The most notable issue discussed was the opposition to the nomination of the Marwood Nottingham District for historic designation. Residents David Elepant and Anurak Kadan, along with several neighbors, voiced strong objections during the public comments section. Their primary concerns centered on the perceived hurried nature of the process, insufficient notice given to the affected parties, and the democratic implications of the commission’s actions. One resident emphasized the impact on the 153 homes in the district. Questions about the integrity of the consultant’s report were raised, and the veracity of the findings was challenged. A resident’s notable remark, “the bones of our community is our democracy not our lumber,” encapsulated the sentiment of the community’s demand for a more inclusive decision-making process.

Further amplifying the community’s stance, a Short Hills neighbor described the process as undemocratic, and others lamented their feeling of being unheard and disregarded when they reached out to the commission with their concerns. Transparency and accountability were under scrutiny, with questions about the commission’s methods for establishing new business and disseminating information to the public.

In response, commission members, including chair Alison Canfield and vice-chair Zach Davis, expressed their intention to pause the designation proceedings. The commission aimed to refocus efforts on educating the community about the process and clarifying any misinformation circulating among the residents. The commission’s legal representative, Janine Bauer, addressed the legal complexities of considering individual consent in historic district designations, underlining the challenges it posed to maintaining the integrity of historic districts.

The chair reiterated that the commission had abided by the Municipal Land Use Law and had halted the designation process in response to the community’s feedback. The commission’s commitment to preserving historical integrity was stressed, with plans to hold public meetings involving the commission’s attorney and consultant for a more transparent dialogue. The potential financial benefits of owning a historic property were also mentioned as a counterpoint to the concerns about financial burdens.

Additionally, the commission discussed the importance of their role in recommending historic districts to the Township Committee for final approval, and the need to educate the public on the historical significance of neighborhoods. They also addressed logistical challenges they faced, such as meeting cancellations and the difficulty of scheduling due to their volunteer commitments. To improve transparency and accessibility, the commission proposed implementing virtual meeting options.

Furthermore, a proposed amendment to the township ordinance, aimed at preventing the demolition of historically significant properties, was slated for discussion at the next month’s meeting. This amendment could potentially address some of the community’s preservation-related concerns while ensuring the commission’s mandate to protect local history.