Historic Preservation Chair Quizzes Master Plan Process

CAPE MAY – At the May 21 meeting of Cape May City Council, longtime chair of the Historic Preservation Commission urged the governing body to re-open the recently approved Master Plan Re-examination Report.
Warren Copeland said that the master plan as it stands could negatively impact the city’s National Historic Landmark status.
Copeland argued that the re-examination process, while it “met the letter of the law” did not, in his opinion, meet the “spirit of the law.”
Copeland criticized the process as one which had critical concluding meetings during the winter when “many property owners are not here.”
He argued that the public notice given to review the draft document met the 10-day notice requirement but was hardly sufficient for proper public review of a 300-page report.
Copeland was also critical of a process that allowed the final vote to extend to the last possible date for approval at the end of a 10-year cycle. He said the pressure to approve the plan on the last day possible meant that required public hearing could not represent a “fair hearing” on the plan.
Copeland was also critical of the city’s use of an advisory committee, “appointed by the mayor.” He noted that members of the advisory committee did not have to file financial disclosure forms. “How do we, as citizens, know that these members didn’t have conflicts of interests?”
Given Copeland’s position as the chief gatekeeper of the city’s preservation standards, his potentially most damning statement was that the plan includes “an intentional deviation from the Secretary of Interior’s Standards of Historic Preservation.” Without providing detail, Copeland warned the governing body that the plan placed the city’s landmark status in jeopardy.
Immediately following Copeland’s remarks, Planning Board Chairman William Bezaire, refuted them.
He said he “took umbrage” at the implication that meetings were timed for when residents could not attend or that final changes to the report were made behind closed doors.  “Everything was done in the open,” he said.
Addressing a council agenda item that called for reappointment of a Master Plan Advisory Committee to help with implementation of the plan’s recommendations, Bezaire argued that “we are just trying to keep the ball moving.” The committee, he maintained would help the Planning Board “move forward.”
Bezaire opposed any recommendation to “re-open” the plan. He explained that the many proposals in the plan all depend in the end on governing body approval. The elected representatives of the citizens would have final say on any implementation recommendations.
Following Bezaire’s remarks, some members of the advisory committee who had worked on the plan defended the process as “democracy in action.”
One member told council that the administration’s use of citizen committees was “one of the best things to happen” to city politics. 
Another argued that the process was always open to public input. Pointing to months of labor on the re-examination, the members expressed pride in the accomplishment.
One resident, Jules Rauch, did not directly reference Copeland’s remarks but he urged council to keep the historic designation as a primary goal of any planning efforts.
“We will be like everybody else if we don’t have our historic designation,” Rauch said.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.