FINAL (As approved)

HP Ordinance Committee Meeting – 6/15/11

Present:

Tom Dagger

Peter Bolo

Chris Richter

Larry Korinda

Tom Menard

Joan Nix

John Barr

Part I -- Meeting Summary:

1. Prior Meeting.  The summary of meeting of June 5, 2011 previously distributed was approved without changes. 

2.         Examples from other Cities.  Prior to the meeting, Marty Kane circulated to the committee the results of research he had done on the zoning incentive/bonus approach to historic preservation in other cities.  While Marty could not find another example where this had been used in the State of New Jersey, he did find examples of “positive incentives” being used in Los Angeles, CA (expedited approval process for historic structures; more favorable zoning and code requirements for older historic buildings than for new construction), Palo Alto, CA (Bonus Floor Area and exemption from on-site parking requirements; historic properties exempt from required minimum densities; continuation of non-conformances for the life of historic buildings), Seattle, WA (waiver or modification of standards for open space, setbacks, width and depth limits for screening, and landscaping requirements; relaxed parking requirements), and Atlanta, GA (reductions and waivers of building permits associated with rehabilitation of historic structures).

3.         Zoning Incentives.  The committee began its consideration of the zoning incentive alternatives by reviewing an analysis prepared by Larry Korinda of zoning variances applied for on behalf of Larry’s clients over the past several years in Mountain Lakes Zone R-A and R-AA for Hapgood and Belhall homes.:

• Larry summarized the nonconforming Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and Improved Lot Coverage (ILC) for each application.  Of 11 FAR variances applied for, 8 would have avoided the need for a FAR variance under the proposal ultimately recommended during today’s meeting (see Part I.5 below) -- 21% for R-A and 16% for R-AA, increased from 17% for R-A and 13% for R-AA. 

• Of 7 ILC variances applied for, 4 would have avoided the need for an ILC variance under the proposal ultimately recommended at the end of this discussion item during today’s meeting -- 30% for R-A and 24% for R-AA, increased from 25% for R-A and 20% for R-AA. 

• Outliers on ILC typically involved anomalies such as small lot sizes or circular driveways that can exacerbate the ILC percentage.

• In each case, for those applications that would still require a variance, the amount of the variance required would have been significantly reduced (in absolute terms and percent relative to the permitted bulk requirement).

• In some cases (e.g., the Rickert home), the nonconformity was preexisting (under the existing bulk requirements) and was not increased by the proposed construction, but the variance was still required under our ordinances because the proposed alterations related to the nonconformity.  Under the new proposal, no variance would have been required for such alterations.

4.         Considerations for Bulk Requirement Bonuses.  The committee then discussed possible approaches to providing bonuses for bulk requirements for Hapgood and Belhall homes.  Considerations that were raised included the following:

• The importance of keeping the approach simple and easy for the construction official to administer and enforce, and for the lay public to understand.  Anything requiring special treatment based on the nature of the use, or changes in the kinds of calculations required from what are typically done today, would be contrary to this goal.

• A proposal to exempt historic stone walls from the ILC calculation was rejected as contrary to this goal, since it would be difficult to tell whether the wall was an original historic structure or not. 

• A proposal either to exempt third floors representing a larger percentage of the lower floor area from the FAR calculation for historic homes or to exempt the excess over the current 40% (the limit for a third floor not to count against the FAR calculation) was rejected.  The existing rule works well to create a consistent look and feel for third floors in the community (for new and historic homes), and it would be better to provide a general FAR bonus that could be used by the homeowner more flexibly.

• Tom Dagger expressed the view that the bonuses needed to be as generous as possible, as long as alterations were reasonably in line with the historic character of the home, in order to provide a meaningful preservation incentive for the homeowner.  Since the ordinance operates solely on the principle that a homeowner will not want to give up the zoning benefits of owning and preserving a historic home in order to demolish and replace it with a newer home, the more generous the bonus the more successful the ordinance will be at achieving its preservation objective.

• There was acknowledgment, on the other hand, that it would not make sense to establish the bonuses at levels that would eliminate the need for all variances.  Unique circumstances will always result in outliers that are still best left to the zoning variance review and approval process.  However, to the extent it is lawful to do so, the ordinance could provide authorization and encouragement for the ZBA to view such applications favorably for historic homes that otherwise satisfied any conditions for eligibility for bonuses for bulk requirements.

• There was a considerable range of opinion on including bonuses for setbacks in addition to FAR and ILC requirements.  Rear setback relief was rejected because of impact on neighboring homes.  (Front setback relief was not even considered for obvious reasons.)  At least 2 members of the committee were initially not in favor of any side setback relief of any kind, believing that 25 feet on each side was the minimum required to maintain suitable open space between neighboring homes.  It was also noted that variances from side setback requirements were “C” variances, and thus easier to obtain than FAR and ILC variances.  Larry Korinda noted that even 5 feet of bonus on either side could make a big difference in the viability of modernizing a kitchen or turning a side porch into a useable family room or other living space, and thus would help make up for some of the shortcomings of the Hapgood design from the point of view of the modern-day homeowner.

5.         Recommendation for Bulk Requirement Bonuses.  After extensive discussion, the committee reached the following recommendation for bulk requirements bonuses for historic Hapgood and Belhall homes:

(1)        Increase limit on FAR:

Zone Current New % Increase

R-AA                 13%                           16%                             23.1%

R-A                   17%                           21%                             23.5%

(2)        Increase limit on ILC:

Zone Current New % Increase

R-AA                20%                           24%                             20%

R-A                   25%                           30%                             20%

(3)        Decrease minimum side setback (each side):

Zone Current New

R-AA                 25 ft.              20 ft. each side; total of 50 ft. both sides

R-A                  25 ft.              20 ft. each side; total of 50 ft. both sides

The committee rejected the following (among others):

• Special rules for third floors.

• Excluding basements from FAR calculation

• Allowing expansion of historic detached garages without counting toward FAR/ILC.

• Disregarding stone walls in FAR/ILC calculation.

• Allow swimming pools, cabanas without counting toward FAR/ILC.

6.         Conditions for Eligibility for Zoning Incentives.  The committee began a discussion of the need for, and nature and extent of, any conditions that would be imposed in order for a homeowner to qualify for the zoning incentives.  Some alternatives and suggestions that were put forward included:

• There should be no conditions of any kind in light of difficulty of policing.  

• On the other hand, the committee acknowledged there needed to be some minimal standards – to take an extreme (if absurd) case, a homeowner should not be able to take advantage of the zoning incentives to expand the size of a historic Hapgood home by 23%, and then completely encase it in Styrofoam so that no semblance of the original home remained visible.  The question is where to draw the line.

• Any alterations or additions should preserve the original roof ridge (and roof pitch?) of the main portion of the home (which would not preclude addition of dormers).

• The front façade of the home should maintain the historical integrity of the original structure.

• Additions and alterations should be compatible with the original structure.  (Note:  The Secretary of Interior standards require that additions be distinct from the original.)

• Chimneys and overhangs should not be altered.

• Use of HPC Restoration and Renovation Handbook from the 1990s in whole or in part, if only on an educational basis (no mandate), to guide alterations and additions.

• Possible requirement that applicant provide escrow to permit plans be reviewed by qualified architect engaged by the Borough, at the behest of the construction official, to ensure compliance with conditions for eligibility.

Tom Dagger requested that everyone email to him their thoughts and suggestions on conditions prior to the next meeting so the committee could have a broad range of choices to consider in making a recommendation in this area.

7.         Subsequent Alterations/Additions.  Joan Nix raised an important issue that needs to be addressed as part of the zoning incentives approach if there are conditions for eligibility.  What happens if a homeowner makes alterations and/or additions to a home that, solely because of the zoning incentives, do not require a zoning variance, and are approved based on the application for the building permit and demonstrated compliance with whatever conditions for eligibility are imposed.  Later, the homeowner (or a subsequent owner) seeks to make changes to the home that are inconsistent with the conditions for eligibility.  Should the homeowner be permitted to do so (with or without applying for a zoning variance), and what would be the administrative mechanism for ensuring any required approvals are first obtained?  We will discuss this issue further in our next meeting.

Part II – For Next Meeting (on 7/20)

• Peter offered to talk to Cindy Shaw about finding out what the previous bulk requirements were before the zoning ordinances were amended (possibly in the late 1990s) to tighten the bulk requirements
• Everyone on the committee is asked to submit ideas for eligibility requirements to be included in the discussion at the next meeting.
• We will try to reach consensus on a recommended set of conditions for eligibility for bulk requirement bonuses to be included in the proposed ordinance.
• We will discuss ways to address the subsequent alterations/additions issue raised by Joan Nix.