South Orange officials are seeking to expand the scope of the township’s Historic Planning Commission in order to better protect historic properties and neighborhoods — while balancing the rights of property owners.
A subcommittee of the HPC reviewed the existing regulations and brought recommendations to the Board of Trustees on January 22.
HPC counsel Bill Sullivan said that the proposed changes — to be enacted through an ordinance — would be “expanding the scope [of the HPC’s authority] where appropriate and giving people affected a say in whether they want to be included or not.”
Sullivan noted that very few properties in South Orange are currently designated and protected. Notably, when the Squier House was acquired by a developer in recent years, the township had no power to block demolition or regulate changes. The HPC also has no binding authority with regard to current plans by JESPY House to demolish four buildings in the Prospect Street Historic District in order to construct two new buildings to provide housing and programming for its clients, adults with developmental disabilities.
Sullivan noted that the HPC would only be involved in “major work” related to designated properties.
“Homeowners will have a lot of input into this,” said HPC Chair Jacob Levine. “We are not going to limit the choice of paint colors.”
Levine added, “On the other hand, we also want to make sure that the person next door to you or across the street from you doesn’t do something that ruins the entire historic nature of an area. Again, it’s all a balancing act.”
Sullivan noted that the HPC was formed around 2008 and was instigated by the proposed demolition of the mansion on the former Marylawn of the Oranges campus as part of a proposed residential project.
“That convinced the Trustees at the time that it was time for a commission with regulatory authority.” He said that the ordinance was amended in 2016 [see below], “but it’s become clear to the HPC and others that further amendments are required — some just amendments that we have identified in the course of developments in town .. and others identified during the preparation of your Master Plan.”
Sullivan noted “there is a common misunderstanding — people think that if a property is designated on the state register of historic places that it is protected. It is not. … The real enforcement in historic preservation is on the local level.”
“Right now the HPC only has jurisdiction over 7 or 8 landmarks” and certain properties in historic districts, said Sullivan. “Otherwise anywhere else in South Orange, people can do whatever they want to to a building historic or not and there’s nothing this commission can do about it. And that’s why this commission feels that we should, first of all, expand … the number of properties in a place like Montrose that would be subject to the jurisdiction of the commission. And also the next step the commission sees … if you look at your Master Plan, you will see a whole list of properties in there that are listed as properties that COULD be designated as historic. That doesn’t mean that they are going to be because the way the process works is, the commission has to make a recommendations … then they have to have a hearing … the property owner can object… the commission then makes a recommendation and ultimately that designation has to be approved by [the Board of Trustees] and the Planning Board.”
Sullivan noted that the proposed ordinance would also address other issues such as “demolition by neglect.”
In followup emails, Sullivan and Levine answered questions from Village Green:
VG: Can you clarify how many properties are covered/designated with protections at this time?
The list of Designated Landmarks and Districts is attached [see below]. As you can see, some properties are Designated Landmarks independent of whether they are in a District. Under the current Code, if a property is a Landmark or is in a District and the project requires Planning Board or Zoning Board of Adjustment review, then the HPC provides non-binding advice to that Board. If a property is a Designated Landmark and the project requires permits but not Board review, the HPC reviews a Certificate of Appropriateness application. Under the current Ordinance, if a property is located in a District and is a “key contributing structure” (this applies only to Montrose currently), and the project requires a permit but not Board approval, the HPC reviews it as an application for a Certificate of Appropriateness. The key contributing structures are on the attached list. Currently, if the property includes a contributing or non-contributing structure, then the HPC does not regulate a project on those properties unless the project requires Board approval, in which case HPC’s role is limited to non-binding advice. The HPC is asking the Board of Trustees to consider expanding the HPC’s role to include Certificate of Appropriateness review of projects on contributing structures as well as key contributing structures. The HPC is working with the Village President and Board of Trustees in the hopes of developing changes to the existing Code. The presentation was designed to begin that conversation.
VG: When do you think this ordinance might be introduced on first read?
That question would have to be answered by the Board or the Administration. But to be clear, we have no form of ordinance agreed to by the Village President or Board of Trustees. Our presentation is framed around a ‘proposed ordinance’ and desired changes to the Code to facilitate ease of discussion. We look forward to working the administration to see if a proposed ordinance might be agreed upon.
VG: Clearly this review preceded the recent JESPY development hearings. But can you clarify that these changes will have no impact on those projects?
Because these applications have been deemed complete by the Planning Board, any proposed changes would not be relevant.
Watch Sullivan and Levine’s presentation to the South Orange Board of Trustees and discussion starting around 1:12 into the meeting video here.
See pages 12-14 of the attached 2016 ordinance for designated districts and properties:
