Ordinance Tabled
After recommendations from local residents, including a Councilman’s wife and a member of the Planning Board and at least two other residents, Councilwoman Lori Hohenleitner, saying she felt residents at the Council meeting expressed concerns that should be addressed, made the motion to table the proposed ordinance that amended development and design of new construction in the business and historic districts.
In voting to study the proposed ordinance rather than approve it that this meeting, Hohenleitner also told Councilman Brian Dougherty “I can’t look at you right now.”
Dougherty, who is the council representative to the planning board, had presented detailed explanations and reasons for the ordinance earlier, after also announcing what he termed six “immaterial” changes to the ordinance since it was advertised and introduced. Two of those six changes took out the word “Shall” as advertised and replaced it with “should.” The change means the specified regulations are merely a recommendation, not a requirement for approval.
The vote was the first time Democrats split in their decision making, with Council members Vito Colasurdo and Eileen Cusack voting with Hohenleitner to postpone final approval, and Councilman James Murphy, the only Republican on council, voting with Doughtery indicating both wanted final action at the meeting.
According to the advertised ordinance, amendments were being made due to “recent developments in the area regulated by the Historic Business District and the Commercial Business District zones that have been contrary to the goals of the Master Plan.” However, Dougherty said there were no specific developments that came to mind that brought about the proposed amendments.
Residents also pointed out several sections that were not clear in the proposed ordinance due to apparent insufficient proofreading or close reading by any council member before voting on it for introduction or public hearing.
Planning Board member Katrina Majewski also asked that approval be delayed. She recommended changes and called the current proposal “vague.”
“The design portion really misses the mark,” Majewski told the governing body, “a lot of the ordinance is subjective….we can do better.” She also recommended that regulations for regulating density and specifics in design should be separated, and her preference to see a code more “people-centric” than building-centric. She explained people have expressed concern about safety, transportation, and other safety and local issues that are not addressed in the building code.
Mark Fisher did not get any response to the e-mail he indicated he had sent to each council-member prior to the meeting, questioning several portions of the proposed code and asking for more specifics in some areas, “There are still too many questions,” Fisher said, “it should be postponed. Why create problems for the Planning Board?”
Sara Colosaurdo, whose husband is a member of council, also requested the proposed amendments be postponed for further study and also asked that more attention be given to public concerns including comfort in walking in the area. “The planning Board is trying to figure out what they don’t like about a construction.” They are worried, she said, about size and corners and other aspects and said the borough is putting on “a bunch of band aids” rather than seeking out root causes for residents’ concerns, describing the residents as the stakeholders in the borough.
Dougherty said, “We are not Princeton, we are not Cape May….” indicating there are no hard and fast regulations for specific types of construction in an area. “This is the first step.”
With only one more Council meeting before the new administration takes place January 1, the ordinance will not be reviewed again until the new Mayor and Council, as well as the new Planning Board and its recently named study committee review it sometime in 2024.
More on the Atlantic Highlands Governing Body HERE
