Letter to NJDEP, June 2, 2005

Mr. Andrew Clark
NJDEP/LURP
501 East State Street
P.O. Box 439
Station Plaza 5 - 2nd Floor
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0439

Re: Hoboken South Waterfront Walkway- WWII Memorial

Dear Mr. Clark:

On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the Hudson River Waterfront Conservancy (HRWC), I am submitting comments on the above-referenced Waterfront Development Permit application. HRWC is a non-profit volunteer board which comments on the design, implementation and public access to the walkway. HRWC attended and presented testimony at the public hearing on May 17, 2005 and wishes to supplement its testimony with this submission. At the hearing we received a copy of the NJDEP’s “Preliminary Analysis” Report dated May 2005 which we have now reviewed and also comment on herein.

Walkway- “Human Powered Movement Area”

HRWC can not support this permit application in its present form. The application proposes an 845 square foot structure that in its present configuration will block a significant portion of the linear pedestrian walkway adjacent to the River. Hoboken’s southern waterfront walkway was designed to serve as a major pedestrian and bicycle thoroughfare for commuters to the PATH and NJ Transit buses and trains. It is also a high volume pedestrian traffic area because of its proximity to Pier A and Sinatra Parks. To serve this pedestrian traffic, the walkway should be kept free from improvements that may impede fluid movement of pedestrians, strollers, skateboards, scooters, roller blades and bicycles.

The walkway is not intended to be an inert “public space”; it is a public access way that is intended to provide an alternative for pedestrian traffic flowing north and south. In all nine municipalities, it was designed to offer pedestrians a route protected from heavily trafficked roads. If the intent were otherwise, it would have been called a “waterfront park”.

The waterfront walkway is just that, a “walkway” designed to move people along the Hudson River in a densely populated area as an alternative to the car. The HRWC is very concerned that this application if approved will set a precedent for other memorials and structures to be placed in the public easement areas, thus hampering the function of the walkway as a walkway.

NJDEP “Preliminary Analysis” Report

HRWC has reviewed the “Preliminary Analysis Report” (“Report”) distributed at the public hearing. While the Report cites various sections of the regulations, the principal support cited by NJDEP is Section 7:7E-3.23 (Filled Waters Edge). The Report states that the memorial “should be considered as an enhancement of the existing Public Access walkway, and as such would be considered as water oriented”.

We find no support in the cited regulation for the statement that this structure is an enhancement. This section of the regulation specifically provides that the uses must be “water dependent” or “water oriented”. In fact, properly read, the regulation instructs that the permitted water dependent use is the “30 foot walkway”. A memorial structure can hardly be considered a water dependent use and, moreover, its obstruction of the walkway can not be considered and enhancement of that use.

The previously issued permit on this land (which this permit application seeks to modify) established the 30 foot walkway “as close to the water’s edge as possible, parallel to the river” as contemplated by the Design Guidelines. (p. 73) The applicant has conveniently ignored this requirement by declaring, contrary to the original permit, that the 16 feet walkway area is more than 10 feet back from the water’s edge. The proposed memorial alters, limits and reduces the space accessible to the public within the 30 feet walkway established by the original permit. It takes away the public’s ability to travel freely along the linear walkway closest to the River. It seeks to introduce a large structure into the established public walkway. This condition can not be supported as an “enhancement” nor does the regulation cited provide support for this concept.

The Report is deficient in addressing the current permit for this site and the conditions that were imposed by that permit. Under the original permit, the walkway was made larger than the regulatory minimum because of the need to meet the high number and distinct types of users. It was designed to incorporate a separate bike path outside of the 30 foot easement area to provide for ease of movement as contemplated by the Guidelines. If this permit modification is granted, it will violate the intent and conditions of the original permit which were to provide an unfettered area for human powered movement.

A significant aspect of the same regulation cited in the Report (7:7E-3.23(h) 4) was not addressed by the Report at all - there was no discussion of possible “adverse impact on local residents and neighbors”. This local impact can not be understood without sincere outreach to the community itself. Further, subsection (h) of 7:7E-3.23 is the only part of the cited regulation that uses the term “recreation” that is referred to in the Report. It should be noted that this subsection is only applicable if a “water dependent use is deemed infeasible”. Clearly the fact that a permit has already been issued establishing the walkway as a water dependent use makes this subsection not applicable.

The Report cites 7:7E-7.3 stating that the NJDEP has determined that the proposed memorial is “a recreation structure”. The reference to this structure as “recreation” is incomprehensible against the solemn backdrop of the presentation about the nature of this structure that was made by the applicant at the public hearing. Moreover, a review of the cited regulation reveals that such memorials are not considered a recreation use. The list of recreation uses the cited “Resort/Recreation” section is finite and does not include this use.

Waterfront Walkway Regulations and Design Guidelines

Various other applicable regulations and sections of the Design Guidelines were not cited in the Report. HRWC believes that the following regulations and Guideline sections are applicable to the NJDEP’s consideration of this application:

7:7E-1.8. The definition of “conservation restriction” specifically prohibits the construction or placing of any building, roads signs, billboard or other advertising, “or other structures on or above the ground”. This application seeks to place a “structure” in an existing conservation restriction area which is already restricted for public walkway use.

7:7E-3.23(i) and 7:7E-8.11. This section refers to the right of “all members of the community at large to pass physically and visually to, from and along….waterfront.” The original permit issued to the City established this right by reserving for the community at large a public walkway. This application seeks to restrict the community at large from using this section of the walkway as a pedestrian path. Further the regulations prohibit “physical barriers which unreasonably interfere with access to or along the waterfront”. This structure is proposed to be placed in the 30 foot easement area along the pedestrian section of the walkway creating a barrier to that area.

7:7-7.17. Not addressed in the Report is this section which lists the “recreational facilities” that are acceptable in Special Use Areas provided they have “no adverse impact”. Clearly, the regulations know how to express what a “recreational facility” is when that is the intent. The recreational facilities listed are playground equipment, benches, rain shelters, bike paths, and nature trails - not monuments.

Design Guidelines. The Design Guidelines are very specific regarding the walkway dimensions:

The public access easement for the waterfront walkway must have a minimum right of way width of 30 feet and a minimum unobstructed paved area of 16 feet. The remainder of the right of way may be paved or landscaped with street lighting, seating and other street furniture as appropriate and may include a separate paved surface of a minimum width of ten feet designated as bikeway. (p.73)

The Design Guidelines are clear that outside the paved area the “remainder of the walkway” easement may not be used for any other structures than for seating, paving or landscaping (p.73). In fact, the NJDEP has had many problems with other developer’s along the walkway seeking to encroach upon the 30 foot walkway easement area with fencing, utilities, and other structures. We do not consider a structure such as this memorial to be exempt from this prohibition. Further, we do not find anything in the Design Guidelines which justifies an exception to these dimensions. (p.75)

The Design Guidelines specifically recognize the walkway as the area reserved for “human powered movement” as distinguished from other plazas or park area that are adjacent to the walkway. (p.33) Both the Design Guidelines and regulations are very specific about what sorts of improvements are permitted in the walkway. For safety and security, the Guidelines only permit landscaping and buffers between public access ways. (p.78) Pedestrian ramps, seating, planting, planters, tree grates, tree guards, trash receptacles and lighting are only permitted “where they will not interfere with the public access”. No other improvements are permitted in the public access way. (p.81) Monuments are not included on this list and are inconsistent with the intent of these uses. In addition, this structure violates that section of the Design Guidelines which prohibits any change in grade so great as to impede movement on the public access system. (p.77) This structure amounts to a 4 foot change in grade to the existing paved walkway.

Precedent Contrary to Walkway Regulations

Finally and foremost is HRWC’s concern about the precedent that will be set by the approval of this application. If NJDEP allows this structure to be built, it will open the door to the development community and encourage many other encroachments under the guise of a “recreational enhancement”. Under this vague precedent, the walkway has the potential to become the host to many other monuments, structures and facilities that will undermine its function as a human movement area. The walkway is not intended to be a park for memorials it is intended to be a “people mover” as an alternative to the car.

HRWC believes there are many creative ways that can be explored to provide a memorial to the Veterans but also preserve the functioning of the walkway. The Conservancy attended the local council meeting where this permit was proposed for submission to the NJDEP and offered to work with the Veterans to seek alternatives for the memorial. We extend that same offer now.

We would appreciate the opportunity to assist in developing an alternative for this memorial, which meets the needs of both the Veterans and the Walkway. Thank you for consideration of our comments and requires that you deny this application in its present form.

Leah Healey, HRWC
Hoboken