Historical commission ordinance on hold for now
Mayor: Ordinance will be reviewed and resubmitted to council
BY LINDA DeNICOLA
Staff Writer

Shrewsbury

SHREWSBURY - An ordinance that would have established a Historic Preservation Commission is expected to be withdrawn at the next Borough Council meeting Feb. 5.

Mayor Emilia Siciliano has recommended that the ordinance, which was introduced on Jan. 3, be pulled, thereby canceling the public hearing scheduled for March 5.

Siciliano said in her notice recommending that the ordinance be withdrawn that the Planning Board members' preliminary reaction to the comments made by residents during the public hearing on Jan. 16 indicate that amendments to the ordinance may be significant.

The ordinance called for the creation of a seven-member commission that would review any application before the Zoning Board of Adjustment or the Planning Board that would affect a historic site.

The purpose of the ordinance is to implement the Historic Preservation Element of the master plan and to advance certain public purposes. Besides preservation, it encourages the continued use of historic sites and facilitates their appropriate reuse.

Siciliano said she has been trying to get this commission established for about three years, ever since she became aware of the deteriorating condition of the Quaker Meeting House at the historic Four Corners

She believes that having this kind of ordinance in place makes it easier for some historic buildings to qualify for grant money from the state, and it is recommended by the municipal land use law, she said.

"Having the ordinance in place facilitates the filing of applications by religious institutions, like Christ Church, which is also a part of the Shrewsbury Historic District," she said.

Assemblyman Michael Panter (D-12) lauded the borough for withdrawing the ordinance. He said in a press release on Monday morning that he had received notice that the Borough Council plans to withdraw its plan to "enact a controversial ordinance aimed to create a Historical Preservation Council which would dramatically expand the borough's control over historical homes and other structures."

But, Siciliano said that Panter is under the wrong assumption. The borough is not completely withdrawing the ordinance, but will review it and introduce it again.

"We're only withdrawing the current ordinance to give the Planning Board time to consider what the public said [at the Jan. 17 meeting]," she said.

After the Historic Preservation Commission ordinance was introduced by the Borough Council, it was sent to the Planning Board, as required by law, for a 35-day review period.

But at the Planning Board meeting on Jan. 17, residents who would have been affected by the passage of the ordinance turned out to weigh in with many comments and reservations.

Panter, who lives in an historic house circa 1835 on Sycamore Avenue, said during the Planning Board meeting that he was representing residents in the historic district.

He complained that the ordinance would expand the borough's authority over exterior work on the houses in the district and would also expand the number of homes subject to the new law.

He said there are nearly 50 historical homes that would be affected. But Siciliano said there are 38 homes in the district right now.

She said there are 18 historic sites and structures located in the district but, except for two, the Allen House and the Wardell House, they are not listed individually on the New Jersey and National registers of historic places inventory. In addition, there are 20 historic sites and structures that are not located in the historic district, but are listed in the master plan.

"There are 38, but we know there are more than that now. Years ago, it was determined that when a house reaches 100 years old, it could be deemed as an historic house. The last inventory that was taken was by the Environmental Commission in June 1994," the mayor said.

Siciliano said that during the Jan. 17 Planning Board meeting, one resident said adoption of such an ordinance would devalue properties because people would be leery of buying an historic house.

The mayor said that Planning Board Attorney Michele Donato has information that homes in an historic district that are maintained appropriately increase in value.

Siciliano said that having this ordinance in place will protect the buildings that currently exist.

"We need more stringent standards. If a purchaser were to purchase a particular piece of property, they could demolish it," she said.

Panter said the proposed ordinance would require homeowners to make improvements at their own expense. He said in a prepared statement: "Shrewsbury has existing laws in place requiring approval for any exterior work done to historical homes, which has had great success.

"We welcome the council's support of historical preservation, but authorizing the borough to dictate improvement projects on private homes infringes on individual property rights."

Councilman Donald Burden, who is president of the Shrewsbury Historical Society, said in September, "With the adoption of such an ordinance, Shrewsbury has positioned itself to further define and protect many elements of historical significance for the borough. Furthermore, with the establishment of a formal commission, further leverage is provided to seek grants to support the maintenance and preservation of selected sites."

According to the Borough Clerk's Office, copies of the incomplete ordinance are not being distributed, but it is available to the public for review at the Clerk's Office.