Historic commission declines revised addition at 62 Western Drive after neighbors raise visibility and drainage concerns

The Short Hills Historic Preservation Commission on Monday declined to recommend approval for a revised home addition at 62 Western Drive after commissioners expressed concern about the project’s scale and outstanding technical details.

The applicant and architect presented a redesigned rear addition intended to provide a first-floor living suite and a reworked garage; the team said the latest plans reduced the number of variances and incorporated material choices — cedar shakes, stone base, and copper roofing — intended to respect the house’s historic character. "We incorporated the feedback that we received regarding the number…the size of variances," the applicant told the commission, noting a nine-month revision process.

Commissioners and the staff consultant said the plan that had been discussed previously was more favorably received and that shifting the addition laterally to meet one setback requirement increased its apparent mass from Western Drive. The commission’s preservation consultant reportedly found the current massing and siting inconsistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards’ guidance about preserving separation of old and new forms. Several commissioners urged further reductions to variances and more visual mitigation — for example, lowering rooflines, removing windows on the side elevation, and adding dense evergreen screening.

Neighbors also raised technical objections. An attorney reading a letter for residents said the revised plan lacked a landscaping plan, a pool lighting plan and engineering detail for soil and erosion control; he warned a retaining wall and pool backwash could increase stormwater flows onto adjacent properties. The applicant responded by presenting a recent photo of existing screening and proposing 10-foot evergreen plantings and a perimeter fence to improve privacy.

After discussion, the commission took a procedural motion to vote on the application as submitted. With three commissioners voting no and one voting yes among those eligible to act, the motion failed and the commission did not forward a favorable recommendation to zoning. The board noted the applicants may submit a revised design or pursue an appeal to the zoning board as required by ordinance.

What happens next: The project team may return with additional revisions — particularly an engineering plan addressing drainage, a clarified materials/finish schedule and more aggressive visual mitigation — before seeking a formal favorable recommendation to support variances at the zoning hearing.