STONE HARBOR – After years of discussion, inclusion in the Master Plan Reexamination Report, and at least four Stone Harbor Borough Council votes, the rezoning ordinance for Weber, Stone and Bower Courts and Linden Lane was tabled at the council’s Nov. 15 meeting.
A protracted struggle between property owners on the Courts and those on the numbered streets that surround them has delayed a final vote on an ordinance.
The ordinance would authorize properties on four narrow streets with undersized lots to increase their living space by 60% above the current limit of less than 600 square feet. The properties on these four streets are collectively referred to in the borough as “the Courts.”
The properties on these streets date to the early 20th century when a developer realized that Stone Harbor needed a more modest and affordable form of housing.
Some of the bungalows in the Courts added second stories and decks while they also winterized the properties for year-round living. Those who did not expand early were essentially frozen when borough zoning ordinances removed their ability to grow beyond their original size.
Courts homeowners have advocated for greater flexibility to expand for years. The rezoning ordinance now before the council would give them that flexibility.
As strongly as Courts property owners have pushed for the rezoning, homeowners on the numbered streets that back onto the narrow courts have opposed it. Citing safety and security concerns, and also expressing worries about congestion and parking, these property owners have fought the rezoning.
Courts owners have accused the opposition of being disingenuous. They point to almost constant development on the numbered streets as larger homes replace more modest ones, creating what one Courts owner termed a canyon around the one-story bungalows.
In August, the rezoning ordinance failed adoption on a 4-to-2 vote from the six-member council. Changes were made and the ordinance returned to be reintroduced in October. It narrowly won introduction when a 3-to-3 council vote allowed Mayor Judith Davies-Dunhour to break the tie with an affirming vote. Davies-Dunhour has been steadfastly in favor of the rezoning.
By the Nov. 15 meeting, when adoption would, again, be considered, the ordinance appeared to be headed for passage. No one expected a change in any of the yeas and nays on the council, and another tie would give the mayor a chance to cast the deciding affirming vote.
Instead, just hours before the council meeting was scheduled to begin, a letter was delivered to the borough clerk, along with over 100 forms filled out by homeowners opposing the ordinance. Most, if not all, of the forms were from property owners within close proximity to the Courts, claiming they would be negatively impacted by the rezoning.
The borough solicitor explained that state law requires that the vote to adopt a zoning ordinance moves from a simple majority of the governing body to a supermajority if 20% of the impacted landowners living within 200 feet of the change oppose it.
The borough had no time to verify the signatures and addresses on the forms in the short period prior to the meeting start, so the ordinance was tabled.
If the documentation supplied to the clerk is verified, the votes needed to adopt the ordinance would change. Four affirming votes would be needed.
New complications come in the wake of an expected recusal. Council member Reese Moore, who has voted three times on this ordinance in the past, always against it, has indicated to the borough solicitor that he may recuse himself from any future votes. Moore owns a 50% interest in a property that backs onto Weber Court, which can create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Without Moore, who was one of the three no votes for the introduction of the ordinance, the opposition to the rezoning would lose under a majority-only vote and win under a supermajority requirement. In neither case would the mayor’s vote be necessary.
Between now and the first meeting of the council in December, the lawyers will be reviewing the rarely invoked statute. Other officials will be verifying the signatures and addresses on the forms. The result will be a decision on how many votes are required to adopt the ordinance.
The ordinance should come up again for a vote in December.
To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.
