Start your 7-day free trial — unlock full access instantly.
← Back to Search
Lead Closed
This opportunity is no longer accepting submissions.
Union City Master Plan
BID #: N/A
ISSUED: 4/23/2009
DUE: TBD
VALUE: TBD
100
Rating
Risk Rank
Green Risk
AI-Powered Lead Insights
Executive Summary
This 2009 Master Plan for Union City, New Jersey, initiated by Mayor Brian P. Stack, aims to establish community consensus for the city's long-term growth and vitality. A diverse Master Plan Subcommittee, comprising city stakeholders, conducted a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis to identify key issues and concerns. The plan focuses on balancing land uses, encouraging economic development, increasing recreational facilities, and improving circulation while preserving the residential character and views of Manhattan. Objectives include re-classifying zoning districts, fostering affordable housing, enhancing parks, and capitalizing on the city's proximity to New York City and its cultural diversity.
The plan addresses key issues such as affordable housing, economic vitality, and educational attainment, recognizing Union City's role as a transition community for new immigrants. It highlights the need for a comprehensive Land Development Ordinance revision, a Circulation Plan Element, and thorough application reviews by the Planning and Zoning Boards. The plan proposes specific zoning recommendations for various districts, including Downtown, Center City, Uptown, and Bergenline Avenue, aiming to create mixed-use centers, protect residential neighborhoods, and enhance public spaces. Implementation involves short-term and long-term strategies assigned to different municipal entities.
The plan emphasizes a green community approach, placemaking, historic preservation, and compliance with the New Jersey State Development and Redevelopment Plan, Hudson County Master Plan, and District Solid Waste Management Plan. It also considers the master plans of contiguous municipalities to ensure regional consistency and sustainability. The plan ultimately seeks to guide development patterns, preserve the city's unique characteristics, and improve the quality of life for its residents.
Web Content
Automated discovery link found on Union (Hunterdon) website.
Document Text
--- Document: Union City Master Plan Document ---
April 2009
Union City
CITY OF UNION CITY hudson county New jersey
prepared by Heyer, Gruel & Associates
UC
Master Plan
Adopted April 23 2009
Union City
Master Plan Credits
UC
Board of Commissioners
Brian Stack
Mayor
Maryury Martinetti
Commissioner
Lucio Fernandez
Commissioner
Christopher F. Irizarry
Commissioner
Tilo E. Rivas
Commissioner
Mayor Brian P. Stack
Planning Board
Mayor Brian Stack
Chairman
Christopher F. Irizarry
Commissioner
Ulysses Isa
Planning Board Secretary
Diane Capizzi
Sonia Delgado
Alicia Morejon
Rudy Rivero
Jay Shah
Carlos Vallejo
Wilfredo Ortiz
Attorney
David Spatz
Planner
Master Plan Subcommittee
Mayor Brian Stack
Grace Becker
Dierdre Berry
Sal Bonocorsi
Hermi Cano
George Coca
Raul Diaz
Christopher Douglas
Don Ettin
Miguel Fernandez
Lucio Fernandez
Brad Finkle
Jacquelyn Gioioso
Peter Graham
Magaly Jerez
Gerald Karabin
Tom Leane
Hannelore Leavy
Martin Martinetti
Alicia Morejon
Carl Mucciolo
Rose Marie Nelson
Julius Panero
Juan Carlos Rojas
Carlos Salzquinter
William Senande
David Spatz
Joseph Stancati
Judy Stone
Tony Squire
Esther Suarez
Larry Wainstein
Charles Latini, PP, AICP
Jonathan Burch
Dilip Chittajallu
Aditi Mantrawadi
HEYER, GRUEL & ASSOCIATES
The original of this report was signed and sealed
in accordance with N.J.S.A. 45:14 A - 12
Charles Latini Jr., NJPP #5721
Page #
vii
1
9
41
45
53
65
69
69
76
92
102
110
Union City
Table of Contents
UC
Chapter
~Introduction...................................................
~Goals & Objectives.........................................
~Community Profile..........................................
~Land Use Element..........................................
-Existing Land Use.................................
-Existing Zoning....................................
-Relationship between Zoning and
Land Use..............................................
-Land Use Recomendations....................
-General Policy Recommendations
-Zone Plan Recommendations......
-Land Development Ordinance
Recommendations....................
~Implemention Element.....................................
~Relationship to Other Plans.............................
List of Maps
Map Name
~Aerial Photo....................................................
~Regional Context Map.....................................
~Popoulation Density Map................................
~Circulation Map..............................................
~Average Family Size........................................
~Existing Land Use Map....................................
~Existing Zoning Map.......................................
~Redevelopment Areas & UEZ Map....................
~Existing Land Use vs Zoning Map....................
~Proposed Land Use Map.................................
~Specific Recommendation Areas Map...............
~Lot Size Analysis Map......................................
~Circulation Map..............................................
~State Plan Map...............................................
~Relationship to Adjacent Municipalities Map.....
Page #
8
12
17
22
23
44
52
60
64
68
75
91
93
113
117
Union City
List of Maps
Union City
vi
Union City
Master Plan
Introduction
Union City
Master Plan
Introduction
viii
Union City
Master Plan
Introduction
Introduction
This 2009 Master Plan was conceived by Mayor
Brian P. Stack in an effort to derive community
consensus for the long term growth and vitality of
the City of Union City. Recognizing the importance
of his constituency, the Mayor and Planning Board
assigned the preliminary work of drafting a Master
Plan to a Master Plan Subcommittee that consisted
of a wide variety of City stakeholders. The time and
dedication of the Committee requires recognition.
Without these folks this Plan would not have
been possible. These groups represented on the
Committee included, but were not limited to:
Mayor Stack’s Office
Corporation Councel
City Departments
Planning Board
Redevelopment Agency
Housing Authority
Historic Preservation
Board of Education
Parking Authority
Business Owners
Active Residents
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Committee consisted of 25 individuals to start
with. As the process evolved, the Mayor received
additional requests to serve on the committee and
no one was denied the opportunity to do so. In total,
the committee grew to roughly 32 participants.
However, we make special note of the following
individuals who rarely missed any of the meetings
and provided a great deal of their valuable time
toward serving their community. Without these
dedicated folks, this Plan would not be as detailed
as it is. Specifically, we would like to thank;
Mayor Stack
Mr. Thomas Leane
Mr. Sal Bonaccorsi
Mr. George Coca
Ms. Jacquelin Gioioso
Mr. Peter Graham
Ms. Hannlore Leavy
Mr. Carl Mucciolo
Ms. Rose Marie Nelson
Mr. Jules Panero
Mr. Juan Carlos Rojas
Mr. David Spatz
Mr. Joe Stancati
Mr. Larry Wainstein
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
Union City
Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
Goals and Objectives Element
Goals and Objectives within a Master Plan are
meant to provide a framework for the Plan
as well as to guide other activities in the City
that have an influence on land development.
This framework is not presented in an order of
hierarchy, rather all are important to the future
growth and development within the City of Union
City.
In order to derive these Goals & Objectives,
the Master Plan Committee consisting of many
community stakeholders provided valuable
feedback as to what the Master Plan should
seek to address. Several meetings were held
and a Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and
Threats analysis (SWOT) was performed to assess
the community through the eyes of the public.
While some of the issues citizens raised were
perceptions and perhaps are not reality, a truly
open review of them allows the City to address
the public’s comments and concerns through a
concerted planning effort.
Goals and Objectives
The Goals & Objectives were then derived from
the SWOT input.
Goal:
Provide a balance of land uses, and balanced
development
patterns,
in
appropriate
locations in order to:
Preserve the character of the community;
Encourage economic development;
Increase park and recreation facilities;
Accommodate community facilities;
Facilitate local and regional circulation;
•
•
•
•
•
•
Protect
and
preserve
the
established
residential character;
Provide a broad range of housing choices;
Promote and reinforce the City as a desirable
residential location and attractive shopping/
entertainment/recreation destination; and
Improve the quality of life of the residents of
Union City.
Objectives:
Re-classify the zoning districts and revise
the zoning ordinance, to be consistent with
the prevailing development patterns while
allowing an appropriate mix of building types
and uses.
Coordinate the City’s Zoning districts to
facilitate specific areas where its unique
character can be enhanced or developed
by creating more design standards for
parks.
streetscape
programs,
historic
neighborhoods, building heights or other
aspects of community characteristics.
Encourage
mixed-use
development
in the City’s commercial corridors and
redevelopment plans where appropriate.
Continue to foster and facilitate affordable
housing in the City through home ownership
programs and housing rehabilitation grants as
a method to promote stable neighborhoods
and increase community pride.
Eliminate substandard properties in the
City through code enforcement efforts,
education, ordinance amendments and
community outreach.
Preserve
and
enhance
existing
parks
throughout the City, where appropriate,
allow new development and redevelopment
incentives to provide for additional pubic
open spaces.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
Ensure that given the scarcity of land available
for development, that adequate parking
provisions are established for residential and
commercial areas but without detriment to
the pedestrian environment. Incorporate
strong parking design standards into new
developments; and encourage uses with
shared parking facilities.
Encourage
transit-oriented
development
opportunities near the Light Rail Terminal,
with strong pedestrian and bicycle linkages
between the Terminal, the commercial
corridors and residential areas.
Continue
to
work
with
developers
to
implement existing redevelopment plans.
Review redevelopment plans to ensure
consistency among them. Revise and
update obsolete redevelopment plans as
necessary.
Discourage
non-conforming
uses
in
residential, commercial, and industrial areas
to ensure compatibility with all land uses and
neighborhoods.
Re-evaluate
and
redefine
commercial
corridors, including the possibility of including
some commercial corridors and strengthening
the existing ones. Encourage neighborhood
service-oriented retail uses only on pre-
existing and/or specifically delineated lots in
residential neighborhoods.
Continue to strengthen and improve Citywide
and neighborhood commercial districts as
centers of employment, shopping, services,
entertainment and education.
Maintain consistency between the intended
land
use
patterns
and:
streetscape
improvements;
open
space
planning;
historic preservation; traffic and circulation
improvements; and physical improvements
in commercial and industrial areas of the
City
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
Goal:
Capitalize
on
the
City’s
proximity
to
Manhattan, and its ideal location within one
of the largest financial, industrial, and cultural
metropolis in the World.
Objective:
Preserve existing and create new housing
opportunities for middle income and working
class families, while also balancing the
opportunity to attract all market types.
Preserve the views of Manhattan skyline by
establishing height regulations in the eastern
sections of the City.
Capitalize on the unique cultural diversity
that sets Union City apart from other towns
and cities within the metropolis.
Establish
design
standards
for
new
construction that supports the preservation
of unique architectural and historic features
while remaining practical.
Expand and encourage the Union City CDA
façade improvement program to guide
and improve the aesthetics of established
commercial corridors through guidance
on
appropriate
storefront
renovations
and
building
maintenance
practices
that enhance the long-term values of the
structure. The FIP should include practical
design standards that work to coordinate
signage, awnings, window displays, and
where applicable and permitted, sidewalk
cafes.
Craft form-based zoning standards with special
emphasis on scale of buildings, architecture,
materials, and façade appearance, so as to
complement architecture from several eras
of history.
Identify and enhance the major gateways
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
into the City. These gateways should
resonate the importance of Union City as a
diverse cultural center.
Revitalize the City’s existing commercial
corridors, and recognize newer corridors
where commercial activity has become
predominant by: encouraging uses such as
supermarkets, coffee houses, bookstores,
etc;
encourage
establishment
of
artist
communities with galleries, and shops;
streetscape improvements unique to the
commercial
corridors;
encouragement
of shared parking facilities adjacent to
commercial corridors; taking advantage
of an established UEZ District; identification
and enhancement of specific core areas
of activity; new bus routes or jitney service
serving commercial corridors; attraction of
smaller businesses such as home offices on
upper floors of commercial buildings; provision
of tax-based incentives to property owners
for façade and other improvements; and
revision of City’s zoning ordinances to allow
for a wide variety of uses, while enhancing
the physical character of City’s commercial
corridors.
Promote historic preservation as a tool for
successful economic development.
Recognition of structures listed on the
National and State Register of Historic Places
demolition and inappropriate alteration
by designation and markings as an historic
structure;
Induce the use of the Investment Tax Credit
to encourage appropriate rehabilitation of
the structure and adaptive re-use.
Capitalize on the ethnic diversity of the City
as a tool for economic development. by
encouraging ethnic businesses to recognize
the diversity of the marketplace
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
Goal:
Improve internal circulation (pedestrian as
well as vehicular), and enhance connectivity
to the regional transportation network (major
roadway systems that are in close proximity,
bus, and light rail)
Objectives:
Reduce
auto-dependency
through
innovative design practices that discourage
surface parking lots and suburban strip mall
design practices.
Adopt a streetscape plan that focuses on
issues such as traffic, pedestrian flow, physical
conditions of streets, street trees, utilities,
signage, land uses affecting the quality of
street environment, to complement the strong
street network of Union City. The plan should
also include a phasing plan, implementation
strategies, and funding opportunities for
streetscape improvements.
Minimize
traffic
impacts
on
residential
streets.
Identify and eliminate congestion on major
internal streets, and commercial streets such
as Bergenline Avenue
Ensure that any redevelopment efforts
in the City are inextricably linked to and
consider pedestrian, bicycle and mass transit
circulation access.
Anticipate and coordinate design and
placement of directional and informational
signs indicating parking areas, public facilities
(town hall, library, schools, etc.) in graphics
not dependent on language literacy.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Work with the NJ Transit, the State, and
adjacent municipalities to: ensure adequate
bus options are available; add additional
bus routes connecting the City regionally
and internally; extend light rail service to
Manhattan past midnight; increase the
frequency of mass transit serving the City;
Establish a comprehensive parking system
in the City, especially in areas served by
mass transit. Encourage shared parking
opportunities
with
community
residents,
businesses and visitors.
Goal:
Preserve and build open spaces, community
facilities and recreational amenities as unique
assets of the City.
Objectives:
Consider the creation of a central town
square for public use over I-495 that will unite
the City physically and socially.
Continue strengthening partnerships with
institutional uses such as churches for
increased cultural activities and social
services.
Recognize the existing open-space assets
of the City and make efforts to acquire land
for new open spaces. Develop a network of
open spaces so that every corner of the city
is within a 5-minute walking distance from a
park, playground or other public spaces.
Improve the provision of recreational facilities
for residents of all ages within the City. Create
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
Goals and Objectives
a policy whereby developer agreements in
redevelopment plans share their indoor and
outdoor recreational facilities with the public
Consider
exploration
of
additional
opportunities to share City, County and
School parks and recreational activity space
given the built-out nature of the City and its
needs to provide recreational space.
Strengthen protection of the Palisades.
•
•
Encourage reduction of waste and promote
recycling and require developers of multi-
family residential developments to obtain site
plan approval of recycling areas pursuant to
the Solid Waste Management Act.
•
The new Fireman’s Memorial Park at 9th and
Palisades Avenue will offer City residents a pool
and fantastic views once complete. Construction has
already begun as of the drafting of this Plan....
Community Profile Element
Union City
Master Plan
Union City
Master Plan
11
Community Profile Element
Community Profile Element
Introduction
The City of Union City, located roughly in the
middle of Hudson County, is 1.3 square miles in
size with a 2000 census population density of
51,606 people per square mile. With a population
of 67,088, Union City is the second most populous
municipality in Hudson County.
Additional highlights of the population include:
Union City’s population grew by 15.6% (9,076
people) between 1990 and 2000, a higher
growth rate than Hudson County or the State
of New Jersey. This increase also marked the
highest percentage growth for Union City in
the past 70 years.
87% of Union City’s population classified
themselves
as
Hispanic.
The
Hispanic
population grew by 26% between 1990 and
2000.
While the overall Hispanic population grew,
the ethnic distribution of the population is
changing. The Union City Cuban and Puerto
Rican communities decreased in size while
the Mexican community increased.
70% of households in Union City are family
households, which is a higher percentage
than Hudson County (62.3%).
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
13
Community Profile Element
Table 1: Populations Trends 1930 to 2000
Year
Union City
Hudson County
New Jersey
Population
Change
Population
Change
Population
Change
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
1930
58,659
-
-
690,730
-
-
4,041,334
-
-
1940
56,173
-2,486
-4.2%
652,040
-38,690
-5.6%
4,160,165
118,831
2.9%
1950
55,537
-636
-1.1%
647,437
-4,603
-0.7%
4,835,329
675,164
16.2%
1960
52,180
-3,357
-6.0%
610,734
-36,703
-5.7%
6,066,782
1,231,453
25.5%
1970
57,305
5,125
9.8%
607,839
-2,895
-0.5%
7,171,112
1,104,330
18.2%
1980
55,593
-1,712
-3.0%
556,972
-50,867
-8.4%
7,365,011
463,899
2.7%
1990
58,012
2,419
4.4%
553,099
-3,873
-0.7%
7,730,188
365,177
5.0%
2000
67,088
9,076
15.6%
608,975
55,876
10.1%
8,414,350
684,162
8.9%
Source: US Census, NJ Dept. of Labor and Workforce Development
demographic characteristics
Population
While the state’s population trends reflect the
effects of the ‘baby boom’ generation and
subsequent ‘birth dearth,’ both Hudson County
and Union City deviate substantially from the
statewide trends largely because both are older
urban areas. While Hudson County failed to
see any abatement in its population losses from
1930’s through the 1990’s, the 2000 population
figures offer hope that revitalization is occurring
in the County.
In 2000, the Union City had a total population of
67,088. This number represents a notable increase
(15.6%) from 1990, when the total population was
58,012. More importantly, the increase between
1990 and 2000 represents the largest percentage
increase for Union City in the past seven decades.
Experiencing population declines like most urban
communities from 1930’s through the 1970’s, the
only departure from this trend came in the 1960’s
due to a large wave of Cuban immigration.
Union City has seen population growth in each
of the past two decades. Additionally, Union
City is becoming a larger percentage of Hudson
County’s population over time, rising steadily
from 8.5% in 1960 to 11% in 2000.
14
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 3: 2000 Age Profile Union City
and Hudson County
Union City
Hudson County
Age Cohort
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total Population
67,088
100.0
608,975
100.0
Under 5
4,945
7.4
38,756
6.4
5 to 14
9,268
13.8
76,700
12.6
15 to 24
10,122
15.1
85,412
14.0
25 to 34
12,074
18.0
119,073
19.6
35 to 44
10,949
16.3
97,727
16.0
45 to 54
7,641
11.4
72,379
11.9
55 to 64
5,395
8.0
49,657
8.2
65 and over
6,694
10.0
69,271
11.4
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 2: Median Age Union City, Hudson County and New Jersey
2000
Year
Union City
Hudson County
New Jersey
2000
32.5
33.6
36.7
Source: 2000 US Census
Population Composition by Age
Table 2 compares the median age of Union
City, Hudson County and New Jersey in 2000.
Both Hudson County and Union City residents
are generally younger than their statewide
counterparts.
Table 3 provides great detail, breaking down
both the Union City and Hudson County
populations by age group. This analysis reveals
two important points of comparison. First, the
percentage distributions for age are largely the
same. Second, Union City, as is reflected in the
City’s lower median age, has higher percentages
of people under 24 and lower percentages of
residents over 55 than does Hudson County.
Table 4 compares the change in age composition
for Union City from 1990 to 2000. Continuing a
theme, the most notable trend in Table 4 is the
increases in both adults (35 to 44) and children (5
to 14). Each of these groups has the two highest
total percentage increases over the ten-year
Union City
Master Plan
15
Community Profile Element
Table 4: Population by Age, 1990 and 2000, Union City
1990
2000
Change 1990 to 2000
Population
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Under 5
4,467
7.7
4,945
7.4
478
10.7
5 to 14
7,273
12.5
9268
13.8
1995
27.4
15 to 24
8,968
15.5
10122
15.1
1154
12.9
25 to 34
11,353
19.6
12,074
18.0
721
6.4
35 to 44
8,203
14.1
10,949
16.3
2746
33.5
45 to 54
6,302
10.9
7,641
11.4
1339
21.2
55 to 64
5,626
9.7
5395
8.0
-231
-4.1
65 and over
5,820
10.0
6694
10.0
874
15.0
Total
58,012
100
67,088
100
9076
15.6
Source: 1990 & 2000 US Census.
period. Moreover, the other younger age groups,
under 5 and 15 to 24, also experienced notable
increases. As is the case throughout the US, the
over 65-age group also experienced significant
growth. The only group to experience a decline
was ages 55 to 64.
It is important to remember that while these age
statistics do explain much about the current
picture of Union City, they must be examined in
conjunction with household demographics to
gain a clearer picture of the direction of Union
City. Moreover, the City can control future
group growth to some degree by encouraging
or discouraging certain types of development.
Development that focuses on age-restricted
housing would likely result in greater 55+
growth. Additional discussion is provided in the
Demographic Trends Analysis section of this
document.
16
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 5: General Summary Racial Composition Union
City 2000
Number
Percentage
Population
67,088
100
African American
2,442
3.6
White
39,167
58.4
Asian
1,441
2.1
American Indian and
Alaska Native
467
.7
Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander
54
.1
Some Other Race
18,911
28.2
Two or more races
4,606
6.9
Source: 2000 US Census
Of Hispanic Origin
Hispanic Origin (1)
55,226
87.3
(1)Hispanic origin includes members of all races and not classified
as a separate race.
Table 6: Detailed Summary Hispanic or
Latino Population Union City 2000
Total
Amount
Percentage of
City Population
Percentage of
Hispanic/Latino
Population
Total reporting
Hispanic or Latino
55,226
87.3
100
Puerto Rican
7,388
11.0
13.4
Mexican
2,752
4.1
5.0
Cuban
10,296
15.3
18.6
Dominican Republic
7,688
11.5
13.9
Central American
5,750
8.6
10.4
South American
10,080
15.0
18.3
Other Hispanic or
Latino
11,272
16.8
20.4
Source: 2000 United States Census.
Population By Race
The 2000 Census reveals that a majority (58.4%)
of Union City residents classify themselves as
white, with the second largest group being some
other races (28.2%). Because the US Census did
not define Hispanic as a separate race for the
2000 Census, the percentage breakdown of
the US Census racial classifications sheds little
light Union City. When asked, 87% of Union City
residents classified themselves as Hispanic.
Table 6 breaks down the specific country or
regional origins of those who reported being
Hispanic/ Latino on the 2000 Census. As the chart
shows, Cubans and South Americans represent
the largest subgroups in Union City. Yet, while
these subgroups are the largest, the overall
distribution of ethnic origins is relatively even,
with only Mexicans as a smaller percentage of
the total Hispanics population. Table 7 details
the percentage change in racial composition
for Union City between 1990 and 2000.
18
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 7: Change in Racial Consumption in Union City 1990-2000
2000
1990
Change
Number
Percent
Population
67088
58012
9076
15.6
African American
2442
2965
-523
-17.6
White
39167
43323
-4156
-9.6
Asian
1495
1215
280
23.0
American Indian and Alaska
Native
467
137
330
240.9
Some Other Race
23517
10372
13145
126.7
Hispanic
55226
43869
11357
25.9
Puerto Rican
7388
8667
-1279
-14.8
Mexican
2752
762
1990
261.2
Cuban
10296
15054
-4758
-31.6
Other Hispanic or Latino
34790
19386
15404
79.5
Source: 1990 and 2000 US Census
As Table 7 shows, the percentage of Whites and
African Americans fell, while percentages of
Asians and ‘some other races’ increased. Yet,
because the Census lists the Hispanic separately,
the true demographic shift in Union City appears
to be within the Hispanic community and place
of origin. Once dominated by Cubans, both the
Cuban and Puerto Rican populations declined
as a percentage of the local Hispanic population
while the overall Hispanic population grew 25%.
It should be noted that part of the decrease
in the City’s White population and increase
in individuals reporting as Asian/Other and/or
Hispanic/Latino can be attributed to changes
in the census itself. The 2000 Census allowed
more options for individuals to indicate a race
other than White or African American than the
1990 census. As a result, many individuals who
previously responded as ‘White’ in 1990 instead
may have responded as a different race in
2000.
Union City
Master Plan
19
Community Profile Element
Table 8: Ethnic Composition 2000 Union City,
Hudson County and New Jersey
Union City
Hudson County
New Jersey
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Population
67,088
100%
608,975
100%
8,414,350
100%
White
39,167
58.38%
338,454
55.58%
6,104,705
72.55%
African American
2,442
3.64%
82,098
13.48%
1,141,851
13.57%
Asian/other
1,495
2.23%
57,325
9.41%
499,768
5.94%
American Indian and
Alaska Native
467
0.70%
2,547
0.42%
3,329
0.04%
Some Other Race(s)
23,517
35.05%
129,754
21.31%
664,697
7.90%
Hispanic or Latino
55,226
82.32%
242,123
39.76%
1,117,191
13.28%
Source: 2000 United States Census.
Union City has developed into a Hispanic
enclave dating back to the early waves of
Cuban immigration into the City during the
1960’s. Therefore, Union City maintains higher
percentages of Hispanics in the local population
than do Hudson County or the State of New Jersey,
even as the origins of the Hispanic population
living in Union City have changed. The Hispanic
population in Union City represents roughly 20%
of the county wide Hispanic population and
given the local growth rate seen in the Hispanic
population, this percentage will likely rise.
It is extremely important to recognize these
shifts in demographics, as differences in culture
mean different services the City may be required
to perform in the future such as recreational
programs, economic development initiatives,
and architectural standards.
20
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 10: Types of Family Households in
Union City and Hudson County 2000
Union City
Hudson County
Type of Household
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Family
16,067
100.0%
143,532
100.0%
Married Couple
9,696
60.3%
91,772
63.9%
Female Householder- no
husband present
4,410
27.4%
38,326
26.7%
Other
1,961
12.2%
13,434
9.4%
Source: 2000 US Census
Table 9: Types of Households in Union City
and Hudson County 2000
Union City
Hudson County
Type of Household
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
Family
16,067
70.2%
143,532
62.3%
Non-family
6,805
29.8%
87,014
37.7%
Total
22,872
100.0%
230,546
100.0%
Source: 2000 United States Census.
household characteristics
Household Size
A household is defined as one or more persons,
whether related or not, living together in a dwelling
unit. The Census classifies households as “family
households” and “non-family households”.
A “family household” consists of a householder
and one or more people living together in
the same household who are related to the
householder by birth, marriage, or adoption.
Family households may also include people
unrelated to the householder. If the householder
is married and living with his/her spouse, then
the household is designated a “married-couple
household.” The remaining types of family
households not maintained by a married couple
are designated by the sex of the householder.
A “nonfamily household” consists of a person
living alone or a householder who shares the
home with nonrelatives only; for example, with
roommates or an unmarried partner.
Tables 9 and 10 break down the type of family
and non-family households in Union City and
Hudson County. As the tables show, Union City
has higher percentages of family households
than does Hudson County and conversely a
lower percentage of non-family households. Yet,
Union City also has a higher percentage of single-
family households than does Hudson County.
Union City
Master Plan
21
Community Profile Element
Table 11: HOUSEHOLD SIZE- 2000
Union City and Hudson County
Union City
Hudson County
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total
75,788
100.0
230,538
100.0
1-person household
4,648
6.1
68,078
29.5
2-person household
11,630
15.3
64,527
28.0
3-person household
4,675
6.2
39,068
16.9
4-person household
3,327
4.4
30,847
13.4
5-person household
18,792
24.8
16,180
7.0
6-person household
20477
27.0
6,833
3.0
7-or-more-person household
12239
16.1
5,005
2.2
Average Household Size
2.92
2.60
Source: 2000 United States Census.
Table 11 gives more details on household size for
Union City and Hudson County. As the table shows,
Union City households tend to be larger than
their Hudson County counterparts. This can be
seen in every statistic below, including household
size. The three most common households sizes in
Union City are 5 people, 6 people and 7 people.
68% of all households have more than 5 people.
Yet, there is also a sizable minority of 2 person
households. These numbers are a stark contrast
to the rest of Hudson County, which has high
concentrations of 1 and 2 person households
and a lower average household size.
The opportunity these demographics present lie
in the ability to create housing opportunities that
attract young professional and artists who seek
close proximity to the New York market and arts
scene
24
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 12: Per Capita and Household Income 1999
Union City, Hudson County, New Jersey
1999 Per
Capita ($)
1999 Median
Household ($)
Union City
13,997
30,642
Hudson County
21,154
40,293
New Jersey
27,006
55,146
Source: 2000 US Census.
Table 13: Households Income In 1999
Union City and Hudson County
Union City
Hudson County
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total households
22913
100.0
230,698
100.0
Less than $10,000
3,494
15.2
29,406
12.7
$10,000 to $14,999
2,126
9.3
15,737
6.8
$15,000 to $24,999
3,754
16.4
27,859
12.1
$25,000 to $34,999
3,634
15.9
28,397
12.3
$35,000 to $49,999
3,968
17.3
36,442
15.8
$50,000 to $74,999
3,245
14.2
40,070
17.4
$75,000 to $99,999
1,411
6.2
23,319
10.1
$100,000 to $149,999
892
3.9
18,799
8.1
$150,000 to $199,999
217
0.9
5,595
2.4
$200,000 or more
172
0.8
5,074
2.2
Source: 2000 United States Census
Table 14: Poverty Status 1999
Union City and Hudson County
Union City
Hudson County
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total persons
67,088
100
608,975
100
Total persons below
poverty level
14,170
21.1
92,455
15.2
Under 18
4,709
33.2
29,596
32.0
18 to 65
8,207
57.9
52,265
56.5
Over 65
1,254
8.8
10,594
11.5
Source: 2000 United States Census
Income
Table 12 details the per-capita and household
incomes for Union City, Hudson County, and
New Jersey in 1999. Union City has much lower
per-capita and household incomes than both
Hudson County and the state. Moreover, this
gap is widening over time. When per-capita and
household income figures for Union City from
the 1990 Census are adjusted for inflation, they
show a 6% decrease in per-capita income and
an 11% decrease for median household income.
Conversely, Hudson County saw an 8% increase
in per-capita income and a 3% decrease in
median household income.
Table 13 shows the distribution of household
income in Union City and Hudson County. As the
chart shows, Union City has a higher percentage
of
households
earning
less
than
$10,000.
Moreover, 74% of Union City households versus
only 60% of Hudson County households earn less
than $50,000.
Based on the income statistics above, it is not
surprising that Union City has higher poverty rates
than Hudson County. As Table 14 shows, Union
City has higher rates of poverty for both children
and adults 18 to 65. Union City has lower poverty
rates for the elderly.
Union City
Master Plan
25
Community Profile Element
Table 15: Selected Monthly Owner Costs As
A Percentage Of Household Income in Union City, 1999
Number
Percent
Less than 15 percent
208
22
15 to 19 percent
71
7.5
20 to 24 percent
109
11.5
25 to 29 percent
76
8
30 to 34 percent
70
7.4
35 percent or more
396
41.8
Not computed
17
1.8
Source: 2000 United States Census
Table 16: Gross Rent As A Percentage Of Household Income
Union City, 1999
Number
Percent
Less than 15 percent
3,115
16.6
15 to 19 percent
2,450
13.1
20 to 24 percent
2,115
11.3
25 to 29 percent
2,115
11.3
30 to 34 percent
1,564
8.4
35 percent or more
6,583
35.2
Not computed
767
4.1
Source: 2000 United States Census
Table 17: OCCUPANCY STATUS, 2000
Union City
Total
Percent
Total
23,741
100
Occupied
22,872
96.3
Vacant
869
3.7
VACANCY STATUS
Total
869
100
For rent
474
54.5
For sale only
125
14.4
Rented or sold, not occupied
31
3.6
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use
72
8.3
For migrant workers
0
0.0
Other vacant
167
19.2
Source: 2000 United States Census
Housing Costs as Percentage of
Income
Table 15 shows the housing costs of owner
occupants as a percentage of total income.
Almost 48% of householders are spending more
than 30% of their income on housing costs. 41%
spend more than 35%. The State affordability
threshold for housing as a percent of income is
that not more than 28% of gross income should
be allocated for housing costs.
Table 16 shows the housing costs of renter
occupants as a percentage of total income.
Much like the data for Table 15, Table 16 shows
that more than 43% of respondents spend more
than 30% of gross income on rent. The State
affordability threshold for housing as a percent
of income is that not more than 30% of gross
income should be allocated of rent.
Housing Unit Data
In 2000, there were 23,741 housing units in Union
City, of which only 3.7% were vacant. Of those
vacant units, over half and rental units. Table
17 provides more detail regarding occupancy
of Union City housing units.
26
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 18: Housing Type and Size, 2000
Union City
UNITS IN STRUCTURE
Total
Percent
Total
23,741
100
1-unit, detached
1,163
4.9
1-unit, attached
973
4.1
2 units
4,468
18.8
3 or 4 units
4,918
20.7
5 to 9 units
4,610
19.4
10 to 19 units
2,756
11.6
20 or more units
4,834
20.4
Mobile home
13
0.1
Boat, RV, van, etc.
6
0
ROOMS
1 room
1,842
7.8
2 rooms
3,037
12.8
3 rooms
6,027
25.4
4 rooms
6,392
26.9
5 rooms
3,679
15.5
6 rooms
1,380
5.8
7 rooms
439
1.8
8 rooms
260
1.1
9 or more rooms
685
2.9
Median number of rooms
3.7
Source: 2000 United States Census
Table 19: Housing Data,
2000 Union City
Total
Percent
HOUSING UNITS
23,741
Total- Occupied Units
22,872
96.3
TENURE
Owner occupied
4,160
18.2
Renter occupied
18,712
81.8
YEAR STRUCTURE BUILT
Total Units
23,741
100
Built 1995 to March 2000
164
0.7
Built 1990 to 1994
206
0.9
Built 1980 to 1989
304
1.3
Built 1970 to 1979
1,308
5.5
Built 1960 to 1969
2,154
9.1
Built 1950 to 1959
3,133
13.2
Built 1940 to 1949
6,364
26.8
Built 1939 or earlier
10,108
42.6
Source: 2000 United States Census
Housing Units Type and Size
Characteristics
Table 18 details the types and sizes of housing
units in Union City. As the table shows, more
than 70% of all units are in buildings with at
least 3 units. Therefore, Union City has great
density due to the predominance of multi-unit
buildings and the very small percentage of
detached homes, less than 5%. Moreover, the
median number of rooms in a unit is 3.7, with
most respondents indicating that their unit had
3 to 4 rooms.
Table 19 shows information about both the
types and age of housing units. First Union
City has a low level of homeownership, as
81% of all housing units are renter occupied.
Secondly, 69% of all housing in Union City was
built before 1950. Moreover, each successive
decade contains a declining percentage of
the construction of new housing stock in Union
City.
Union City
Master Plan
27
Community Profile Element
Table 20:Year Householder Moved
into Unit, 2000 Union City
Occupied Housing Units
Number
Percent
1999 to March 2000
4,828
21.1
1995 to 1998
7,463
32.6
1990 to 1994
3,754
16.4
1980 to 1989
3,598
15.7
1970 to 1979
1,908
8.3
1969 and earlier
1,321
5.8
Total
22,872
100
Source: 2000 United States Census
Table 21: VALUE FOR ALL OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS Union
City
Total
Percent
Total
947
100
Less than $50,000
14
1.5
$50,000- $99,999
125
13.2
$100,000- $149,999
438
46.3
$150,000- $199,999
281
29.7
$200,000 to $299,999
59
6.2
$300,000 to $499,999
30
3.2
$500,000 +
0
0.0
Median Value ($)
$141,000
MORTGAGE STATUS
1,636
100.0
Housing units with a mortgage, contract to purchase,
or similar debt:
589
36.0
With either a second mortgage or home equity loan,
but not both:
100
6.1
Second mortgage only
83
5.1
Home equity loan only
17
1.0
Both second mortgage and home equity loan
6
0.4
No second mortgage and no home equity loan
483
29.5
Housing units without a mortgage
358
21.9
Source: 2000 United States Census
Table 22: CONTRACT RENT 2000
Union City
Total
Percent
Total renter occupied units
18,709
100
Less than $200
533
2.8
$200 to $299
407
2.2
$300 to $499
2,848
15.2
$500 to $749
9,110
48.7
$750 to $999
4,110
22
$1,000 to $1,499
1,272
6.8
$1,500 or more
216
1.2
No cash rent
213
1.1
Median (dollars)
658
Years at Residence for Households
Table 20 breaks down the occupied housing units
in Union City based on when the householder
moved into the unit. The table shows a relatively
recent turnover in residents, with 21% moving in
within a year before the Census and 50% moving
in within 5 years of the Census.
Housing Value and Contract Rents
The median house value in Union City was $141,000
in 2000, with 46% of all owner-occupied units
falling between $100,000 and $150,000. For house
owners, 36% have a mortgage and 29% have no
second mortgage or home equity loan. 21% have
no mortgage at all.
Table 22 shows the median monthly rent in Union
City and the distribution of rental costs. As the
chart shows, 48% of rents in Union City ran between
$500 and $750 in 2000. Given then 30% of income
guideline from the State and the median household
income, residents should ideally be paying no more
than $766 in 2000 dollars.
28
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 23: Housing Conditions 2000
Union City
Total
Percent
House Heating Fuel- Occupied housing units
Total
22,872
100
Utility gas
15,213
66.5
Bottled, tank, or LP gas
876
3.8
Electricity
3,342
14.6
Fuel oil, kerosene, etc.
3,035
13.3
Coal or coke
0
0
Wood
0
0
Solar energy
0
0
Other fuel
230
1
No fuel used
176
0.8
Occupants per Room-Occupied housing units
Total
22,872
100
Occupants per Room (Over 1.0)
5274
23.1
Occupants per Room (Over 1.51)
2,503
10.9
Facilities
Total
23,741
100
Lacking complete plumbing facilities
460
1.9
Lacking complete kitchen facilities
688
2.9
Telephone Service- Occupied housing units
Total
22,872
100
No service
1,417
6.2
Source: 2000 United States Census
Housing Conditions
Table 23 details the housing conditions in Union
City based on the status of plumbing facilities,
kitchen facilities, telephone service and the
extent of overcrowding. All of these factors help
determine housing deficiency. In 2000, 34% of
homes had over 1 occupant per room and 10.9%
had over 1.51 occupants per room. Generally,
more than 1 person per room is considered
overcrowded. In regards to the provision of
facilities in Union City housing units, 1.9% lack
plumbing facilities and 2.9% lack kitchen facilities.
Additional, 6.2% lack telephone service. Table
23 also provides information on the heating fuel
used by occupied housing units in Union City,
showing that two-thirds use natural gas, with
sizable minorities using electricity or fuel oil.
Union City
Master Plan
29
Community Profile Element
Table 24:Dwelling Units Authorized by
Building Permits, 1990 to 2004 Union City
Year
Total
Single-Family Units
Multi-Family Units
1990
8
0
8
1991
0
0
0
1992
0
0
0
1993
0
0
0
1994
1
1
0
1995
9
1
8
1996
19
1
18
1997
11
0
11
1998
7
1
6
1999
6
0
6
2000
0
0
0
2001
98
3
95
2002
191
2
189
2003
105
0
105
2004
394
5
389
Source: N.J. Department of Labor/Data Center.
Estimated Future Housing Construction
Table 24 shows the number of dwelling units
authorized by building permits since 1990.
Between 1990 and 2000 61 units were authorized,
with 57 being multi family units. Since 2000, Union
City has seen a dramatic increase in the number
of dwelling units constructed. This is a sign of the
City’s vitality as permits authorized rose to a high
of 394 in 2004. Yet, almost all of the new units
continue to be multi-family.
This trend is likely to continue due to the high
cost of land and the need to maintain levels of
affordability
30
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 25: Employment and Labor Force, 1990-2004, Union City
Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
1994
29,895
26,452
3443
11.5%
1995
30,266
26,781
3485
11.5%
1996
30,604
27,118
3486
11.4%
1997
30,419
27,470
2949
9.7%
1998
29,918
27,217
2701
9.0%
1999
30,142
27,426
2716
9.0%
2000
29,114
27008
2106
7.2%
2001
NA
NA
NA
NA
2002
29,381
26,033
3,347
11.4%
2003
29,049
25,850
3,200
11.0%
2004
28,465
25,820
2,645
9.3%
Employment
Employment Status
Tables 25, 26 and 27 detail the level of employment,
labor force and unemployment rates for Union City,
Hudson County, and New Jersey. Fluctuations in
the Union City unemployment rate largely mirror
similar changes at the county, state and national
level. Union City, like the US at large, experienced
declining unemployment rates throughout the
1990’s, reaching a low of 7.2% in 2000, followed
by an increase during the recent recessions. The
difference between the rates seen in Union City,
Hudson County, and New Jersey is the higher
average level of unemployment in Union City,
with rates fluctuating between 9% and 11%.
Yet,
unemployment
rarely
fully
explains
employment trends because the unemployment
rate often under counts the number of people
without work. Generally two factors make the
unemployment rate faulty. The first factor is
underemployed workers, those who take jobs
simply to earn money but are not employed at
a level commensurate with their skills. Secondly,
as workers remain unemployed, they may stop
looking, become discouraged with the job
market, and stop being counted in either the
total labor force or the officially unemployed.
Union City
Master Plan
31
Community Profile Element
Table 26: Employment and Resident Labor Force, 1994 - 2004, Hudson County
Labor Force
Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
1994
284,700
258,100
26,600
9.3%
1995
288,210
261,316
26,894
9.3%
1996
291,503
264,596
26,907
9.2%
1997
290,795
268,032
22,763
7.8%
1998
286,413
265,564
20,849
7.3%
1999
288,569
267,610
20,959
7.3%
2000
297,756
283,415
14,341
4.8%
2001
296,700
280,000
16,700
5.6%
2002
295,984
273,183
22,801
7.7%
2003
293,051
271,257
21,794
7.4%
2004
288,964
270,949
18,015
6.2%
Table 26
Employment and Resident Labor Force, 1994 - 2004, New Jersey
Resident Labor Force
Resident Employment
Unemployment
Unemployment Rate
1994
4,067,500
3,790,000
277,500
6.8
1995
4,111,800
3,846,300
265,500
6.5
1996
4,184,100
3,925,800
258,300
6.2
1997
4,257,400
4,031,000
226,400
5.3
1998
4,242,400
4,047,100
195,300
4.6
1999
4,284,600
4,092,700
191,800
4.5
2000
4,286,700
4,129,100
157,600
3.7
2001
4,295,800
4,111,500
184,200
4.3
2002
4,371,600
4,117,600
253,900
5.8
2003
4,371,000
4,115,100
255,900
5.9
2004
4,388,000
4,176,200
211,800
4.8
Therefore, to fully understand the employment
dynamics in Union City, one must also look at the
changes in the total labor force. Therefore, while
the 2004 unemployment rate of 9.3% shows a
dramatic improvement over the 11% of 2003, the
declines seen both in the level employment and
in the total labor force, indicate that perhaps the
number of citizens without work is being under
counted.
32
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 28:Employment by Industry,
Union City 2000
Industry
Count
Percentage
Agriculture, forestry, fishing
and hunting, and mining
24
0.1
Construction
1,321
5.1
Manufacturing
4,726
18.3
Wholesale trade
2,047
7.9
Retail trade
2,934
11.3
Transportation and warehousing,
and utilities
2,441
9.4
Information
861
3.3
Finance, insurance, real estate,
and rental and leasing
1,670
6.5
Professional, scientific, management, administrative,
and waste management services
2,171
8.4
Educational, health and social services
3,598
13.9
Arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation and
food services
2,392
9.2
Other services (except public administration)
1,301
5.0
Public administration
388
1.5
Source: 2000 United States Census
Comparative Employment Data
Table 28 breaks down local employment by
industry, including private and public workers. As
the table shows, the manufacturing, retail and
education, health and social service industries
employ the largest percentages of Union City
workers.
Union City
Master Plan
33
Community Profile Element
Table 29:Private Employment and Wages
by Industry 1999, Union City
Industry
Wages
Weekly
Annual
Agriculture/Forest/Fish
-
-
Construction
-
-
Manufacturing
$415
$21,561
Transportation/Comm./Utilities
$463
$24,089
Wholesale Trade
$631
$32,822
Retail Trade
$336
$17,475
Finance/Insurance/Real Estate
$522
$27,155
Services
$442
$23,007
Other
-
-
Total/Average
$438
$22,760
Source: 2000 United States Census
Table 29 indicates the weekly and annualized
wages in 2000 dollars for workers in Union City
given the industry. Taking into account the
information from Table 28 that the retail and
manufacturing industries employ large number
of Union City residents, it is important to note that
the wages for private employment are the lowest
for both the manufacturing and retail industries.
34
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 30: Class of Worker, 2000
Union City
Number
Percent
Total
25,874
100
Private wage and salary workers
22,652
87.5
Government workers
2,165
8.4
Self-employed workers in own not incorporated
business
1,029
4
Unpaid family workers
28
0.1
Table 31: Occupation, 2000
Union City
Number
Percent
Occupation
25,874
100
Management, professional, and related occupations
4,436
17.1
Service occupations
4,969
19.2
Sales and office occupations
6,315
24.4
Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations
35
0.1
Construction, extraction, and maintenance
occupations
2,038
7.9
Production, transportation, and material moving
occupations
8,081
31.2
Class of Worker and Occupation
As Table 30 shows, 87.5% of workers living in Union
City were private wage or salary workers. The
second largest group was government workers,
which comprised 8.45% of workers living in Union
City.
Table 31 shows the occupation’s of employed
residents 16 years and older. The numbers
tend to confirm the results of the previous
employment by industry table, showing that the
highest percentages of residents work in sales or
production occupations.
Union City
Master Plan
35
Community Profile Element
Table 32: Travel Time To Work,
2000 Union City
Number
Percent
Workers who did not work at
home
24,463
100
Less than 10 minutes
1,740
7.1
10 to 14 minutes
3,084
12.6
15 to 19 minutes
3,534
14.4
20 to 24 minutes
3,724
15.2
25 to 29 minutes
1,053
4.3
30 to 34 minutes
4,447
18.2
35 to 44 minutes
1,696
6.9
45 to 59 minutes
2,564
10.5
60 to 89 minutes
1,687
6.9
90 or more minutes
934
3.8
Mean travel time to work
(minutes)
29.8
Table 33: Means Of Commute,
2000 Union City
Number
Percent
Workers 16 years
and over
24,812
100
Car, truck, or van
Drove alone
8,298
33.4
Carpooled
4511
18.2
Public transportation
8232
33.2
Walked
3027
12.2
Other means
395
1.6
Worked at home
349
1.4
Commuting Characteristics
Tables 32 and 33 show both the travel time
to work and the mode choice for Union City
residents. In 2000, the distribution of travel times
was relatively even, with most residents having
no more than a 40 minute commute and a mean
travel time of approximately 30 minutes. While
51% of workers used a car to commute, nearly
one third of residents use public transit and an
additional 12% walked to work are statistics that
most communities could only hope for.
36
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 34: Educational Attainment Union City and
Hudson County 2000
Union City
Hudson County
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Population 25 years and over
42,677
100
408,799
100
Less than 9th grade
10,608
24.9
55,229
13.5
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
8,843
20.7
65,254
16
High school graduate (includes equivalency)
10,853
25.4
109,542
26.8
Some college, no degree
5,778
13.5
61,316
15
Associate degree
1,280
3
14,102
3.4
Bachelor’s degree
3,029
7.1
66,835
16.3
Graduate or professional degree
2,286
5.4
36,521
8.9
Percent high school graduate or higher
-
54.4
-
70.5
Percent bachelor’s degree or higher
-
12.5
-
25.3
Source: 2000 US Census
Social Characteristics
Educational Attainment
In 2000, 54% of Union City residents had attained
at least a high school education, well below the
70% rate for Hudson County. A quarter of the
Union City population have less than a 9th grade
education and an additional 20% have between
a 9th and 12th grade education.
This is an important consideration for the City as
it works to plan adult education programs and
services.
Union City
Master Plan
37
Community Profile Element
Table 35: Language Spoken at Home Union City and
Hudson County 2000
Union City
Hudson County
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Population 5 years and over
62,243
100
571,095
100
English only
8,628
13.9
250,459
43.9
Language other than English
53,615
86.1
320,636
56.1
Speak English less than ‘very well
32,885
52.8
159,072
27.9
Spanish
50,209
80.7
214,949
37.6
Speak English less than “very well”
31,520
50.6
115,735
20.3
Other Indo-European languages
2,313
3.7
61,891
10.8
Speak English less than “very well”
911
1.5
25,702
4.5
Asian and Pacific Island languages
584
0.9
29,308
5.1
Speak English less than “very well”
254
0.4
11,785
2.1
Source: 2000 US Census
Language Spoken at Home
Table 35 shows that Spanish is the most common
language spoken in Union City, with 80% of
residents answering that it is the primary language
spoken at home. Moreover, 50% of residents
responded saying that they speak English less
than ‘very well.’ While the data shows that both
Hudson County and Union City are multi-lingual
communities, Hudson County has a much higher
percentage of non-Spanish speakers than does
Union City, with 44% speaking only English.
38
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 36: Nativity and Place of Birth Union City and
Hudson County 2000
Union City
Hudson County
Number
Percent
Number
Percent
Total population
67,088
100
608,975
100
Native
27,710
41.3
374,378
61.5
Born in United States
23,438
34.9
347,245
57
State of residence
16,943
25.3
247,824
40.7
Different state
6,495
9.7
99,421
16.3
Born outside United States
4,272
6.4
27,133
4.5
Foreign born
39,378
58.7
234,597
38.5
Entered 1990 to March 2000
17,676
26.3
102,582
16.8
Naturalized citizen
14,462
21.6
97,376
16
Not a citizen
24,916
37.1
137,221
22.5
Source: 2000 US Census
Place of Birth
In 2000, 41% of Union City residents are native US
citizens, with roughly a third of the population
born in the US. 58% of Union City residents were
born outside of the US, with 26% entering between
1990 and 2000. 61.5% of Hudson County residents
are native US citizens, with 57% born in the US.
Union City
Master Plan
39
Community Profile Element
Demographic Analysis and Profile
Taken in total, the data compiled in the 36
previous tables paints a consistent picture of the
demographic trends that have shaped Union
City for well over a decade. However, several
points stand out as particularly indicative of the
Union City profile.
1. 87% of Union City’s population classified
themselves as Hispanic.
2. The Hispanic population grew by 26%
between 1990 and 2000.
3. 58.7% of the Union City population is
foreign born and 26% entered between 1990
and 2000.
4. Between 1990 and 2000 real household
income in Union City feel by 11% and real per
capita income feel by 6%.
5. 43% of respondents spent more than 30%
of gross income on rent.
6. 81% of occupied housing units are rental
units.
The demographic profile of Union City indicates
that affordable housing, economic vitality and
education attainment are important community
issues. All of these issues are highly interconnected
and all stem from Union City’s role as a transition
community for those first entering the US. Perhaps
this is best seen in the decreases in Union City’s
Cuban population that first immigrated to the
area in the 1960’s and has now largely transitioned
into the US and is moving out of the area.
Population and Employment
Projections
Creating accurate up-to-date forecasts that are
as accurate as possible is difficult. Forecasting
population and employment is one of the critical
tasks that Metropolitan Planning Organizations
(MPO) in New Jersey undertake. These forecasts
are used as a basis for transportation studies
throughout each MPO’s jurisdiction. The North
Jersey Transportation Authority (NJTPA) is one
of three MPO’s in the State and Union City is
included in the NJTPA’s area of responsibility.
These population and employment projections
are
utilized
in
updating
the
Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) for Northern New
Jersey, the region’s long-range blueprint for
transportation investment, and are therefore
an important part of the regional infrastructure
investment program. In addition, forecasts
underpin the following NJTPA reports/studies that
are reflected in the RTP.
40
Union City
Master Plan
Community Profile Element
Table 37: NJTPA Population &
Employment Projections Union City
Year
2000
2005
2010
2015
2020
2025
2030
Population
67,090
69,610
72,980
75,060
77,420
78,870
80,670
Employment
11,620
11,790
12,640
13,400
14,700
15,590
16,170
• Air Quality Conformity
• Regional and Corridor Analyses
• North Jersey Strategy Evaluation
• Performance Measurement
• Transportation Disaster Response
• Environmental Justice Analysis
A key aspect of forecasting is coordination
with other agencies that create forecasts of
their own. By coordinating with these other
projection efforts, NJTPA develops forecasts
that provide a common foundation for planning
activities and future forecasting in the region.
While not an exact science, NJTPA’s projections
assist municipalities in planning for future
growth. These population forecasts do not
require the City to work toward meeting these
numbers. Rather, it means that the City has
analyzed this growth potential and planned to
accommodate this growth in an appropriate
and responsible manner.
As Table 37 shows, NJTPA projects growth in the
Union City population, however at slower rates
than occurred in the past decade, projecting
a population of 72, 980 by 2010 and 77,420 by
2020. The population growth is a sharp contrast
to the strong project employment growth,
which is expected to be more than double
population growth in the next thirty years.
NJTPA projects Union City employment to be
approximately 14,700 by 2020.
While the NJTPA projections can be used
to guide Union City planning efforts in
accommodating such growth, the projections
do not address Union City’s role as a transition
community for new immigrants and how Union
City’s role will change in the future.
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
42
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Land Use Element
Introduction
This
Land
Use
Element
examines
current
development trends and sets a vision for future
development for the City of Union City. The Land
Use Plan recognizes existing land uses within the
City and proposes adjustments to the Union City
Zone plan to address both short and long term
land use issues identified by the City through
public input. The Land Use Element will look to
the next 20 years as its horizon with an eye on
the distant future as well. This Element also
functions as the critical link in achieving the goals
and objectives established through the City’s
master planning public process and will help
guide the implementation of land development
ordinances. As noted in the Goals and Objectives
section, there are several goals for Union City
that specifically relate to land use:
~Preserve residential neighborhoods
~Provide a balance of land uses, and bal
anced development patterns, in appropriate
locations. Including height and design consid
erations.
~Capitalize on the City’s proximity to Manhattan
and its ideal location within one of the largest
financial, industrial and cultural metropolis in
the world.
~Preserve and build public spaces, community
facilities and recreational amenities as unique
assets of the City.
These land use goals and their associated objec
tives are combined with the larger community
vision for the future of Union City. The vision of
this Plan is to create areas with a strong “sense
of place” while encouraging socioeconomic,
economic and community vitality through well-
designed land development.
The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
(NJTPA) forecasts Union City’s population to grow
to a total of 78,870 persons by 2025, (an 11,780-
person increase since 2000 Census).
This estimate indicates that the
City will, in all likelihood, rely on
redevelopment as its catalyst
for growth as it is entirely built
out.
Union City continues to actively
seek out opportunities to
improve the quality of life
for its residents to offset the
developed
nature
of
the
City.
Given
the
difficulty
of achieving new open
and
public
space
goals, the City will
need
to
“create”
opportunity
through
Union City
Master Plan
43
Land Use Element
redevelopment
as
well
as
through
intergovernmental partnerships, grants and other
sources combined with changes in zoning, land
use and design standards.
This Land Use Element seeks to guide a
development pattern for the City considering
such factors as environmental characteristics,
existing land use patterns, compatibility with the
planning efforts of adjacent municipalities, and
the current and future land use demands of the
City, County and State. The Land Use Element is
broken down between Existing Zoning, Existing
Land Use, and Recommendations for Future
Land Use and Zoning.
Union City
Master Plan
45
Land Use Element
Table1: Union City Land Use Summary
Based on 2005 Town of Union City database (Union City) and MOD IV property tax data.
Tax Classification
# of Parcels
% of Total
Total Acreage
(rounded)
% of Total
Vacant Land
1
287
3.01%
29
4.95%
One to Four Family
Residential
2
5160
54.19%
227
38.74%
Commercial
4A
2151
22.59%
131
22.35%
Industrial
4B
275
2.89%
18
3.07%
Apartments
4C
952
10.00%
70
11.95%
Class I Railroad
5A
3
0.03%
7
1.19%
Schools
15A
46
0.48%
18
3.07%
Other Schools
15B
27
0.28%
2
0.34%
Public Property
15C
91
0.96%
23
3.92%
Churches &
Charitable
15D
325
3.41%
23
3.92%
Misc. Tax Exempt
15F
205
2.15%
38
6.48%
Total
9522
100
586
100
Existing Land Use
In order to ensure that future growth occurs in a
manner that enhances the visual and physical
environment and economic health of the
community, the City must have a complete
understanding of existing land uses as well
as an awareness of areas in need of specific
attention.
The City of Union City has a land area of
approximately
826+/-
acres,
586+/-
acres
excluding road and rail R.O.W. The following is a
summary of land uses in the Town (Table I). The
corresponding Existing Land Use Map graphically
depicts Table 1.
The land use summary table indicates that
vacant land is extremely scarce in Union City.
The total acreage of vacant parcels in the City is
29 acres, which is about 4.95 % of the total land
area and 3.01 % of the total number of parcels. A
significant amount of this vacant land is located
on the Palisades, and unsuitable for development
due to topography. The remainder is scattered
throughout the City.
The distribution of land uses in the City in some
areas do not follow a uniform pattern. One of
the most striking disadvantages of such a land
use arrangement is the location of industrial and
commercial uses in close proximity to residential
buildings. Although the distribution of freestanding
commercial uses within residential neighborhoods
may have a few advantages, it is not a desirable
land use policy without proper design constraints.
Due to scarcity of land in vacant parcels, the
only opportunity of re-organization might be
obtained by urban planning techniques such as
46
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
rehabilitation, redevelopment and preservation
of existing land uses through the application of
strong zoning ordinances.
Residential Land Uses
Residential uses occupy the greatest amount
of land area in the city. Residential land use
represents approximately 297 acres or 51% of total
land area while totaling nearly 64% of all parcels
in City. The two distinct categories of residential
uses consist of single to four family residential units
and apartment buildings. While one to four family
residential use buildings occupy 38.74 % of land
area, apartment use buildings occupy 11.95 % of
land area. The proportion of multi-family use has
been increasing over the past three decades. As
indicated in the Land Use Study and Plan of 1975,
this trend towards multi-family development is in
part due to the lack of vacant land, increasing
value of undeveloped lots, the need for rental
units, and increasing cost of living. This trend
continues today.
Residential uses that include one to four family
residential buildings, as well as, multi-family
apartment buildings are equally spread out in
all portions of the City. This mix of residential uses
in varying densities provides the City with great
potential to enhance its active and culturally
rich, diverse neighborhoods.
Union City
Master Plan
47
Land Use Element
Commercial Land Uses
Commercial land uses account for the second
largest percentage of occupied land in Union
City. The percentage of commercial uses in
Union City is greater than cities of similar size. The
acreage of land occupied by commercial uses
amounts to 131 acres, which is around 22.35 % of
total buildable land.
As mentioned earlier, commercial uses are
indiscriminately spread out throughout the
town, sharing land in proximity with residential,
industrial and institutional uses. These commercial
uses have infiltrated existing residentially zoned
neighborhoods. While the definition of commercial
is changing in the face of wireless technology
and the Internet, some recognition of the types of
businesses permitted in neighborhoods will need
to occur. This Plan addresses home occupation
separately from pure commercial and retail
services and makes recommendations as such.
Union City has three significant, and solid,
commercial districts/corridors in the City: on
Bergenline Avenue, between 16th and 49th
streets; on Summit Avenue, between 6th and 18th
streets; and on Paterson Plank Road between
New York Avenue and Kennedy Boulevard.
Union City
Master Plan
49
Land Use Element
Industrial Land Uses
Industrial land accounts for roughly 3.07% of
buildable land, and about 2.89% of buildable
parcels. Industrial uses in the late 1950’s,
according to the 1960 Master plan, occupied 56
acres or 6.6% of land. The decreasing amount
of land used for industrial activities is due to the
decline of industrial activities in both Union City
and in the region. Industrial structures are mostly
scattered throughout the City, and many have
been in place for decades.
While there are many functioning industrial uses
today, some of these sites are in “transitional use”
as heavy industry continues to wane in North
America. Re-use of these structures, or properties,
becomes an important consideration for the City
as to how best complete this transformation while
remembering they were once a stable source
of jobs. Re-use also provides the neighborhood
with stability as industrial buildings tend to have
historic value for neighborhoods. In New Jersey,
re-use has often attracted artist loft space,
business incubator space and other types of
commercial spaces in light of our now Internet-
based society.
50
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Publicly Owned Land Uses
Publicly owned land uses excluding school
property, are extremely scarce in Union City.
The publicly owned land uses amount to about
23 acres, or 3.92 % of total buildable land. The
publicly owned land uses include: the City Hall
building, a number of parcels owned by the
City, the three public libraries, the Union City
Health department buildings, land and buildings
owned by the Union City Parking Authority, the
Fire House, City owned parks and City owned
playgrounds. Given the density of Union City,
more public space is always desirable.
The New Fireman’s Memorial Park at 9th and Palisades
Avenue is slated for opening in 2009
Union City
Master Plan
51
Land Use Element
Institutional Uses
Public School Property, Other School Property, and
Churches & Charitable Uses)
Institutional uses, including the three MOD-VI
classifications: “Public School Property”, “Other
School Property” and “Churches and Charitable
Uses”, together amount to around 43 acres or 7.33%
of buildable land in Union City. In the 43 acres of land,
properties and buildings that belong to educational
institutions amount to 21 acres or 3.41 % of land, while
the remaining 23 acres or 3.92 % of land is occupied
by churches and other charitable institutions. Some
of the educational and religious institutional uses in
Union City Include: the Emerson High School, Public
School Number, Public School Number 7, the Union
County Board of Education, the New Jersey Schools
Construction Company, the Holy Family School, the
Hudson County Community College, Church of Jesus
- Latter Day, Evangelical Pentecostal Church, First
Spanish Church of Union City, German Evangelical
Church of St. Matthew, Grace Episcopal Church,
Holy Cross Armenian Apostle Church, Hudson Korean
Presbyterian Church, St. Augustine Church & School,
St. Johns Church of West Hoboken, St. Joseph’s
catholic Church, St. Michaels Church, St. Rocco’s
Roman Catholic Church, and St. Johns Lutheran
Church.
Union City
Master Plan
53
Land Use Element
Existing Zoning
Zoning in Union City is divided into seven (7)
zoning categories, as shown in the existing zoning
map. These seven (7) zones can be grouped
into three (3) generic categories: Residential,
commercial & office, and industrial. The following
section will analyze the existing zoning and
identify those zones where zoning changes may
be appropriate.
Residential Districts
The City presently has four (4) residential districts.
The primary distinction in these residential districts
lies in the type and density of housing units. The
residential districts R and R-1 permit housing types
ranging from one, two and four family dwelling
units to row houses. The residential district R-
MF permits multi-family residential units such as
garden apartments and high-rise apartment
buildings, while the R-MFA has been primarily
created to permit high-rise apartment buildings
in air rights locations above Route 495. The R,
R-MF and R-MFA are the only residential zones
that permit a limited extent of commercial uses
by special exception permit. However, as shown
on the map of “Existing Land Use vs. Existing
Zoning” on Page 72, the residential districts in the
City contain a significant number of commercial
establishments. Preservation of neighborhoods
thus becomes an important land use objective.
One to Four-Family Residential District
(R-1)
One, two and four-family uses are permitted in
the R-1 residential zones. The R-1 residential zones
exhibit the lowest density of housing in the City.
The R-1 zones are mainly located in the southern
end of the City, along Bergenline Avenue, New
York Avenue, and Palisade Avenue, between
2nd and 7th Streets. A few blocks of R-1 zone are
also located on the western edge of Palisade
Avenue, between 18th Street and 28th Street.
The R-1 zone is comprised of minimum lot areas
between 2,500 square feet for one-family
dwellings to 5,000 square feet for two and four-
family dwelling units. The maximum density for
this zone is 17 units per acre.
The principal permitted uses in this zone are: one,
two and four family dwellings; educational uses;
places of worship; parks, playgrounds, and similar
recreational uses operated by the municipality;
and civic buildings including municipal library,
police station and fire station.
Accessory uses permitted in this zone are:
private garages; customary home occupations;
professional offices; maintenance buildings and
comfort stations customarily found in municipal
parks and playgrounds; and signs limited to
name plates.
Public housing developments for senior citizens,
and
college
and
remedial
educational
establishments
are
permitted
by
special
exception permit.
Mixed Residential District (R)
The areas currently zoned R - Mixed Residential
District, are the most predominant type of
residentially zoned areas of the City. Numerous
blocks of the R zone are spread out on all quarters
of the City. The R zone permits two and four-family
dwelling units as permitted in the R-1 zone, and
also permits row houses for one-family use. The
minimum lot area permitted in the R zone is 1,600
square feet. The maximum density for the zone
is 27 units per acre, which is significantly higher
than the R-1 zone.
54
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Principal permitted uses in this zone are: any
principal permitted uses in the R-1 Zoning district;
and row houses for one-family use.
Accessory uses permitted in this zone are: any
accessory use permitted in the R-1 Zoning District;
and fully enclosed recreational facilities.
Uses allowed by special exception permit in the R
Zone include: all use permitted by special permit
in the R-1 District; annual membership clubs and
lodges; private parks and playgrounds; hospitals
and out-patient clinics; parking facilities other than
private garages; rooming houses; neighborhood
type commercial uses; and limited multi-family
developments – subject to site plan approval by
the Planning Board. It is this particular stipulation in
the zoning code that facilitates the breakdown of
the City’s residential neighborhoods by allowing
uses that are incompatible with residential use.
Multi-Family Residential District
(R-MF)
The RMF zone permits the construction of
garden apartment developments, and high-rise
apartment buildings, in addition to any principal
or accessory units permitted in the R zone. The
RMF zone is located in the following areas:
Three blocks on the north-west corner of
Pleasant Avenue and 32nd Street
Two blocks on the eastern edge of Paterson
Plank Road, between 2nd and 4th Streets
Two blocks on the eastern edge of West
Street, between 21st and 23rd Streets
One block on the western edge of Hudson
Boulevard, between 38th and 39th Streets
The RMF zone calls for a higher density of housing
as compared to both R-1 and R zones. The
maximum density for this zone is 110 units per
acre.
•
•
•
•
The RMF zone permits any accessory use
permitted in the R Zoning District. It also allows
the following uses by special permit: any use
allowed by special permit in the R Zoning District;
restaurants; personal service establishments; and
other compatible accessory commercial uses,
subject to site plan approval by the Planning
Board.
56
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Multi-Family Residential, Air Rights
(R-MFA)
The R-MFA zone permits high-rise apartment
buildings in air rights locations, subject to Site
Plan Approval by the Planning Board, and
subject to the controls for such use contained in
an R-MF District. The R-MFA zone is located in
the two blocks on either sides of Cantelo Street,
between Pleasant Avenue and Hudson Avenue
above Interstate 495.
The R-MFA Zone also permits any accessory
use, and any use allowed by special permit in
the R-MF District.
While an extremely important regional road, I-495 is
an extreme impediment to the overall well being of this
community by essentially dividing the City in half…
Union City
Master Plan
57
Land Use Element
Commercial & Office Districts
Commercial District (C)
The Commercial District (C) is located in two
identifiable major retail centers of the City, one
located along Bergenline Avenue, between 16th
and 49th Streets, and the other along Summit
Avenue, between 5th and 24th Streets.
Permitted uses in the zone include retail,
wholesale and service establishments, general
business and professional offices, hotels and
motels, municipal and other government offices,
and places of worship, fully enclosed restaurants,
schools, and commercial establishments.
The accessory uses permitted in the C Zone
are: public or private parks and malls; and
public or private parking facilities. This zone also
permits gasoline filling stations, transportation
terminal facilities’ drive-in banks, and residential
apartments in existing commercial structures.
58
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Union City
Master Plan
59
Land Use Element
Industrial Districts
Light Impact Industrial District (I)
The Light Impact Industrial District is located in
three distinct sections of the City: the first one
located along the western edge of the City,
approximately between 21st and 23rd streets;
the second located on the western side of City,
and on either sides of I-495; and the third area
located in the north-west corner of the City, at
the intersection of Broadway and 48th Streets
The following principal uses are permitted in
this Zoning District: Light Impact Industrial Uses;
Research and Development laboratories; Data
Processing Centers; fully enclosed wholesale
and
distribution
establishments;
printing
establishments; as well as heavy retail and service
commercial establishments including gasoline
stations, and auto repair centers.
Accessory uses including signs; garages and
parking lots for the storage of vehicles; and
recreational facilities are permitted in this zone.
It also allows a car wash by special exception
permit.
Union City
Master Plan
61
Land Use Element
Redevelopment Areas
There are (8) eight redevelopment areas within the
City. Each redevelopment area has its own Plan
that supersedes the current zoning regulations. As
redevelopment entails detailed study and analysis,
this Plan merely characterizes these area and does
not make recommendations for changes at this
time. The areas are depicted as follows:
Bus Garage Site
This redevelopment area consists of Lots 1-41 in
Block 153, on the Tax Map of the City of Union City,
New Jersey, commonly known as the Bus Garage
property. The area comprises one entire block and
is bounded by Bergenline Avenue on the west,
New York Avenue on the east, 29th Street on the
north and 27th Street on the south.
This redevelopment area is currently developed
with a one-story brick building, approximately
135,000 square feet, in a deteriorating condition.
The structure currently houses the City of Union
City Department of Public Works operations,
in addition to smaller City offices. The site was
formerly occupied by Public Service Gas & Electric
and then New Jersey Transit as a bus garage.
The properties on the western side of Bergenline
Avenue are primarily developed with retail and
service commercial uses, the development on the
eastern side of New York Avenue is residential in
nature, and includes a church, 29th Street between
Bergenline and New York Avenues, contains two
apartment buildings and commercial businesses
and 27th Street contains a commercial/industrial
structure.
It is the objective of the City of Union City to
maintain the bus garage on a portion of the
site and to develop the remainder with mixed
residential/commercial uses and those other uses
compatible with that development. In keeping with
that objective, the following uses are proposed for
the redevelopment area:
1.
Commercial uses, consisting of retail and
service establishments, general business and
professional offices, financial institutions, hotels and
restaurants. The types of commercial establishments
and their sizes and locations shall be appropriate
and compatible with existing and proposed land
uses.
2.
Multi-family residential uses, which may
include an affordable or subsidized housing
component, developed in conjunction with the
permitted commercial uses. The multi-family
residential uses shall be developed consistent with
the existing standards for such uses as contained in
the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
3.
Parking and loading facilities sufficient
to
serve
the
residential
and
commercial
development.
62
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Yardley Building Redevelopment
Plan
The
Yardley
Building
Redevelopment
Plan
regulates development within the Yardley Building
Redevelopment Area. The Area consists of an
underutilized and obsolete industrial structure,
a property used for church purposes, a small lot
owned by the City, a small apartment building,
and vacant land, which has been vacant
for well in excess of ten (10) years. The Area is
a little over six (6) acres in area; it is somewhat
irregular in shape and is also impacted by steep
topographic conditions along the eastern and
northern portions of the property. The depth of
the property combined with the topographic
conditions within the Area is such that it cannot
be subdivided in a manner consistent with the
typical lot configurations found elsewhere in the
“R” – Mixed Residential Zone in the City of Union
City.
The Area is located in the southeastern portion
of the City of Union City, along the eastern side
of Palisade Avenue between 4th Street and 7th
Street. It is located less than 500 feet north of
Washington Park, a county park that straddles
the Jersey City/Union City border.
The purpose of this Plan is to provide a
comprehensive development plan that will
allow and encourage the redevelopment of
this Area in a manner that is consistent with
the predominantly residential character of the
surrounding neighborhood; while at the same
time allowing for flexibility in the design and
layout of buildings and structures in the Area to
accommodate the unique characteristics of the
Area. The objectives of the Plan are:
1) The planning and development of the
Redevelopment Area is a residential and
commercial mixed use development.
2) To provide for the orderly redevelopment of
the industrial and other non-residential land
uses within the Area and the development of
the vacant land within the Area for residential
and/or commercial land uses.
3) To provide the infrastructure improvements
and
connections
necessary
for
the
contemplated new development.
4) To provide site improvements for the
beautification of the Redevelopment Area.
Union City
Master Plan
63
Land Use Element
Swiss Town Redevelopment Area
The redevelopment area includes the following
properties:
3300 Hudson Avenue (Block 202, Lot 1): 3
story residence in satisfactory condition.
3304-3308 Hudson Avenue (Block 202,
Lots 2, 3, and 4): three, 3-story residences in
satisfactory condition.
3312 Hudson Avenue (Block 202, Lots 26 to
32): a vacant site that formerly contained the
fire damaged Swiss town restaurant.
135 Peter Street (Block 202, Lot 33): a vacant
site, formerly containing a single family.
136 Cantello Street (Block 202, Lots 5 and 8):
a vacant site.
The objective of the Swiss Town Redevelopment
Plan is to have the area developed with multi-
family residential uses and those other uses
compatible with that development. In keeping
with that objective, the redevelopment area
is broken down into two zones and permits the
following:
Zone A
High rise apartment building
Off-street parking
Building Amenity Areas (indoor & outdoor)
including:
Fitness facility, meeting rooms, active and passive
recreation and other similar facilities
Open Space
Zone B
The existing uses and structures may continue.
New
development
shall
conform
to
the
requirements of the R District of the Union City
Zoning Ordinance.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roosevelt Stadium Redevelopment Plan
The Roosevelt Stadium Redevelopment Area
consists of an older, antiquated municipal
stadium on Block 134, as well as all Tax Lots found
on Tax Blocks 132 and 133, Tax Lots 12 through
33 on Tax Block 120, and Block 156, Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,
5, 6, 7, 8, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 in the City of
Union City, Hudson County, New Jersey.
The purpose of this Plan is to provide a
comprehensive development plan that will allow
for the construction of a new high school to
replace the existing Emerson High School, while
at the same time continuing the recreational
activities provided by the existing municipal
stadium. The Plan also envisions ancillary
structured parking facilities, community related
uses such as day care and health care facilities,
and the creation of redevelopment opportunities
for new residential development within the Area.
Objectives of the Plan are:
1) The planning and development of the
Redevelopment Area as a site for a new high
school to serve the City of Union City.
2) To provide for the orderly redevelopment of
the Redevelopment Area so as to be able to
reasonably accommodate the continued use
of the Roosevelt Stadium site for municipal
stadium and recreation uses in addition to
the new high school.
3) To provide for community service uses within
the Redevelopment Area, such as Community
Health Care and Day Care facilities.
4) To provide for redevelopment opportunities
for new residential and ancillary commercial
uses within the Redevelopment Area.
5) To provide the infrastructure improvements
and
connections
necessary
for
the
contemplated new development.
6) To provide site improvements for the
beautification of the Redevelopment Area.
NEW YORK AVE
BERGENLINE AVE
SUMMIT AVE
PALISADE AVE
NJ 495
31st ST
30TH ST
39TH ST
17TH ST
WEST ST
8TH ST
16TH ST
23RD ST
15TH ST
24TH ST
37TH ST
38TH ST
14TH ST
21ST ST
47TH ST
13TH ST
40TH ST
41ST ST
27TH ST
26TH ST
43TH ST
42ND ST
34TH ST
HUDSON AVE
CENTRAL AVE
10TH ST
11TH ST
12TH ST
49TH ST
25TH ST
48TH ST
3RD ST
4TH ST
18TH ST
35TH ST
36TH ST
KERRIGAN AVE
FULTON ST
44TH ST
HIGHPOINT AVE
JF KENNEDY BLVD
S WING VIADUCT
5TH ST
7TH ST
6TH ST
9TH ST
PARK AVE
19TH ST
20TH ST
SIP ST
46TH ST
33RD ST
28TH ST
29TH ST
BROADWAY
PETER ST
BROWN ST
MANHATTAN AVE
LINCOLN ST
PATERSON PLANK RD
2ND ST
COTTAGE PL
CLIFF ST
CANTELLO ST
CENTRAL AVE
PALISADE AVE
36TH ST
33RD ST
5TH ST
7TH ST
6TH ST
35TH ST
10TH ST
18TH ST
20TH ST
12TH ST
44TH ST
JF KENNEDY BLVD
WEST ST
11TH ST
R
R
R
R
C
I
C
R
R
C
R
R-MF
R-1
R-1
I
R-1
I
C
I
R
R-1
R-1
R-1
R
R-MF
C
R-MF
R-MF
C-O-A
R
C
R-MF
R-1
R-MF
R
R
R
R-MF
Existing Land Use vs. Existing Zoning
Union City, Hudson County
Master Plan
0
400
800
1,200
Feet
1 inch = 1,200 feet
Data Source: MOD VI Tax Data; Zoning Map of the City of Union City
Existing Land Use / Uso de Tierras Existentes
Vacant / Vacante
Single-Family Residential / Residencia de una Familia
Commercial / Comercial
Industrial / Industrial
Apartment / Apartamento
Class I Railroad Property / Propieded del Ferrocarril - Clase I
Public School Property / Propiedad de las Escuelas Publicas
Other School Property / Otra Propiedad de las Escuelas
Public Property / Propiedad Publica
Church and Charitable Property / Iglesia y Propiedad de Beneficencia
Other Exempt Property / Otras Propiedades Exentas
Existing Zoning
R: Residential, Mixed / Residencial mixta
R-1: Residential, 1&2 Family / Residencial, 1 y 2 Familia
R-MF: Residential, Multi-Family / Residencial, Multi-Familia
C: Commercial / Comercial
I: Industrial
C-O-A: Commercial, Office, Air Rights / Comercial, Oficina, Derechos de Altura
Steep Slope / Cuesta Empinada
Union City
Master Plan
65
Land Use Element
Relationship Between Zoning
and Land Use
A study of current land use patterns in comparison
with the zoning boundaries of Union City, as
shown in the Existing Land Use vs. Existing Zoning
Map reveals an extreme divergence in the
principal permitted uses of a particular zone,
and the actual land use. Disorganized urban
patterns eventually lead to poor functioning of
uses and lack of comfort within neighborhoods.
An examination of the relevance of current
zoning with respect to land use patterns is very
important in understanding the efficiency of the
City’s zoning.
The following sections discuss the conditions of
current land uses in residential, industrial, and
commercial zoning districts of the City’s Zoning
Ordinance.
Residential Zones – R-1, R, R-MF
Commercial uses occupy a large number of
parcels in the R and R-MF zones. While the R-
1 zone accommodates a few institutional,
public, and exempt uses, it is relatively free from
commercial and industrial uses. The R, Mixed
Residential zone is the largest zone in the City.
The R zone allows for all the residential building
types permitted in the R-1 zone, as well as row
houses for one-family use. It also allows for limited
multi-family developments, and neighborhood
type commercial uses, only by special permit.
However, commercial, industrial and apartment
uses occupy at least 25 to 30 percent of parcels
within the R-zone. The density of commercial
and apartment uses in the R-zone is more in the
northern half of the City, beyond Interstate 495.
Also, at least half of the total number of industrial
parcels in the City are located in the residential
districts.
The R-MF zone permits the highest density housing.
In addition to the principal uses allowed in the R-
Zone, this zone also permits garden apartments
and high rise apartment buildings. The R-MF zone
also permits uses allowed by special permit in
the R-Zone (such as neighborhood commercial
uses), and also permits restaurants and personal
service establishments. The concentration of
commercial and industrial uses is predominately
found in the R-MF zone, as compared to the
R-Zone. The following table summarizes the
percentage of various uses within the Residential
Zones of the City.
Table Land Uses in Residential
Zones – R-1, R, R-MF
Based on 2005 City of Union City database (Union
City) and MOD IV property tax data.
Tax Classification
# of
Parcels
% of Total
Vacant Land
1
208
2.62
Single-Family
Residential
2
4878
61.39
Commercial
4A
1237
15.57
Industrial
4B
201
2.53
Apartments
4C
850
10.70
Class I Railroad
5A
0
0.00
Schools
15A
39
0.49
Other Schools
15B
25
0.31
Public Property
15C
69
0.87
Churches &
Charitable
15D
295
3.71
Misc. Tax Exempt
15F
144
1.81
Total
7946
100
66
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Table Land Uses in Steep Slope
Zone – R-1, R, R-MF
Based on 2005 City of Union City database (Union City) and
MOD IV property tax data.
Tax Classification
# of Parcels
% of Total
Vacant Land
1
60
20.69
Single-Family
Residential
2
148
51.03
Commercial
4A
4
1.38
Industrial
4B
5
1.72
Apartments
4C
47
16.21
Class I Railroad
5A
3
1.03
Schools
15A
1
0.34
Other Schools
15B
0
0.00
Public Property
15C
14
4.83
Churches &
Charitable
15D
7
2.41
Misc. Tax Exempt
15F
1
0.34
Total
290
100
Table Land Uses in Industrial
Zone – R-1, R, R-MF
Based on 2005 City of Union City database (Union City)
and MOD IV property tax data.
Tax Classification
# of Parcels
% of Total
Vacant Land
1
12
3.36
Single-Family
Residential
2
79
22.13
Commercial
4A
154
43.14
Industrial
4B
52
14.57
Apartments
4C
37
10.36
Class I Railroad
5A
0
0.00
Schools
15A
6
1.68
Other Schools
15B
0
0.00
Public Property
15C
4
1.12
Churches &
Charitable
15D
7
1.96
Misc. Tax Exempt
15F
6
1.68
Total
357
100
Table Land Uses in Commercial
Zones – R-1, R, R-MF
Based on 2005 City of Union City database (Union City) and MOD IV property tax data.
Tax Classification
# of Parcels
% of Total
Vacant Land
1
7
0.75
Single-Family Residential
2
55
5.91
Commercial
4A
757
81.39
Industrial
4B
17
1.82
Apartments
4C
18
1.93
Class I Railroad
5A
0
0
Schools
15A
0
0
Other Schools
15B
2
0.22
Public Property
15C
4
0.43
Churches & Charitable
15D
16
1.72
Misc. Tax Exempt
15F
54
5.81
Total
930
100
Union City
Master Plan
67
Land Use Element
Commercial Zones – C, C-O-A
The two commercial zoning districts in the
City are C: Commercial Zone, and C-O-A:
Commercial, Office, Air Rights Zone. At least 80%
of the parcels within these zones are occupied
by commercial uses, and these commercial uses
are mostly concentrated on Summit Avenue,
and Bergenline Avenue. All of the properties
within the C-O-A zone are classified as “Other
Exempt Property” in the Mod-VI Data, and these
properties include Interstate 495, of which the
City owns air rights.
Around 6% of the parcels in the Commercial
zones are occupied by one to four family
residential uses, around 2% each by apartments
and Industrial uses. The remaining parcels are
either public-owned or contain Institutional uses.
The concentration of residential uses, including
single-family dwelling units and apartment
buildings, within the commercial zoning districts is
significantly less. Also, there are very few industrial
uses located within the commercial zones.
Historically, Bergenline Avenue and Summit
Avenue have been the major commercial
corridors in the City. However, the concentration
of commercial uses has now spread along a
few more streets. The highest density of such
commercial activity can be observed on
Paterson Plank Road between New York Avenue
and Kennedy Boulevard, which is the third
commercial corridor of the City.
The Paterson Plank Commercial corridor, and
a few other commercial/mixed-use districts is
discussed in the “Zoning Recommendations”
section of this Plan.
Industrial Zone - 1
The industrial zones have the highest incidence
of non-industrial uses within their boundaries.
The I-Light Industrial Zone permits Research and
Development laboratories; data Processing
Centers; fully enclosed wholesale and retail
establishments;
printing
establishments;
as
well as heavy retail and service commercial
establishments including gasoline stations, and
auto repair centers.
A few of the commercial use parcels, as shown
as in the “Industrial vs. Existing Land Use” map,
might actually be permitted principal uses in
the I-Zone. However, in spite of including these
commercial land uses, the industrial zone is still
occupied by at least 45% of non-permitted uses
for zoning. Such uses include: single-family and
multi-family residential uses; schools; public uses;
churches; and other tax exempt uses.
Clearly, it can be concluded that the present
zoning boundaries have not been maintained
and are obsolete with respect to the rapidly
changing land use patterns. However, there is
an immediate need for enforcing boundaries
in existing residential zones, and also a need for
strengthening land development regulations
that ensure conflicting land uses can no longer
be substantiated. The re-organization and
reestablishment of zoning boundaries needs
to take advantage of the unusually high
concentration of commercial uses in a City
of around 1.3 square miles. The complexity of
urban patterns in the City reveals that zoning
needs to be extremely organized in order to be
an effective tool in guiding the progress of Union
City. It is only then that the City can truly ask its
Planning and Zoning Boards to “hold the line”.
Union City
Master Plan
69
Land Use Element
Land Use Plan Recommendations
Union City is a fully developed urban area with a
land area of approximately 1.3 square miles and
a population fast approaching, if not already
exceeding 70,000 people. The scarcity of land
available for future development, together
with the need for affordable housing, access to
job, and increased need for diverse good and
services requires a coordinated planning effort.
This new Master Plan calls for a balanced and
efficient use of land through new zoning that will
effectively coordinate the outstanding resources
in Union City.
The current Zoning Ordinance of the City
prescribes a set of zoning regulations that are
primarily focused on the use of land rather than
the intended character of the various residential/
commercial/industrial areas it governs. The use
regulations are extremely liberal with little to no
design standards, leading to a conflict between
land uses such as the location of a two-family
residential building adjacent to a car mechanic
shop with no design controls. Indirect allowances
such as “uses allowed by equal permit”, have
also lead to an unintended commingling of
incompatible uses.
The Ordinance follows a tiered approach in
which a lower density use is permitted in a
higher density zone and not vice-versa. This type
of tiered approach is very similar to the 1916
Zoning Code of New York, wherein residential
(apartments) are permitted in the commercial
zones, while commercial uses are prohibited in
residential areas. Although this creates a mix of
uses, it does not necessarily result in a cohesive
and efficient pattern of development.
This plan recommends that the zoning regulations
for the City should be based on the desired
character and attributes of the particular area
being addressed, rather than entirely on the
basis of use or basic bulk standards. A character-
based or form-based approach ensures that
the regulations specified in the ordinance work
towards achieving a “character” for a particular
area or zoning district. This can be accomplished
through detailed design principles and specific
architectural standards.
General Planning Policy Recommendations
A Green Community
The environment is as important to cities as it is
to rural communities. While the components
differ based on location, the goals remain the
same- to be good stewards of the earth. Being
good stewards of the earth for communities’
like Union City means creation and preservation
of open spaces, opportunities for groundwater
recharge, reduction of the “heat-island” effect
and the improvement of air quality amongst
other things.
Shade trees are an important component
in improving aesthetics as well as the
environmental quality of cities. Shaded portions
of any neighborhood reduce the “heat-island”
effect which in turn reduces air conditioning costs
and improves air quality by filtering particles,
reducing carbon dioxide and producing oxygen
for cleaner air. Trees also help reduce energy
costs and therefore should be considered as
part of the City’s utility infrastructure system. This
is consistent with the manner in whichin 2008
Hudson County Master Plan seeks to address this
issue.
Union City has an estimated tree cover/
canopy of 10%. Mayor Brian Stack stated goal
is to improve and increase this percentage. A
reasonable target is 20% within the next 5 years.
The objectives for this goal should be to:
Seek recommendations from the shade tree
•
70
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
advisory committee on the placement, care
and maintenance of trees.
Complete a Community Forestry Plan.
Seek funding sources/grants to plant and
maintain trees.
Participate in the Cool Cities Program and
plant 250 trees per year
Engage volunteers in tree plantings
Create sustainability design guidelines
•
•
•
•
•
Creating Centers of Place
Creating areas that have a sense of place is
not a new concept for Union City. Many areas
of the City have inherently developed unique
characteristics such as stretches of Bergenline
Avenue and Park Avenue. Notwithstanding
historical development patterns, more can be
accomplished. Center-based planning and
“placemaking” is a method of planning that the
City can utilize when developing it’s land use
ordinances and can be instrumental in creating
a sustainable development initiative that is
community focused. Buildings, streets and public
spaces should be oriented toward the people
who use them and not merely the automobile and
its specific distraction; “ traffic”. The past practice
where planning for automobiles is paramount
requires a “quantity” of land approach whereas
planning for people requires a “quality of design”
approach.
Areas where placemaking efforts are appropriate
exist throughout most of Union City, but require
focus on the specific attributes of the particular
areas of the City being addressed. These areas
include those discussed in this Plan, particularly
Areas #1, #2, #4, and #7. Creating “places” can
become a critical component to strengthening
neighborhoods and creating more vibrant
commercial districts that work to their maximum
economic potential and thus enhancing the City
as a desirable place to live in, spend and shop.
Containment
The City should work to contain land uses to the
appropriate zone. Commercial land uses should
be held to commercial or mixed-use zones and
the preservation of residential neighborhoods
should be considered a top priority. The idea
of containment is to solidify areas where civic
and commercial activity can be concentrated
with emphasis on placemaking that can work
Union City
Master Plan
71
Land Use Element
to create a solid, strong tax base. While the
City’s land development ordinance revision
(recommended herein) will undoubtedly play a
stronger role in accomplishing this objective, the
land use Boards must ensure that all the proofs
required by law are met before a variance is
granted to the applicant. As such, this new Master
Plan will provide the Zoning Board of Adjustment
a stronger ability to enforce the law and uphold
the long term vision for growth and preservation
once new ordinances are adopted.
Under the Municipal Land Use Law, the Planning
Board and the Board of Adjustment must
review the Master Plan with each development
application to determine whether the proposed
application is consistent with the zone plan and
zoning intent. Coordination of these efforts is
key.
Redevelopment & Rehabilitation
As noted earlier, Union City is a built-out
community and its future will in some cases rely on
RE-development to facilitate revitalization. While
the City has utilized the Local Redevelopment and
Housing Law (LRHL) in the recent past, additional
areas may be worthy of pursuit. Redevelopment
plans are in essence very specific mini-master
plans. Because redevelopment can be specific
in its approach, it may assist solve more complex
development issues that traditional planning
and zoning cannot. Such an approach could be
considered at any time depending on the needs
of the City and the challenges presented in the
particular location of interest.
Whenever Redevelopment is utilized, a concerted
and holistic approach whereby site context,
building design, and functional relationships
to adjacent properties should be the primary
planning considerations.
While
single-site
redevelopment
plans
are
appropriate, Union City may also be eligible to
employ a broader rehabilitation area critera.
Although the City has a very sucessful 5-year tax
abatement program, Rehabilitation areas can
work to encourage revitalization through private
property reinvestment through a more flexible
implementation of design standards use in-concert
with property tax abatements. Rehabilitation
areas are similar to that of
redevelopment areas, but
without
condemnation
powers.
In
rehabilitation
and redevelopment, tax
abatements are structured
such that a property owner
that rehabs or voluntarily
redevelops their property
in accordance with the
rehabilitation plan does
not pay taxes on the
improvements made to
their property for a 5-
year period. Sometimes
a phased-in ortiered
approach
is
u t i l i z e d
whereby
72
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
incremental increases over the 5-year term are
stepped up to the 5th year where full taxes are
then assessed on the improvements made. Within
this time, the idea is that the property owner
recoups their investment from the tax saving
over the 5-year term. Redevelopment may be
up to 30-years.
Working hand in hand, redevelopment and
rehabilitation can facilitate development
of specific parcels while also mandating
infrastructure improvements that help implement
a more specific plan. Improvements such as a
streetscape, open space provisions, and other
off-tract improvements can be built into the plan
and negotiated.
Several areas will be discussed in this plan that
could benefit from the LRHL and thus ensure a
more comprehensive development approach
to improving these areas. While planning for
redevelopment,
public
space
should
also
be a consideration and incentived through
development bonuses that the plan for that
particular redevelopment area could provide
for.
Public Places
The City continues to work towards acquiring
land for creating pocket park spaces inside
neighborhood residential and neighborhood
mixed-use districts. Parks should be strategically
positioned in the interior areas, edges of
residential and commercial areas, and pockets
along the Palisades such as “9-11 Memorial Park”
on Palisade Avenue with its vantage points that
provide magnificent views of the skyline of New
York. Every opportunity to provide accessible
City Hall Park, New York City
La Sorbonne Plaza, Paris, France
Karlavagan, Stockholm, Sweden
....Public Places are an important component
of every successful City. They unite us, refresh
us, inspire us....
Union City
Master Plan
73
Land Use Element
open space should be pursued.
Furthermore, the City has some opportunity to
create “Green Corridors” along its east-west
streets, perpendicular to the primary arterial
streets including: Palisade Avenue; New York
Avenue;
Bergenline
Avenue;
and
Central
Avenue. This would be accomplished through
a landscaping plan (where appropriate) that
would focus on pedestrian travel to the City’s
commercial corridors and link the parks and
other community spaces. Provisions for the safer
movement of children and older pedestrians in
the City should also be considered.
The City should also consider park spaces through
redevelopment. While larger building types
maybe appropriate for certain portions of Union
City, pocket park spaces provide breath-ability
and add significantly to land values and improve
quality of life. The City must ensure however,
that when new developments are proposed,
developers do not create spaces under the
guise of open space that are in essence “private
spaces” only for that particular project. While
building amenities are important, space should
look, feel and function as public when feasible.
In
addition,
streets
and
their
associated
streetscape and sidewalk network should be
considered an extremely important component
of the open space system. Such an approach has
been known to effective in bolstering economic
development initiatives when appropriately
designed.
74
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Historic Preservation
Historic buildings add tremendous value to
communities that embrace them. Union City
is blessed with commercial and residential
structures that are of real value. Many of these
assets are hidden from view as aluminum siding
and alterations have diminished these resources.
The City may implement a historic façade
improvement program that aims at giving tax
incentives for residents who restore or preserve
their historic character in these designated areas.
Surrounding areas should also be reviewed for
the appropriateness for architectural standards
that require construction of buildings that
complement the historic character and value of
the neighborhood.
A Zoning ordinance that considers the historic
character of a property will help protect older
buildings from substantial alteration or demolition.
A City with such a rich history should consider
historic buildings and require newer buildings to
have architectural features that are compatible
with historic buildings in the same neighborhood.
The idea is not to mimic, but to complement.
Preliminarily, some areas worthy of further analysis
include;
Sip Street
Churches
Palisades Avenue (near Reservoir)
23rd Street
New York and 2nd Avenue
•
•
•
•
•
76
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Zone Plan Recommendations (Future Land
Use Consideration Map)
Downtown, (Area #1)~
The
Summit
Avenue
commercial
corridor
is characterized by the smaller retail stores
along both sides of Summit Avenue, gas
stations along Kennedy Boulevard, Paterson
Plank Road, standing big box retailers, and
various conversions of residential buildings into
commercial establishments.
The Summit Avenue commercial corridor has
evolved from being a commercial Main Street
into a regional center, servicing people of three
municipalities. The commercial activity which
has also spilled over into the residential blocks
adjacent to Summit Avenue has resulted in a
hodgepodge of development patterns that
are showing increased signs of blight. However,
this encroachment of commercial activity has
proven to be a blessing in disguise by providing
an opportunity for the City to capitalize on the
regional influence of this area.
It is recommended that the Summit Avenue
commercial district be rezoned to the boundaries
of Area #1 and to include any other blocks that
the City may determine are appropriate for
inclusion. Regulations for this area should aim
to create a mixed-use center with a pedestrian
intensive
streetscape
environment,
shared
parking facilities, uniform building density and
uniform cohesive façade treatments that take
advantage of the region’s purchasing power
and proximity to Washington Park. Multi-family
housing would also be appropriate with this
zone. The zoning should also capitalize on the
City’s new Magnet School for the Arts located
between 5th & 6th Streets and Kennedy & Summit
Boulevards.
Should zoning changes fail to produce the
desired results, it is recommended that the City
give serious consideration to studying this area
as an “area in need of redevelopment” under
the LRHL. Another option for the City should work
to pursue regional planning with surrounding
municipalities. Other recommendations for this
area are:
Union City
Master Plan
77
Land Use Element
Design Principles:
Create a Downtown District that permits
medium density mixed-use with retail uses
at the street level, within specifically defined
areas with residential/office uses in the upper
floors;
Uniform building massing throughout the
district, with a smooth transition to the
adjacent residential neighborhoods;
Preservation of historic buildings;
Pedestrian and sidewalk improvements that
include a well lit streetscape to facilitate
night-time activity throughout the district in a
“pedestrian first” approach;
Retail storefronts that are highly transparent
at the street level, outdoor public spaces,
and an active street-life;
Façade treatments of new developments
should work together with the older, existing
building characteristics;
Coordinate with the existing park and create
pocket parks where appropriate throughout
the district;
Eliminate surface parking along Summit
Avenue and reduce auto-driven design;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Land Use:
Permit a wide variety of retail uses;
Permit small to medium scale office uses, but
prohibit them at the street level;
Permit a wide variety of residential uses
above commercial land uses;
Prohibit new gas stations;
Limit outdoor sales along Summit Avenue,
subject to City approval
Prohibit new drive-thru establishments of any
type;
Prohibit
public
storage,
auto-mechanic
shops, and warehouses of any size along
Summit Avenue;
Mandate on-site structured parking for newer
mixed-use buildings (except along Summit
Avenue);
Permit public and community facilities to be
integrated into the downtown.
Establish build-to-lines for the commercial
corridors to create a strong streetwall and
pedestrian enviroment;
Take cues from the surrounding character of
the neighborhood to set maximum building
heights
Provide density bonuses for plans that provide
open space.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
78
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Center City (Area #2)
Area #2 stretches from the eastern edge of the
City to the western edge of the City, generally
between 29th Street to the south and 36th Street
to the north. This area is characterized by the
Interstate 495 corridor that physically divides
the City into two halves thus acting as a barrier
between the northern and southern halves of the
City; The area contains a mix of uses such as the
Bus Depot site and older industrial use buildings
that conflict with the blocks of limestone row
homes the historic public library building; and
the retail stores along Bergenline Avenue. There
are properties on both sides of 495 that are in
need of renovation but by in large, the chaotic
circulation patterns and large box retail buildiing
stores with large surface parking lots; and a sense
of isolation created by the 495 corridor are issues
in need of addressing.
Due to its strategic location at the center of the
City and at a significant crossroad along the
Bergenline Avenue commercial corridor, there
are ample opportunities for infill development
that can provide a wonderful opportunity
of creating a bustling City Center. However,
bridging the gap caused by I-495 will become
import in uniting this district. Such a concept,
although ambitious, can become vital to the
growth of the City as a cultural and social center
for the entire community. Treating this section of
the City as the primary gateway of Union City,
with iconic architecture, pedestrian-friendly
active streetscapes, public parks, with additional
housing opportunities will undoubtedly have a
positive impact on the long-term future of Union
City.
Master Plan Committee member, and renowned architect Mr. Jules
Panero presented a vision for how Area #2 could look. Complete with
public gathering spaces, pedestrian thoroughfares and design features
such as arcades, the vision he has refined envisions what he appropriately
calls “A City United”. (right- a scale model of his work)
Union City
Master Plan
79
Land Use Element
The core principle for this idea of a Center City is
decking-over Route 495 with a grand Public park.
Decking will help reduce the effects this road
has in dividing the City. Decking I-495 is not new
idea to Union City, in fact residents and others
have long envisioned the possibility for many
years although past planning efforts envisioned
constructing buildings over Route 495. This Plan
does not advocate constructing building over I-
495 and sees park space as the most practical
and most important consideration for the City.
Two main concerns in placing buildings over I-
495 are worth considering; one, building over
the highway is costly and affects security of the
Lincoln Tunnel approach; second, the benefits
of park space to the entire community are
significant. Park space will not merely diminish
the impact of I-495 as a physical barrier between
the north and south portions of the City, but in a
place as densely populated as Union City, open
space adds value to quality of life. Decking I-495
in whole or in part presents a fantastic opportunity
to physically unite the City. Two concepts are
presented in this Plan to reflect how such an
effort envisioned.
To accomplish its goals, it is recommended
that the City may utilize redevelopment as a
means to create a comprehensive plan for
Center City. Through the LRHL, the City has the
ability to create a plan that creates incentives
for property owners to redevelop or rehabilitate
their structures. A redevelopment area will also
work out the details on how new development
can contribute to the public place envisioned
for the air rights above Route 495.
An effort this ambitious requires public and
private capital in order to succeed. Thus
redevelopment
is
a
potentially
important
tool to implement such a vision. Figure-1;
“Potential City Center Redevelopment Area”
delineates the boundaries where a potential
redevelopment and/or rehabilitation study is
conducted. The difference in the area depicted
for redevelopment, versus the Master Plan’s
zoning recommendations is to stres the fact
that a comprehensive planning strategy may
exceed traditional zoning ordinance capabilities.
Through Redevelopment, relationships between
adjacent properties can be strengthened. It
can also provide greater protection for historic
property and enhance the design approach in
a very site specific manner.
Notwithstanding the redevelopment planning
process available to the City, this Plan makes the
following zoning recommendations in an effort
to capitalize on today’s market conditions:
Design Principles:
1) Create a mixed-use CORE City Center area
with its boundaries limited to a few blocks around
the intersection of Bergenline Avenue and Route
495.
a. Create a public park and town square
over Route-495 by decking it;
80
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Union City
Master Plan
81
Land Use Element
Reducing the effect of Route 495 as a barrier...
A concept for the air-rights above I-495. Connecting the City through a
park would take Union City to the next level within New Jersey’s great
communities...
82
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
b. Match the scale of new buildings with
that of the existing historic buildings such
as the Public Library, Post Office, residential
buildings south of I-495, the Banknorth
building, and the North Fork Bank building;
c. Encourage rehabilitation of residential
buildings
and
preservation
of
historic
buildings;
d. Create a truck and bus circulation plan
that works with the pedestrian environment;
e. Employ a “pedestrian-first” approach that
works with a comprehensive public parking
plan;
f.
Encourage retail uses, while prohibiting
office and residential uses at the street level.
Retail storefronts should be highly transparent
at the street level, with arcades, outdoor
public spaces, to promote an active night-
life;
g. Center development around community
buildings and park space;
Land Use:
Permit a wide variety of retail uses;
Permit office uses, but prohibit them at the
ground level;
Prohibit surface parking lots;
Prohibit
public
storage,
auto-mechanic
shops, and warehouses of any size;
Prohibit any construction of buildings, other
than buildings essential for public amenities,
•
•
•
•
•
over the 495 decking;
Permit public and community facilities.
Other Bulk Recommendations:
Establish build-to-line setbacks for commercial
corridor only;
Allow for increases in building heights while
respecting the surrounding character of the
neighborhood;
Provide density bonuses for the preservation
of open space;
Enhance and compliment the existing
streetwall to continue a pedestrian-friendly
atmosphere;
Permit zero lot-lines, and consider increased
lot coverage for building that contain parking
within them.
2) Create high-density mixed-use gateways at
the eastern and western edges of the CORE City
Center (as depicted on the Center City Map).
These higher density multi-story buildings shall
be the new landmarks of Union City, and shall
provide an opportunity for increasing the housing
stock.
a. Create high-density districts with well-
defined edges;
b. Mandate the creation of public parks in
each new development;
c. Require buildings to be built to the front
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
83
Land Use Element
property line at the street level and to step-
back 10 feet after every sixth (6th) floor;
d. Encourage retail uses at the street level
and residential and office uses beyond the
first floor.
d. Ensure that historic properties and districts,
such as Sip Street, are designed into, and
not negatively impacted by larger projects
envisioned for this area.
Land Use:
Permit a wide variety of retail uses;
Permit office uses, but prohibit them at the
street level;
Permit a wide variety of residential uses –
discourage residential uses at the street level,
except lobbies, entrances;
Prohibit any construction of buildings, other
than buildings essential for public amenities,
over the 495 decking;
Prohibit drive-thru facilities of any type;
Prohibit
public
storage,
auto-mechanic
shops, and warehouses of any size;
Mandate parking for every building to be
located on-site, as stacked parking;
Promote public and community facilities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Other Bulk Recommendations:
Establish build-to-line setbacks;
Allow for increased building heights while
considering existing historical properties and
streets, such Sip Street, within the district to
function as one united place.
Permit zero lot-lines, and consider increased
lot coverage for building that contain parking
within them.
Provide a density bonus for contributing the
remaining 30% of lot area to the City’s open
space system.
Preserve and utilize views of Manhattan;
Create a smooth transition in massing
and streetscape environment, between
the City Core and adjacent residential
neighborhoods;
Create shared parking facilities;
Permit larger retail floor area in mixed-
use buildings with limited floor area at the
street level. Larger retailers can expand
into the second and third floors with primary
entrances/storefronts at the street level.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
84
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Highpoint, Summit and Kerrigan (Area #3)
This area is located south of Area #2, and to the
east of JFK Boulevard, and is characterized by
active and inactive industrial uses along Kerrigan
Avenue and JFK Boulevard, freestanding large
box retail buildings with large surface parking
lots on JFK Boulevard, multi-family residential
buildings on Central Avenue and West Street
and Roosevelt Stadium.
A number of industrial and commercial uses in
this area transiting into other uses. A strong trend
towards multi-family residential housing can be
clearly seen within the area and this trend also
seems to be most beneficial to the area because
of its strong connection with Bergenline Avenue
on the west, two solid residential areas in the
north and south of the area well as the Monastery
and Roosevelt stadium. While residential uses are
appropriate, locating taller multi-family residential
buildings in this area should be sensitive to the
historic monastery. This Plan offers the following
recommendations for this area:
Create Strong standards and ewzone Area
#3 ro allow for multi-family residential and
also provision for industrial uses as transition
occurs;
Continue to allow industrial uses with strong
design standard;
Encourage artist live/work space as part of
industrial building re-use.
Create design standards that are responsive
to the heightened scale of adjacent
residential uses;
Create
an
intense
pedestrian
friendly
environment along all streets;
Consider
density
bonuses
based
on
contributions to open space and public
recreation facilities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
85
Land Use Element
Northeast Union City (Area #4)
Area #4 is located in the northeastern corner of
the City and shares its boundaries with the Town
of West New York on the north and the Township
of Weehawken on the east. Park Avenue in
Weehawken is a commercial street with a
number of retail, service and convenience stores
at the street level.
Although the blocks within Area #4 are currently
zoned R (all of the blocks fronting on Broadway
and two blocks in the triangular area between
Park Avenue and Broadway) and I (two blocks
in the triangular area between Park Avenue
and Broadway), they have been greatly
influenced by commercial activity on Park
Avenue in Weehawken. Numerous buildings with
commercial uses at the street level can be found
in this area. In addition to the commercial activity
at the street level, higher building intensity seems
to be appropriate for the area, especially in
response to higher densities at its boundaries with
West New York and Weehawken. The following
are the recommendations for this area:
Design Principles
Create a High Density Mixed-Use District
that permits high-rise residential with retail
activities on the street level;
Offer a wide array of housing opportunities,
from loft housing and studio apartments to
luxury condominiums;
Create an active retail environment at the
street level, along Park Avenue, Broadway,
and Hudson Avenue;
Prohibit vehicular entrances, surface parking
lots, and curb cuts along Park Avenue,
Broadway and Hudson Avenue frontages;
Employ
a
pedestrian-first
approach
throughout the district;
•
•
•
•
•
Develop
a
façade
and
streetscape
improvement program on Park Avenue and
Broadway frontages;
Retail storefronts should be highly transparent
at the street level;
Mandate parking for every building to be
located on-site, as structured parking;
Prohibit drive-thru businesses.
Land Use:
Permit a wide variety of retail uses, except
drive-thru facilities;
Permit small to medium scale office uses, but
prohibit them at the street level along Park
Avenue and Broadway;
Permit a wide variety of residential uses –
discourage residential uses at the street level
along Park Avenue and Broadway, except
lobbies or entrances;
Prohibit
public
storage,
auto-mechanic
shops, and warehouses of any size;
Permit public and community facilities.
Other Bulk Recommendations:
Establish build-to-lines;
Review the appropriateness in increasing
building heights to rise consistent with the
development and/or zoning of adjacent
communities and recent redevelopment
projects.
Consider providing a density bonuses for
contributions to the City’s open space
system;
Mandate a minimum lot area of 30,000
square feet for buildings over 6 stories.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
86
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Park Avenue (Area #5)
Area #5 is located immediately south of Area
#4 and has retail uses limited to the Park Avenue
frontage. A few workshops and smaller industrial
uses are located in the blocks south of Fulton
Street. These two blocks also contain a significant
number of vacant parcels.
Recommendations for this area include:
Allow for new residential land uses consistent
with newer structures in the area;
Limit retail/commercial uses to the Park
Avenue frontage;
Prohibit drive-thru businesses;
Prohibit vehicular access points and surface
parking lots along Park Avenue and Hudson
Avenue.
•
•
•
•
Uptown (Area #6)
Area #6 area is located in the northwestern corner
of the City and consists of six blocks north of 47th
Street between JFK Boulevard and New York
Avenue. It contains the newly constructed Train
Station building, the Bank of America building
at the intersection of 47th Street and Bergenline
Avenue, mixed-use buildings with street level retail
on both sides of Bergenline Avenue, 1-4 family
residential buildings in the blocks south of the
train station, and one large tract of land owned
by the Hudson County Community College.
More can be done to take advantage of the
Bergenline Avenue light rail station. As such,
recommendations for this area are:
Design Principles:
Create an Uptown District that facilitates
mixed-use transit oriented development that
capitalizes on the presence of the train station
and also on its location along the Bergenline
Avenue commercial corridor.
Encourage street level commercial uses
throughout the area;
Encourage new residential buildings;
Create plazas and community spaces that
center on Transportation access points;
Explore opportunities for structured parking
facilities that incorporate shared parking;
Create an active “pedestrian first” approach
throughout the district;
Consider
developing
a
specific
Transit
Oriented Redevelopment Plan for the area;
Coordinate with adjacent municipalities and
conduct regional planning exercises for the
area.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
87
Land Use Element
Land Use:
Permit a wide variety of retail uses;
Permit a wide variety of residential uses,
except new one-family dwelling units –
discourage residential uses at the street level
near the Station;
Permit office uses, but prohibit them at the
street level near the Station;
Prohibit
public
storage,
auto-mechanic
shops, gas stations and warehouses of any
size;
Mandate parking for newer mixed-use
buildings (except along Summit Avenue) to
be located on-site, as structured parking;
Permit public and community facilities.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Other Bulk Recommendations:
Establish build-to-lines;
Review the maximum building heights in
light of the surrounding character of the
neighborhood and the opportunities that the
light-rail station provides;
Provide density bonuses for contributions to
the City’s open space system;
•
•
•
88
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
New York Avenue Between 7th and 15th
(Area #7)
This area consists of all parcels fronting on New
York Avenue between 7th and 15th streets. This
segment of New York Avenue has a particularly
high concentration of street level neighborhood
retail stores that service the everyday needs of
the surrounding residential areas. The area is
generally characterized by 1-4 family residential
buildings, retail stores, apartment buildings
and a few vacant parcels. It has the potential
to become a neighborhood retail center that
serves the needs of the south- southeastern
neighborhoods.
This Plan makes the following recommendations
for this area:
Design Principles
Create a Neighborhood Commercial District
with mixed-use retail corridor with shops,
restaurants, convenience stores, grocery
stores, pharmacy stores, etc. at the street
level, and residential units in the upper floors;
Limit retail/commercial uses to the first floor;
Make
streetscape
improvements
and
develop façade standards for New York
Avenue frontages;
Keep the scale of buildings consistent with
the adjacent residential areas;
Façade improvements should be
consistent with older
e x i s t i n g
buildings;
Prohibit
vehicular
access
points
to
building surface
parking lots and
•
•
•
•
•
•
curb cuts along New York Avenue;
Construct bus shelters on New York Avenue.
Land Use:
Permit a wide variety of retail uses;
Prohibit outdoor sales along New York
Avenue, except for special events during the
year;
Retail storefronts should be highly transparent
at the street level, outdoor public spaces,
and an active night-life;
Prohibit drive-thru facilities and gas stations;
Prohibit
public
storage,
auto-mechanic
shops, and warehouses of any size;
Permit public and community facilities.
Other Bulk Recommendations:
Permit zero lot-lines, and 60% lot coverage;
Mandate a minimum rear yard setback of 20
feet – Restrict parking, loading or any other
accessory buildings/uses in the front yard;
Restrict the maximum building height to that
of the surrounding neighborhood character
Provide density bonuses in exchange for
dedications of open space in all new
development.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
89
Land Use Element
Bergenline Avenue Commercial District
(Area#8)~
It is recommended that the original C-Zone
along the Bergenline Avenue commercial
corridor be subdivided into two separate yet
intense commercial/retail districts: south of I-
495, between 16th and 30th Streets; and north
of I-495, between 36th and 47th Streets. Except
for changes in the visual appeal and increase
in pedestrian comfort, no major changes are
proposed to this district. Other recommendations
for consideration within this zone are as follows:
No change in massing, density and intensity
of uses in the District;
Preservation of historic buildings;
Pedestrian-friendly street environment;
Retail storefronts that are highly transparent
at the street level, outdoor public spaces,
and an active night-life;
Create a circulation plan that will address
truck and bus traffic along Bergenline;
No vehicular entries to buildings along
Bergenline Avenue;
Limit parking on Bergenline Avenue and
work
to
create
structured
or
shared-
parking structures for visitors, shopkeepers
and residents located in residential blocks
adjacent to Bergenline Avenue with access
restricted from Bergenline;
Unique streetscape, signage and design
standards developed specifically for the
district;
Create pocket parks and pedestrian plazas
fronting on Bergenline Avenue;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use Recommendations:
Permit a wide variety of retail uses;
Permit a wide variety of residential uses,
except one-family dwelling units – discourage
residential uses at the street level;
Permit small to medium scale office uses, but
prohibit them at the street level;
Prohibit outdoor sales along New York
Avenue, except for special events during the
year;
Prohibit
hotels,
motels
and
any
such
temporary accommodations;
Prohibit drive-thru facilities and gas stations;
Prohibit
public
storage,
auto-mechanic
shops, and warehouses of any size;
Permit public and community facilities.
Bulk Recommendations:
Establish build-to-line;
Mandate a minimum rear yard setback of 20
feet – Prohibit parking, loading or any other
accessory buildings/uses in the rear yard;
Restrict the maximum building heights to
that of the surrounding character of the
neighborhood;
Provide density bonuses with contributions
to the City’s open space system in all new
development
Permit zero lot-lines, and 80% lot coverage.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
90
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
•
•
A rendering of how a strong
facade program may work to
unify the Commercial district
through simplicity in signage
and lighting treatments...
92
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Land Development Ordinance and
Other Recommendations
Comprehensive Land Development
Ordinance Revision
Today, the Zoning Board of Adjustment sees the
majority of applications for new development;
this is not the purpose of the Zoning Board. The
true purpose of the Zoning Board is to review
special exceptions, not be the “go-to” Board
that routinely reviews applications. Once this
dynamic begins to take place, it becomes one
indication that a review of the land development
ordinances is required to keep pace with today’s
building standards and modern trends.
A
comprehensive
revision
to
the
City’s
Development Ordinances is the most critical
consideration for the City at this time. A Master
Plan
does
not
govern
development,
the
enabling Land Development Ordinance that is
adopted by the Board of Commissioners does.
The Master Plan merely sets a comprehensive
direction that will focus the important task to
come. A comprehensive and thorough review
of the ordinances that work to provide the City
with a comprehensive set of regulations in 21st
century standards are vital to protecting the
citizens of Union City from development that
may be contrary the Master Plan and prevailing
law. Furthermore, other recommendations in this
plan will need to be codified into the City’s Land
Development Ordinance as well. Some specific
areas of focus should include;
Careful consideration of building heights
and strong definitions that are consistent with
Uniform Construction Code
A detailed review of whether (4) four family
•
•
units are appropriate in the 1-4 family zone.
Conditions imposed to control commercial
establishments in residential areas.
Inclusion
of
detailed
design
standards
to design architecture and guide the
business
community
in
appropriate
aesthetic treatments that enhance business
opportunities.
Modern
development
standards
and
application
procedure
that
enhance
protection of the City and minimizes Court
exposures.
Review and amend all ordinance definitions,
particularly related to multi-family building
typology. Consistency with RSIS standards
should be sought where practical.
Circulation Plan Element
If land use is the “muscle” of a community,
streets is the “skeletal system” and streetscape
and sidewalks are the “tendons”. As such, the
City should highly consider performing for a
comprehensive Circulation Plan Element of
the Master Plan that addresses all modes of
transportation and parking.
Emphasis of such a plan should focus on the
following:
Coordinate with Land Use
Bus and Delivery Truck Circulation
Consideration of streetscapes as a critical
element of the pedestrian environment.
Bicycle Amenities
A
review
of
additional
mass
transit
opportunities.
A comprehensive Public Parking System that
includes a shared approach that addresses
parking management.
A review of parking for private development
that utilizes valet parking as means to
increasing capacity.
Opportunities to reduce or eliminate vehicles
without impacting circulation
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
LINCOLN TUNNEL
THE H
UDSO
N RIVE
R
NEW YORK AVE
BERGENLINE AVE
SUMMIT AVE
PALISADE AVE
NJ 495
31st ST
30TH ST
39TH ST
17TH ST
WEST ST
8TH ST
16TH ST
23RD ST
15TH ST
24TH ST
37TH ST
38TH ST
14TH ST
21ST ST
47TH ST
13TH ST
40TH ST
41ST ST
27TH ST
26TH ST
43TH ST
42ND ST
34TH ST
HUDSON AVE
CENTRAL AVE
10TH ST
11TH ST
12TH ST
49TH ST
25TH ST
48TH ST
3RD ST
4TH ST
18TH ST
35TH ST
36TH ST
KERRIGAN AVE
FULTON ST
44TH ST
HIGHPOINT AVE
JF KENNEDY BLVD
S WING VIADUCT
5TH ST
7TH ST
6TH ST
9TH ST
PARK AVE
19TH ST
20TH ST
SIP ST
46TH ST
33RD ST
28TH ST
29TH ST
BROADWAY
PETER ST
BROWN ST
MANHATTAN AVE
LINCOLN ST
PATERSON PLANK RD
2ND ST
COTTAGE PL
CLIFF ST
CANTELLO ST
CENTRAL AVE
PALISADE AVE
36TH ST
33RD ST
35TH ST
10TH ST
18TH ST
20TH ST
12TH ST
44TH ST
JF KENNEDY BLVD
WEST ST
11TH ST
Bus Routes
1-08,11,24,25,29,44,45,48,60-64,67,90,92,93 :NY
121: N. Bergen - U. City - N. York
123: Union City - New York
127: Ridgefield - Union City - NY
154: Fort Lee - Palisades Park - NY
156,158: Bergenline Av., Lincoln Harbor - NY
22,82: Hoboken-Cliffside Pk, Hoboken-Jersey Cty
83: Jersey City - Hackensack
84: North Bergen - Jersey City
85: Hoboken - Secaucus
86: North Bergen - Jersey City
88: North Blvd. - Journal Sq.
89: North Bergen - Hoboken
94
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Thorough and Detailed Planning and Zoning
Board Application Review Process
The Municipal Land Use Law allows for the City
to charge escrow fees to developers seeking
development within the City. This escrow fee
is then used to pay City-hired professionals
(attorneys, planners, engineers, or other relevant
experts) to review an applicant’s plans.
The City has recently revised its escrow fee
ordinance to ensure it covers the costs for City
planners and engineers to review and report
on applications seeking approval. This Plan
encourages as a matter of practice that the
City utilizes both licensed professional planners
and professional engineers to thoroughly review
applications to ensure efficient use of the
Board’s time and to also ensure that real estate
speculators are being held to realistic projects
they seek approval for. Ultimately the protection
of the citizens of Union City is at the core of this
issue.
Residential Zoning
Referring to the Land Use Study and Plan of 1975:
“It is apparent from a comparison of this reports
Interim land Use Plan with that of the General
Land Use Plan that was prepared for the 1963
Master Plan that a greater portion of the City’s
land area is allocated to residential use in the
future. This is particularly apparent at the western
boundary of the City, generally from 20th to 32nd
Streets and from 32nd to 40th Streets, extended
almost to Bergen line Avenue.” Two more areas
that were allocated to high and medium density
residential respectively, in the 1975 plan, were: “a
triangular area formed by 32nd street, Pleasant
Avenue and South Marginal Street”, and “a two
and a half block area formed by Hudson Avenue,
park Avenue, 45th Street, the middle of the block
formed by 42nd and 43rd Streets”.
The recommendation of the re-allocation of older
blocks of industrial uses to medium to high-density
residential uses is not entirely appropriate toward
the preservation of existing neighborhoods in the
R and R1 districts. As explained previously under
the concept of containment, higher-density
land uses should be considered for areas where
appropriate and as identified in this plan.
In order to preserve the existing residential areas,
to create opportunities for new housing, and to
Union City
Master Plan
95
Land Use Element
create residential areas that are free from in-
compatible uses, the residential uses in the City
are recommended to encompass two residential
districts the R- Mixed Residential Zone and the
R1- One to Four Family. However, the scale of
buildings permitted in this new Residential Zone
should reflect the historical character of the
neighborhoods. Working in-concert with much
tighter definitions of housing types, particularly
of the multi-family variety, residential zones
should clearly define what the current ordinance
describes as “limited multi-family development”.
One to Four Family Residential District
The One to Four Family Residential Districts
are located in various sections of the City. This
district is recommended to provide a broad
range of low-density housing opportunities
while protecting and preserving the established
residential character of these areas.
In keeping with the recommendation that the
City consolidate its R and R1 Zones into one R
Zone, it may be appropriate to investigate all
residential zones to explore the possibility of further
protecting neighborhoods on the basis of block
characteristics and building typology (and not on
the basis of lot size). Such protections would be
based on such things as historic or architectural
character. This plan further recommends the
following changes to the zoning of the One to
Four Family Residential neighborhoods;
Review the appropriateness of allowing 4
family units in this zone;
Prohibit all commercial activities, as permitted
uses;
Architectural styles of newer developments
to be in tune with the existing residential
neighborhoods. Review and amend all
definitions of housing and housing types,
particularly multi-family prohibit uses that
threaten the design integrity of R and R1
zones;
Add professional offices only as a Conditional
Use. Conditioned upon;
1)
Location along major thoroughfares
of JFK Blvd, Summit, Bergenline, New
York, Park, Palisade Avenues;
2)
Such use must be located in a mixed-
use building that contains residential
as the principal use;
3)
Mandate parking for every building to
be located on-site.
General Bulk Regulations
Restrict the maximum building height to a
maximum of 4 to 5 stories;
Establish front, side and rear yard setbacks or
build-to lines;
Establish a minimum lot area that increase as
the unit count proposed increases;
Establish a maximum building coverage;
Mandate maximum impervious lot coverage
of 65%
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
96
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Multi-Family, Mid-Rise Residential District
While a Multi-Family, Mid-High Rise Residential
District is not recommended as it currently exists
in the current zoning ordinance, these type of
structures do appear to be appropriate in distinct
areas of the City as outlined in this Plan.
Upon creating the ordinances necessary to allow
contextual design, while providing new residential
opportunities, the ordinances must be specific to
the area it is intended to apply to. For example,
areas where older industrial properties exist may
allow for similar higher density housing, but the
design will differ from that in the Downtown area
or northern reaches of the City. Such provisions in
the ordinances should incorporate the following
considerations:
Stronger definitions of housing types to be
consistent with RSIS standards; paarticularly
multi-family unit types.
Parks and plazas at the street level of every
multi-family development;
No vehicular access to buildings from any of
the north-south streets where possible;
Pedestrian-friendly environment at the street-
level - with wider sidewalks, street trees,
benches, and landscaping;
•
•
•
•
Mandate parking for every building to be
located on-site, as structured or shared-
parking facilities for residents, employees
and visitors;
Develop uniform streetscape and design
standards developed specifically for the
district;
Architectural styles of newer developments
in
tune
with
the
existing
residential
neighborhoods
Ensure a smooth transition in massing,
between this district and the adjacent 1-4
family residential districts.
Adaptive
re-use
of
industrial
facilities,
particularly those with historic architectural
qualities
Bulk Recommendations:
Establish build-to-line;
Permit zero lot-lines, and maximum lot
coverage of 70%;
Provide a density bonus for contributing the
remaining 30% of lot area to the City’s open
space system;
Mandate a minimum lot area of 30,000
square feet for buildings over 8 stories.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
97
Land Use Element
Commercial & Mixed-Use Zone
The existing commercial corridors of the City
include the Bergenline Avenue Commercial
Corridor, between 16th and 49th Streets; and the
Summit Avenue Commercial Corridor, between
5th and 15th Streets. These commercial/retail
segments of the City have grown considerably
over the years, and have expanded into
the residential neighborhoods, in the form of
residential conversions to offices, mechanic
shops, and other smaller retail uses.
In addition to these two well-established
commercial corridors, a small stretch on New
York Avenue; areas surrounding the I-495; a few
blocks surrounding the Train Station at 49th Street;
and a small area at the intersection of 48th Street
and Broadway, have emerged as pockets of
significant mixed-use commercial activity.
In order to recognize the physical extension
of commercial corridors into the adjacent
residential neighborhoods, and to recognize
the formation of newer mixed-use commercial
areas, the commercial and mixed-use areas in
the City have been designated to the following
seven districts:
1) Center City District (Core)
2) Center City District (Mixed Use, High
Density)
3) Downtown District
4) Uptown District
5) Bergenline Avenue Commercial District
6) Neighborhood Commercial District
7) High Density Mixed-Use District
These areas have been discussed previously in
this Land use Element. While all share similar traits,
different standards should be considered unique
for each area.
Steep Slope
The City’s current steep slope ordinance merely
controls the density of development and does
little to protect the Palisades and view sheds of
the Manhattan skyline for the existing community.
The City should consider utilizing Jersey City’s
ordinance as a means to update the City’s
existing steep slope ordinance for preservation
of the Palisades. Emphasis of such an ordinance
should focus on preservation of view and thus the
sense of openness than ensues as a result. Land
uses in this area could be restricted to residential
and bonuses for increased densities and shear
mass of building that ensues as a result should not
be considered a given because of the presence
of natural conditions that must be preserved
for the benefit of the community at large. As
depicted within the Jersey City Ordinance, a
new ordinance should consider the following;
1. Established an area which shall be known
as the Palisades Preservation Overlay
District (PPOD), in which land development
and construction shall be subject to the
special regulations contained in this
Section.
2. The PPOD shall be designated on the
Zoning Map of the City.
3. The PPOD shall prevail upon all land
regulated under this Chapter, as well as
those in a Redevelopment area.
4. All uses permitted in the zone shall meet
all setback regulations and performance
standards. This applies to any use,
permitted by right, by conditional use or
by use variance.
B. Procedural Regulations
1. The
following
information
should
be
furnished
upon
application
for
development.
98
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Checklist Section.
a. A topographic map of the site at two
foot contour intervals (drawn in a lighter
line weight) where the slope is less than
10% , and ten foot contour intervals
(drawn in a heavier line weight) where
the slope exceeds 10%.
b. A landform analysis which shows the
location and extent of the site’s major
landforms including the Top of the
Cliff, the Cliff face, the Side slope and
the base of the Slope. Any exposed
Cliff face shall be shown. The area in
each landform category should be
calculated and shown on the landform
analysis.
c. A physical description of the site which
shall include a technical summary of
site characteristics such as soils, load
bearing capacity, erosion potential,
depth to bedrock, etc.
d. Site grading and development data,
which shall include the type and
location
of
development
activity,
procedures for grading, excavation,
construction access and stockpiling,
extent and phasing of construction and
cut and fill operations.
e. Development along the South Wing
Viaduct shall conduct an engineering
report to determine any potential
impacts on the viaduct, as well as
solutions to provide additional stability.
C. Performance Standards
1. The minimum building setback line from
the edge of the Cliff face at the Top of
the Cliff should be thirty (30’) feet where
feasible. The minimum building setback
line from the edge of the Cliff face from
the base of the cliff shall be sixty-five (65’)
feet where feasible.
2. No portion of any building or structure
shall be constructed on that portion of
a lot which has a grade, prior to such
construction in excess of twenty-five
(25%) percent, or on any portion of the
lot, which lies within ten (10’) feet of the
portion having such grade.
3. All buildings should be positioned to
facilitate views of the Manhattan skyline
from adjacent neighborhoods.
A step further, the City should also consider
adding the following building provisions;
100% of building envelope may be within
slopes of 0-8%,
50% in slopes 8-15%,
20% in slopes 15-25% and
0% in areas over 25%.
The net density permitted in the zone should
be based on developable area only. All height
and bulk requirements should be met and
view corridors should be preserved for each
application for development.
•
•
•
•
100
Union City
Master Plan
Land Use Element
Recycling
Pursuant to N.J.S.A 13:1E-99.16 shall conduct a
review and make revisions to the Master Plan to
reflect State, county, and municipal laws, policies
and objectives concerning the disposition and
recycling of designated recycling materials.
Such review shall be conducted by law every 36
months.
The importance of recycling is paramount to not
only the health of our cities, but also the Planet.
Union City should continue to comply with such
statutes and lead Hudson County in this effort.
Urban Enterprise Zone
The City of Union City offers benefits to businesses
located within the U.E.Z Area. Professional staff
assists new and relocating entrepreneurs with
applications and answer any questions that
may arise. Union City and its restaurants, have
recently received in several local and state-wide
newspapers and magazines featured recognition
and its UEZ is largely responsible..
Developing creative ways to effectively link
municipal services to the business community is
part of its mission as it works hand-in-hand with
the Mayor’s office. The UEZ district enhance the
City’s efforts to make the community a better
place to live and shop.
With emphasis on the 50% savings on sales tax,
the rich variety of stores, specialty shops and
restaurants, and “less than a ten-minute ride”
from midtown Manhattan. The City is able to
boast its offerings geographically as well as
historically.
Helping small businesses, many family owned
for generations, is part of City tradition. With
everyone’s cooperation and remaining on task,
the UEZ should continue to be utilized as a tool
that can transform Union City into the model
community.
Streetscape Signage Program
The City has implemented a streetscape and
signage program that works to enhance
the physical and social environment of its
neighborhoods and business district. To date,
the City’s efforts have yielded great results. Such
a program should continue and through the
Land Development Ordinance work to come,
standards should be adopted whereby private
investment can be leveraged with this great City
investment.
Union City
Master Plan
101
Land Use Element
A Conceptual rendering of the new
Fireman’s Memorial Park now under
construction at 9th and Palisades Avenue
Union City
Master Plan
Implemention Element
104
Union City
Master Plan
Implementation Element
Introduction
The Implementation Timetable establishes the
implementation agent as well as the general timeline
for action on the following action strategies. These
strategies are taken from the objectives outlined in
this Plan and are ambitious and time consuming .
Therefore the timeline for their achievement may be
unduly optomistic.
The implementation agent identifies the general level
of responsibility for implementing the strategy. The
timetable is broken down into three levels: Short-
term (within 2-3 years); Mid-term (from 6 months
to 18 months); Long-term (from 18 months to a
strategy that should continue on a ongoing basis).
Goal: Urban Design
Action Strategy
Implementation Agent
Timeline
Review Design Standards from Redevelopment Plans for application as
General Site Design Standards that should apply throughout the City
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Short Term
Change Bulk Standards for Residential and Commercial zone areas to
support General Site Design Standards
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Short Term
Change Municipal Site Design standards for Residential and
Commercial development to support General Site Design Standards
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Short Term
Include Street, Sidewalk and Crosswalk standards in a Circulation
Element of Master Plan as well as in revised engineering and
construction standards
Planning Board (may be
with a Planning /Design
Consultant)
Medium
Term
Review and revise Design Standards for Central Business District in light
of continuing redevelopment activity
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Medium
Term
Create Design Standards for the Business District
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Medium
Term
Create Design Standards for Center City District based on findings of
the Master Plan
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Medium
Term
Revise Design Standards for all Districts based on continuing
Redevelopment, infill development and Board of Adjustment reports.
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Long Term
Create a Plan for the Center City Area that includes decking I-495 to
create a new Urban Park
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Long Term
Land Use – Community Characrter
Implementation Element
Union City
Master Plan
105
Implementation Element
Goal: Zoning, Planning and Redevelopment
Action Strategy
Implementation Agent
Timeline
Review the Development Application and Approval
procedures. Ensure proper professional engineering and
planning review is completed on all applications so that
applications are realistic and feasible while promoting
public health, safety and welfare
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Short Term
Comprehensive review and revision of Land Development
Ordinance per new Master Plan
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Short Term
Create new zoning standards for the Central City based
on the Master Plan recommendations
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Mid-term
Review the Master Plan recommendations and create
Redevelopment Plans for Areas where Zoning revisions
will be difficult to implement, particularly the Center City
Area
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Mid Term
106
Union City
Master Plan
Implementation Element
Goal: Business Districts
Action Strategy
Implementation Agent
Timeline
Create and Promote Specific and Unique Identity for each Business District
• Identify Strengths and weaknesses
• Existing and future retail and mixed use development possibility
• Relationship to Neighborhoods
• Opportunities to create public spaces
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board (may be
with a Planning /Design
Consultant)
Short Term
Review and Revise Design Standards for Central Business District in light of
continuing redevelopment activity
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board, (may be
with a Planning /Design
Consultant)
Short Term
Promote discussion and evaluation of Business/Special Improvement District
for the entire City or for each individual Business District, similar to the UEZ.
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board, Stakeholders,
Public input, UEZ, Chamber of
Commerce
Short Term
Create and Implement Marketing Studies for each Business District to
identify potential for expanded retail and service businesses
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board, UEZ,
Chamber of Commerce, (may
be with Consultant)
Medium Term
Promote continuing cooperation between Government, Planning and
Zoning Boards and Chamber of Commerce, and UEZ
Municipal agencies – Board
of Commissioners, Planning
Board, Zoning Board,
Chamber of Commerce, UEZ
Medium Term
Identify opportunity to link Business District improvements with promotion of
Historic Preservation Tourism of areas such as the Monastery.
Historic Preservation Advisory
Committee, Stakeholders,
Chamber of Commerce
Long Term
Continue to evaluate use of Redevelopment and Rehabilitation for Business
District Improvement
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board (may be
with a Planning /Design
Consultant)
Mid Term
Union City
Master Plan
107
Implementation Element
Circulation
Goal: Bicycle/Pedestrian
Action Strategy
Implementation Agent
Timeline
Create Green Infrastructure Map - composite view/map of overall
Recreation, Open Space, Bike, and Pedestrian access to identify areas
of potential improvement, including recommendations for strategic links
throughout the remainder of the community.
Planning Board
Medium Term
Implement provisions of existing Bike and Pedestrian Plan
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board, Engineer
Short Term
Establishment of pedestrian connections between schools and business
zones
Public input, school board,
businesses, Planning Board,
UEZ, Chamber of Commerce
Medium Term
Continue to review and revise Bike and Pedestrian Plan as additional
elements are constructed and as Business Districts continue to develop/
redevelop
Planning Board, Engineer
Long Term
Goal: Parking
Action Strategy
Implementation Agent
Timeline
Create a Comprehensive Parking Strategy for the City
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board, Parking
Authority
Short Term
Promote alternatives (bike and pedestrian) for local access to merchants
Planning Board (may be
with a Planning /Design
Consultant)
Short Term
Establish better drop off and pickup locations at Train Station (kiss and ride)
Planning Board, Engineer,
State DOT
Medium Term
Continue to study options for structured parking in Central Business District
for shared use by commuters and Central Business District merchants and
residents
Planning Board, Parking
Authority, Chamber of
Commerce, Stakeholders,
State DOT
Long Term
108
Union City
Master Plan
Implementation Element
Parks and Open Space
Action Strategy
Implementation Agent
Timeline
Create Green Infrastructure Map - composite view/map
of overall Recreation, Open Space, Bike, and Pedestrian
access to identify areas of potential improvement, including
recommendations for strategic links throughout the remainder
of the community.
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board (may be
with a Planning /Design
Consultant)
Short Term
Create a Recreation & Open Space Plan and Recreation Element of the
Land Use Master Plan
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Medium Term
Review opportunities to expand the Parks and Recreation system through
Planning and Redevelopment
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board
Medium Term
Goal: Traffic / Vehicular Circulation
Action Strategy
Implementation Agent
Timeline
Incorporate traffic calming measures into Site Planning process for new
applications before Planning Board in areas of concern
Board of Commissioners,
Planning Board, Engineer
Short Term
Analyze and determine solutions for traffic circulation issues throughout the
City in a Circulation Element of Master Plan, focusing on:
• Cut through traffic on residential Streets
• Delivery Truck traffic
• County transportation Corridors
• Bus Routes
Planning Board, Engineer,
(may be with a Consultant)
Medium Term
Continue to study circulation issues throughout the City
Planning Board, Engineer,
public input sessions
Long Term
Union City
Master Plan
Relationship to Other Plans
112
Union City
Master Plan
Relationship to Other Plans
Introduction
The Municipal Land Use Law (MLUL) requires that
municipalities look beyond their borders and
evaluate their master plans in a regional context.
Specifically, the MLUL requires in NJSA 40:55D-
28.d:
“The master plan shall include a specific policy
statement indicating the relationship of the
proposed development of the municipality, as
developed in the master plan to (1) the master
plans of contiguous municipalities, (2) the master
plan of the county in which the municipality
is located, (3) the State Development and
Redevelopment Plan adopted pursuant to the
“State Planning Act,” sections 1 through 12
of P.L.1985, c.398 (C.52:18A-196 et seq.)
and (4) the District Solid Waste Management
Plan required pursuant to the provisions of the
“Solid Waste Management Act,” P.L.1970, c.39
(C.13:1E-1 et seq.) of the county in which the
municipality is located.”
This
section
considers
the
relationship
of
this Master Plan with those of contiguous
municipalities, Hudson County, the New Jersey
State Development and Redevelopment Plan
(SDRP), and the Hudson County District Solid
Waste Management Plan.
State Development and redevelopment Plan
The City of Union City Master Plan is consistent,
and would effectuate, the plans and policies
of the New Jersey State Development and
Redevelopment Plan (SDRP), adopted in 2001.
The SDRP is a unique document that guides
State-level development and redevelopment
policy as well as local and regional planning
efforts. The Plan’s revision process requires
comparison of the planning policies among
various government levels with the purpose of
attaining compatibility among local, County
and State plans. The Union City Master Plan is
consistent with the eight statewide goals in the
SDRP and dozens of policies in the SDRP, which
are intended to implement the goals. The goals
are as follows:
Revitalize the State’s cities and towns.
Conserve the State’s natural resources and
systems.
Promote
beneficial
economic
growth,
development and renewal for all residents of
New Jersey.
Protect the environment, prevent and clean up
pollution.
Provide adequate public facilities and services
at a reasonable cost.
Provide adequate housing at a reasonable
cost.
Preserve and enhance areas with historic,
cultural, scenic, open space, and recreational
value.
Ensure sound and integrated planning and
implementation statewide.
The Union City Master Plan is consistent with each
of the goals of the New Jersey State Development
and Redevelopment Plan.
The SDRP also includes a State Plan Policy Map,
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
114
Union City
Master Plan
Relationship to Other Plans
which divides the state into regions, known as
Planning Areas, and includes specific goals
for each area. The Policy Map also identifies
“Centers,” locations into which development
is to be directed, and “Environs,” areas to be
protected from future growth. The City of
Union City falls in the ‘Metropolitan Planning
Area’ (PA1). The State Plan recognizes that all
communities in this planning area are essentially
fully developed; hence much of the change in
land uses will occur as redevelopment.
The State Plan’s planning objectives for the
‘Metropolitan Planning Area’ include:
Providing for much of the state’s future
redevelopment;
Revitalizing cities and towns;
Redesigning areas of sprawl; and
Protecting the character of existing stable
communities.
The Union City Master Plan is consistent with
these planning objectives as well as policy
recommendations
with
respect
to
Urban
Complexes.
•
•
•
•
County and Regional Plans
Hudson County Master Plan
The Hudson County Master Plan was adopted on
February 20, 2002 and set the following Goals:
General Goals
To improve the overall quality of life in Hudson
County.
To provide for the economic revitalization of the
County’s commercial and industrial base.
To preserve the character of existing well-established
neighborhoods.
To improve the transportation network
To increase the tax base.
Land Use Goals
To
maintain
and
improve
areas
that
provide centers for employment, education,
entertainment facilities, services, shopping and
other resources.
To provide for a full range of retail businesses
and personal services in suitable locations to
serve the needs of the County.
To relate land use planning to transportation
capacity and to promote development intensities
that will support mass transit.
The Union City Master Plan effectively addresses
the
above
goals
and
the
plan’s
larger
recommendations. Through this Master Plan’s
focus on maintaining and improving activity and
development along the traditional thoroughfares
of Bergenline Avenue and Summit Avenue,
working towards increasing active and passive
recreation space within the City, and the focus
on increasing transportation links between Union
City and other municipalities, this Master Plan
meets the goals of the Hudson County Master
Plan.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Union City
Master Plan
115
Relationship to Other Plans
Hudson County Open Space and
Recreation Plan
Carrying out one of the most specific State Plan
and Hudson County Strategic Revitalization Plan
goals, attempting to increase the prevalence
of parkland and open space throughout a very
dense urban county, the Hudson County Open
Space and Recreation Plan sets out many goals,
including the following:
To provide accessible recreation opportunities
to all Hudson County residents
To provide green spaces for public enjoyment to
all Hudson County communities
To actively acquire new Open Space lands were
needed and feasible
To protect important view sheds throughout
Hudson County
To link proposed and existing recreational into
an open space network
To ensure protection of County’s historic and
cultural resources
The Union City Master Plan carries out these goals
with its focus on creating more active parkland in
Union City and creating effective links throughout
the municipal park system.
•
•
•
•
•
•
Hudson County Urban Complex
Strategic Revitalization Plan
The 1999 Hudson County Strategic Revitalization
Plan outlined a coordinated approach to
community and economic development for
the Hudson County Urban Complex, which
includes the twelve constituent municipalities
in the County. This plan was structured around
defining the area’s strengths and weaknesses
and recommending a series of actions to address
each. The following 5 points were the goals of
the Hudson County Strategic Revitalization Plan.
To improve the overall quality of life in Hudson
County.
To provide for the economic revitalization of the
County’s commercial and industrial base.
To preserve the character of existing well-
established neighborhoods.
To improve the transportation network.
To increase the tax base.
The Union City Master Plan effectively addresses
the
above
goals
and
the
plan’s
larger
recommendations in much the same way as
it carries out the Hudson County Master Plan,
particularly through the Plan’s recommendations
of new development, expanded transit offerings,
and focus on improved community facilities for
Union City.
•
•
•
•
•
116
Union City
Master Plan
Relationship to Other Plans
District Solid Waste Management Plan
The Solid Waste Management Act designates
every County in the State as a solid waste
management district, and requires each district
to prepare a Solid Waste Management Plan. The
Hudson County Improvement Authority (HCIA) is
responsible for the Hudson County Solid Waste
Management Plan. The Union City Master Plan
is in compliance with the goals and objectives
of the HCIA Solid Waste Management Plan, in
that it promotes the reduction of waste through
innovative (i.e. LEED) development practices
that focus on reducing consumption of natural
resources; recycling and solid waste from daily
use; efficient re-use of storm water; preventing
storm water contamination to the extent possible;
climatologically efficient design to reduce
resources consumed in building maintenance;
and recycling of building material in new
development in order to reduce waste
118
Union City
Master Plan
Relationship to Other Plans
Surrounding Municipalities
Five municipalities, all of which are in Hudson
County surround the City of Union City. These
municipalities
include:
Township
of
North
Bergen, Town of West New York, Township of
Weehawken, City of Hoboken, and Jersey City.
The relationship between Master Plans, zoning,
and major developments in all three surrounding
municipalities and the Union City Master Plan are
discussed below.
Township of North Bergen
The Township of North Bergen is located to the
west of the City of Union City. Lands along the
boundary in North Bergen are largely zoned R-2,
for existing 2 and 3 family structures. This zoning
is generally consistent with the existing and
proposed zoning for Union City in the same area,
which is A for apartments and 2F-1 for two-family
detached housing. Union City’s neighborhood
commercial zone does abut a residential area
along the northern edge of the common border.
As a densely packed urban community, much
like Union City, North Bergen sees most future
development coming through in-fill residential
development the reuse of older industrial sites. As
of this time, there are no major projects in North
Bergen that will significantly impact Union City.
Town of West New York
The Town of West New York is located at Union
City’s northern border. The zoning is generally
consistent with the existing and proposed zoning
for Union City in the same area. For example, much
of the border is zoned as either R-H (high-density
residential) or R-M (medium density-residential),
consistent with Union City’s existing and proposed
mixed /medium & high density residential. West
New York also maintains a Commercial- Retail
Zone along Bergenline Avenue, consistent with
Union City’s existing commercial zoning along
the Bergenline Avenue corridor. As of this time,
there are no major projects in West New York
that will significantly impact Union City.
Township of Weehawken
The Township of Weehawken forms much of
Union City’s eastern border. Land uses along the
Weehawken border are primarily zoned for multi-
family residential uses in the form of detached
homes and townhouses. This appears consistent
with Union City’s R-1 (1 & 2-family) and R-MF
(multi-family) zones. Some mixed-use properties
exist near Park Avenue, but are overall consistent
with the character of the neighborhood. The
Palisade Cliff serves as a physical buffer between
Weehawken and Union City near the border with
Hoboken.
City of Hoboken
The City of Hoboken, lies along Union City’s
southern and eastern borders. The Palisade cliff
stretches the entire border between low –lying
Hoboken and Union City. Although Hoboken’s
I-1 Light Industrial Zone borders Union City’s R-
1 (1 & 2 family residential) zone, the extremely
steep slope of the Palisades act as a physical
buffer between the two different zones & uses of
these municipalities. As a densely packed urban
community, much like Union City, Hoboken
envision most future development coming
through redevelopment of older industrial sites.
As Hoboken continues its redevelopment efforts,
this once industrial area along Union City will take
on an increasingly residential character.
Jersey City
Both Paterson Plank Road and 5th Street create the
Union City / Jersey City border along Union City’s
southern edge. Washington Park, a Hudson county
park straddles both municipalities along Paterson
Plank Road. Jersey City’s R-1 and R-2 (Low density
residential) zones, consisting of primarily multi-family
homes are consistent with Union City’s R and R-MF
districts as described above. Much of Jersey City’s
redevelopment efforts have been targeted toward
the waterfront area of Newport and Hamilton Park,
minimizing an impact near the Union City border.
Protected Document Content
Start your free trial to view the raw municipal bid documents and web text.
Unlock Full AccessDetailed Risk Breakdown
local preference
No Flags Found
performance bond
No Flags Found
liquidated damages
No Flags Found
Quick Actions
Explore More
Timeline
First Discovered
Apr 2, 2026
Last Info Update
Apr 2, 2026
Start your 7-day free trial
Get instant notifications and full bid analysis. Existing users will be logged in automatically.
Start Free Trial