Zoning Law Changes Benefit to Community

Last week Jocelyn Mathiasen issued a candidate statement in which she made several declarations regarding recent changes in zoning ordinances which I believe warrant a response to address a flawed premise and other concerns she raises. Her letter stated:

“I recognize that these developments, and recent zoning changes that allow for larger houses on smaller lots, are being promoted with an eye to increasing our property tax base…. In some neighborhoods, the new floor area allowances are leading to homes that appear out of scale and out of character with the surrounding homes. This could have been mitigated, for example, with a design review process for homes exceeding the previous standards. “

I served on the Zoning Board of Adjustment, which hears applications for variances from the zoning ordinances, from 2005 – 2015, the last five years as Chairman. As the economy recovered following the global financial crisis, we saw a significant growth in variance applications as residents chose to remain in the Borough and reinvest capital into their homes, a practice which should be encouraged. However, many residents were denied permits and told to get a variance due to overly restrictive land use ordinances which forced upon residents a burdensome and costly variance process for even the simplest, inherently beneficial upgrades, such as adding a portico over their front steps or a powder room to the first floor of their home. Renovations on corner lots were virtually impossible without getting a variance because just touching the home in any way triggered two front yard setback variances. Garage and attic calculations put severe limitations on homeowners’ ability to bring their functionally obsolete 1920’s and ‘30’s homes into compliance with modern living standards.

The Planning Board, which develops the zoning ordinances for approval by the Council, reviewed my recommendations and studied the applications the Zoning Board of Adjustment had heard over the years. With the guidance of the Borough’s planner, a number of changes to our zoning ordinances were proposed that would make it easier for homeowners to update their homes and yet still preserve Chatham Borough’s character. These changes were adopted by the Council.

Ms. Mathiasen’s assertion that “increasing our property tax base” was the driving factor behind zoning liberalization is totally incorrect. The tangential increase in assessed valuations from renovated homes, while positive, is a relatively small piece of our overall revenue puzzle. The recommendations which I made to the Planning Board and Council in 2015 in favor of targeted liberalization of zoning ordinances were aimed at allowing residents to make reasonable renovations to improve their quality of life and standard of living and benefit the Borough community by preventing blight and preserving home values. The changes made it easier for residents to stay in the Borough rather than moving to another community in order to obtain a larger home.

The zoning ordinance revisions also:

• Made the process of upgrading a home more user-friendly for residents. The variance process is costly and time consuming while the relief in certain situations is almost always assured. So why not eliminate those variance situations altogether by fixing the code?

On balance, the benefits to our community and our residents, from what were relatively modest adjustments to the zoning ordinances, have had a positive effect on the ability of homeowners to reinvest capital into the Borough’s aging housing stock. However, periodic review of the impact on our community is appropriate to ensure that what is being built does not destroy the character of our neighborhoods. Recently the Borough has seen an uptick in teardowns instead of renovations, and sub-divisions of lots with new homes appearing where there was previously open space. Both the Planning Board and the Zoning Board of Adjustment are watching these trends to determine if further tweaking of our ordinances is called for.

What we need to be careful of is Ms. Mathiasen’s suggestion that applications go through a design review process when they already comply with the current zoning standards. The Historic Preservation Commission does perform a design review for construction in the Historic District. The Zoning Board and Planning Board already review applications which don’t meet the standards met by our ordinances. Introducing a new bureaucratic process for construction and renovations the complies with our zoning ordinances would raise a host of issues, including foisting a potentially intrusive and burdensome process onto our residents, which will add cost and time to an already involved process.

Peter Hoffman

Chatham Borough Councilman