Newtown Delays Action On Historical Ordinance
|
| By:Kenn Stark, Town Talk Reporter |
04/20/2004 |
|
Newtown Supervisors recently held a special public work session to discuss the creation of an historical ordinance to protect the township's many historic sites. After a spirited, hour-long debate, the board could only agree to consult a third party for advice.
Members of the Newtown Square Historical Preservation Society (NSHPS) submitted an ordinance draft last fall, after 18 rewrites. The proposal met with resistance from several homeowners who did not want to be forced into historical status, which led to the draft being tabled. Subsequently, 67 property owners (out of the 100 identified by the NSHPS as potential historic sites) sent postcards to the township stating their opposition to the NSHPS draft.
The first obstacle to restarting the ordinance process was arriving at a precise definition of an historical property or "resource." Borrowing from an existing Concord Township ordinance, Newtown Solicitor Bruce Irvine created his own draft document, which defined historical as "more than 100 years old, or related in some way to an important person, or significant to local history."
Irvine's draft served as a starting point for discussion, but was quickly deemed too restrictive by some board members.
"Just being old does not make something historic," argued Vice Chair Linda Houldin. "Otherwise, virtually every house in Newtown would qualify."
Supervisor and former-NSHPS Officer John Custer disagreed with his fellow board members.
"Shouldn't there be something to prevent a developer from demolishing an historic building?" Custer asked, citing a 17th-century barn and springhouse that have been lost to development in recent years.
Freshmen Supervisors Jack DiPompeo and Joseph Catania sided with Houldin in their preference to allow homeowners to opt in or out of compliance. Financial incentives, such as grants or tax breaks, should also be provided to offset extra building maintenance costs, the threesome proposed.
"I have a problem with rewarding people to preserve their historic buildings," Custer said.
"Without giving an incentive, why would anyone opt in?" asked Catania.
Custer also insisted that an opt-out clause made the ordinance worthless.
Recognizing a standoff, Irvine suggested that he consult with Michael Sklaroff, chair of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, in the hope that some sage advice could be gained on how to preserve history, while not treading on the property rights of homeowners.
|
|
