Stone Harbor Votes Down Courts Rezoning Ordinance

STONE HARBOR – It took three and a half years for an ordinance authorizing rezoning of the Bower, Stone and Weber Courts, along with Linden Lane, to reach a potential adoption vote by the borough’s governing body. When it did, it failed. 

The thrust of the rezoning effort was to allow properties on these four narrow streets to increase their living space above the current limit of less than 600 square feet.  

The properties are small bungalows built on undersized lots, representing another era of Stone Harbor’s past. The ordinance would’ve permitted a limited second-floor addition on the properties. 

The concept behind the rezoning was incorporated in the borough’s master plan reexamination approved by the Planning Board. Subcommittees met, consultants opined, hearings were held on the master plan report, and the recommendations of the Planning Board were discussed numerous times in Borough Council meetings. The ordinance was passed by the council on first reading one month prior.  

Yet, the vote to deny the ordinance adoption was not even close, with only one council member – Jennifer Gensemer – voting in favor. Councilman Charles Krafczek was absent from the meeting. 

The ordinance elicited comments from 21 members of the public, but the discussion was highly localized geographically and balanced. A few more people supported the ordinance than did not. 

Of the 21 people who spoke, 10 people, all individuals who live in the courts, spoke for passage of the ordinance, eight individuals, all from streets that surround the courts, spoke against the ordinance, and an additional three urged delay. 

Fire Chief Roger Stanford used the time during which he gives his monthly report to the council to make the case that the additions to the small bungalows would likely increase the fire risk and simultaneously make fighting fires on the narrow lanes harder. Stanford emphasized that he spoke about his concerns repeatedly in the past. 

Many of those who spoke against the ordinance repeated the safety concerns, along with predictions of increased people in the renovated homes with an accompanying rise in the number of cars.  

A part of the ordinance that was intended to alleviate some of the safety concerns – a requirement for sprinkler systems – has to be removed to address the safety concerns of those opposed to the ordinance. It seems that in all the effort to develop the document, it was not discovered until after the draft was fully introduced that the sprinkler requirement could not be legally included. 

For those who spoke in favor of the rezoning, equity was a major topic. They told tales of surrounding properties on streets off their backyards that build multistory “mansions,” dwarfing their small properties.  

Council heard from court property owners about the inability to add modern utilities or kitchen equipment because of limited space, while, as they repeatedly pointed out, property owners on streets behind them, some of the same individuals who spoke against the ordinance, were allowed to build large homes, with many bedrooms and leading to many more cars.  

“The parking problems in the area are not coming from the courts,” one said. 

For many on council, it was a day to voice support for the court homeowners while rejecting the ordinance for other reasons. Some spoke of a failure to formally notify surrounding property owners of the process, with Mayor Judith Davies-Dunhour pointing out that such notification was not required.  

Others spoke of flaws in the document, like the sprinkler requirement that had to be removed, while others wanted greater clarity in the language. One after another, those who voted against the ordinance did so after expressing their sympathy with the situation the court property owners face and voiced their support for “some relief.” Whether that relief would eventually be the same as the added living space specified in the ordinance was not clear. 

The vote was reminiscent of a vote taken on a lot grading ordinance in November 2020. That vote was also a potential adoption vote for an ordinance that cleared introduction. In that, as in this vote on rezoning, the council appeared to engage its members’ objections after a critical vote failed rather than before. 

Davies-Dunhour closed the discussion by reminding the public that most council members voiced support for relief for court property owners. She spoke of come cleanup of the document, which she said could be back before council in a month or two.  

Whether a defeated and reworded rezoning ordinance would have a more circuitous route back to council, where it would have to be reintroduced was not addressed.  

Whether all those who spoke in support for some relief had the same idea in mind as to the form that relief would take was also not clear. 

To contact Vince Conti, email vconti@cmcherald.com.