Final (As approved)

HP Ordinance Committee Meeting -- 09/13/11

Present:

John Barr

Peter Bolo

Blair Bravo

Tom Dagger

Marty Kane

Jessica Mahony

Tom Menard

Joan Nix

Part I -- Meeting Summary:

1. Prior Meeting.  The summary of meeting of July 20, 2011 previously distributed was approved in the form presented. 

2. Next Meetings.  The next scheduled meetings will be September 27, at 7:30 p.m. in the Library.  We will determine at that meeting whether additional meetings are required.

3.         Conditions for Eligibility for Zoning Incentives.  The Committee discussed possible approaches to conditions that should be imposed in order for a homeowner to qualify for the zoning incentives.  A draft set of eligibility criteria based on that discussion, which will be reviewed at the next meeting of the Committee, is included as Attachment 1 to this summary.

4.         Considerations behind draft eligibility criteria:

• Drawn in part from Items 1, 2, 3, 5, 9 from the Naperville list brought by Joan Nix to the prior meeting.  Rejected 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 from the Naperville list, as well as special restrictions on chimneys.

• Goal to simplify by grouping points logically related into a single item. 

• The primary focus was on preservation of the original streetscape -- in particular, street-facing facades, roof lines and roof shapes, plus “character-defining features” of the original structures.

• It was agreed there was no need to condition eligibility on preservation of interior features of the structure. 

• There was extensive discussion of criterion #4 (“Minimum Percentage of Original Structure”):

o The purpose of this requirement is to define what are the minimum requirements for continued existence of the original historic structure to qualify for the incentives, or “What makes a Hapgood a Hapgood?”

o At the extreme, a homeowner should not be able to tear down and replace everything but the original chimney or a single outside facade and still qualify for the incentives.

o On the other hand, many historic homes have had extensive alterations over the years but still remain largely true to the original look and feel and streetscape.

o The consensus was that this requirement was needed to prevent abuse, but should not be so strict as to prevent continuing, natural evolution of the homes over time.

o The approach of requiring that the original structure represent a minimum percentage of the overall structure was rejected.  As long as the other eligibility requirements are satisfied, this should not provide an artificial limitation on the ability to benefit from the incentives.  Instead, the focus would solely be on preservation of a minimum percentage of the initial structure.

o The year 1928 was chosen as a cut-off date because that is the date by which construction of new Hapgoods and Belhall homes in the Borough had been completed.

o 80% was chosen as the required percentage based on experience and desire to avoid destruction of a substantial portion of the original structure as part of additions and alterations permitted under the ordinance.

• It was agreed that historic homes that are relocated should be eligible.  This is consistent with the focus on preserving streetscape.  Because the homes are not being preserved for their unique, individual architectural or historic significance, the interest in maintaining the structures on their original site does not outweigh the interest in preserving the structures generally within the historic district.  There was minimal concern that this would encourage relocation of historic homes to newly subdivided lots with minimal lot size since there are very few lots left in the Borough that are still eligible for subdivision.

Part II -- Items For Next Meeting (on 9/27)

• Finalize Eligibility Criteria.  The Committee will review and finalize a recommendation for eligibility criteria for bulk requirement bonuses to be included in the proposed ordinance based on the discussion at tonight’s meeting. 

• Subsequent Alterations/Additions.  This is the issue Joan Nix raised at the June 15 meeting:  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.

• Disincentives.  We will take up the issue of disincentives for demolition of historic homes.  Tom and Marty handed out information relating to possible alternative approaches, which we can use as a starting point for discussion.

• Landmarks Preservation.  Tom will present the HPC’s proposal for implementing the landmarks preservation portion of the 2010 update to the Historic Preservation Element of the Master Plan. 

• Borough Council Meeting.  Blair has asked that the Committee attend an upcoming Borough Council meeting to present and discuss the Committee’s thinking on the ordinance.  Possible dates are October 10 and November 14.  We will determine an appropriate date and discuss the Committee’s presentation.

• Additional Meeting Dates.  Schedule additional meetings, if required to complete outstanding agenda items.

Attachment 1

Conditions for Eligibility for Zoning Incentives.

1.         Street-Facing Facades.  Additions and alterations to all street-facing facades should be compatible with the existing or original structure.  The proportion between the width and height of the proposed additions or alterations should be compatible with the street-facing facade of the existing or original structure.  The proportions and relationships between doors and windows in street-facing facades should be compatible with the existing or original structure.

2.         Height and Roof Shapes.  The height of the proposed additions and alterations should be compatible with the existing structure.  The design of the roof should be compatible with the existing roof.  Any alterations or additions should preserve the existing or original roof ridge, roof pitch and overhangs of the existing or original structure. 

3.         Architectural Details.  Architectural details and materials should be incorporated as necessary to relate the new with the old and to preserve and enhance the character-defining features of the existing or original structure.

4.         Minimum Percentage of Original Structure.  After completion of the proposed additions and alterations, at least 80% of the original structure as it existed in 1928 should remain.

5.         Relocations.  A structure will not be ineligible solely because it has been relocated from its original site to another location within the boundaries of the Mountain Lakes historic district.

Confirmation of Eligibility

A process would be provided for an applicant or a certifying architect to make a request to the ZBA or PB, perhaps in consultation with the HPC, to make a determination whether the structure qualifies for #4, and whether the eligibility criteria will be satisfied for a proposed project.  This request could be made in connection with a specific pending application, or as a permanent determination that would benefit future owners of the property in connection with subsequent applications.

Terms requiring further definition?

• “additions and alterations” refers to all additions, alterations and other improvements occurring after the date of the ordinance.

• “compatible with” includes “consistent with,” “in keeping with.”  Not necessarily “identical to” or “the same as.”

• “structure” = main residential dwelling plus any attached structures.

• “existing structure” = as it exists on the date of the ordinance. 

• “original structure” = as it existed when originally constructed. 

• “street-facing facade” = any facade facing a roadway abutting the property.  Corner lots would have two street-facing facades.

• Making additions and alterations compatible with the original can include both restoration and replacement to match the original.