Contention Remains over Design Standards Ordinance

CAPE MAY – Almost one year ago, Oct. 4, 2016, Cape May City Council heard a presentation from Historic Preservation Commission Chairman Warren Coupland concerning four proposed additions to the city’s design standards.
Three of the changes had to do with technologies that did not exist when the initial standards were adopted. One was billed as a clarification of an existing standard.
The three new areas addressed involved use of solar panels, windmills, and satellite dishes.
The final issue involved replacement windows on properties that contribute to the city’s historic status.
In Cape May, with its historic landmark designation, these area issues are taken very seriously. It is not unusual for there to be debate and even outright contention over them.
Yet, few individuals at that meeting probably thought that the ordinance to update the decade-old design standards would be a matter of contention a year later.
Change in Council
The ordinance containing the new standards probably would have been passed by city council at the end of 2016 if it were not for the November election that shifted the balance of the council with Mayor Edward Mahaney losing to Clarence Lear.
Since several seats on council shifted to new members, the ordinance dealing with the design standards could not be introduced by the former council which would not have been in place for the second reading and adoption.
At the beginning of 2017, the new council heard almost the same presentation from Coupland, but new issues were percolating in the discussions.
Beyond the substance of the changes proposed were discussions of the role of the HPC and its relationship to the city’s Planning and Zoning Boards.
On Agenda but Defeated
On May 2 of this year, the ordinance containing the proposed changes to standards and guidelines was on the council agenda for introduction but was defeated.
To have an ordinance fail its introduction is unusual since lack of sufficient support on council would more normally mean it would not be placed on the agenda.
At that meeting, Council member Patricia Hendricks challenged wording which she felt gave the HPC too much power. She added that “The proposed amended language regarding ‘Appeals of HPC determination’ is beyond the scope of the HPC charge.” 
Although Coupland’s presentation to this new council had taken place just weeks before with no expressed concern about the HPC overextending its reach, that issue was at the forefront of discussion when the ordinance failed its May introduction.
Important to Status
Council members Roger Furlin and Bea Pessagno, each of whom had been on the previous council, argued that the design standard changes are important to the city’s status and that all the matters in the ordinance had been previously discussed.
Hendricks responded “there is nothing wrong with waiting if we can make it better.”
In the end, the ordinance introduction was defeated 3-2 with Deputy Mayor Shane Meier and Lear joining Hendricks.
In the summer, a committee was established under the chairmanship of ex-council member William Murray to iron out the issues of jurisdiction and authority among the various city boards. Four months later, the ordinance once again appeared on the agenda for introduction.
Rough Start
Once again that introduction was not smooth.
As the ordinance went for a vote, Furlin, who had served as a council liaison on Murray’s committee, pointed to language in what he termed “Section 4” concerning windows.
The language, Furlin said, had been added to the ordinance after the committee finished its work and the committee had never been given an opportunity to review or comment on it.
Furlin’s objections were both substantive, where he felt the new language undermined some of what the committee had done with respect to roles for the various boards, and procedural, where he was critical of a process that empanelled a committee and then added language which that committee was not given a chance to review.
Alignment
Pessagno sided with Furlin. 
She also asked Lear, as the presiding official of the council, to allow open public discussion before the council vote. Lear did not do so citing the fact that the public has the option to comment during the normal period at the end of the meeting.
The contention over this ordinance was back, and the fissures were along the same lines with Furlin and Pessagno debating Hendricks who had the support of Meier and Lear.
Solicitor’s Advice
Solicitor Frank Corrado noted that the ordinance could be approved without risk since the process next set up a public hearing at the council’s Nov. 21 meeting. 
He suggested that the Murray committee could meet before that hearing and report back on their view of the newly inserted language. The public would also then have an opportunity to voice opinion.
Corrado’s suggestion carried, and the ordinance was successfully introduced. 
While there were some substantive concerns about the language that had been added, the contention was largely driven by process concerns. 
No Need to Rush?
During public comment, Jerry Gaffney, who is chairing a council-appointed advisory committee on the proposed new public safety building, argued that there need not be a “rush to judgment on the HPC issue.”
He indicated that it was confusing to the public when the council has asked for a committee’s consideration and does not fully share the language to be included in that committee.
The next step for the ordinance will be at the hearing in November.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.