Final (As approved)

HP Ordinance Committee Meeting -- 09/27/11

Present:

John Barr

Peter Bolo

Tom Dagger

Marty Kane

Larry Korinda

Tom Menard

Joan Nix

Chris Richter

Part I -- Meeting Summary:

1. Prior Meeting.  The summary of meeting of Sept. 13, 2011 previously distributed was approved in the form presented. 

2. Next Meeting.  The next scheduled meeting will be Tuesday, October 25, at 7:30 p.m. at the Borough Hall basement meeting room (not at the Library).  The members of the Committee have also been asked to attend the Borough Council meeting on Monday, November 14, at 8:00 p.m. to present an outline of the Committee’s proposal for an ordinance.

3.         Conditions for Eligibility for Zoning Incentives.  The Committee discussed the revised conditions for eligibility, included in Attachment 1 to the meeting summary for the prior meeting, and made a number of changes.  The revised draft set of eligibility criteria based on that discussion is included as Attachment 1 to this summary (including a "marked" version highlighting revisions from the prior draft).  Modifications included the following:

• Changed "should" to "must" throughout.  It needs to be clear that the criteria are mandatory, and not merely recommended, in order for a structure to be eligible.

• Added a criterion to make clear eligibility is restricted to the original Hapgood and Belhall single-family residential structures that are listed in the New Jersey and National Registers as being "contributing structures" within the Mountain Lakes Historic District.  This is not intended for commercial, governmental or institutional structures, or for other historic homes in the Borough such as the older farm houses. 

• "Through lots" (where the "front" and "back" facade both face a roadway) should be considered to have two street-facing facades, similar to corner lots.  This is consistent with the importance of maintaining the streetscape underlying the ordinance.  In addition, it was felt that most through lots were large enough to allow for substantial additions and improvements without requiring a variance under the existing bulk requirements.

• There was extensive discussion of changes impacting the existing street-facing facade.  The Committee determined that the entire facade should be required to be retained in light of the importance of preserving the streetscape.  It is hard to think of a justification for allowing some portion of the existing facade to be removed. 

• There was also extensive discussion of side additions impacting street-facing facades. 

o Any new side additions affecting a street-facing facade should have a minimum setback of 2 feet from the plane of the existing street-facing facade to preserve the integrity of the box or rectangle proportions in the original design. 

o Where there is an existing side addition that does not already meet this setback requirement, the Committee agreed that certain expansions to an existing addition could be made without coming into compliance with the setback requirement.  An open porch could be enclosed.  A one story addition could be increased to 2 stories.  And an existing side addition could be built out up to a further 5 feet to the side (in order to take advantage of the additional 5 feet permitted for minimum side setback under the bulk requirements incentives).  The overall bulk requirements still must be satisfied.

• The Committee discussed the extent to which there should be a minimum portion of the original structure retained.  This is a separate requirement from the front-facing facade and deals with preservation of the original building footprint.  If the original portion of the structure has been substantially demolished, even if replaced, it should not be eligible automatically for the incentives in the ordinance.  It was determined that 75% would be a reasonable cut-off to allow for reasonable changes that may have occurred over time.  [Also, after the meeting, Tom determined that the more appropriate cut-off date for qualifying homes would be 1931, the year the last of the original Belhall homes was constructed, and not 1928 as in the prior draft.]

4.         Disincentives.  Based on input received from Jessica Mahony’s law firm, it appears the most viable disincentives from the standpoint of legal enforceability would be an outright ban on demolition and a waiting period for demolition.  Tom advocated for a long waiting period in order to allow sufficient time to attempt to find alternatives to outright demolition.  However, the predominant view was that a relatively short demolition waiting period would be appropriate to allow sufficient time for (1) possible discussion with the owners to convince them that there are superior alternatives to demolition, and (2) documenting the historic structure before it is demolished.  It was felt that a period of 45 days would not result in a delay in the typical period between permit issuance and actual demolition, but would provide the benefit of public notice that does not take place under current law.  The Committee also supported the idea of requiring the owners to permit documentation (including floor-plan drawings and photographs) of the historic structure prior to demolition, and providing for the owner to cover the costs of this documentation, as a condition to obtaining the permit.

5.         Landmarks Preservation.  Tom presented the HPC’s proposal for implementing the landmarks preservation portion of the 2010 update to the Historic Preservation Element of the Master Plan.  In general, there was support for this proposal.  However, there was not a consensus on inclusion of privately owned commercial dwellings in this portion of the ordinance.

6.         Borough Council Meeting.  The Committee discussed Blair’s request that the Committee members attend the November 14 Borough Council meeting to present and discuss the Committee’s thinking on the ordinance.  The Committee will discuss what to present and how to present it at its next meeting on October 25.

7.         Subsequent Alterations/Additions.  This is the issue Joan Nix raised at the June 15 meeting.  There was not time to address this issue.  It was felt that this is a refinement in the ordinance that could be further thought through after obtaining feedback from the Borough Council on the overall approach to an ordinance and in the course of developing a detailed ordinance.

Part II -- Items For Next Meeting (on 10/25)

1.         Review and discuss plan for November 14 Borough Council meeting.

2.         Review draft summary of ordinance proposal to present during the meeting.  (Tom will prepare and circulate a draft prior to the meeting.)

3.         Discuss who will present during the meeting.

No further meetings of the Committee will be scheduled until after the Borough Council meeting.

Attachment 1

Conditions for Eligibility for Zoning Incentives.

1.         Eligible Structures.  Hapgood and Belhall single-family residential structures that are listed as "contributing structures" within the Mountain Lakes Historic District in the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places. 

2.         Street-Facing Facades.  Additions and alterations to all street-facing facades must be compatible with the existing or original structure. 

• The proportion between the width and height of the proposed additions or alterations must 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 must be compatible with the existing or original structure.

• Any side additions to a street-facing facade must have a minimum setback of 2 feet from the plane of the existing street-facing facade, and any associated roofline must have a minimum setback of 2 feet from the existing roof line.  Limited exceptions will be made where there is, as of the date of the ordinance, a pre-existing side addition or porch to a street-facing facade:  (1) a pre-existing open-air porch that does not comply with the 2-foot setback requirement may be enclosed within the existing plane of the porch, (2) a pre-existing one-story addition that does not comply with the 2-foot setback requirement may be increased to two-stories on the same plane as the pre-existing addition, and/or (3) a pre-existing addition that does not comply with the 2-foot setback requirement may be extended a further 5 feet to the side on the same plane as the pre-existing addition.  All of the foregoing exceptions are still subject to compliance with the overall bulk requirements.

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

4.         Architectural Details.  Architectural details and materials must 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.

5.         Retention of Original Structure.  After completion of the proposed additions and alterations:

• 100% of the existing or original street-facing facade must be retained intact.

• At least 75% of the floor area of the original structure as it existed in 1931 must remain.  Interior renovations and any restoration to match the original will not be deducted in determining compliance with the 75% requirement.

6.         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, in consultation with the HPC, to make a determination whether the structure qualifies for the eligibility criteria, and whether the eligibility criteria will be satisfied for a proposed project. 

Terms requiring further definition?

• "additions and alterations" refers to all exterior 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 and "through 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.

Attachment 1 (marked)

Conditions for Eligibility for Zoning Incentives.

1.         Eligible Structures.  Hapgood and Belhall single-family residential structures that are listed as "contributing structures" within the Mountain Lakes Historic District in the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places. 

2.         Street-Facing Facades.  Additions and alterations to all street-facing facades shouldmust be compatible with the existing or original structure. 

· The proportion between the width and height of the proposed additions or alterations shouldmust 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.

· The proportions and relationships between doors and windows in street-facing facades must be compatible with the existing or original structure.

· Any side additions to a street-facing facade must have a minimum setback of 2 feet from the plane of the existing street-facing facade, and any associated roofline must have a minimum setback of 2 feet from the existing roof line.  Limited exceptions will be made where there is, as of the date of the ordinance, a pre-existing side addition or porch to a street-facing facade:  (1) a pre-existing open-air porch that does not comply with the 2-foot setback requirement may be enclosed within the existing plane of the porch, (2) a pre-existing one-story addition that does not comply with the 2-foot setback requirement may be increased to two-stories on the same plane as the pre-existing addition, and/or (3) a pre-existing addition that does not comply with the 2-foot setback requirement may be extended a further 5 feet to the side on the same plane as the pre-existing addition.  All of the foregoing exceptions are still subject to compliance with the overall bulk requirements.

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

3.4. Architectural Details.  Architectural details and materials shouldmust 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 Percentage5. Retention 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. :

· 100% of the existing or original street-facing facade must be retained intact.

· At least 75% of the floor area of the original structure as it existed in 1931 must remain.  Interior renovations and any restoration to match the original will not be deducted in determining compliance with the 75% requirement.

5.6. 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,the eligibility criteria, 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 exterior 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 and "through 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.