MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

February 17, 2005

Present:  Vice Chairman Ira Smith, Commissioners Susan Brady, Kathleen McDonough, Denis Orloff, Edward Lippincott, John Morris

Absent:  Chairman Jerry Mosier, Jonathan Perlstein

Also present:  Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary

Order and Announcements:  The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Vice Chairman Smith.  Mr. Mellon called the roll and stated that the Commission had a quorum. The notice of compliance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act was read, indicating that appropriate notice was forwarded to the officially designated newspaper of Montclair and also posted in the Municipal Building.

Approval of Minutes:  On a motion by Commissioner Lipppincott and seconded by Commissioner Orloff, the minutes of the January 20, 2005 meeting of the Commission were approved.

Approval of Resolution and Certificate of Appropriateness

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of 23 Valley Road, LLC., 23 Valley Road  On motion by Commissioner Lippincott, seconded by Commissioner Brady, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Laura Cianci, 9-15 Church Street

On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Commissioner McDonough, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution of Future Image Sign & Awning Inc., 220 Bloomfield Avenue  On motion by Commissioner McDonough, seconded by Commissioner Brady, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

Adoption of Memorializing Resolution to forward the Nomination Report for and expansion of the Town Center Historic District to the Township Council  On motion by Commissioner Orloff, seconded by Commissioner Lippincott, the memorializing resolution was adopted as modified.

New Business

Application 2005-1– Hugh Whyte.

8-10 South Fullerton Avenue  (Block 2207, Lot 5)

At the time of the public hearing, Hugh Whyte, the applicant, came forward and was sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included: a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photograph of the building façade; photograph of the building façade with the proposed lighting superimposed.

The applicant was proposing to install 3 new light fixtures on the façade, in the ornamental brickwork located above the second story windows.  The fixtures are proposed to be spaced evenly across the façade, within the 3 box-like areas that are delineated by raised brickwork.  The proposal also calls for there being no exposed wiring or tubing, as the electrical connection will be drilled directly through the brick.  The proposed 3 fixtures are to be wall mounted triangular luminaries; BEGA Corp., Cat #2490, with a heavy pressed glass enclosure in a black finish.

Mr. Whyte provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the goal was to provide accent lighting for the façade.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and noted its concern over the impact that the mounting of the fixtures would have on the façade.  The Commission went on to state that the location of the proposed fixtures did not accomplish the goal of highlighting the façade of the understated structure.  The Commission suggested that the applicant consider locating the fixtures on top of the existing awning, so as to have the up lighting of the façade, as opposed to the proposed down lighting.  The Commission also suggested that should the applicant follow this course of action, that a different fixture should be considered.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no further questions from the members of the Commission or staff, opened the meeting to the public for comments on the application.  No public comment was offered.

In response to the concerns raised by the Commission, the applicant agreed to return with a revised proposal for the lighting at a future meeting.

Application 2005-4 – Starseed Center for Yoga & Wellness.

215 Glenridge Avenue   (Block 3201, Lot 39 )

At the time of the public hearing, Arthur Johnson, the owner of the property, and William Courson, the applicant, came forward and were sworn.  The documents that had been submitted by the applicant as part of the application package included: a completed application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; photographs of the existing conditions; rendering of the proposed sign.

The applicant was proposing to install a new wall mounted sign on the façade.  The proposed new wall mounted signage will consist of one painted sheet-metal sign, that is proposed to be approximately 7’ wide and 4’ high, with red and green lettering on a yellow background.  The applicant was not proposing any additional changes to any other part of the storefront façade.

Mr. Johnson provided the Commission with an overview of the project, stating that the existing sign panel support structure on the façade would be removed as part of the project.  He continued by stating that the applicant had not yet determined the exact location of the sign, but that it would be centered, and would not have any new lighting.

Upon completion of the presentation by the applicant, the Commission discussed the proposal and stated that the proposed sign is appropriate in scale and design, and noted that the sign would not cover any architectural features on the façade.  The Commission also stated that the existing sign panel support structure should be removed, and any damage to the façade resulting from the removal should be repaired.  The Commission went on to state that the sign should be centered on the façade, while allowing the applicant the option of adjusting the height of the sign outside of the sign location band.  The Commission noted that a variance would be required to do so, but the applicant would not have to return to the Commission.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no further questions from the members of the Commission or staff, opened the meeting to the public for comments on the application.  No public comment was offered.

On a motion by Commissioner Brady, and seconded by Commissioner Orloff to approve the application with conditions, the Commission voted six in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes.

Conditions:

A)  The existing sign panel support structure on the façade is to be removed.

B)  The sign is to be centered on the façade.

C)  If the applicant should seek to have the mounting height of the sign changed, which would require a variance, the applicant would not have to return to the Commission.

Public Hearing:  Master Plan Reexamination

Vice Chairman Smith opened the public hearing by reviewing the reexamination process for the audience, stating that the public forum was being held to discuss the Historic preservation Element of the Township Master Plan.  He went on to state that New Jersey Municipal Land Use Law requires that the Township Master Plan be reexamined at least every six years, with the last having occurred in 1999.

He continued by stating that the public forum would discuss the goals/objectives and recommended actions found in the 1999 Master Plan Reexamination, historic preservation section, and how these problems have been addressed since 1999.  He stated that the focus of the meeting would be to recommend goals, objectives and actions to include in the Reexamination Report.

Vice Chairman Smith then reviewed the accomplishments of the Commission since the last reexamination, including the establishment of the Town Center Historic Districts, as well as examples of façade restorations that had been undertaken with Commission review.  He continued by stating that the Commission needed to address a host of issues including, the issue of residential historic district, buffer zones and view corridors, as well as the need for better coordination between the Planning and Zoning Boards and the Commission.  He then asked for the Commissioners to offer their comments.

Commissioner McDonough stated that the Commission should look at the individual designation of sites, and not only focus on districts.  She went on to state that the Commission should work to encourage the owners of historic properties to self nominate them.

Commissioner Brady stated that although there were considerable obstacles that the Commission continued to face, that significant progress on a number of fronts had been achieved.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no further comments from the members of the Commission or staff, opened the meeting to the public for comments.

Tom Lonergan, Executive Director of the Montclair Center Business Improvement District, came forward, and stated that the BID was working on a plan to improve the visual appearance of the central business district through a combination of infrastructure and façade improvements.  He noted that some of the proposals would require changes to existing ordinances, such as the sign ordinance, and that the BID was looking to work with the Commission on seeing these changes through to completion.

Martin Schwartz, 45 Gates Avenue, came forward, and asked whether the Commission had reviewed the designs for the Sienna development as well as the parking decks on the Crescent and Valley Road.

Vice Chairman Smith stated that the Commission had reviewed the design for the Sienna development, and had an advisory review of the design for the parking deck on the Crescent.  He went on to state that the Valley Road deck was not reviewed by the Commission, and that it was the type of project that should have been, due to its location directly adjacent to the Town Center Historic District.

Mary Krugman, Montclair resident, came forward, and stated that she felt that there was a need to expand the scope of the Commission, in particular for the Commission to give advisory opinions on applications before the Planning Board and Board of Adjustment.  She went on to state that historic preservation should be incorporated into the redevelopment plans that the Township was working on.

Frank Girard Gedlevsky, 10 Crestmont Road, came forward, and stated that the Commission needed to look at the idea of designating residential districts, and investigate the potential tax benefits that could be supplied to homeowners. He continued by stating his support for protecting view corridors, and provided the Commission with a copy of a petition that had been submitted to the Township Council calling for the preservation of 8 South Mountain Avenue and 764 Bloomfield Avenue, that had both originally been part of the historic stage coach stop site.

Adam Grays, Montclair resident, came forward, and stated that the Commission should look at all of the tools available to support preservation, and continued by discussing the façade easement programs that are in use in communities throughout the nation.

Frank Rubacky, Montclair resident, came forward, and stated that he saw an urgent need to improve the interaction between the Township government and the Commission.  He went on to state that the Commission should pursue the designation of residential districts.

The Commission stated that the need for public education had been identified as a pressing matter that needed to be addressed, and went on to state that the support of the Township Council was needed in order to pursue the designation of residential districts.

Mr. Rubakcy stated that the Commission needed to look at additional strategies to promote preservation, and continued by stating that the Commission should look to have volunteers help with the efforts.

The Commission stated that improving the flow of information about preservation efforts to the public was essential, and continued by stating that the Commission should have a column in the Township newsletter as well as on the website.

Mr. Mellon stated that the Commission had received considerable support from the Township Code Enforcement Division in order to crack down on unapproved work in the Town Center Historic District.

Ed Remsen, Township Mayor, came forward, and stated that he would see if the website could accommodate a column for the Commission, and also stated that the Commission should look at having some programming on Channel 34 in order to improve public awareness of the activities of the Commission.  He continued by stating that the issue of residential designation required the support of the public in order to be moved forward on.

The Commission stated that support from the Township Council was crucial, and that there was concern about what had happened regarding the proposed Marlboro Park Historic District.  The Commission also stated its desire that the Council liaison be actively involved and informed of the issues that were being dealt with.

Mr. Mellon stated that Councilor Tobin, the Council liaison, is up to date on the workings of the Commission, and had been closely involved with working on the proposed Upper Montclair Historic Business District.

Mayor Remsen stated that the Master Plan Reexamination is a Planning Board document, and that the public should be clear that the Council is not driving the process.

Vice Chairman Smith stated that the Commission would be drafting a report that would be included in the reexamination that would have specific recommendations to further the goal of preservation in Montclair.

Mr. Mellon stated that the Commission might consider the thought of reaching out to each of the 6 residential historic districts separately, and see if there is an interest to pursue local designation of the districts.

Commissioner McDonough stated that the Marlboro Park Historic District was potentially in danger of losing its designation due to the loss of the Marlboro Inn.  She continued by stating that the Marlboro Park Historic District served as a prime example of the urgent need to safeguard residential districts through local designation.

Mike Lasser, resident of Montclair, came forward, and stated that the Commission should look at all of the possible strategies for residential historic districts, including voluntary designation.

Ms. Krugman stated that the Commission needed to address the potential threats to the Pine Street Historic District resulting from development pressures in the area.

The Commission stated that it was aware of the need to protect the Pine Street Historic District, and that a number of options to do so were being pursued, including possibly changing the Rehabilitation Plan for the area or designating it as a local historic district.

Vice Chairman Smith, hearing no other comments from members of the public closed the public meeting on the Master Plan Reexamination.

Public Comment

There was no public comment offered during this portion of the meeting.

General Discussion Issues - Members of the Historic Preservation Commission

Mr. Mellon informed the Commission that he had spoken with a representative from the Upper Montclair Public Library, in regards to the proposed expansion of the library.  He stated that the library was asking whether the Commission could recommend anyone to help with an archeological survey for the project.  He went on to state that the proposed expansion would most likely be coming before the Commission for its review sometime in the near future.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:46 pm on a motion made by Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Brady.

Respectfully submitted,

Jonathan Mellon, Commission Secretary