provides incentives
to spare historic homes
Officials: Measure
provides incentives
to spare historic homes
BY MATT AUERBACH
Staff Writer
Tearing down some of Metuchen’s historic homes and replacing them with new structures is an issue that has recently generated some controversy.
Heated discussions between the public and local government ensued over a proposal to regulate in-fill housing, as some refer to the process, at last week’s Borough Council and Planning Board meetings.
The council and the board both addressed a pending ordinance which contains provisions to address three common problems with in-fill development proposals: a landmark preservation clause, design standards for new homes, and tree removal requirements.
According to officials, the ordinance hopes to convince developers to keep landmark buildings intact while allowing them to build new homes on surrounding lots.
Officials also hope the measure will influence the look and placement of new homes so they retain the character of the neighborhood they are built in. Developers will also be required to replace any trees that are cut down during the construction process.
This measure comes on the heels of an earlier ordinance passed at the same Dec. 1 meeting that raised the bulk requirements in areas of the borough zoned R-1A from 15,000 to 20,000 square feet, which the board hopes will appease developers into letting landmark buildings stand.
Borough Planner Jim Constantine and David Frizell, borough attorney, presented the ordinance report.
When asked by Councilman Richard Dyas how a building would be determined a landmark, Constantine said that was up to the borough’s Planning Board and any expert planner or architect hired by the board.
He also reminded those in attendance that this section of the ordinance was based upon the state Historic Preservation Statute which provides the accepted definition of "landmark."
Frizell had another point to make.
"This is optional," he said. "It doesn’t prevent a homeowner of a landmark building from knocking it down."
"In-fill [development] is gonna happen," Frizell said. "All we can do is try to control it."
Mayor Ed O’Brien pointed out that the measure might not please everyone.
"The people in the neighborhoods will help define what ‘landmark’ is," he said.
The design standards section of the ordinance pertains to the building of or adding on to single-family or two-family homes.
According to the ordinance, all new homes will be built "to face and to relate to the street and sidewalk."
On corner lots, the planning board will determine which street the building faces. Also, driveways and garages will be designed to be as unobtrusive to the neighborhood as possible.
The same design cannot be used on adjacent lots within 200 feet of another home of the same design.
The tree removal requirements section of the ordinance states that "only those trees necessary to permit the construction of buildings, structures, streets, driveways, infrastructures and other authorized improvements shall be removed."
"This brings tree preservation to a new height of protection," said Constantine.
In closing statements made before the meeting was opened to the public, some officials attempted to sum up the measure’s impact on the community.
"We have tried to put together a package of ordinances that address current situations," O’Brien said.
"It’s not so much the size of the house as how it looks from the street," said Frizell.
When the public had its chance to weigh in with opinions, Terry Bennet of E. Chestnut Street stood up and presented the board with a petition in support of the ordinance signed by 94 residents.
Richard Plechner, a former state Superior Court judge who resides on Oak Avenue, was concerned that the character of the neighborhoods would be affected in an adverse way.
"Neighborhoods are Metuchen," he said. "Anything that makes part of the town unattractive makes the entire town unattractive."
Also in attendance was former Governor Jim Florio, who lives in a neighborhood that is trying to prevent a developer from tearing down two historic homes and replacing them with three to five new homes.
"This is a good step forward in trying to preserve the character of the entire town," Florio said of the ordinance. "No one wants to wake up one morning and not recognize where you live."
At last planning board meeting, the tone was more contentious.
"Where’s the teeth?" asked board member Deanna Manzo. "What are we really offering developers to make sure they won’t destroy landmark buildings?"
Suzanne Andrews of E. Chestnut Street was even more blunt.
"The landmark ordinance is vague and ambiguous," she said. "It gives the developer every chance to manipulate us."
"This ordinance gives us a greater level of control," Constantine said in reply.
Both Richard Neuberger, Linden Avenue, and Dr. Steven Bennet, E. Chestnut Street, voiced their disapproval of the ordinance.
Bennet worried about cluster development, or new homes jammed around landmark buildings.
"You are giving everything to the developer," said Plechner. "This ordinance renders the borough virtually powerless. You have to hope the developer wants to play ball with us."
"Judge Plechner," said O’Brien in reply, "as mayor, I have no desire or interest in imposing a landmark preservation ordinance on any neighborhood that doesn’t want it."
The ordinance will be before the council for a public hearing and final adoption on Dec. 15