BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REFERRAL 

HPC Referral # HPC-8-4-11-24, Owner:  Daniel and Julia Somers, Location:  501 Spring Valley Road Block 12  Lot  8, Historic District:  Green Village – contributing structures, Proposal:  Enlargement of existing barn and authorization of an existing shed.

Present: There was no representation by the applicants or professionals present at the meeting.  

Discussion:

Mr. Maselli, a member of the Board of Adjustment, stated the application had begun the public hearing at the July meeting and will be continued at the August meeting.  A site inspection has been scheduled for 8/18/11 @ 5:00 p.m.  He stated that a lengthy Board discussion has ensued resulting from comments made by neighbors as to the appearance and cleanliness of the site. 

Mrs. Claytor stated that she had received a copy of the variance application and in her opinion, and based on a “drive-by” the barn is not visible from the street, being contrary to the neighbors statements before the Board of Adjustment.  She felt that this application was more of a Board of Adjustment issue rather than an historic issue. 

Based on the discussion the Commission recommendation is as follows:                

• The property remains contributing with the barn expansion as the streetscape will not be impacted
• The barn addition should constructed consistent with the existing barn materials
• A copy of the McCabe Report is to be provided with the HPC response
• No further HPC review is required
• A response will be written to reflect this recommendation. 

HPC Referral # HPC-8-4-11-25, Owner:  Juliejane Manley, Location:  35 Meyersville Road Block 55  Lot  7, Historic District:  N/A   Individual Contributing Lot:  N/A, Proposal:  Authorization of an existing sunroom location on the rear of residence.

Present: There was no representation by the applicants or professionals present at the meeting.  

Discussion:      

Mrs. Claytor gave an overview of the Board of Adjustment variance application.  She stated the property is located on Myersville Road and is not located within an historic district nor is it an individual contributing property.  The variance application is to authorize an existing sunroom that had been built on top of an existing deck.  At the time of the construction of the sunroom there were no Township approvals or building permits issued.  

Commission Determination:

• The Commission determined there is no negative impact to the historic streetscape.
• No further review required.

PLANNING BOARD REFERRAL 

HPC Referral # HPC-8-4-11-26, Owner:  GHK Realty I, II & III, Location:  655 & 665 Spring Valley Road, Block 4  Lots, Historic District:  N/A   Individual Contributing Site:  N/A, Proposal:  Major Preliminary and Final 5 Lot subdivision.  

Filed Plans:  Preliminary Major Subdivision Plan by Schommer Engineering, Dated 7/20/10  Revised 7/11/11 

Present: There was no representation by the applicants or professionals present at the meeting.  

Discussion:

Mrs. Montgomery opened the application by stating there is a Planning Board Site Inspection scheduled for 8/6/11 @9:30 a.m.  for the review of the new subdivision proposal.  

Mr. dePoortere, a member of the Planning Board, informed the Commission that the original subdivision consisted of 5 lots which require variance relief.  At that time the Planning Board had urged the prior owners to consider revising the proposal to eliminate the need for variance relief. 

Mr. dePoortere stated the road will remain as previously proposed.  He then gave an overview of each of the 5 proposed lots, stating the farm related structures will be demolished with exception of the 1½  story  residence and the 2-story barn. 

Mrs. Montgomery stated the issue the Commission needs to resolve is whether the 2 remaining structures are deemed to be historic and subject to the demolition delay ordinance.  She suggested to the Commission they could propose an option to apply a 2-month demolition delay so the materials could be made available to the public for re-use.  

Mr. dePoortere suggested that each lot individually be inventoried for structures.  Mrs. Claytor offered to photograph each structure while at the up-coming site inspection.  Mrs. Montgomery suggested the inventory be reviewed at the September HPC meeting

which would allow the Commission to make clear and concise comments on each building.  Subsequently a written report will be forwarded to the Planning Board and the applicant. 

Commission Determinations:

• Each property will be individually inventoried for structures and photographs will be taken at the site inspecton..  The Commission will have continued discussions at the September meeting addressing each structure.

Based upon the Commissions conclusions, a written report will be provided to the Planning Board and the Applicant.

• The Commission understands there are several possible layouts for the 5 lot subdivision.  They concur that they would prefer the original layout because it preserves the streetscape by incorporating existing property access to the property. In addition, the Commission would prefer the subdivision to maintain the existing tree lined driveway via tree conservation.
• If historic materials from the existing structures are to be made available prior to demolition, the Commission should use to the Civic Association website and distribution system to inform residents. 

Discussion Item

Continued Discussion of Lam Referral – 53 Blue Mill Road. Block 19  Lot 11:, Overview: A formal response on this application was previously written and presented to the BOA during their discussions.This response questioned the historic character of the house due to the replacement of the 2^nd story windows. 

Mrs. Montgomery stated the HPC’s determination was inconsistent with the McCabe Survey Report.  The McCabe Report isthe basis of the of the Master Plan listing of historic properties. 

Mrs. Montgomery reviewed the reasons that were listed in the report that made the Lam’s accessory structure contributing:

1. The date of the original construction which did not change
2. The house is a Folk Victorian style, which was not perfect in 2004 when the survey was written.  Mrs. Montgomery was unaware of any definition of Folk Victorian that provided an explicit window design
3. The house is a good example of the style of houses that were in the Township at that time

Based on this criteria, it is Mrs. Montgomery’s opinion that the house still remains consistent with the McCabe Report. 

Mrs. Claytor stated that she had been present at the Board of Adjustment July meeting.  The Board of Adjustment had a lengthy discussion of the historic status and a clarifying report from the HPC is needed to render a decision based on the HPC’s recommendations. 

After in-depth discussion on the preferred exterior elements (windows and doors) and lighting, the Commission agreed not to address the lighting issue as it will fall under the recently adopted light ordinance. 

The clarifying response, to be written by Mrs. Montgomery for review prior to the next meeting, will address the following:

1. consensus of the Commision is that the house remains as a historic structure without any further exterior changes to the structure without Board &/or HPC approval.
2. Suggest some replacement and design conditions for granting the variance. Mr. Maselli offered to provide another sketch.
3. suggest that there be a 5-10 year time restriction for the use of the structure.  Continuation of the use of the structure would require Board Approval.
4. that the HPC recognizes this application as very unique and contentious and it is a significant departure from the Master Plan to allow the use of the structure as a 2^nd residence on the property. The Commission does not feel that is unreasonable for the Board to potentially ask Mrs. Lam to make some changes as leverage in granting the variance request.