septic systems, which are usually employed outside of existing sewer service areas. Septic systems are absorption systems that transport wastewater effluent to groundwater by means of subsurface percolation, filtration and bacterial degradation. Typically used for individual residences, these systems include a settling tank and disposal field. In the settling tank, bacteria decompose organic matter, leaving a sludge which must periodically be removed. Wastewater flows through drains over a subsurface area where it drains into the ground. Septic system design, construction, and operation are governed by New Jersey Standards for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems.28
27 1971 Morris County Master Plan – Sewerage Facilities Element, Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc. pg. 3. 28 N.J.A.C.7:9A.

Roxbury Township Somerset County Washington Township Municipal Utilities Authority


The use of these systems is largely dictated by the types of soils over which they are placed and their underlying geology. These natural factors, along with the septic infrastructure, determine the effectiveness of the septic system. In the use of septic systems, protection of underlying groundwater quality from nitrate pollution is a major concern. Soils, geology and groundwater conditions determine the number of septic systems that may be installed in a given area while still maintaining groundwater quality. The allowable density of septic systems often serves as the basis for minimum lot size requirements associated with subdivisions and new construction. Region.30 The rules eliminate all approved future sewer service areas in the Preservation Area and prohibit the extension of sewers into the Preservation Area to serve new development. The rules also impose severe restrictions with regard to the minimum area required for installing septic systems in the Preservation Area. Essentially, these rules attempt to protect water quality by severely limiting the development of any undisturbed land in the region. New subdivisions using septic systems will require lot sizes of between 25 and 88 acres each; specific minimum size will depend on calculations related to the environmental characteristics of the land in question. Recommended septic system densities and recommended modifications to sewer service areas in the Highlands Planning Area will also be proposed as part of the Highlands Regional Master Plan. Presently, compliance with these recommendations by Planning Area municipalities is voluntary; however, the NJDEP will consider the Highlands Regional Master Plan in making decisions throughout the Highlands region. Consequently, the restrictive standards for septic systems in the Preservation Area of the Highlands severely limit new development in Morris County municipalities within the Preservation Area. The full impact on communities with land in the Planning Area will depend on the final recommendations of the Highlands Regional Master Plan, the willingness of Planning Area communities to conform to the Regional Master Plan standards (which are voluntary in the Planning Area) and potential changes to NJDEP policies as a result of the findings of the Highlands Regional Master Plan.

Highlands Act Impact on Wastewater Facilities
The future use of sewers and septic systems in portions of Morris County will be substantially restricted due to the passage of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act. As described in the Land Use section of this document, the Act requires the creation of a Highlands Regional Master Plan for 88 municipalities in the region, 32 of which are in Morris County. Of these 32 municipalities, 13 contain lands in what the Highlands Act has designated as “Preservation Area.” The remainder contains lands that are located in what the Act designates as the “Planning Area.” The basis for the Highlands Act is the protection of the region’s water resources, which supply water to nearly half of New Jersey’s population, most of whom live outside the Highlands Region and outside of Morris County. 29 With knowledge that development of the Highlands Regional Master Plan would take at least 18 months to prepare, the NJDEP adopted a set of preemptive rules significantly reducing development potential in the Preservation Area of the Highlands

Highlands Act, P.L. 2004, c 120. pg. 1.


N.J.A.C. 7:38, May 9, 2005, amended December 19, 2005.


Trends / Issues
Water Supply
As the population of the county increases, existing water supply and distribution systems will face increasing demands for adequate water supply. Water purveyors will need to ensure that the infrastructure and supply is adequate to serve the existing and future demands of industrial and commercial development, as well as the demands of residential users. Without a dependable supply of potable water, existing development can not be sustained and future development will not be possible. Recognizing the importance of water supply to the future of the county, the issue of water availability and use is currently undergoing intense scrutiny by state, regional and local governments. At this time, both Morris County and the Highlands Council are studying the issue of water supply. The findings of these studies can be controversial, as different stakeholders often hold conflicting views on water supply conditions and their implications for both the county and the region. The availability of potable water will be a central component of land use and environmental debate for the foreseeable future. New Jersey Water Supply Master Plan - The New Jersey Statewide Water Supply Master Plan was adopted in 1982 and it was the first comprehensive statewide plan to examine all aspects of water supply management. The Plan recommended projects and programs for the satisfaction of the state's water supply needs; provided a framework for the future planning, evaluation, and implementation of specific projects to meet those needs; and provided a mechanism for update and revision. Last updated over 10 years ago, the plan predicted that the state would run out of water by the year 2040, based on a projected population of 8.25 million. Since the state’s population is currently estimated at about 8.5 million, it is clear that an update to this plan is needed. 31 Unfortunately, no formal date has been set for the much anticipated release of a comprehensive update. The information found in the updated Statewide Water Supply Master Plan will be important in planning for future growth and development throughout the state, and will be of particular concern in Morris County, a key provider of water for millions of out-of-county residents. This fact is currently having repercussions that will impact Morris County for years to come, most notably manifest in the recently adopted Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act. Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act and Highlands Regional Master Plan – In instances where there are supply or contamination problems, those that rely on private wells are often required to connect to public water sources. The ability of the county to provide water for its citizens and to expand public water availability to those currently relying on private wells is restricted by the Highlands Act. Along with prohibition of sewer service in the Preservation Area, the act also limits the construction of new public water systems or the extension of existing public water systems to serve development in the Highlands Preservation Area, except in the case of a demonstrated need to protect public health and safety.


US Census, American Community Survey, 2005.


The Highlands Council has prepared a Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan that includes an examination of water supply conditions throughout the Highlands Region, which includes 32 Morris County municipalities. The current Draft Plan identifies the majority of that portion of Morris County in the Highlands Region as within a “Current Water Deficit Area.” The remainder of the county is identified as an “Existing Constrained Area.” A “Current Water Deficit Area” is defined as an area where existing water uses exceed available water resources and where there is a high risk to water supplies, the integrity of Highlands waters and the aquatic ecosystems that depend on these resources. In these areas, it is the intent of the Highlands Plan to reduce water use, primarily through capacity and environmentally-based restrictions on the intensity and placement of new development, while at the same time promoting increased water recycling and best management practices. “Existing Constrained Areas” are areas located upstream from the existing “Water Deficit Areas” where further reduction of flows would exacerbate the downstream deficit situation. There is currently much debate and controversy over these findings with regard to water availability. As the plan is developed, various questions regarding the methodologies used and the data employed for the study will need to be addressed. The implementation of the development restrictions and the environmental performance standards found in the Draft Highlands Regional Master Plan will severely limit additional water diversions within Morris County and the Highlands Region. Those portions of the county within the Preservation Area will be compelled to adhere to the water withdrawal and protection standards contained in the plan. These standards are still evolving, but they will most certainly limit the extension of public water facilities and impact the ability to drill new wells and/or draw additional water from surface water supplies. The number of municipalities in the Planning Area that voluntarily decide to conform to the Highlands Regional Master Plan will also impact the manner in which water is used in region. The impacts of these proposed standards are not yet known. Morris County Water Balance Model - The “Morris County Water Balance Model” project is anticipated for completion by the end of 2007 and will provide valuable information to help guide decisions regarding future development. This effort was begun by Morris County prior to the Highlands Council’s review of water supply conditions. The model being developed will follow a more definitive methodology than that being used by the Highlands Council to identify the ability of Morris County to meet near and long term water supply needs. The model will also address the issue of water transfer out of the county and its future implications. As a county-based, rather than regionally-based analysis, the information generated will be directly pertinent to the state of local water supply issues. When completed, this model will be available to the Highlands Council and to other state agencies to help refine water supply findings for the county. As the amount of water demand in the county attributed to local or regional use continues to grow, real or perceived water deficit issues can also be addressed through the more efficient use of groundwater recharge techniques and conservation efforts. The use of engineering, site and building design techniques that place more water back into


the ground and prevent its runoff to rivers and streams can increase water supplies in the county, while accommodating new development or redevelopment projects. The supply of water in the county could be significantly improved by the use of increased recharge of groundwater. This could increase local water supplies, as well as the supply available for out-of-county transfer. Clearly equal to the issue of water supply is the reality of water demand and the careful management of water as a resource. This management extends significantly to the end users of the supply and their ability to conserve water and avoid waste. Water scarcities may be reduced or mitigated by reducing waste all along the water distribution system. This is particularly important in Morris County since so much of the water supply from local rivers and reservoirs makes its way to more urbanized areas to the east where aging infrastructure may be responsible for significant water loss. Improvements to the infrastructure located in these urban areas would drastically reduce water requirements and help eliminate potential water deficits. Increased water conservation will require that end users of Morris County and “Highlands” water be made at least partially responsible for contributing to the preservation of the lands that generate the water supply. The issue of a reasonable water fee or water tax to be paid by the out-ofregion users of Highlands Region water is one that must be seriously considered. Such a fee, spread over the millions of beneficiaries of Highlands Region water, would help compensate property owners in the Highlands Preservation Area for the severe restrictions being imposed on them in the name of state-wide water protection. A water use fee would also motivate Highlands water consumers to conserve water due to increased costs. Statewide Stormwater Management Rules – Recently, new Statewide Stormwater Management Rules were adopted that will reduce water quality degradation attributed to nonpoint sources of pollution from new development and redevelopment projects.32 As required by the Municipal Land Use Law and state stormwater regulations,33 municipalities are required to prepare stormwater management plans and to implement these plans through related stormwater control ordinances.34 These new rules set forth the required components of regional and municipal stormwater management plans, and establish stormwater management design and performance standards for new development.35 Generally, these plans address groundwater recharge, stormwater quantity, and stormwater quality impacts by incorporating stormwater design and performance standards on major new development projects. Most municipalities in the county have completed these plans and are in the process of completing and adopting stormwater control ordinances, which must be approved by Morris County. Most pollution was once attributed primarily to industrial activities and other “point” sources. The majority of local pollution is now from “nonpoint” sources such as fertilizers, herbicides, pesticides, petroleum residues, paints and other wastes, that enter the water supply as stormwater runoff. NJDEP studies indicate that, while most streams and lakes

N.J.A.C. 7:8. N.J.A.C.7:14A-25. 34 Municipal Land Use Law, L. 1975, c. 291 C: 40:55D-93. 35 NJDEP regulations adopted on February 2, 2004.


are healthy enough to support drinking water supplies, there continues to be waters that fail to meet NJDEP standards for aquatic life, fish consumption and recreational use.36 Recent changes to statewide stormwater management rules will provide increased protection against nonpoint pollution from new development and redevelopment. However, more education is needed to support greater environmental stewardship from each resident so that the amount of such materials that enter the waste stream and runoff from each local property is substantially reduced. Increased pressures to preserve lands for groundwater recharge and water supply protection may have long term impacts on local open space land preservation efforts. Both Morris County and local governments have long provided funding for the preservation of land for watershed and water supply protection. In the future; however, this could become an even more significant factor in the prioritization of preservation funding and of targeting specific sites for acquisition. NJDEP in the Highlands Preservation Area. The use of septic systems throughout the state will also be subject to additional regulation and restrictions in the recently released draft NJDEP Wastewater Management Rules. Other state actions impacting these issues include the following: o NJDEP rules require that sewer service treatment facilities operate in conformance with an approved Wastewater Management Plan.37 These rules require that these plans be adopted and renewed every six years in connection with continued sewer service approvals. Treatment plants throughout the state are operating under previously approved plans that have expired. In many instances, applications have been made for renewal of plant approval but these have not been acted upon by the NJDEP for various reasons. In the fall of 2005, the NJDEP issued several public notices in the New Jersey Register proposing amendments to Area-wide Water Quality Management Plans that would revoke all future sewer service areas in State Plan Planning Areas 3, 4, and 5 that were not included in a Wastewater Management Plan (WMP) currently approved and adopted in accordance with NJDEP rules. If adopted, these amendments would have revoked almost all WMPs in Morris County. After much public controversy concerning this proposed action, the NJDEP withdrew the amendments. The NJDEP has drafted new Wastewater Management Rules, which are currently under review.


Wastewater Treatment
Many public sewer facilities are at or approaching their maximum regulatory limits. Substantial growth within the county will be limited by the remaining capacities of these systems, their potential for expansion and NJDEP connection requirements. Recent NJDEP rulemaking will severely limit any future expansion of sewage treatment capacity. The use of septic systems has also been subjected to additional regulation and restriction by the
36 New Jersey Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, NJDEP, December 2006, pg. 7.

37 New Jersey Register October 17, 2005. Wastewater Management Plan rules established at N.J.A.C. 7:15-5.23.


o In the summer of 2005, the NJDEP proposed establishing new pollution limits as part of their proposed Water Quality Management Planning Rules. These limits are expressed in terms Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) with emphasis on controlling phosphorous loading into the Passaic River Basin.38 The TMDL mechanism is used to identify all the contributors to surface water quality impacts and the TMDLs identified provide a measure for setting goals for load reductions for specific pollutants as necessary to meet surface water quality standards. Compliance with new TMDL standards will limit the ability of some wastewater treatment facilities to make maximum use of their design capacity, effectively reducing their existing treatment capacity and possibly eliminating plans for future treatment facility expansion. If facilities are required to upgrade to meet the new TMDL standards, this cost will ultimately be passed on to treatment plant customers. o o As part of the proposed Water Quality Management Rules, new nitrate dilution standards are anticipated that may require more land to facilitate septic systems, thereby increasing minimum lot sizes in areas that rely on septic system wastewater disposal. These standards will apply throughout New Jersey. o The newly proposed Water Quality Management Rules may reduce the number of Wastewater Management Planning Agencies by assigning this task to each of New Jersey’s 21 county governments. If adopted, counties would become responsible for approving municipal wastewater management plans in accordance with NJDEP requirements. In effect, the county would act on behalf of the NJDEP in overseeing development of plans and directing municipalities to amend their development regulations accordingly. Under current enabling legislation, counties have no authority to require municipalities to amend their development regulations; therefore, the enactment of such a proposal is at this time unclear. If such a rule is adopted, it would mean that counties would be required to undertake a substantial new role in the planning and implementation of sewer service facilities and local planning. As previously noted, the adoption of the Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act prohibits the extension of new public wastewater facilities into any part of the Preservation Area, even where these facilities are part of a previously approved sewer service area.39 Previously approved sewer service areas in the Preservation Area were revoked by the Act. These limitations will severely limit new

38 Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) represent the assimilative or carrying capacity of the receiving water taking into consideration point and nonpoint sources of pollution, natural background, and surface water withdrawals.

39 Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, P.L. 2004, c.120 at C.58:11A-7.1. Extensions may be permitted where found necessary by the NJDEP to address public health or safety issues.


development and will also impact existing customers of the effected sewer system. Facilities that were built or expanded with the expectation of spreading costs to future users in the area now designated as “Preservation” are now limited to the existing customer base that will bear the full costs of the improvements.



CIRCULATION Transportation Planning in Morris County
Transportation planning in Morris County requires the interaction of all levels of government and the private sector. It is Morris County’s role to coordinate planning with the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT), the North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority (NJTPA), NJ TRANSIT, the U.S. Department of Transportation, private nonprofit transportation organizations, and 39 municipalities. Morris County is also a member of the NJTPA Board of Trustees – which has significant influence in shaping regional transportation policy. Within this framework, Morris County is specifically responsible for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the county road and bridge system. It is also responsible for transportationrelated master plans, intersection improvements, bridge and road inspections, engineering improvements, and reviewing development plans related to county roads. Physical maintenance of these systems is attended by the Morris County Department of Public Works and Division of Engineering, whereas the Morris County Division of Transportation oversees various transportation operations and planning functions. The Division’s primary goals include: Preserving the existing transportation network through maintenance and rehabilitation; Managing transportation systems to ensure maximum efficiency; Planning for new systems and facilities and providing the necessary support for their implementation. The MCDOT also administers rail freight service on two countyowned railroads, sponsors the Morris County Metro (MCM) bus system, performs site plan review with respect to traffic impacts, secures state and federal funds, coordinates municipal transportation issues, performs technical studies, manages the Morris County employee vanpool program and develops the annual county Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The MCDOT also provides technical and financial support to TransOptions, the nonprofit transportation organization that serves as the county’s Transportation Management Association (TMA).1 Since 1975, the county has completed several circulation plan updates (1985, 1992), specific plan elements (1977 Bikeway Plan, 1998 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan) and various reports, brochures, maps and guides concerning transportation matters. MCDOT is currently developing a new circulation master plan, which forms the basis for much of the information contained in this summary. When complete, this new plan will be adopted as an element of the Morris County Master Plan.
1 TransOptions is an alliance of business and government partnerships created to provide commuter options to people traveling into northwestern New Jersey. It serves Morris, Sussex, Warren and suburban Essex, Passaic and Union counties.

Morris County Division of Transportation
The Morris County Division of Transportation (MCDOT) is part of the Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology. MCDOT is responsible for county transportation planning and provides Morris County with comprehensive transportation management.


The Transportation Network
Morris residents and workers depend primarily on the automobile for mobility, making roads, highways and bridges critical components of the transportation infrastructure. Alternative transportation systems also exist in the county, including bus service, passenger rail and rail freight. Morris County is also host to Morristown Municipal and Lincoln Park airports and a number of private heliports used by major corporations. With the assistance of federal funding, specialized transportation services for disabled drivers are provided by both Morris County and local municipalities. The county also supports pedestrian and bicycle travel opportunities and programs.

Morris County Public Roadway Milage By Jurisdiction
7% 12%

81% State/Fed. County Municipal

Morris County is traversed by 2,547 miles of federal, state, county and municipal roads. There are approximately 167 miles of federal and state roadways (7%) and Morris County is responsible for about 301 miles of county roads (12%). The bulk of roadways are municipal, making up about 2,079 miles or 81% of the total roadway miles.2

Source: NJDOT, Bureau of Transportation Data and Development, 2005 data

Since 1985, 411 new roadway miles have been added to Morris County, about 91% of this resulting from the construction of new municipal roads, typically developed as part of new residential subdivisions. About 37 new miles of roads were added to the state and federal roadway system, spurred by the completion of several roadway systems, including Routes I-287, I-80 and NJ-24. County roadway mileage did not change significantly during this period.3

Federal 4
There are six federal highways in Morris County. Interstates I-80, I280 and I-287 are dualized principal arterial roadways providing

NJDOT: Bureau of Transportation Data Development, Roadways System Section, Year Ending 2005. NJDOT estimates 16 roadway miles in “parks” subsumed into other categories.

1985 Morris County Transportation Update. Morris County Circulation Plan Element, 2005, Draft, Section IV addresses Federal, State and County Roads.



interstate access at speeds ranging from 55 to 65 miles per hour. US-46, US-202 and US-206 are older federal roadways, varying widely in structure and function, providing regional access at speeds and volumes altering with the surrounding land use.

There are 76 roads under county jurisdiction, and these function primarily as collector and arterial streets that serve the local roadway network.5 Length, geometric features and service characteristics on county roads vary. County government is responsible for all maintenance and improvements on these roads, which range in length from 0.1 mile to 33.5 miles.6

Morris County Roadway Milage By Jurisdiction 1985 - 2004
2500 Roadw ay M iles 2000 1500 1000 500 0 State/Fed. 1985 County 2004 Municipal
0 13
16 7 2 ,0 71

1 ,7 06





The majority of roads are municipal. These function as either local or minor collector roads. Municipal roads vary widely in geometry and service characteristics and operate at slower speeds than most other roadways. Traffic congestion on federal, state and county roads has increased the use of many municipal roads as alternate routes by commuters. However, most municipal roads are not constructed to handle frequent commuter traffic, resulting in more rapidly deteriorating road surfaces and increasing the potential for conflicts with other users of the roadway including local vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Source: NJDOT, 1985 Morris County Transportation Update, NJDOT Bureau of Transportation Data and Development, 2005

There are 1,441 bridges in Morris County.7 Of these, 994 or 70% are county-owned and maintained. Bridges provide a vital link in the transportation network by spanning obstacles such as rivers and streams, railroads, and other roadways. Many older bridges, adequate to accommodate traffic at the time of their construction, now require
5 6 7

There are nine state highways in the county. These vary widely in terms of function and geometric characteristics and typically serve regional or inter-county trips. State highways in Morris County include NJ-10, NJ-15, NJ-23, NJ-24, NJ-53, NJ-124, NJ159, NJ-181, and NJ-183.

Ibid., IV-8. Morris County Master Plan Circulation Plan Element, 2005 Draft, pg. IV-8. Morris County Master Plan Circulation Plan Element, 2005 Draft, pg IV-14. Does not include municipally owned bridges.


improvements in lane width, weight and height capacity to accommodate increasing traffic and larger and heavier vehicles. The Morris County Division of Engineering inspects county bridges on a two year cycle and conducts ongoing bridge replacement and rehabilitation. 2003.11 In most cases, current parking availability at local stations is at capacity.

Public Transit
Passenger Rail
In Morris County, passenger rail transportation is provided by NJ TRANSIT on the Morris and Essex line and the MontclairBoonton line. The Morris and Essex line includes both the Morristown line and the Gladstone branch. All lines offer service to Newark, Hoboken and New York City. Local access to passenger rail is available from 18 railroad stations, with parking capacity for over 4,500 vehicles.8 Most passenger rail stations are used by commuters traveling to New York City. Morristown Station is an exception, serving as both an origin and destination point for commuters. During the 1970’s, passenger rail ridership averaged about 9,000 commuters daily.9 During the 1980’s daily passenger rail ridership steadily declined, decreasing to about 5,800 in 1990.10 This trend reversed during the 1990s with ridership up to 11,600 daily in 2000. Several improvements made by NJ TRANSIT have contributed to this increase in ridership, most significantly, the opening of Midtown Direct service to New York Penn Station in 1996, and the completion of the Montclair Connection in 2002 and the Frank R. Lautenberg Rail Station at Secaucus Junction in
8 9

The Morris County Division of Transportation continues to support improvements in passenger rail systems. Special projects include restoring commuter rail service on the Lackawanna Cut-off Railroad between Scranton, Pennsylvania, Morris County and Hoboken/New York City, which would help relieve commuter traffic along the I-80 corridor. Once operational, this rail line is expected to carry about 6,700 riders daily.12 The MCDOT is also working to restore commuter rail service on the New York, Susquehanna & Western Railway from Sussex County to Hoboken, paralleling the NJ-23 corridor. In addition, the MCDOT was also responsible for proposing the Mount Arlington park-andride, which is now in use and highly successful. They are currently assisting NJ TRANSIT in an effort to construct a new railroad station at this location.

Morris County Circulation Plan Element, 2005 Draft, pg. IV-24. Ibid, pg. IV- 25. 10 1992 Morris County Circulation Element, IV -15.



Morris County Master Plan Circulation Plan Element 2005 Draft, pg. IV- 25. NJ TRANSIT ridership forecast for 2030, NJ TRANSIT PowerPoint presentation 4/7/2006.


Bus Service
There are two types of bus service in Morris County: inter-county and local. Inter-county bus service is provided by NJ TRANSIT, Lakeland Bus Lines and Community Coach USA. Together, these services offer a cumulative total of ten routes to destinations outside the county, five ending in Newark and five ending in New York City.13 Travel by bus has an advantage over rail because transfers are not necessary; they offer a one-seat ride to both Newark and New York City. However, because buses travel on the roadway system, they are subject to delays not associated with passenger rail. Populations served by bus are typically the Manhattan business commuter. County business campuses through its two “Wheels” routes. The Wheels 966 route provides shuttle service between Convent Station railroad station and nearby office parks, and the Wheels 967 route provides a service between points in Sussex County, Jefferson Township and Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. Lakeland Bus Lines operates three bus routes and provides service between Morris and Essex Counties. Colonial Coach operates two bus routes serving Morristown and Morris Township. Parsippany-Troy Hills Township provides its own town-wide free bus service.14 The County of Morris provides the most comprehensive county-wide bus service through the Morris County Metro (MCM). MCM provides seven routes serving various areas of the county. Approximately 480,000 trips were made on MCM in 2000, an increase of 46% over ridership in 1990.15 Local bus service is particularly important to those who are unable to drive; the young, the elderly and persons unable to afford a car. Bus routes are developed based on ridership – if ridership is too low, the routes can be eliminated. As a consequence, not all areas of the county have bus service. Some areas have limited service, and some are not served. Areas with limited or no bus service are the more remote areas of the county where there is a lower density of development or lack of significant interest in bus service.

Facilities Supporting Public Transit
More localized bus travel is characterized by frequent stops allowing passengers access anywhere along the route. These trips are currently served by several providers with limited service areas. NJ TRANSIT provides shuttle services to various Morris

MCDOT also provides support for increasing bus and rail ridership by promoting improved facilities for commuter’s use, i.e. park and ride facilities and bus shelters.


Morris County Master Plan Circulation Plan Element 2005 Draft, pg. IV- 28.


MCDOT Transit Guide, 2005. Morris County Master Plan Circulation Plan Element 2005 Draft, pg. IV- 31.


Suburban use of public transit relies heavily on adequate parkand-ride facilities. Morris County has 39 total park-and-ride facilities serving bus, rail and carpool/vanpool riders located in 25 municipalities.16 Most of these are directly associated with the transportation service, i.e. all railroad stations have adjacent park and ride lots. Most non-railroad related facilities are located along or near a major arterial roadway. Bus ridership can be made more attractive when there are adequate bus shelter facilities to protect commuters from the elements while they wait for their ride. There are about 45 bus shelters in Morris County, and in 2002 the MCDOT began the task of educating local officials regarding the process and benefits of bus shelter installation.17 MCDOT prepared an interactive guide on this issue explaining the installation process used by NJ TRANSIT and private contractors.

Other County Support for Public Transit
The MCDOT is active in supporting and promoting public transit opportunities and facilities. Some of the other ongoing or completed projects supporting public transit include: Creation and update of the Morris County Transit Guide; Development of a Morris County Metro Bus Marketing Study and ongoing marketing efforts; Preparation of the 2001 Public Transportation System Integration Study identifying all transit routes and opportunities for improved connections and coordination; Creation of the Morris County Rail Access Improvement Study in 2000 to assess and promote accessibility of all rail stations by foot, bicycle, car, and other public transit and to improve access for those with disabilities; Continued support for the NJ-Pennsylvania Lackawanna Cut-off Passenger Rail Project; Creation and maintenance of the MCDOT website (, with rail and bus schedules, links to transportation agencies and other information on the county’s transportation system; Development of educational issue-oriented “Transportation Bulletins” for public distribution; Update to the Morris County Circulation Plan.

16 17

Ibid. pg. IV-37. 25 Park and Rides includes 18 railroad stations previously identified. Ibid. pg. IV-35.


There are two airports located within Morris County: the Morristown Municipal Airport, located in Hanover, and the Lincoln Park Airport, located in Lincoln Park. The Morristown Municipal Airport is classified as a General Aviation Reliever Airport. Reliever airports are designated by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to relieve congestion at commercial service airports (usually around a major urban area) and to provide General Aviation access to the overall community. The Lincoln Park Airport is a small, privately owned airport. Neither airport is certified to receive scheduled air passenger service. flights) and the highest total was in 1980 (282,463).20 In 2002, it had 239,299 flights and was the 11th busiest small airport in the country that year. 21 Morristown Municipal Airport Yearly Operations
Year 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Source: Morristown Municipal Airport

The Morristown Municipal Airport
The Morristown Municipal Airport (MMU) is owned by the Town of Morristown and is operated under a 99-year lease by DM Airport Developers Inc. that began in 1982.18 The airport was constructed by the U.S. Army Air Corps of Engineers in 1941, and during WWII, the airport served as a test site and training facility for Bell Laboratories. As a General Aviation Reliever Airport, MMU accepts private, corporate, air taxi, air ambulance, training, or military aircraft. There are several hundred aircraft based at Morristown Airport including jets, helicopters, turboprops and others. It is the second busiest airport in New Jersey; surpassed only by Newark-Liberty International Airport.19 Over the last 35 years, the number of flights (arriving and departing) has averaged just over 228,000 per year. The lowest total in 35 years was in 1972 (181,936
20 21

Number of Flights (arriving and departing) 218,323 282,463 172,585 253,084 263,210 271,074 217,336

Morristown Municipal Airport


The official letter identifier for the airport is KMMU. 19 Correspondence from the NJ Department of Transportation, 11/8/06.

D.M. Airport Developers, Inc., MMU, 11/20/2006. Combined arriving and departing flights. 1992 Morris County Circulation Plan Element, pg. 27.


In addition to being a major transportation asset, MMU is also a major economic asset to Morris County. It supplies an estimated $187 million dollars to the community through total spending/output. There are 31 companies that base 59 aircraft at the airport. Several of these are Fortune 500 companies based in Morris County. 22 Physical constraints such as the presence of wetlands and permanently preserved open space eliminate the potential for future runway expansion; however, the airport anticipates adding additional hangers and ancillary facilities to make more efficient use of this existing resource and to improve safety.

Lincoln Park Airport

MMU - Based Aircraft By Type

500 Total A ircraft Based at MMU 400 300 200 100 0

21 48 80

26 41 57 201

11 59 46 176

Lincoln Park Airport is a privately owned public use airport, encompassing approximately 200 acres. Most trips are for the purpose of personal transport as opposed to leisure flights. There are about 200 planes based at the airport and two flight schools on the premises.25 In March 2002, NJDOT purchased the development rights to Lincoln Park Airport for $4.6 million, permanently preserving the public use airport.


Heliport and Helistop Facilities26
A heliport is a dedicated area of defined dimensions, either at ground level or elevated on a structure, designated for the landing or takeoff of helicopters and used solely for that purpose. A helistop is an area of defined dimensions, either at ground level or elevated on a structure, designated for the landing or takeoff of helicopters, but not limited in use to that sole purpose. Helistops generally provide minimal or no support facilities and may be located in multiple use areas such as parking lots, dock areas, parks, athletic fields or other suitable open areas. There are 18 state-licensed heliport and helistop facilities in operation in Morris County. The federal government also maintains heliport facilities at the Picatinny Arsenal. None of the 18 heliports

Single Engine

Multi-Engine Jet


Source: Morristown Municipal Airport

The airport has four runways, 12 corporate hangers, 11 individual aircraft hangers, three flight schools, one aircraft maintenance facility, and a full service fixed base operation.23 In 1995, there were 416 aircraft based at MMU. This dropped to 325 in 2000 and 292 in 2006.24
22 23

D.M. Airport Developers, Inc., MMU, 11/20/2006. Morris County Master Plan Circulation Plan Element 2005 Draft, pg. IV- 45-46 and correspondence from D.M. Airport Developers, Inc, MMU, 11/22/2006. 24 D.M. Airport Developers, Inc., MMU, 11/20/2006.


Morris County Master Plan Circulation Plan Element 2005 draft – pg IV-46. Ibid.


and helistops in Morris County are for public use. Thirteen are located at corporate or personal locations and five are located at hospitals or National Guard armories. program is managed by the Morris County Department of Senior, Disability and Veteran Services.

Morris County Airport Advisory Committee
In 2003, the Morris County Airport Advisory Committee was created as an advisory body to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Staff is provided to the Committee by the Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Division of Transportation. The Committee provides a forum whereby representatives of county government, municipal government, the corporate community and others can discuss a wide range of airport related matters including on-going projects, noise control, available funding and other pertinent issues.

Paratransit is a transportation service that is more flexible and personalized than conventional mass transit, which operates on a fixed route and schedule. Examples of paratransit include taxi, dial-a-ride, and vanpool services.

MAPS operates a fleet of nearly 60 vehicles consisting of small buses, sedans, and station wagons. All buses are equipped with wheelchair lifts. Service is provided for people age 60 or over and eligible disabled persons over age 18, and is targeted at those who have no alternative means of transportation. MAPS transportation serves a variety of purposes including employment, education, medical appointments, adult day care, and recreational opportunities. In 2006, MAPS provided 132,677 trips over a total of 803,354 vehicle miles.27 Employment and medical trips accounted for the largest proportion of service at 32% and 31% respectively. Seniors made 63% of trips while 37% were made by persons with disabilities.28

Morris County created the Morris Area Paratransit System (MAPS) in 1987 to provide special transportation services for senior citizen and disabled county residents. Operating from four regional offices, MAPS provides a dial-a-ride service in coordination with two other public agencies (Five Town Regional Dial-A–Ride, Township of Jefferson). The MAPS Paratransit

Figure based on “one-way” trips. Correspondence from the Morris County Department of Senior, Disability and Veterans Services, 4/07.



Bicycle / Pedestrian

MAPS Trips by Purpose, 2006
4% 11% 5% 1% 32%

16% 31%
Employment Shopping Recreation Education
Source: MCDOT

The 1977 Bikeway Element of the Morris County Master Plan supported the long-term creation of a coordinated, inter-municipal 28-segment county-wide bikeway system and included maps of potential routes and related details. There have been significant advances in bikeway projects since this plan was adopted; however, completion of the originally envisioned system was based on the anticipation of substantial state and federal funding, which ultimately was not forthcoming. In 1998, the Morris County Planning Board adopted the Bikeway and Pedestrian Element of the Morris County Master Plan. The 1998 plan provides an in-depth review of bicycle and pedestrian facilities by region and lists the resources available to those who bicycle or walk for recreation or commuting purposes. Major pedestrian and bicycle facilities are identified by type and by municipality in the plan, which documents multi-use (pedestrian and bicycle) trails,30 pedestrian trails, shared roadways,31 bicycle lanes, multi-use paths, pedestrian paths and sidewalks. The location of these facilities are regularly updated and published by the MCDOT in the Morris County Bicycle and Pedestrian User Guide. Most linear facilities that are solely for pedestrian and bicycle use are recreational paths and trails. These paths and trails often extend between, municipalities and, in some cases, counties. Examples include the Patriots Path, Columbia Trail, Traction Line Recreational Trail and Loantaka Trail. The majority of these connecting trail systems have been developed within the last 30 years under the direction of the Morris County Park Commission. Plans for the
30 . A “trail” is usually unpaved. A “path” is usually paved. This nomenclature does not apply in all instances.- 1998 Bicycle and Pedestrian Element, pg. 26-31. 31 A road used by bicyclists and pedestrians that does not have a bicycle lane, sidewalk or path.-1998 Bicycle and Pedestrian Element, pg. 28.

Medical Adult Day Care/Other Nutrition

Municipal Paratransit
At present, 35 of the 39 Morris County municipalities provide some municipally sponsored transportation for senior and disabled populations through a dial-a-ride service.29 Service hours, reservation requirements and service areas vary per municipality. Those municipalities without individual service receive dial-a-ride services through the county MAPS system.


Individual municipal service not provided by Florham Park, Harding, Mountain Lakes and Victory Gardens.


expansion of these systems and other pedestrian / bikeway facilities are identified in the 2004 version of the Morris County Bicycle and Pedestrian User Guide.32

Freight Movement
Trucks transport nearly all of the intrastate freight destined for Morris County.33 While the movement of freight is necessary to the regional economy, heavy reliance on the county’s road network also adds to traffic congestion and substantially increases road wear. At the same time, the overwhelming reliance on trucks creates an environment that fails to optimize the existing capacity of the rail network. Reducing the number of trucks on the roads may be possible through better utilization of the existing capacity of the rail network and, where possible, expansion of the network. Morris County is currently served by three private freight railroads: the Morristown & Erie Railway, the Norfolk Southern Railway and the New York, Susquehanna and Western Railway.34
Major Trucking/ Motor Freight Companies35 ABF Freight System, Inc/Wharton, Florham Park Air Contact Transport/Flanders Carolina Freight Carriers Corp./Pine Brook Dart Transit Company/Parsippany Jentar Transit Company/Cedar Knolls Mola Trucking Inc./Boonton Primo Transport, Inc./Whippany Tarus Truck Lines, Inc./Whippany Watkins Motor Line, Inc./Parsippany

The Morris County Division of Transportation continues to support commuting to work and school by walking and bicycling. One recent effort is the creation of a “Safe Routes to School” pilot program, conducted in the Wharton Borough School District in 2005. The program goal is to support children’s ability to walk, bicycle, carpool, or take transit safely to school. The results of this program will be used to create a “How-To Guide” as a tool for municipalities, engineers, planners and educators. Additional evaluations are also under way to study the current availability of bicycle facilities in the county.

33 34 32

Morris County Bicycle and Pedestrian Users Guide, 2nd Edition, Reprinted 2004.

Morris County Master Plan Circulation Element, Draft July 2005, pg IV – 41. Ibid. 35 Morris County Master Plan Circulation Element, Draft July 2005, pg IV – 42.


Morris County also directly participates in freight movement through its ownership and support of rail facilities. The county currently owns two freight railroad lines, which are operated by the Morristown & Erie Railway. The Dover & Rockaway Railroad runs from Wharton through Dover to the industrial complex just north of I-80 in Rockaway. The High Bridge Branch Railroad runs from just west of Wharton through Kenvil, Ledgewood and Flanders to Bartley. The need for increased efficiency in the movement of freight will continue to be a significant transportation issue. In 1999, the Morris County Division of Transportation prepared an “Intermodal Freight Network and Land Use Report” detailing the characteristics of freight movement throughout the county. This included the major origins and destinations of Morris County freight, the characteristics of railroads operating in the county, congestion levels on major roadways, and major industrial parcels along rail lines. The airports in Morris County do not have any large scale air freight movement capabilities, although smaller scale goods and packages move through Morristown Municipal Airport via air courier flights. The closest major air freight facility is Newark Liberty Airport located in Essex County. If there is an increase in freight delivery at Newark Liberty Airport, there will substantial increases in truck transport to deliver the goods into and through Morris County. Similarly, Morris County has no port facilities; however, the nearby Port Newark / Port Elizabeth marine terminal is the largest containerized cargo facility in the United States. Located just 20
Morris County Master Plan Circulation Element Draft, 2005, pg. IV-43. As per U.S. Census (1990 STF-3/2000 SF3), in 1990, 3.5% of the workforce used public transit. This rose to 4.2% in 2000, still well below the amount using transit in 1970.

miles from Morris County, the amount of freight being handled by this facility is expected to more than double by 2015.36 While not located in the county, the growth in freight moving through regional airports and marine facilities will impact county roads and rail facilities. Expanding the efficiencies in the existing network will be required to address this increased freight movement.

Commuter Characteristics
The greatest impact on the transportation network is during peak hour traffic periods, which occur during the morning and afternoon “rush hours,” when employees travel to and from work. Travel during off-peak hours is relatively unproblematic. The following work related travel conditions help to illustrate the demand on the county transportation systems.

Means of Transportation to Work
The vast majority of Morris County residents drive alone to work and this is a rising trend, despite government efforts to promote ridesharing and mass transit. Since 1970 the percentage of commuters driving alone has risen from about 73% to 81%. As illustrated on the following chart, fewer people rideshare or walk to their jobs and, despite some recent gains, the number of commuters using public transit today is lower than the number in 1970.37



Journey to Work

Means of Transportation
Other Work at Home Walk/Bicycle Transit Rideshare Drove Alone 0% 20% 40% 1970 60% 2000 80% 0.8%


1.9% 5.3% 4.2% 7.3% 8.2% 9.8% 81.2%

At 29.4 minutes, the average travel time Morris County residents spend getting to work has risen over 15% since 1980 with almost all of this increase occurring between 1990 and 2000. More and more time is spent on the roads getting to and from work, with even longer commutes becoming much more commonplace. In 1980, 35.5% of residents traveled 30 minutes or more to work. By 2000, this rose to just over 43%. Notably, the largest percent increase has been in those traveling 45 minutes or more, rising from 16.8% in 1980 to 21.8% in 2000. 38

Minutes Traveling To Work
19.6% 19.1% 18.7% 21.3% 21.8% 45 or more 16.8%


Source: 1985 Morris County Transportation Update / 2005 Draft Morris County Circulation Element.
3.1% 2.7%

The dominance of the automobile is evident, as persons driving either alone or in rideshare situations account for a combined total of over 89% of commuter trips. The only trend working to lessen the number of single occupancy vehicles on the roads is the slight increase in the number of persons who work from home, a likely result of technological advances in computers and telecommunication.

Less than 5

5 to 9


10 to 14 1980


15 to 19

13.2% 20 to 29 2000





30 to 44

Source: 2005 Draft Morris County Circulation Element, pg. II-4/US Census, 1980, 2000


US Census 1980, 2000


Longer commutes can most likely be attributed to two main factors: 1) the increasing amount of traffic delays and 2) the increasing distances commuters are willing to drive between work and home. Most recently, the rise in local housing prices and soaring property taxes have forced more employees working in Morris County to travel farther and farther from their jobs in search of affordable housing and communities. This trend shows no indication of slowing and commuter travel time is likely to continue to increase in the foreseeable future.
Place of Work for Morris County Residents Aged 16 and Over

Worked Outside of NJ 7% Worked Outside Morris County but in NJ 35%

Place of Work and Commuting Patterns County to County Commuting Patterns - Morris County Residents
According to the US Census, in 2000, of the 239,839 employed Morris County residents over the age of sixteen, 57.8% worked in Morris County. This is a reduction; however, from years past. In 1990, this percentage was 60.1% and in 1970, this was 61.9%.39 Of the 42% of residents that commute beyond the county’s borders, the top five locations in order of significance are Essex County, Passaic County, Bergen County, Manhattan, NY and Somerset County. This has not changed significantly since 1970, when the top five out-of-county work locations for Morris County residents were: 1) Essex County, 2) Manhattan, 3) Passaic County, 4) Union County and 5) Bergen County.40

Worked in Morris County 58%

Source: US Census 2000 (SF3, P26)

Work Destination of Morris County Residents
M orris 57.8%

Other, 3.0% Essex 10.6% Hunterdon 0.5% Warren 0.7% Passaic 5.2% Sussex 1.1% M iddlesex 1.8% Union 3.7% M anhattan NY, 4.8% Hudson 2.0% Somerset 3.7% Bergen 5.0%


Morris County Census Trends 1970-1980, NJ State Data Center, May 1986, page 23, Draft Morris County Master Plan Circulation Element, Draft July 2005, pg II-15/US Census 1990, 2000. 40 Morris County Census Trends 1970-1980, NJ State Data Center, May 1986, page 23. Morris County Data Book, 2006 / US Census Bureau 2000.

Source: US Census 2000 / Morris County Data Book, 2006


County to County Commuter Patterns - Morris County Employees
Also contributing to the traffic impact on regional roadways is the increasing number of workers in Morris County who are living outside of Morris County. In 2000, there were 276,965 workers employed in Morris County. This is nearly 2.5 times the number of persons employed in the county in 1970. At that time, 73% of those employed in the county also lived in the county. By 2000, only 50.1% of persons employed in Morris County were also residents. The other half of the county’s workforce is “imported” from other locations. Essex County continues to figure prominently in the exchange of workforce capital; just as it is the most prevalent destination for Morris residents working outside the county, it is also the location from which most out-of-county residents come to work in Morris. In terms of where these Morris County workers live, Essex is followed by Sussex, Passaic, Somerset and Union counties. By comparison, in 1970, the top five locations from which commuters came into Morris County to work were Essex, Sussex, Passaic, Union and Bergen Counties.41
Where Workers Employed in Morris County Live

Other 3.5%

M orris 50.1%

M onroe, Northhampton, Pike, PA 2.2%

Essex 8.8%

M anhattan 0.5% Ocean 0.6% M onmouth 0.8% Hunterdon 1.3% Bergen 3.5% Hudson 1.8% M iddlesex 2.4% Warren 3.3% Somerset 4.3% Union 4.0% Sussex 7.4%

Passaic 5.6%

Source: US Census 2000 / Morris County Data Book, 2006

Of note, in 2000, approximately 2.2% of jobs in Morris County were filled by residents of just three Pennsylvania counties, up from 1.7% in 1990.42 This reflects the increasing number of persons moving west across the Delaware in search of affordable housing while retaining their jobs (and their long commutes) in New Jersey.

Trends / Issues
Current state funding priorities and transportation policies limit opportunities for new roadway construction. Add to these limits the new restrictions on roadway expansion imposed by the Highlands Act, combined with difficulties in securing new rights-of-way, and all indications are that future road projects in the county will be focused primarily

Morris County Census Trends 1970-1980, NJ State Data Center, May 1986, page 23.


Morris County Data Book, 1994 and 2006 (US Census 1990 and 2000).


on maintenance, improvements and relatively minor expansions. Local roadway building will also continue to slow as new land suitable for subdivision diminishes. While road building slows, traffic congestion is expected to increase due to a combination of factors. These factors include residential growth, job growth, and increased journey-to-work distances and increased out-of-county commuters passing through Morris County to jobs within or outside the county. Congestion is also likely to worsen as more persons employed in the county come increasingly from outside its boundaries. This phenomenon may be heightened if the service economy dominates future job growth since many service positions do not typically offer the income necessary to afford the higher priced housing that dominates the region. Without new highways or the ability to substantially increase the capacity of existing roads, the county will need to devise innovative ways to manage the increasing severity of roadway congestion. Addressing this issue will require employment of a combination of strategies as no one tactic will be sufficient to significantly lessen this problem. For example, these strategies may include: o Requiring more efficient use and improvement of the existing roadway network through upgrades to deficient roadways, improved management of highway access, and improved signalization; Promoting increased opportunities for carpooling; o Supporting greater employer utilization of staggered work hours/flex-time and telecommuting to reduce peak hour roadway demand; Increasing the use of existing public transit and improving public transit opportunities and facilities including expanding park-and-ride locations within the county and supporting new park-and-ride locations outside the county along major transportation routes; Expanding bus routes and passenger rail service through the county (such as the Lackawanna Cut-off passenger rail project) as well as improvements outside the county (such as the past opening of Midtown Direct service to New York Penn Station in 1996 and the proposed TransHudson Express Tunnel under the Hudson River); Supporting land development strategies that focus higher density and mixed-use residential and commercial development near existing or proposed transit locations. Encouraging the use of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) technologies. Examples of ITS technologies include dynamic message signs, roadway de-icing systems, and internal vehicle backup sensing devices. ITS technologies can help prevent accidents and increase traffic flow by raising driver awareness of roadway conditions, by encouraging vehicle speed reductions and by providing safer road surfaces.






Since few, if any new roads are anticipated to be constructed outside of those required to serve new subdivisions, funding formerly used for this purpose may be redirected to correct existing roadway intersection problems and make other


improvements to reduce the potential for accidents. Recent state policies focusing on “fix-it-first” strategies demonstrate this trend. elderly population. As the current wave of baby-boomers continues to age, demands for paratransit services will likely increase. With diminishing vacant lands, future construction will focus increasingly on infill projects and on the redevelopment of underutilized sites and/or obsolete structures. As redevelopment occurs, opportunities for new pedestrian and bicycle facilities and connections between developed areas may be introduced, permitting gaps in the existing pedestrian / bicycle network to be filled. Maintenance of these facilities, particularly pedestrian oriented facilities, will become increasingly important in more densely populated locations. The aging of the population may also result in greater use of pedestrian facilities as walking for recreation becomes more important. Increases in freight movement to and through Morris County are anticipated as the amount of freight coming into Newark Airport and the Port Newark/Elizabeth Marine Terminal grows. Expanded freight movement by truck will aggravate existing congestion on the interstate roadways and increase wear on the roads. Increased use of rail for freight transport could alleviate some of this traffic, although existing steep grades, low bridges, electrified lines and heavy use of NJ TRANSIT tracks for commuter service may limit the extent to which rail freight may be increased.

Increased commercial development in Morris County and throughout the surrounding region, combined with continued limitations on airport expansion elsewhere may generate greater reliance on Morristown Municipal Airport to serve corporate aviation needs. Even if runway length cannot be extended, continued corporate use may increase pressure for expansion of service and facility upgrades. The Morris County Airport Advisory Committee has recently commissioned a study in connection with Rutgers University to analyze the effect of the airport on the economy of the county and the surrounding region. Senior citizens make up the bulk of MAPS ridership and most municipal paratransit use is also oriented toward the



Preserved Open Space
State, county and municipal governments have been aggressively acquiring open space, most actively over the last 20 years. The amount of land preserved as public open space, not including farmland, has tripled since 1972, an increase of about 210%. Preserved Public Open Space Overview1

Morris County Preservation Trust Fund
The Morris County Open Space and Farmland Preservation Trust Fund was established in 1992 by the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. Collection of funds for the Trust Fund began in 1993, via a dedicated tax on county equalized real property valuation. The current levy is 4.5 cents per $100 of equalized property value. Since its inception, the county has collected over $240 million via the Trust Fund tax.2 As of January, 2007, 15,528 acres have been preserved by the Trust Fund as farmland or open space, with projects pending that will add more than 5,500 acres to the preservation total.3 The number of acres preserved is constantly rising as county support for various county, municipal and nonprofit preservation activities continues. Collected funding is divided among the Morris County Park Commission, the Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, the Morris County Agriculture Development Board for farmland preservation, municipalities, qualified charitable conservancies, and discretionary preservation projects. A small amount of this funding has been used to fund the county Historic Preservation Trust Program, and other ancillary county costs.

Category Federal Land State Land Municipal Land County Land Total

1972 Total Acres 6,139 6,316 3,518 5,208 21,181

2005 Total Acres 9,391 20,671 17,763 17,330 65,155

While the open space holdings for all levels of government have increased significantly from 1972, state and municipal open space lands have seen the greatest expansions, followed by county and federal lands. Much of the municipal open space purchased in recent years has been accomplished with the assistance of the Morris County Preservation Trust Fund.

1 Morris County Master Plan Open Space Element, 1972, Morris County GIS Database, October 2005 and Morris County Park Commission, Summary of Acreage Report 2005. Analysis does not include privately owned properties, non profit open space, properties in process of being acquired or preserved farmland.

2 3

Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Revenues, January 2007. Morris County Preservation Trust – Trust Fund Statistics January 2007.


Morris County Preservation Trust Fund Annual Expenditures
20% 5% 5%

space.4 The fund has also aided in the acquisition of over 2,000 acres of county parkland through the expenditure of nearly $25 million. The Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority also received nearly $6.7 million to add 419 acres for watershed protection.5 The Morris County Open Space Committee reviews, prioritizes and makes recommendations to the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders concerning the funding of municipal and nonprofit open space applications. This fifteen member committee consists of one representative from each of the eight municipal regions in the county, plus representatives from the Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Agriculture Development Board, Morris County Park Commission, Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, Morris Tomorrow (formerly Morris 2000), and two members at-large. Committee members are appointed by the Morris County Board of Chosen Freeholders. The Trust Fund is administered by the Morris County Preservation Trust, a division of the Department of Planning, Development and Technology. The Division also provides staff support to the: Morris County Open Space Committee Morris County Agriculture Development Board Morris County Historic Preservation Trust Fund Review Board Twenty-nine of the thirty-nine municipalities in the county have also approved the use of a dedicated open space tax for land acquisition, development rights purchase, improvements, maintenance and/or bond payments.6 Funds collected by the county are used in conjunction with local funds to meet both local and regional preservation goals.



M orris County Park Commission M orris County M .U.A. M orris County Agriculture Development Board M unicipal or Charitable Open Space Conservancy Discretionary Projects Historic Preservation and Other Costs

Source: Morris County Preservation Trust

Municipalities and charitable conservancies are allotted 25% of the overall amount of funds collected, to which are added any unused or cancelled funds from previous allocations and part of the discretionary funding as available. Since it began accepting applications in 1994, over $59 million has been awarded to Morris County municipalities and nonprofit organizations to aid in the acquisition of nearly 8,900 acres of local parks and open

Morris County Preservation Trust database, January 2007. Ibid. 6 Morris County Preservation Trust, January 2007.


County-Owned Open Space
Morris County open space holdings account for about 25% of the over 65,000 acres of preserved park and other public open space land in the county. The majority of this land is managed for public use by the Morris County Park Commission. Morris County Park System
Name Acres (rounded) Bamboo Brook Outdoor Education Center 681 Berksire Valley Golf Course 525 Black River Park (Cooper Mill & Kay Environmental Center) 645 Columbia Trail 100 Craigmeur Recreation Area 70 Flanders Valley Golf Course 411 Fosterfields Living Historical Farm 210 Frelinghuysen Arboretum 127 Great Swamp Outdoor Education Center 44 Hedden Park 383 Historic Speedwell 8 Hugh Force Park 11 James Andrews Memorial Park 583 Jonathan Woods 11 Lee’s County Park Marina 13 Lewis Morris Park 1,941 Loantaka Brook Reservation 532 Mahlon Dickerson Reservation 3,000 Minnisink Reservation 302 Mount Hope Historic Park 475 Mount Paul Memorial Park 286 Mt. Olive-Old Vo-Tech Property 26 Old Troy Park 153 Passaic River Park 769 Patriot’s Path & West Morris Greenway 411 Pinch Brook Golf Course 102 Pyramid Mountain Natural Historic Area 1,313 Schooley’s Mountain Park 786 Silas Condict Park 1,218 Sunset Valley Golf Course 169 Torune Park 552 Traction Line Recreation Trail 12 Waughaw Mountain Greenway 94 William G. Mennen Sports Arena 18 Willowwood Arboretum 131 Total 16,322 Source: Morris County Park Commission – Summary of Acreage Report 2005, confirmed 2006

Morris County Park Commission
There are currently 35 county park facilities owned and managed by the Park Commission, including traditional parks, golf courses, linear trail systems and indoor sports facilities. In all, these parklands total 16,322 acres, which are dedicated to recreation/cultural resources, open space and historic preservation.7

Pinch Brook Golf Course

7 Morris County Park Commission – Summary of Acreage Report – 2005. Total acreage given excludes 880 acres of land not owned by the Park Commission, but managed by the Commission through conservation easements, including portions of Jonathan’s Woods, the Mahlon Dickerson and Loantaka Brook Reservations.


Other County Open Space
The county also owns approximately 1,008 acres of other open space lands, although these are not used for public recreation purposes. Instead, these lands provide wetlands mitigation, watershed buffers and open space buffers adjacent to other preserved or environmentally sensitive lands.8 As open space purchase slows, maintenance of existing open space and the need for improved recreational facilities will grow in importance. More emphasis may be placed on the restoration of open space resources. Historically, the Morris County Open Space Trust Fund has focused on the acquisition of new properties. The potential to diversify the use of the fund to address facility and maintenance requirements may need to be explored. The Morris County Park Commission maintains an inventory of county recreation and open space lands and the Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology maintains a list of municipal recreation and open space lands by means of the New Jersey ROSI (Recreation and Open Space Inventory) listings. The last Morris County Master Plan Open Space Element was adopted in 1988. A county-wide, comprehensive review of recreational demand and inventory of available facilities may be considered, particularly in light of changes in population and the availability of improved environmental data.
Willowood Arboretum

Trends/ Issues
With rising land values, the ability to acquire new open space lands is increasingly limited, particularly the acquisition of lands suitable for active recreation purposes.

New NJDEP regulations continue to restrict the use of land, including open space lands set aside by counties and municipalities for active and passive recreation purposes. Increased buffers along waterways and development limitations associated with the Highlands Act will hinder potential recreational development of open space lands in the Highlands Preservation Area. These restrictions will require consideration in the assessment of existing and future recreational development plans.


Morris County GIS database, October 2005.


The Morris County Farmland Preservation Program began with the permanent preservation of a 14 acre parcel in Washington Township in December of 1987. As of January 2007, 93 farms have been permanently preserved totaling 6,162 acres.9 Other farms are currently in various stages of the easement purchase program. Nineteen additional farms are pending preservation that, when preserved, will add another 960 acres to farmland preservation totals.10 Another six farms totaling about 530 acres are in the temporary “eight-year” preservation program. Chosen Freeholders. In total, the county has provided funding of over $49 million dollars, which has been combined with state and local funds to preserve farmland.11
Preserved Farmland in Morris County Acres of Preserved Farmland Farmland


Washington Twp. 11,165 4,223.7 Chester Twp. 3,880 1,019.1 Boonton Twp. 1,249 141.1 Randolph Twp. 818 146.8 Mt. Olive Twp. 2,991 189.8 Mendham Twp. 1,561 92.4 Harding Twp. 1,658 109.2 Lincoln Park 175 76.6 Borough Long Hill Twp. 104 53.6 Chester Borough 165 53.4 Mendham Borough 1,039 29.4 Montville Twp. 314 26.9 Total Preserved Farmland Acres: 6,162
Source: Morris County Preservation Trust, January 2007

Percent of Farmland Preserved in Municipality 37.8 26.3 11.3 17.9 6.4 5.9 6.6 43.8 51.5 32.4 2.8 8.6

Morris County Preserved Farmland

Since 1994, all county farmland preservation activity has been funded through the Morris County Open Space and Farmland Preservation Trust Program. The allocation of the funding is overseen by the seven-member Morris County Agriculture Development Board, appointed by the Morris County Board of

The Morris County Farmland Preservation Element, adopted in March of 2003, established one, five and ten year preservation targets of 5,888 total acres preserved by the end of 2004, 9,972 total acres preserved by the end of 2008, and 15,077 acres preserved by the end of 2013. Significant acreage has been added, even though rising land values experienced in the last few years have made farmland purchases more costly.


Morris County Preservation Trust, January 2007. Ibid.

Morris County Preservation Trust, January 2007, includes pre-trust and post-trust dollars.


Trends / Issues
The economic realities of farming in New Jersey have increased the need to intensify the use of acreage to maximize profits. This can result in development of farm structures of significant size which can change the character of an existing farm and impact surrounding neighborhoods. The size and placement of farm structures such as greenhouses and animal boarding facilities are issues that will require careful attention. In Morris County, more farmland is being devoted to the breeding, boarding and care of horses, and activities devoted to the support of the equine industry. The size and scale of these operations will need to be carefully reviewed so as to address environmental protection concerns, maintain compatibility with nearby uses and avoid potential right-to-farm conflicts. The Highlands Act may result in an increase in the number of preserved farms and farmland in the Highlands Preservation Area due to limitations on non-agricultural development and the rising emphasis being place on preservation in this area by state policymakers. Farms in this area are now also subject to Highlands-related regulations that require Farm Conservation Plans and Resource Management Systems Plans in some instances. Agri-tourism and direct farm marketing have become increasingly important aspects of agriculture and its success as a thriving industry. Promoting agri-tourism throughout the county will continue to be a high priority. As suburban residential development continues to encroach into agricultural areas, increased sensitivity to right-to-farm issues may be required to protect agricultural activities and the rights of farmers.

Long Valley Farmland and Open Space





Morris County has long been a center of commerce in New Jersey, attracting both high quality employers and employees. Its proximity to New York City, its well developed transportation system, highly educated workforce and overall quality of life have persuaded many members of the Fortune 500 list of companies to headquarter or locate major facilities in the county.1 Of persons employed, most remain private wage and salary workers. This class of workers made up about 79% of the workforce in 1970 and just over 83% of the workforce in 2000. This proportional increase came at the expense of government workers, who made up 15% of the workforce in 1970, but only about 11% of the workforce in 2000. While the number of self-employed persons rose significantly since 1970, the overall proportion of self-employed workers to the overall population remained constant. Estimates for 2005 place the Morris County labor force at 267,847 and total employment at 259,239.5

Labor Force
The total labor force in Morris County, i.e., persons aged 16 and over, employed and unemployed, was 157,607 in 1970. By 2000, this rose by 60%, to 252,892. In comparison, the labor force for New Jersey rose by only 39% during this same period.2 Total employment of this labor force rose by 59% between 1970 and 2000,3 compared to 38% for New Jersey.
Morris County 1970 2000 % Change 60% 59% 68% 15% 57% -9%

Labor Force Employment Characteristics
78.9% 83.3%

157,607 252,882 Total Labor Force 152,857 243,783 Total Employed Persons4 Status of Employed Persons Private Wage and Salary Workers 120,636 203,082 22,880 26,401 Government Workers 8,779 13,787 Self-Employed Workers 562 513 Unpaid Family Workers
Source: US Census 1970-2000

15.0% 10.8% 5.7% 5.7% 0.4% 0.2%
Private Wage and Salary Workers Government Workers Self-Employed Workers Unpaid Family Workers

Morris County Economic Development Corporation pamphlet: “Morris County, The Quality Advantage, 2005.” 2 Morris County Census Trends, 1970-1980, State Data Center, State of New Jersey Census Trends 1970-1980, US Census 2000 American Fact Finder Morris County / New Jersey. 3 Ibid. 4 Civilian Labor Force only. Armed Forces not included. Labor force employment may be outside Morris County.


Source: US Census, 1970 - 2000


5 Morris County Data Book, 2006, No. 51, page 52 – Source: NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development.


Occupations of Morris County Residents
The term “Occupations” as used by the US Census describes the kind of work a person does on the job. As was the case in 1970, Morris County residents are most often employed in management, professional and technical occupations. This category had the greatest growth between 1970 and 2000, rising by over 63,000. As a proportion of the total workforce, management, professional and technical occupations made up about 35% of the total occupations in 1970. By 2000, this percentage rose to nearly 48%. These gains came largely at the expense of the farming, construction and production occupations. In 1970, these professions combined occupied just over 29% of county residents. By 2000, the number of persons employed in these occupations dropped to less than 15% of the total. 2005 U.S. Census estimates indicate a continuation of this trend.
Occupations of Morris County Residents Management, Professional and Technical Service Occupations Sales and Office Occupations Farming, Fishing and Forestry Occupations Construction, Extraction and Maintenance Occupations Production, Transportation and Material Moving Occupations Total 1970 2000 2005 Estimate 52,937 116,292 117,536

13,750 41,656 693

24,641 66,699 226

25,729 65,679 106










Occupations of Morris County Residents As A Percent of Workforce
60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Management, Professional and Technical Service Occupations Sales and Office Farming, Fishing Construction, Occupations and Forestry Extraction and Occupations Maintenance Occupations 1970 2000 Production, Transportation and Material Moving Occupations 9.0% 10.1% 0.5% 0.1% 34.6% 27.3% 27.4% 14.5% 6.6% 14.1% 8.1% 47.7%

US Census, 1970, 2000, 2005 US Census American Community Survey

The second most common professions of Morris County residents are sales and office occupations. Although an additional 25,000 residents have been added to this category, the proportion of residents working in sales and office occupations remains roughly equal to the proportion found in 1970, which is about 27%. The service category takes third place, comprising about 10% of resident occupations, up from 9% of the workforce in 1970. In 1970, this third place category was occupied by construction, extraction and maintenance occupations.

Source: US Census Bureau


Morris County Census Trends, 1970-1980 State Data Center.


Industries Employing Morris County Residents
As reported here, “industry” relates to the kind of business conducted by one’s employing organization.7 Currently, educational, health and social service rank highest in terms of industries in which residents are employed. Manufacturing, the number one industry employing residents in 1970,8 moved to second place in 2000. Currently, professional, scientific management, administrative and waste management services represent the third largest employing industry category. While most residents currently work in the education, health, social services or manufacturing industry, the largest change in industrial affiliation has been in the professional, scientific, management, administrative and waste management services. This sector rose by 650% to be ranked third in 2000 when it was ranked only eleventh in 1970. Other major increases occurred in the number of persons working in the information, finance and real estate industries.
Industries in Which Morris County Residents Are Employed9 And Number of Employees
Rank 1 2 3 1970 Manufacturing (50,538) Educational, Health and Social Services (21,599) Retail Trade (14,091) 2000 Educational, Health and Social Services (43,812) Manufacturing (36,419) Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative and Waste Management Services (36,116) Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Rental Housing (25,857) Retail Trade (24,824) Information (13,227) Construction (12,799)

4 5 6 7

8 9 10 11

Other Services Except Public Administration (12,223) Finance, Insurance, Real Estate and Rental Housing (9,641) Construction (8,297) Arts, Entertainment, Accommodation and Food Services (7,987) Transportation, Warehouse and Utilities (7,002) Public Administration (5,984) Wholesale Trade (5,444) Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative and Waste Management Services (4,818) Information (3,034) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining and Hunting (1,685)

Wholesale Trade (10,365) Transportation, Warehouse and Utilities (10,268) Other Services Except Public Administration (9,686) Arts, Entertainment, Accommodation and Food Services (9,668) Public Administration (7,349) Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Mining and Hunting (591)

12 13

For example, Novartis manufactures pharmaceutical products and is, therefore, a “manufacturing” industry. It will employ persons in a wide variety of occupations, from office management to food service. 8 Industry Data from “US Bureau of the Census, Census of population :1970 General Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report PC(1)-C32, New Jersey, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1972.


9 1970 Census information concerning occupation and industry contains categories not included in later 2000 Census data. With regard to this data, census categories have evolved over the last 30 years, with many earlier categories combined, eliminated and redefined to result in the present (2000) listing. Interpolation was conducted by MCPB staff to provide a relative comparison to 2000 data for analysis of both occupation and industry.


Employment in Morris County
Change In Industries In Which Morris Residents Employed 1970 - 2000
Public Administration

23% -21% 21% 103% 650% 168% 336% 47% 76% 90% 30% 54% -65%

Other Services Arts, Entertainment, Recreation, Accommodation, Food Services

Educational, Health, Social Services

Census information reveals what occupations and industries Morris County residents are engaged in, but this does not directly relate to employment opportunities located within Morris County. As documented in the Circulation section of this document, many residents work outside of the county. New Jersey Unemployment Insurance information can be used to make a determination of the type and number of employment opportunities found within the boundaries of Morris County. Private Sector Jobs Covered by Unemployment Insurance within Morris County. Category Manufacturing Wholesale Trade Retail Trade Transportation Communications and Utilities Services Finance, Insurance & Real Estate Construction Agriculture, Mining, Other 1975 40,496 3,474 21,617 2,538 3,421 24,166 6,965 4,463 1,063 2005 26,925 19,943 32,269 9,534 9,399 116,713 28,418 12,666 354 Change -13,571 16,469 10,652 6,996 5,978 92,547 21,453 8,203 -709

Professional, Scientific, Management, Administrative, Waste Management Services Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Rental Housing


Transportation, Warehousing, Utilities

Retail Trade

Wholesale Trade


Construction Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing, Hunting, Mining

Source: US Census Bureau

Source: NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development

According to NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development, at the end of 2005, the number of private sector jobs in Morris County was 256,564.10 This represents an increase of 137% from

10 Individual employment categories total 256,221. Totals do not match due to data suppression by NJ Department of Labor.


1975, when that number stood at 108,208.11 During this period, nearly all major employment sectors posted gains in the number of employees, with the notable exceptions of the manufacturing and agriculture sectors, which reported large employment reductions. 12 The most significant increase was in the services sector, which rose by over 92,000 positions during this period. This sector includes professional and technical services, management services, administrative and educational services, health care, social assistance, arts, recreation, accommodation and food services. The next greatest category in absolute gain is the financial, insurance and real estate sector which added over 21,000 positions. Service jobs now account for close to half (46%) of all private sector jobs in the county, more than doubling since 1975, when service sector jobs accounted for only 22% of employment. In 1975, manufacturing was the dominant type of employment in the county with 37% of all jobs. In 2005 this figure was reduced to just 11%. Retail trade, which was the third largest employment type in 1975 at 20% of the total, retains third place in 2005, albeit with a smaller proportion of all jobs, at 13% of the total. As the service sector now dominates the job market in the county, it is important to note the specific subcategories of professions in this employment sector. Professional and technical service professions lead in this category, followed closely by health care and social assistance, administration and waste services. These three subcategories make up about 70% of county service sector employment opportunities.

Private Sector Jobs Covered by Unemployment Insurance as a Percent of Total
50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
Manuaf act uring Wholesale Trade 1975 2005 37.4% 10.5% 3.2% 7.8% Ret ail Trade 20.0% 12.6% Transport at ion 2.3% 3.7%

Division of "Services" Employment Sector
Professional and Technical Services 9,194 Management Services 15,283
Communicat ions & Ut ilit ies 3.2% 3.7% Services 22.3% 45.6% Finance, Insurance & Real 6.4% 11.1% Const ruct ion 4.1% 4.9% Mining, Agricult ure, 1.0% 0.1%

29,868 Administrative and Waste Services


Education Services Health Care and Social Assistance

Source: NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development
26,797 21,367
11 Private Sector jobs covered by unemployment insurance. Source: NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development., Labor and Planning Analysis, Employment and Wage Data, 4th quarter, 2005. 12 Public sector employment (federal, state and local) equaled 32,008 jobs in Morris County at the end of 2005. This represents a 10.4% increase from the 28,987 figure reported in 1979, the last date for which the complete data is available. NJ Dept. of Labor.

7,184 Arts, Entertainment, Recreation Accommodation and Food Services Other Services, Except Public Administration


Source: NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development, NJ Employment and Wages Covered by Unemployment Insurance, 4th Quarter, 2005.


Major Employers
Major employers in Morris County represent a diverse business environment, with significant representation from industries engaged in information technology, health care and pharmaceuticals, finance and other high tech and professional commercial enterprises. At present, the largest single employer in Morris County is Novartis, the international pharmaceutical / health care corporation with about 7,000 employees located in East Hanover, Parsippany and Florham Park. Other major employers include the Picatinny Arsenal in Rockaway (about 4,000 employees), Atlantic Health in Morristown (about 3,500 employees) and Cendant Corporation in Parsippany (about 3,000 employees). Other major employers include:13
Sample of Major Employers
Lucent Technologies (Hanover) St. Clares’ (Dover, Rockaway, Boonton) Kraft Foods (East Hanover) Greystone Psychiatric Hospital (Parsippany) Tiffany & Co. (Parsippany) State Farm Insurance (Parsippany) Chilton Memorial (Pequannock) Deloitte & Touche (Parsippany) Automatic Switch (Florham Park) Intel Corp. (Parsippany) Jersey Central Power and Light (Morristown) United Parcel Service (Morris, Parsippany, Mount Olive) Lincoln Park Sub-acute & Rehabilitation Center (Lincoln Park) COTY, Inc. (Mount Olive) Pfizer Corporation (Morris Plans, Parsippany)14 ADP (Parsippany, Florham Park) The County of Morris (Morristown) Honywell (Morris) BASF (Florham Park, Rockaway) Verizon (Madison) Wyeth (Madison) Price Waterhouse Coopers (Florham Park) Bear Stearns (Hanover) Colgate (Morris) Transistor Devices (Washington & Hanover) AT&T (Florham Park & Morris) Howmet (Dover) Honeywell Corp. (Morristown)
293 404

While major corporations play a significant role in providing employment opportunities in the county, most of the county’s approximately 250,000 private sector jobs can be found in small business establishments employing fewer than 5 employees. As illustrated on the chart below, of the estimated 16,814 private business establishments located in the county, about 10,000 or nearly 60% have fewer than 5 employees.15 Firms with less than 20 employees account for nearly 88% of all employers. Less than 3% of all establishments report having 100 or more employees.

Morris County Private Sector Establishments by Employment Size (2003)
33 79 17 10,025

<5 5 to 19 20 to 49 50 to 99 100 to 249 250 to 499 500 to 999 1000+

1,196 4,767

Source: NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development

13 2005 Survey of large employers, Morris County Department of Planning Development and Technology, Morris County Economic Development Corporation. 14 Johnson and Johnson Corporation recently acquired portions of this company.


NJ Private Sector Establishments by Employment Size Group and County, March 2003, NJ, Employment and Wage Data, Department of Labor and Workforce Development. Total establishments reported for Morris County: 16,814.


Job Growth by Industry
From 2002 to 2012, Morris County is projected by the NJ Department of Labor to add 47,650 jobs.16 Nearly half of all new jobs are projected to be in the professional and technical services industries and the administrative and support services industries. The top ten industries with the greatest projected employment growth are: Industry Title Projected Job Growth
9,200 7,650 3,200 2,800 2,500 2,400 2,150 2,150 1,950 1,750 Clothing and clothing accessories stores Accommodations State government hospitals Food manufacturing -150 -150 -150 -100

Job Growth by Occupation
Between 2002 and 2012, service sector occupations are projected to provide the greatest growth in number of jobs. This is followed by professional and related occupations and occupations in the management, business and financial fields.
Morris County Projected Employment Growth 2002-2012
2,650 -400 950 2,250 100 12,350 9,150

Professional and technical services Administrative and support services Ambulatory health care services Merchant wholesalers, nondurable goods Food services and drinking places Social assistance Merchant wholesalers, durable goods Nursing & residential care facilities Membership associations & organizations Educational services

The top ten industries with the greatest anticipated employment declines are listed below. Of these industries, half are manufacturing related. Industry Title Projected Job Decline
-750 -550 -450 -250 -250 -200

3,000 1,150 4,700 12,600

Computer & electronic product manufacturing Telecommunications Federal government, excluding postal service Machinery manufacturing Plastics and rubber products manufacturing Fabricated metal products manufacturing

M anagement, Business and Financial Service Occupations Sales Representatives, Wholesale and M anufacturing Farming, Fishing and Forestry Installation, M aintenance and Repair Transportation and M aterial M oving

Professional and Related Sales and Related Office and Administrative Support Construction and Extraction Production

Source: NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development Northern Regional Community Fact Book, Morris County Edition, NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Labor Market and Demographic Research, June, 2006, pg. 12.


Specific occupations anticipated to have the greatest growth between 2002 and 2012 are as follows:
Occupation17 Increase: 2002 - 2012 Number Change: 2002 2012 (%) 23.2 29.0 28.4 25.1 18.5 19.6 11.7 19.5 9.7 40.8 21.7 13.0 21.0 24.8 27.2 42.4 30.3 33.3 20.6 33.3 29.4 23.4 17.4 20.7 15.8 2006 Average Yearly Salary18 ($) 23,530 68,880 66,400 60,290 34,010 18,870 26,640 132,690 27,110 90,470 68,420 17,900 30,130 17,040 85,980 35,630 24,560 25,730 18,340 83,310 90,470 18,470 65,670 47,370 20,800

Historically, Morris County’s rate of unemployment has been a full percentage or more below that of New Jersey. In 2005, the annual average unemployment rate for Morris County was 3.2% while the New Jersey annual average unemployment rate was 4.4%. At 3.2%, Morris County has the second lowest unemployment rate in the state.19 Overall, the county rate of unemployment has remained fairly constant relative to that of the state which has varied more widely.

Janitors and Cleaners Accountants and Auditors Registered Nurses Business Operations Specialists, All other Customer Service Representatives Child Care Workers Retail Salespersons General and Operations Managers Office Clerks, General Computer Software Engineers, Applications Sales Reps, Wholesale and Manufacturing Cashiers Truck Drivers, Light or Delivery Service Food Preparation/Serving Workers Management Analysts Fitness Trainers / Aerobics Instructors Nurses Aids, Orderlies, Attendants Receptionists and Information Clerks Waiters and Waitresses Computer Systems Analysts Computer Software Engineers, Systems Software Packers and Packagers, Hand Electricians Landscaping and Grounds keeping Workers Teacher Assistants

2,150 1,750 1,350 1,250 1,050 1,000 1,000 950 900 850 800 800 800 750 750 750 700 700 700 600 550 500 500 500 500

Comparative Annual Unemployment Rates
7.2% 5.1% 4.6% 2.7% 3.7% 3.7% 3.5% 2.6% 3.2%







M orris County

New Jersey

Source: NJ State Data Center, NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development

17 New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor Market and Demographic Research, Occupational and Demographic Research. 18 New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Essex, Morris, Hunterdon, Union & Sussex County, New Jersey Occupational Wages, OES Wage Survey, July 2006.


NJ Department of Labor and Workforce Development Labor Force Estimates.


Jobs to Housing Ratio
The jobs-housing ratio is a measure of the relationship between employment opportunities to the number of housing units in the same area. When this ratio exceeds 1:1, it is interpreted to mean that an area has more jobs than housing and needs to import workers. Subsequently, when the ratio falls below 1:1, an area has fewer jobs than housing, and is expected to export workers. In 1980, the ratio of jobs to housing was 1.09:1. In 1990, it rose to 1.34:1 and in 2000 it rose to 1.43:1. In 2005 the ratio fell slightly to 1.41 to 1. employees live, including the price and type of housing available in an area. If local housing prices do not match the income levels of local jobs, employees may live where housing is more affordable.

The household income of Morris County residents has been consistently one of the highest in New Jersey. In terms of median household income, Morris County households in 1999 had an income that was 40% higher than the median for the state as a whole. This comparative income advantage has grown over the past few decades. In 1969, Morris County median household income was 32% higher than that for New Jersey. In 1979, it was about 35% higher than the state and in 1989 it was about 38% higher than the state. The respective rates of growth during these years also illustrate this long term income advantage.
Median Household Income : Morris County and New Jersey
Median Household Incom e $80,000 $60,000 $40,000 $20,000 $0 1969 Morris County New Jersey $12,758 $9,675 1979 $26,626 $19,800 Morris County 1989 $56,273 $40,927 New Jersey 1999 $77,340 $55,146

Employment and Housing 1980 - 2005
249,538 208,442 256,564

149,902 155,748 174,379







Source: US Census, NJ Department of Labor, 4th Quarter Private Sector Employment.

In concept, the closer the ratio is to 1:1, the greater the relationship between residents and available jobs. Theoretically, a balanced jobs to housing ratio will reduce the need to import workers from outside the county, decrease regional traffic, and reduce journey to work times. Although this ratio is often used to explain these conditions, other factors may be more significant in determining where

Source: US Census Bureau


Median Household Income Rate of Growth Morris County New Jersey 1969-1979 108.7% 104.7% 1979-1989 111.3% 106.7% 1989-1999 37.4% 34.7%

disparity in overall income.20 Between 1999 and 2005, median income (estimated) for Morris County households rose to $84,010. For New Jersey households, it rose to $61,672. This represents an 8.6% rise for the county, but an 11.8% rise for the state, marking a reversal in previous income growth trends. Even so, Morris County’s current median household income is over 36% higher than that of New Jersey, and is the third highest in the state.21

21 .0







Income ranges also reflect Morris County’s relative affluence compared to New Jersey. While the most frequent income range for households in the county and in New Jersey is between $50,000 and $99,999, the proportion of households with an income greater than $150,000 is nearly twice that of the proportion of New Jersey as a whole. Conversely, the proportion of households in Morris County earning less than $25,000 per year is roughly half that of New Jersey.

Estimated Household Income 2005
32 .5 % 31 .7 % % % .8 20 .7 %



















Le s s tha n $ 25,000

$ 25,000 to $ 49,999

$ 50,000 to $ 99,999

$ 100,000 to $ 149,999

$ 150,000 to $ 199,999

$ 200,000 o r m o re






.9 %


.8 %

M orris County
8. 1% 4. 3% 9. 0% 3% 4.

New Jersey


Source: US Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey

Less than $25,000

$25,000 to $50,000 to $100,000 to $150,000 to $200,000 or $49,999 $99,999 $149,999 $199,999 more M orris County New Jersey

It is not known whether these changes in relative income and growth rates are due to improving income conditions in other parts of the state, a reduction in income conditions in the county, or some combination of the two. Notwithstanding income differences between individual municipalities, Morris County remains one of the
U.S. Census 2005 American Community Survey. Note: ACS data estimates are not directly comparable to decennial census data. ACS data are limited to the household population and exclude the population living in institutions, college dormitories, and other group quarters. 21 Hunterdon, $93,342, Somerset $88,532. US Census 2005 American Community Survey.

Source: US Census Bureau

Recent data reveals a continuation of Morris County’s relatively high income as compared to the state; albeit, with a small reduction in the




Household Income 1999







wealthiest in New Jersey and is ranked in the top ten wealthiest counties in the United States.22

Trends / Issues
Although management, business, financial and professional occupations are projected to increase through the year 2012, service occupations are projected to make up the largest share of overall employment growth. These projections are consistent with the recent state-wide trend in which higher paying professional service and manufacturing jobs are being lost, and replaced with lower paying service sector jobs.24 Continued growth in the generally lower paying service sector as a major part of the local economy will continue to have an impact on demand for lower cost housing in the region. Given the relatively high cost of housing in Morris County, there will be increased pressure on the road network as daily commuter in-migration increases to accommodate these workers. An increase in lower paying jobs may also exacerbate overcrowding and stacking in dwellings within the county. Large scale manufacturing will likely continue to decline as industry seeks the lower labor costs, lower cost labor force housing and lower tax environments that exist outside of New Jersey. Anticipated losses in higher paying telecommunications and manufacturing jobs and their replacement with lower paying service sector positions may place additional strains on the income to housing cost disparity.

The county’s poverty rate is substantially below the overall state poverty rate of 6.8% and is at one of its lowest points for the last 25 years. The abundance of high income households in Morris County can; however, sometimes obscure the fact that there remain households living below poverty levels in the county. At present, approximately 1.7% of the 125,090 family households in the county have incomes that fall below U.S. poverty standards. 23

Percent of Family Households with Income Below Poverty Levels
6.3% 7.6% 5.6% 6.8%

1.8% 2.7% 1979 1989
M orris County

2.4% 1999
New Jersey

1.7% 2005

Source: US Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey US Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey. The US Census defines poverty levels in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget Directive 14, which uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to detect who is “below the poverty level.” If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then that family, and every individual in it, is considered below the poverty level. (US Census website – FAQ)
23 22


Between 2000 and 2005, NJ lost 117,600 high-paying service and manufacturing jobs, and replaced them with 113,200 low-paying service jobs. Rutgers Regional Report, Issue Paper #25, July 2006.


Large pharmaceutical corporations continue to provide substantial support for professional, technical and related manufacturing employment in Morris County and within north/central New Jersey. However, expansions in this industry over the last decade have been taking place largely outside of the state. In 1990, New Jersey hosted slightly over 20% of all pharmaceutically related jobs in the United States. By 2005, this was reduced to 13.7%.25 Between 1990 and 2005, the state lost 5.5% of its pharmaceutical jobs, where as employment in this industry grew nationally by 39.2% during this same period.26 Although this industry will continue to play a central role in the local economy for the foreseeable future, continued corporate restructuring, consolidation and relocation outside the county may be expected. Midway though 2006, the county’s overall office vacancy rate was about 23.2%.27 Large scale “Class A” and “Class B” office vacancy rates in the county have hovered at or above 20% for several years. These rates have been influenced by continued reductions and restructuring in the manufacturing, telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries. These high vacancy rates have also been disproportionably influenced by a few very large properties, the former BASF office complex in Mount Olive being one example. Substantial new large-scale office construction will likely be inhibited by existing unused inventories and a lack of available land for new construction. Smaller “Class C” office space, which is more appropriate for smaller walk-in offices and service businesses, is experiencing a much lower vacancy rate of about 13%. This lower rate corresponds to the large number of small establishments that make up the bulk of businesses in the county. As the economy of the region evolves to become less dependent on large scale manufacturing, telecommunications and pharmaceutical industries, there will be a need for an increasingly diversified economic base that can more readily adapt to changing economic trends. Retention of existing employers and the attraction of new companies will require the county to maximize its competitive advantages. These advantages include proximity to Manhattan and northeastern New Jersey business centers, proximity to major marine ports and airports, an established transportation network, a highly educated and skilled workforce, high quality schools, high income level, parks, cultural amenities and an attractive living environment. The same advantages that make the county attractive as a place of business also contribute to the high cost of housing. High housing costs can have a negative impact on corporate relocation decisions if businesses feel it will hurt their ability to attract and retain essential employees. Morris County’s transportation network of major roadways, rail and bus services have been instrumental in promoting regional economic development and supporting the county’s employment base. The ability to move raw materials, finished goods and, most importantly, talented employees, to and from places of work and production is a critical factor for maintenance of the local economy. As road building becomes ever more difficult and existing roadway capacities

25 New Jersey’s New Economy Growth Challenges, James W. Hughes, Joseph J. Seneca, Rutgers Regional Report, Issue Paper Number 25, July 2006, pg. 4. 26 Ibid. page 12. 27 Morris County Economic Development Corporation. All office classes, Cushman & Wakefield of New Jersey, Inc. Research Services, NJ Office Market Statistical Summary, 2nd Quarter 2006 Office Market Report.


are strained, expanded use of bus and rail mass transit opportunities for commuting and the use of rail for the movement of freight will become increasingly important. A lack of substantial vacant land will make the redevelopment of existing commercial sites increasingly important for accommodating new economic development in Morris County. Redevelopment of existing commercial and industrial sites will also become increasingly important as new environmental regulations further limit the development potential of remaining vacant lands. Corporate downsizing and business relocation may eventually result in the conversion of some large scale single tenant industrial and office complexes into multi-tenant sites and structures capable of accommodating the many smaller businesses that provide the majority of county employment. The reuse of sites and reconfiguration of former corporate offices/industrial sites will likely be significant activities in the future. For example: o The former BASF site in Mount Olive has recently been purchased and plans are underway to turn the former single tenant complex into a multi-tenant site.28 Plans have been approved for the Picatinny Arsenal to create a 1.1 million square foot high-tech park where public tenants will be able to lease space with an estimated build-out of 100,000 square feet per year over ten years.29 o Plans are being considered for redevelopment of the Exxon-Mobil site in Florham Park for 500 housing units, 600,000 square feet of office space, a hotel and the headquarters and practice facility for the New York Jets football team.


Morris County Daily Record “BASF finds buyer for Mt. Olive complex,” 6/20/06. Industrial County Overview, Morris County Northern New Jersey, Third Quarter 2005, Cushman & Wakefield.




Historic Preservation Planning
In 1976, the Morris County Planning Board adopted the first Historic Preservation Plan Element to the Morris County Master Plan. This document identified the need for and value of historic preservation, while also identifying preservation tools, funding sources, government support programs, private organizations and recommendations for municipal, county, state and federal historic preservation. Lastly, it identified a preliminary inventory of 268 historic sites based on information from the National Register of Historic Places, the Historic American Buildings Survey and the New Jersey Register of Historic Places. municipality in Morris County. The survey documented sites of known or potential historic significance through review of specific data, field observation, photographs, maps and National Register listings covering sites dating from 1700 to 1940. The survey contained 2,850 sites of known and potential historic significance.1 The survey is currently being updated by staff of the Morris County Preservation Trust. This update incorporates the use of county GIS and will take a number of years to complete due to the level of detail and documentation being recorded. When finished, it will form the basis for an update of the Historic Preservation Element of the Morris County Master Plan.

Morris County Heritage Commission
In 1970, the Board of Chosen Freeholders created the Morris County Heritage Commission. This nine-member commission acts as an advisory body to the Morris County Freeholders, promotes awareness of Morris County’s heritage and provides advice and support to local historic preservation groups in Morris County. The Heritage Commission has taken a leading role in the preservation of Morris County’s historic records. In 1978, the commission created an archival program to insure the accessibility of Morris County historic documents and helped create the Morris County Archives as the county’s official document repository. The commission employees a County Archivist to maintain various records and assist researchers with investigations concerning such items as building contracts, records of the Surrogate, roadway records, court records, and Morris County Freeholder minutes, among others. In 1987, the Morris County Heritage Commission sponsored a comprehensive and county specific historic sites survey for each

Glen Alpin, Harding Township

In both the 1976 and 1987 documents, the number of sites identified did not necessarily reflect the actual number of separate buildings or structures, since a district or group listed as one site may contain a number of individual buildings or structures.


Morris County Historic Preservation Trust Fund
In November 2002, Morris County voters approved a referendum to use a portion of the Open Space and Farmland Preservation Trust program monies to fund historic preservation projects. The Morris County Historic Preservation Trust Fund Review Board considers grants for the acquisition, stabilization, rehabilitation, restoration or preservation of historic resources by municipalities, qualified non-profits and the county. The Board’s membership consists of two at-large representatives, four municipal representatives, one member of the Morris County Heritage Commission, three appointees with professional expertise in historic preservation, one person each from the disciplines of preservation architecture, architectural history and restoration, and one appointee with a background as an archeologist, historic landscape specialist, historic site manager or curator or engineer with historic preservation expertise. Staff is provided by the Preservation Trust Division. All funded activities must be in conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. To be eligible for the program, historic resources must be listed, or certified as eligible for listing on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places. Based on the recommendations of the Historic Preservation Trust Fund Review Board, the Morris County Freeholders have provided funding to municipalities, nonprofit groups and the Morris County Park Commission through the annual program to help preserve historic resources throughout the county. These funds have been made available for “construction” and “non-construction” purposes. “Construction” grants provide funding for restoration, rehabilitation and protection of historic resources. “Non-construction” grants provide funding for acquisition, architectural assessments, reports, and other plans related to the implementation of historic preservation projects. Between 2003 and 2006, $4.86 million was awarded through 78 grants to 39 historic sites located in 24 municipalities. A total of 51 “construction” grants were awarded with a median grant amount of $80,000. A total of 27 “non-construction grants” were awarded with a median grant amount of $16,320.2 Yearly Morris County Historic Preservation Trust Fund Awards Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 Number of Projects 18 16 21 23 Total Funding3 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $1,600,000

Ford-Faesch House, Rockaway Township

A wide variety of historic sites and structures are funded under this program. Historic homes and farmhouses/farmsteads are most prevalent with other grants going to preserve or maintain such
2 3

Morris Preservation Trust, July 2006 Figures rounded.


entities as historic museums, one-room school houses, historic religious buildings, grist mills, and even train stations. Five Park Commission properties, containing many historic structures, are listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. The Commission also maintains a sixth site, the Morris Canal, on behalf of Wharton Borough. Nathan Cooper Grist Mill (Cooper Mill) – Chester Township Merchiston Farm (Bamboo Brook) – Chester Township Whippany Farm (Frelinghuysen Arboretum) – Morris and Hanover Townships General Revere House (Fosterfields Living Historical Farm) – Morris Township Speedwell Village (Historic Speedwell) – Morristown Morris Canal (Hugh Force Park) owned by Wharton Borough.

County Owned Historic Sites and Structures
Historic structures and sites abound throughout Morris County, and the county government is caretaker of many of these sites. Perhaps the most widely recognized of these is the historic Morris County Courthouse in Morristown. The Courthouse, constructed in 1827, is listed on the National and New Jersey Registers of Historic Places and continues to be a functioning and vital part of county government.

Morris County Courthouse, Morristown

Most county-owned historic sites and structures are contained within the properties of the Morris County Park Commission. County parks contain various historic structures, sites, landscapes and areas of archeological importance. Additions to the park system often include historically significant resources.

Telegraph Factory - Speedwell Village, Morristown


Historic preservation is an essential part of the Park Commission mission. The Division of Historic Sites within the Park Commission directly manages, staffs and operates the museums of Speedwell Village, the Cooper Mill and the Fosterfields Living Historical Farm, providing interactive education programs. The Division coordinates various historic programs and activities and is responsible for the care, maintenance and perseveration of all historic sites and structures throughout the park system. The Morris County Park Commission continues to examine the eligibility of county-owned sites and structures for inclusion on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. For example, Willowwood Arboretum in Chester Township is currently being considered for historic site registration.

Local Historic Preservation Plan Elements
Additional support of local historic commission and preservation group activities is often provided by local municipalities in the development of Historic Preservation Plan Elements in the local master plan. The Municipal Land Use Law permits the development of these master plan elements with the purpose of indicating the location and significance of historic sites and districts, identifying the standards that may be used to assess worthiness for historic site or district identification and to analyze the impact of other master plan elements on the preservation of historic sites and districts. At last count, at least 20 municipalities had Historic Preservation Plan Elements as part of their master plan.6

Local Historic Commissions, Committees and Historic Preservation Groups
At present, 22 municipal Historic Commissions and/or Landmarks Advisory Committees provide advice to local Planning Boards and Boards of Adjustment regarding applications for development that may affect historic sites or historic districts. 4 These Commissions and Committees are also involved in the identification of these sites and the development of plans and regulations associated with their protection. In addition, there are about 45 other private associations, foundations and societies devoted to local historic preservation located throughout the county.5 Many of these organizations have been recipients of Morris County Historic Preservation Trust funding.
First Presbyterian Church of Hanover, East Hanover Township

4 5

Morris County Preservation Trust Survey as of 1/23/2006. Morris County Heritage Society Directory as of 8/2/2005.


Morris County Preservation Trust Survey as of 1/23/06.


Municipal Funding for Historic Preservation
Many municipalities in Morris County also fund historic preservation activities through their municipal open space tax. Of the 29 municipalities in Morris County that have a dedicated open space tax, 13 allow the use of the tax for historic preservation purposes.7

The Willows at Fosterfields, Morris Township

Cooper Mill, Black River County Park Chester Township

Trends / Issues
As redevelopment within centers and other developed areas of the county occurs, greater public awareness and education of historic resources and the benefits of preservation will be required to ensure protection of these resources. Greater public awareness is also needed to promote the creation of compatible redevelopment plans in areas with historic and/or architecturally significant structures.

Continued funding support for historic site acquisition, rehabilitation and maintenance will be needed. Although county support through the Preservation Trust is anticipated to continue, increased local and nonprofit support will be needed to accomplish long term preservation goals. The continued amendment of additional local open space trust funds to allow the use of funding for historic preservation purposes will help to address this issue. The use of digital technology by Morris County in updating its historic sites survey will lead to increased and “realtime” data sharing with municipalities.


Morris County Preservation Trust, 2005.



Bridget Smith House, Mine Hill Township

With growing demands on local discretionary funding, the identification of economically viable uses for historic structures will become more important. The fostering of historic tourism and the sensitive adaptive reuse of historic structures will become increasingly necessary to support and maintain these resources. County and local historic preservation funding efforts can help support this adaptive reuse and redevelopment, promoting future economic growth while respecting the past.

Acorn Hall, Morristown

Ralston Cider Mill, Mendham Township



Public Elementary and Secondary Education
While the total population has risen over the last 30 years, public school enrollment has declined. From 1976-77 to 2004-05, public elementary, middle and high school enrollment dropped by 10,342 students or 12%. This decline reflects the overall drop in average household size experienced in Morris County and throughout New Jersey during these years. In 1976, elementary, middle and secondary public school enrollment was 89,616 students. At that time, there were 162 public elementary, middle or secondary schools in Morris County.1 As of the 2004-2005 school year, total enrollment for public elementary, middle and secondary schools was 79,275 students, including special education students.2 The number of public school facilities has also declined, with 153 public elementary, middle and secondary schools currently located in Morris County according to the New Jersey Department of Education.3 District mergers, school closings, school expansions and regionalization have combined to reduce the number of individual school sites. This number is constantly changing as schools are closed, refurbished, expanded and re-opened, sold or replaced to meet changing requirements. School facility needs have also varied with the changing student age populations in the county, which, like the rest of the state, has gone through a baby boom, baby bust and baby boom “echo” cycle. This demographic phenomenon is demonstrated through enrollment figures. Public school enrollment in Morris County peaked in 1972, with a total enrollment in elementary, middle and secondary school of 94,416 students.4 From that time, enrollment dropped to a low of about 59,000 students in 1990. Since 1990, public school enrollments have been generally increasing, although still well below their previous levels.

Public Elementary, Middle, High School Enrollment
100,000 90,000

75 7 9 ,2 67 7 6 ,6 05 7 2 ,3 88 6 9 ,6 21 6 4 ,2 09 6 2 ,5 70 5 9 ,8 51 5 9 ,0 97 6 0 ,3 64 6 4 ,1 11 6 7 ,0 70 7 2 ,0 19 7 7 ,3 72 8 4 ,0 16 8 9 ,6 21 9 2 ,6 16 9 4 ,4
1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004

80,000 N u m b e r o f S tu d e n ts

70,000 60,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0

Source: NJ Department of Education- Morris County Office, NJDOE , Compiled by the Morris County Department of Planning Development and Technology
1 Morris County Public School Directory, 1976/77, and New Jersey Educational Management Information System Databases, NJDOE Division of Administration and Finance, March 1976. 2 NJ Department of Education, NJ School Report Card, NJ Department of Education 3 Ibid.

State Department of Education, Morris County Office, Morris County Superintendent of Schools, 5/2/06.


Non-Public Elementary and Secondary Education
“Non-public” schools include pre-schools, Montessori schools, religiously affiliated elementary, middle and secondary schools and schools dedicated to specialized education programs for children with physical or learning disabilities. These schools are found throughout the county, with the highest concentration located in the Morristown area.5 were 62 non-public schools with a total enrollment of 9,713 students, accounting for 14% of the total elementary, middle and secondary school enrollment in the county.7 As of the 2004-05 school year, the New Jersey Department of Education (NJDOE) identified 84 nonpublic schools located in Morris County, with a total enrollment of 11,273 students, representing about 11% of total elementary, middle and secondary school enrollment in Morris County.8 These changes indicate that non-public schools have also been subject to the overall baby boom, baby bust, baby boom echo cycle impacting the public school system.

Morris County Public and Non-Public School Enrollment
(Elementary, Middle and S econdary S chool)

Charter Schools
There is one charter school located in Morris County; the Unity Charter School located in Morristown, serving Kindergarten through grade 8 with an approximate enrollment of 100 students.9 A charter school is a specialized public school open to all students on a spaceavailable basis. These schools operate independently of the district board of education under a charter granted by the New Jersey Department of Education. Although autonomous from the local school district, their funding comes from state and local taxpayers through the district board of education, which is also responsible for providing transportation of charter students residing in the district. Charter schools operate under more flexible regulations than traditional public schools and are typically formed along a particular educational orientation or vision. For example, the Unity Charter School stresses “ecological and social sustainability” in its education program.10
7 NJ Department of Education, Division of Administration, 1992. Non-public Enrollment Report. 8 NJ Department of Education, Nonpublic School Services, Office of Program Support Services, Division of Student Services, 2004-2005 Non-public Enrollment Report. 9 NJDOE website, April 2007. 10 Ibid., April 2007.





Source: NJ Department of Education, compiled by the Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology

Total enrollment in non-public schools and the number of non-public schools have risen, although at an inconstant rate. In 1984, there were 70 non-public schools registered in Morris County.6 The earliest period for which both non-public enrollment and school site figures are available is the 1992-1993 school year. At that time there
Ibid. NJ Department of Education, Division of Administration – Information Resources. Management, NJ Non-public School District and School Codes, 1984-1985, for the County of Morris, July 1984. Enrollment figures not available.
6 5


Vocational – Technical Education
Vocational-Technical schools or “Vo-Techs” provide public secondary school education with emphasis on career preparation, offering students an alternative to traditional comprehensive high school. They also offer adults a variety of adult-oriented education and career programs. Graduates from vocational-technical schools receive a state endorsed high school diploma and a certificate of competency in their career area. In New Jersey, vocational schools are organized on a county-wide basis. Preparing both secondary school students and adults to enter the labor market through a combination of academic, technological and specialty training, the Morris County School of Technology (MCST) in Denville Township provides vocational education for residents of Morris County. Founded in 1969 and supported by the County of Morris, the school offers many programs that blend both academic and technical knowledge. Within MCST, secondary school students attend distinct schools or academies concerning their technical area of study: The Academy of Automotive Sciences The Academy of Construction Arts The Academy for Math, Science and Engineering The Academy for Law and Public Safety The Academy for Networking Information Technology & Communications The Academy for Visual Performing Arts The Academy for Health Care Sciences The Academy for Finance and International Business The School of Culinary Arts The School of Cosmetology For the 2004-2005 school year, enrollment consisted of 218 full-time and 468 part time secondary school students for a total of 686 students. In 2005, 3,503 adults also took part in classes offered by the school. 11 The school recently began teaching core curriculum studies (e.g. English, Mathematics), in addition to vocational-technical studies. Most secondary school students still spend part of their day at their local school districts for core curriculum studies before moving to MCST. Enrollment has remained fairly steady over the past ten years, with 699 part-time high school students participating during the 1995-1996 school year. 12 The Morris County School of Technology also hosts the Educational Technology Training Center (ETTC). This county-based resource center is dedicated to providing strategies that integrate technology and education through training programs that assist teachers in implementing New Jersey Core Curriculum Content Standards. This program provides teachers with a comprehensive education in all aspects of educational technology. 13 The Morris County School of Technology is undergoing a $20 million expansion and renovation program at its Denville campus. The expansion includes a new 41,000 square foot building with 16 academic classrooms, two (2) performing arts rooms, a media center and gymnasium. Renovations to existing structures include the construction of new science rooms, a fitness center, locker rooms, dining facilities, and cosmetology labs.14


Enrollment information from the MCVTS Superintendent’s office. Enrollment information from the MCVTS Superintendent’s office. Enrollment information prior to 1995/96 unavailable. 13 NJDOE website - 14 Morris County School of Technology Business Administrator, 5/06.


Higher Education
Morris County is home to several prestigious colleges and universities offering a wide variety of degree programs. These schools present numerous educational opportunities and their graduates help provide the highly educated workforce that fuels the County’s high tech and corporate employment base. Major colleges and universities include:
County College of Morris, Randolph Township

Fairleigh Dickinson University. Located in Madison, FDU offers over 100 undergraduate, graduate and certificate programs. Identified as the largest private university in New Jersey, Fairleigh Dickenson University is an independent, nonsectarian, coeducational, multi-campus institution with major campuses; the College of Florham in Madison and the Metropolitan Campus, located in Teaneck, New Jersey. The university was founded in 1942, receiving its four-year status in 1948 and approval as a university in 1956. FDU offers degrees from associate to PhD, in disciplines and careers from the traditional liberal arts and sciences to hotel and restaurant management, among many others. Drew University. Also located in Madison, Drew University is a small liberal arts university, comprised of a college, graduate school, and theological school. Started as a Methodist seminary in 1867, Drew is an independent university that stresses liberal arts and the use of technology in support of teaching and learning. Its undergraduate college is recognized as one of the top liberal arts colleges in the nation, and ranks in the top third of the nation's top liberal arts colleges.

The College of Saint Elizabeth. Located in Morristown, the College of Saint Elizabeth began as a women’s college, founded in 1899 by the Sisters of Charity and incorporated in 1900. It is the oldest college for women in New Jersey and one of the first Catholic colleges in the United States to award degrees to women. The college became a coeducational institution in 1976 and has offered Master’s degrees since 1994. The County College of Morris. The County College of Morris is located on over 200 acres in Randolph Township. It was established in 1965 and first began educating students in 1968. In 1992, a satellite campus was opened at the Headquarters Plaza complex in downtown Morristown and this facility has been expanded several times to meet popular demand. This two-year public community college offers 76 different degree and certificate programs and has the highest graduation rate among the 19 community colleges in New Jersey.15


As of 2004-05 school year.


College Enrollment Totals
1974-1975 2004-2005
06 8 ,6 8,4 23

Both college degrees and religious instruction are provided by the Assumption College for Sisters, located in Mendham and at the Rabbinical College of America, located in Morristown. Numerous private trade and business schools, computer learning centers, schools for health care and culinary institutes and other schools offering specialized skills training are located throughout the Morris County. For example, the Chubb Institute, located in Parsippany, is perhaps one of the most well known technical schools, offering various programs with a focus on computer technology and health care. Morris County continues to attract educational facilities. New York-based Touro College is proposing to locate a new medical school; the “Touro University College of Medicine,” in Florham Park. The proposed college, to be housed in an existing 75,000 square foot building, has received approval from the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners and is currently seeking approval by the American Medical Association’s Liaison Committee on Medical Education.

4 ,5

74 3 ,7 15


2 ,6


2 ,0

Fairleigh Dickinson


St. Elizabeth



1 ,9



Source: Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology. (FDU Madison campus only) Figures provided by respective institutions.

Other Specialized Education
In addition to traditional public and private educational facilities, the county also hosts many other educational facilities, public and private, that provide a wide variety of degrees, programs, certificates and specific skills-based curriculums. For example: The Morris County Fire Fighters and Police Training Academy, located in Parsippany is a county sponsored multifaceted training facility providing professional training for fire, law enforcement, corrections and first aid squad personnel, volunteer and salaried.


Cultural Contributions
In addition to providing the education and skills needed by tomorrows’ workforce, the county’s colleges and universities support various cultural opportunities. World class libraries and lecture series are made available to the public, in addition to performances and exhibitions provided by theater, music and other arts programs. These programs are augmented by a full range of athletic programs and inter-collegiate sporting events. In effect, the presence of these institutions raises the overall prestige of Morris County and plays a large part in supporting both educational needs and local quality of life. the nation, and the state's only professional theatre company dedicated to Shakespeare's works and other classics. The county’s cultural institutions help support the high quality of life enjoyed by residents, and also help to fuel the county’s economic engine. By attracting visitors to downtown areas, these artistic enterprises are particularly supportive of local retail, services and restaurants. Correspondingly, the many cultural venues and opportunities help shape the foundation upon which a thriving tourism economy is based. As evidence of this tourism economy, in 2002, the private, non-profit Morris County Visitor Center16 served nearly 8,000 visitors and local residents and reached nearly 120,000 persons through their website. Inquires often relate to the many cultural activities available in Morris County. These attractions, in combination with the county’s historical, educational and recreation opportunities, make Morris County a prime tourism destination.

Cultural Activities
Over the years, Morris County has evolved into a focal point for diverse cultural and artistic organizations and activities. Visitors are attracted to the county to sample the wide range of cultural activities supported by the multitude of literary, arts and educational organizations located here. This attraction is further enhanced by the county’s rich heritage and historic tourism opportunities. Dance companies, literary societies, symphonies, bands, and musical organizations, museums, theaters and venues for the visual arts and arts-related schools and support organizations are located in and/or operating throughout the county. Well known attractions include the Community Theater in Morristown. A former movie theater built in 1937, the Community Theater underwent a major transformation in the mid 1990’s, creating a destination for nationally and internationally known theater, dance and popular entertainment. Another well known attraction is the famous Shakespeare Theater of New Jersey located at Drew University in Madison. Located in Morris County since 1972, it is recognized as one of the leading Shakespeare theatres in

Complementing the many cultural organizations and venues devoted exclusively to art and music, most houses of worship, elementary

Morris County is a sponsor of the Morris County Visitor Center.


and high schools and most colleges engage in presentations of music, theatre and/or arts within their regular programs of activity. They also provide performance space and/or exhibit space for outside artists, performers and artistic entities. Morris County’s historic sites and structures add to local cultural diversity and many are open to the public on a regular basis or at special times throughout the year. These sites often double as museums and may provide a venue for exhibits highlighting community history. Some are owned and maintained by the County Park Commission as part of the County Park System and others are operated by local Historic Commissions or Historical Societies.

Arts Council of the Morris Area (ACMA)
One of the more comprehensive support groups for the arts in Morris County is the Arts Council of the Morris Area (ACMA). Founded in 1973, the ACMA is a not-for-profit service organization dedicated to fostering the artistic and cultural vitality of the region. The mission of the organization is to help artists, arts organizations and community groups and to promote and sustain the arts. The ACMA also administers several grants programs that support area artists and artistic organizations. The ACMA maintains a directory of arts and cultural organizations found or operating in Morris County. The directory focuses on public, not-for-profit and/or organizations that receive public funding support for the arts. Although this directory is too long to be included in this report, information on the ACMA and local arts and cultural organizations can be obtained at It should be noted that the number arts and cultural organizations is constantly expanding and there are additional organizations that provide historic and cultural opportunities that are not members of the ACMA. Additional information on the wide variety of cultural and historic resources found in Morris County can be obtained by contacting: Morris County Park Commission Morris County Preservation Trust Morris County Heritage Commission Morris County Visitors Center

Museum of Early Trades and Crafts, Madison


In addition to Morris County-based organizations, a small sample of regional performing arts organizations that regularly perform in Morris County include: NJ Ballet Company - Livingston Colonial Symphony - Basking Ridge New Philharmonic of NJ – Cedar Knolls Philharmonic Orchestra of NJ- Warren Actors Exchange/Experience Theater – Pompton Plains Pied Piper Theater Group – Basking Ridge New Jersey Center of Visual Arts- Summit New Jersey Symphony Orchestra – Newark

John Hill School, Town of Boonton

Trends / Issues
As the amount of developable land in the county continues to decrease, fluctuations in the number of school age children caused by new development may stabilize. Where rises in this population do occur due to such factors as high density redevelopment or changes in birth rates, opportunities for the creation of entirely new facilities will be limited. State educational program and facility requirements may also necessitate school facility expansions, even if school populations remain constant.

The County College of Morris and the Morris County School of Technology are both supported through funding supplied in the annual County budget. Complementing the other colleges, universities and schools in the county, these county-sponsored schools play an important role in maintaining the quality of life in Morris County. Both also educate and train Morris County’s future workforce. Continued accessibly to this highly skilled and educated workforce is a key factor to retaining the county’s major employers.

Community Theater, Morristown


Cultural facilities continue to play an important role in maintaining the overall quality of life in Morris County. Concurrently, these activities generate economic benefits in the areas in which they are located, i.e., typically the county’s downtown areas. By bringing people to downtown locations, cultural facilities help support local shopping and dining, which sustains and generates new business opportunities and employment in these areas. A thriving tourism economy relies on the continued protection and promotion of cultural and educational facilities, as well as historic resources and recreational opportunities.



United States Census Bureau, US Census of Population and Housing, 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000, United States Census Bureau, 2005 American Community Survey, Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Cross Acceptance Report – Final, 2005. New Jersey Builders Association U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Meck, Stuart, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and the Management of Change, American Planning Association, 2002. Meck, Stuart, et. al. Regional Approaches to Affordable Housing, PAS 513/514, American Planning Association 2003. Morris County Division of Community Development, County of Morris Consolidated Plan 2005-2009, May 2005. Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Master Plan – Future Land Use Element, 1975. Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Historic Preservation Element, 1976. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., Morris County Wastewater Management Element, 1985. Elson, T. Killam, Inc. Morris County Master Plan, Water Supply Element, 1985. Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Master Plan Open Space Element, 1972. Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Open Space Element, 1988. Goodkind & O’Dea, Inc., Morris County Stormwater Management Technical Guide, 1989. Morris County Department of Planning and Development, Division of Transportation Management, Morris County Circulation Element, 1992. Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. with the Morris County Planning Board and Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority, Morris County Water Supply Element, 1994. Morris County Department of Planning and Development, Division of Transportation Management, Morris County Land Use and Rail Database, 1996. Morris County Department of Planning and Development, Division of Transportation Management, in cooperation with the Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Bicycle & Pedestrian Element, 1998. Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Division of Transportation, Morris County Transit Guide, 2000.


Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Division of Transportation Management, Inter-modal Freight Network and Land Use Report, 1999. Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Natural Resource Management Guide, 2000. Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Comprehensive Farmland Preservation Element, 2003. Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Division of Transportation, Morris County Circulation Plan Update (Draft) July, 2005. Morris County Planning Board, Morris County Department of Planning and Development, Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Morris County Planning Morris County Data Book(s) 1988 – 2006. Morris County Planning Board, Development Review Activity Reports – Annual. Morris County Department of Transportation Management, Morris County Master Plan – Transportation Update 1985. Morris County Planning Board and Morris County Park Commission, Morris County Master Plan – Bikeway Element, 1977. New Jersey Department of Transportation, Bureau of Transportation Data and Development New Jersey Road Mileage by Jurisdiction, Year Ending 2004. Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Division of Transportation 2005 Transit Guide. Morris County Department of Planning and Development, Division of Transportation Management, Morris County Rail Access Improvement Study, June 2000. Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Division of Transportation. Morris County Bicycle and Pedestrian User Guide, 2002, Reprinted 2004. Malone, Linda L., Morris County Census Trends 1970 – 1980 State Data Center, Department of Labor, Division of Planning and Research, Office of Demographic and Economic Analysis, May, 1986. Crowley, Charles J., State of New Jersey Census Trends 1970 – 1980, State Data Center, Department of Labor, Division of Planning and Research, Office of Demographic and Economic Analysis, July, 1984. Morris County Department of Planning and Development, Morris County Planning Board, Morris County 1990 Census Profiles, 1993. New Jersey State Data Center, New Jersey Department of Labor, Census 2000, New Jersey Population Trends 1790 – 2000. Morris County Park Commission, Summary of Acreage Report – 2005, Recreation and Open Space Inventory. Morris County Preservation Trust,


Morris County Heritage Commission, New Jersey Department of Education, County Information and Services, Morris County Superintendent of Schools, Morris County Public School Directory, 1976 / 1977. New Jersey Department of Education, Division of Administration and Finance, New Jersey Educational Management Information System Database, March, 1976. New Jersey Department of Education, New Jersey School Report Card 2004 – 2005 New Jersey Department of Education, Division of Administration, Information Resources Management, New Jersey Non-public School District and School Codes 19841985 for the County of Morris, July 1984. Arts Council of the Morris Area Arts Directory, 2004-2005, Arts Council of the Morris Area, 2006, U.S. Bureau of the Census - Census of Population: 1970, General Social and Economic Characteristics, Final Report, PC(1)-32, New Jersey, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1972. Morris County Economic Development Corporation, Morris County, The Quality Advantage, 2005. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor and Planning Analysis, New Jersey Employment and Wages Covered by Unemployment Data – Fourth Quarter, 2005. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor and Planning Analysis, Industry & Occupational Employment Projections 2002 – 2012, Morris County, New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Labor Planning & Analysis, Total Labor Force, Employed, Unemployed and Unemployment Rate, Labor Force Estimates, Morris County Economic Development Corporation, Fortune 500 Companies – 2005 New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Division of Labor Market and Demographic Research, Northern Regional Community Fact Book – Morris County Edition, June 2006. Hughes, J. and Seneca, J., New Jersey’s New Economy Growth Challenges, Rutgers Regional Report, Issue Paper Number 25, July 2006. Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act, P.L. 2004, c.120. State Planning Act, N.J.S.A. 52:18A-196, et. seq.


New Jersey Office of Smart Growth, New Jersey Department of Community Affairs, New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan – 2001. New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, Substantive Rules of the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing for the Period Beginning December 20, 2004 as amended May 15, 2006, N.J.A.C.5:94. New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, The COAH Handbook – Your Guide to Navigating the Third Round Rules, 2005. Morris County Economic Development Corporation, 2005 Return on Investment Report , March, 2006. New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing, 2006 Regional Income Limits – Morris County Municipal Utilities Authority Morris County Department of Planning, Development and Technology, Division of Transportation, Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc., Morris County Master Plan – Water Supply Element, 1971. Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc., Report Upon Long Range Water Requirements for Morris County, 1958. Elson T. Killam Associates, Inc., Morris County Master Plan – Water Supply Element, 1982. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection – New Jersey Geological Survey at New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Division of Watershed Management OPRA/Index2. New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C) 7:9A New Jersey Standards for Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C.) 7:38 New Jersey Highlands Water Protection Planning Act Rules. New Jersey Administrative Code (N.J.A.C) 7:15 New Jersey Water Quality Management Planning Rules. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, New Jersey Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report 2006, December 2006.


Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful