Delivered to 15,000 Plainfield "doorsteps" Monday, Wednesday, Friday & Sunday

Showing posts with label Historic Preservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Historic Preservation. Show all posts

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission's website launched


Screenshot of a page from the HPC's new mini-website.
Plainfield's Historic Preservation Commission new mini-website (see here) certainly shows the City what could be done to make ITS OWN WEBSITE more useful. And that is what folks want of a website -- USABILITY, SUITABILITY and PREDICTABILITY.

And pretty much GEW-GAW free.

As people turn more and more to their CELLPHONES to access websites, those cutesy little showy but useless Flash thingies -- you know, swirling headlines that swell and contract before resolving into a line of text like in the corners of the City and School District websites, and, unfortunately on the HPC page too -- are a distinct annoyance as they are INVISIBLE to users of iPhones and other smartphones. What's the point of making your information unavailable?

Anyway, back to the excellent HPC mini-website.

There is everything one needs to know about Historic Preservation in Plainfield -- the ordinance governing the HPC, design guidelines for historic districts, lists and maps of Plainfield's historic districts and agendas and minutes of the HPC.

What more could one want?

How about links to useful preservation resources -- windows, roofs, solar panels, directories and preservation organizations?

And preservation news.

And a photo gallery of Plainfield's historic districts.

And links to Plainfield history resources.

And of course, to the City's website, which -- though it sports much more timely community information now under IT honcho Chris Payne -- is still pretty much a hekdish.

Congrats to the HPC!


View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Monday, September 27, 2010

Proposed Historic Districts: Unofficial Maps


Properties proposed for INCLUSION in new historic district(s)
Plainfield's Historic Preservation Commission will have before it at tomorrow's meeting summary tables of properties to be considered for inclusion in -- AND EXCLUSION FROM -- a possible new historic district (or districts).

It is an open question if the meeting will be as contentious as last month's was, when property owners descended with their concerns en masse (see my previous report here).

Herewith are my unofficial maps of the proposed inclusions and exclusions.




Properties NOT PROPOSED FOR INCLUSION in new historic district(s)

Note that though based on the tables released by the HPC, they are UNOFFICIAL.

Also, note that I had questions about them as I drew the outlines -- for instance, are the Woodland Avenue properties between Highland and Prospect included? Given that Evergreen is proposed to include up to Woodland Avenue, the table seems to exclude two properties between Highland and Prospect.

These are fine points that will certainly be sorted out by the HPC either among themselves or in response to questions from property owners.

Nonetheless, the maps seem to me to make a pretty good case for th
e CREATION of probably two new historic districts bracketing the existing Hillside Avenue HD roughly from Watchung Avenue to Evergreen Avenue.

All the properties from Martine Avenue to Marlborough/Thornton Avenues and thence to Park Avenue are NOT RECOMMENDED for inclusion in any proposed historic district.

Any proposal by the Historic Preservation Commission will have to be adopted by the City Council, which will probably find the proposal(s) much more to its liking now that the 'stairstep streets' have been removed from consideration.





HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Tomorrow, September 28 | 7:30 PM

City Hall Library

The Public  is welcome



View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Thursday, September 2, 2010

Will rooftop nightclub on PNC Bank be visible from street?


Roofline of the old United National Bank, seen from Los Faraones nightclub.

Will the nightclub be visible from the street?

That is the question that seemed to concern Historic Preservation Commission members a good deal at last week's meeting where developer Frank Cretella made a presentation on his plans for the PNC building (known to locals as the United National Bank), a property at Park Avenue and West Second Street that is in the North Avenue Historic District.

There was also talk -- somewhat less -- concerning the proposed move of the 19th-century commercial building on the bank's parking lot, which was used by UNB as its 'Community Education Center', but since has been deglamorized to a records depository.

Much of the talk concerned whether the nightclub -- which will be 12 feet in height, sited on the left edge of the roof and set back from the Park Avenue side by 37 feet -- will be visible from the street.

It's a logical question, but one that Cretella's team had not been prepared to answer with any schematics.

I took some photos, and it seems to me that it is not likely to be visible from any approach, with the possible exception of standing directly in front of Los Faraones, a nightclub occupying another of Plainfield's historic bank premises (though this one is not protected by any historic designation, and you can tell the difference).
 

Here are views of the old UNB building from several perspectives about which the HPC had questions --



The existing HVAC seems to be taller than the proposed nightclub.


View of the UNB/PNC building from Al McWilliams Plaza.


The roofline from Park Avenue, near Second Street.


Directly across from the bank at the Second Street corner.


The UNB/PNC building, as seen from North Avenue at Park Avenue.


There were also questions about the view
of the bank's roof from North Avenue. And the answer is.....?



-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Are angry homeowners a sign of historic preservation's demise?


A mansion in the Hillside Avenue Historic District.

Angry Plainfield homeowners crowded last night's Historic Preservation Commission meeting, protesting a rumored new historic district and presenting a petition in opposition to Commission chairperson Sandy Gurshman.

Is this robust negative reaction a sign of
historic preservation's demise in Plainfield?

I wouldn't go that far, but it does seem that historic preservation is in trouble.

Why?

When I landed on these shores going on thirty years ago, I was thrilled one day to find Gail Hunton (now the HPC's technical consultant) photographing my West 7th Street Victorian for inclusion in a citywide study of historic buildings NOT in Plainfield's historic districts. (A copy of that study is available in the Planning Division and at the Plainfield Public Library.)

Moving out from New York City, we were part of a significant number of newcomers who were gambling that an investment in a Plainfield home would be paid off as the city recovered from the economic tailspin that had been brought about by the flight of downtown stores to Route 22 strip malls which was exacerbated by the riot of the 1960s.

Plainfield's historic districts (at that time Crescent Area, VWB, Hillside and North Avenue) were new, enthusiastically embraced, and held out the hope of being engines of Plainfield's recovery.

I think it fair to say those hopes were instrumental in driving Plainfield's real estate surge through the 1980s and 90s and into the new century.

But as real estate appreciated and handsome profits were extracted from homeowners' investments, Plainfield's situation changed.

Though issues persisted (primarily the public schools and crime), Plainfield was no longer 'iffy'. It attracted a far different clientele, many of whom were content to live in Plainfield and shop elsewhere, who did not use the public schools, and whose main concerns were neighborhood safety and cleanliness.

For those who lived outside the existing historic districts it is safe to say that historic preservation was not even on their radar.

This was a very different Plainfield from when the Historic Preservation Commission was established.

When I first moved here, one of the other enticements of historic preservation was the prospect of TAX BREAKS for preserving old buildings. Those tax credits have long fallen by the wayside, and with them any real economic incentive to get on the bandwagon.

The only historic districts in the community with active membership groups are Van Wyck Brooks and Netherwood Heights. None of the others has a real core group of advocates and supporters who maintain an organizational presence and have regular meetings and programs -- though Maria Pellum struggled in vain to get one going (again) in the Crescent Area.




Details of the Governor Runyon house in the Crescent Area HD.

There are probably many reasons for robust support groups to have fallen by the wayside -- issues may seem less urgent with the HPC to enforce the rules, people work harder and longer with less time for such activities, and the much-touted 'value boost' for historic properties seems to have vanished along with the overall market as we grapple with the Great Recession.

Meanwhile, the HPC, which has never really lived up to its mandate to EDUCATE around historic preservation and has never turned its attention to residential neighborhoods north of 7th Street (except for the proposed 'St. Mary's HD', which never came to fruition), seems to have come to view itself more and more as the arbiter of facade issues with properties in the existing districts, with occasional forays over issues with potential economic impacts (such as the case of the proposed Abbott Nursing Home expansion in the VWB district). And that's it.

It's almost as if there were parallel worlds, that of the HPC and that of everyone else.

So, when folks began to get the idea that a new historic district was in the works, and there was no communications effort (flyers, informationals, news items in the press) by the HPC, the stage was set for last night's encounter.

Discussion of the study proposal of an area roughly bounded (it seems) by Woodland Avenue and the blocks facing Kensington Avenue, and from Hub Stine Field to Watchung Avenue, broke out into the open at last night's HPC meeting.

The Commission did not seem to be prepared for the intensity of homeowner opposition to any proposed district.

On their part, many of the homeowners who spoke were uncharitable toward the Commission and its motives and misinformed or uninformed about the process in which the HPC was engaged, certainly making it difficult for respectful dialogue.

Where will things go from here?

The HPC has 'might' on its side. It has the power to study and propose a new historic district to the Planning Board, which would then have to decide to recommend its creation to the City Council.

Homeowners last night repeatedly used the word 'fair' -- or rather the LACK of fairness -- to describe their feelings about the current state of affairs.

Is it too late for the HPC to mount a communications and education campaign?

It may not be too late, but there may not be the will for such an effort (this is, after all, a volunteer group, with limited resources).

And, when all is said and done, will Council members be willing to commit to a district in the face of intense organized opposition by homeowners?

What do you think?




-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Historic Preservation Commission: Several key properties up tonight


340 Franklin Place among properties on tonight's HPC agenda.

Plainfield's Historic Preservation Commission will take up three key properties at tonight's meeting that may be of interest to readers --

200 Park Avenue

Once the headquarters of United National Bank, this magnificent building is an anchor of the North Avenue Commercial Historic District. Developer Frank Cretella is proposing to add a fifth floor on the roof of the building (not visible from the street level) to house a nightclub. Ah, dining and dancing under the stars in Plainfield. Why not?

209 West Second Street

The Titsworth-Sutphen House is another element in the
North Avenue Commercial Historic District. It served for quite a number of years as United National Bank's Community Resource Center (one of the best outcomes of the Community Reinvestment Act locally I can think of). In preparation for his proposed West Second Street Commons, Cretella and PNC Bank are proposing relocation of this early 19th-century structure. Any takers?

340 Franklin Place

This magnificent Victorian, which has suffered two decades of indignities -- including the removal of its wrap-around porch and the gutting of its original interior details -- has new owners who are looking to convert it to a four-family. Assuming the HPC will guard the building's exterior, allowing the conversion is certainly a better solution for the neighborhood than tearing the building down.


Historic Preservation Commission

Tonight | 7:30 PM

City Hall Library
515 Watchung Avenue
Parking and entry at the rear of the building

Public welcome



-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Monday, May 17, 2010

Fences: Are Council members above the law?



Councilor Burney's property is an anchor of the Putnam-Watchung Historic District.


Plainfield taxpayers become outraged at the thought that some property owners get a pass when it comes to city regulations while those without political clout must adhere to the finest points of the codes and procedures.

There have been many incidents (I recall one in recent years when a then-sitting council member was said to have renovated a house without a permit), but one involving Councilor Rashid Burney caused my phone to ring off the hook late Friday afternoon.

Work was under way to erect a new fence on the Kensington Avenue side of Councilor Burney's property, which faces the corner of Watchung Avenue and is an 'anchor' property of the city's Putnam-Watchung Historic District.




Councilor Burney's property is an imposing presence on Watchung Avenue.


When I arrived at the scene, workers could be seen in the yard behind a scrim, painting plain-vanilla stockade fencing a dark green. Stakes had been driven along the sidewalk line from the rear corner of the property some distance toward the front.

The complaint?

It was said that while Councilor Burney had applied to the Historic Preservation Commission for a review and approval of his fence plans (it would involve a determination the proposed fence was 'appropriate'), the approval granted had long since expired.

Checking at City Hall, the historic preservation specialist was out of the office, but I was told the approval had indeed expired, and that Councilor Burney would have to go before the Historic Preservation Commission once again.




Stakes are in place for fencing along Kensington Avenue.


It should be noted that Burney has for a long-time been a preservation activist, having served both on the city's
Historic Preservation Commission and as a board member of Preservation New Jersey, the statewide preservation advocacy organization. In fact, Burney takes pains to point the facts out on one of his blogs (see here).

So, TWO QUESTIONS arise, which so infuriate other taxpayers and residents of historic districts who must abide by the rules:
  1. Why doesn't Councilor Burney have to abide by the rules and get the proper approvals before having work done?; and

  2. Can the stockade fence being erected in any way be found 'appropriate' for this property, given its integral importance to the Putnam-Watchung Historic District?
Does being an elected official give one privileges to which others -- mere taxpayers -- have no access?

One has to wonder.




Is this 'appropriate' fencing for a historic property of such grand character?


-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Friday, April 9, 2010

State forces removal of mayor's City Hall banner




The election pitch was deemed campaign speech and painted over.


The banner acknowledging Plainfield Mayor Sharon Robinson-Briggs' selection as the Gateway Chamber of Commerce's 2009 mayor of the year had long overstayed its welcome by the lights of many Plainfielders.

Originally depicting the mayor pumping her fist in the air, and sporting a button that read 'Sharon for Mayor', the ethically challenged banner was altered (see above) with red paint smeared over the portion of the button that made it campaign art after public protest.

Yet the banner hung on, through snow, through rain, through heat, through gloom of night -- and hung on, and hung on, well beyond any decent interval.

That is, until the New Jersey Historic Trust learned that the jerry-rigged lines holding up Her Honor's visage could damage the sandstone columns on the facade of Plainfield's historic City Hall.

You will recall that the NJ Historic Trust has funded the restoration of City Hall's exterior, including completely rebuilt windows, and does not take kindly to cavalier abuse of historic properties it preserves.

Once Trenton got on the horn, the banner quickly vanished.

Which, of course, only means that City Hall's exterior has been rescued for now, but that is no guarantee it is safe from future predations.




How long City Hall will escape further predation is anyone's guess.



-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

North Avenue historic property demolition: Criminal neglect. But whose?




The Fire Division responded Tuesday evening to falling debris.


An 1886 commercial building in Plainfield's North Avenue Historic District, directly opposite the city's main train station, will start to come down today. If Bill Hetfield were here, I am sure he would be hopping mad.

The photo above was taken Tuesday evening on my way to the Board of Ed meeting. The Fire Division had responded to calls that debris was falling from the boarded-up building at 187-191 North Avenue. The division's 92-foot extension ladder was used to examine the building's facade and remove loose brickwork from the top left roofline of the brick building.

Coming by on Wednesday after blogging, the Police Division's mobile command unit was parked across the street and police, inspection, construction and emergency management officials were consulting about the demolition of the building. Oliver Brown, of Oveter Construction, was on the scene and told me that he expected his crews would get under way with demolition late Wednesday or early today, depending on crews getting the gas and electric connections shut down. (I noticed that they were busy in the front, but that at the rear of the properties there was a mare's nest of power, phone and cable lines to the various buildings, all with occupied apartments except for the one to be torn down.)

The Star-Ledger reporter was prowling about, as was the Courier photographer. I got some snaps of the front of the building and the rear, which is accessed off an alleyway across from the Post Office.




My photo of 4/22/2009, after falling debris caused the area to be cordoned off.

Just eleven months ago, last April, I photographed the building's exterior after authorities put up yellow 'Do Not Cross' tape and sawhorses to keep anyone from walking or parking directly in front of the building. At that time, as this past Tuesday, there had been falling debris from the building posing a danger to passersby.
The building has been vacant for years and police have told me they have had to chase squatters out on numerous occasions.

Is there criminal neglect in this matter? And if so, whose neglect is criminal?

Based on an inspection made April 17, 2009, Plainfield construction official Joe Minarovich issued a 'Notice of Imminent Hazard' by certified mail to the owner, Solngu Enterprises LLC of Piscataway (whose phone number is listed as 908 756 912, thus incomplete), on April 20, which stated --
Failure to render the structure temporarily safe and secure and/or demolish the structure in accordance with this ORDER will result in this matter being forwarded to legal counsel for prosecution, and assessment of penalties up to $2,000.00 per week per violation.
The document could have been confusing to the owner (if they accepted the certified letter), because it contained TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE ORDERS: 1) Immediately correct the above noticed imminent hazards so as to render the structure temporarily safe and secure, and 2) Demolish the above structure by 4/20/2009. Both boxes were checked. (Keep in mind that the report was dated April 20, and the required demolition date was the same date. Kafkaesque?)

On May 1st, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) contacted Minarovich, copying DPWUD Director Jennifer Wenson-Maier, as well as engineering, planning and inspections officials, concerning the Imminent Hazard Notice, which it had taken up at its April 28 meeting.

Besides concurring that the corbelled parapet needed to be removed, the HPC placed five conditions on the process of removal, including salvaging materials and updating the HPC.

Its first and most important condition was that --
...[t]he building needs to be assessed by a structural engineer and properly secured so as to avoid any further water or structural damage, including covering all holes in the roof and ensuring the that existing interior drains (if any) are functioning properly...
The Commission went on to remind the recipients of the letter that --
187-191 North Avenue is significant not just as an individual property, but also as part of the cohesive historic fabric of the North Avenue Historic District. Our cooperative efforts in saving this building from further damage will help stabilize the North Avenue Historic District and support property values. (Emphasis added -- DD)
Months went by, evidently with no further action by the Robinson-Briggs administration.

The yellow tape and sawhorses remained in front of the building. There is no record the owner ever appealed or was fined for noncompliance with the order.

Finally, on October 6, 2009, the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission once again wrote to Minarovich, copying Wenson-Maier and the others from the original letter, noting that the Commission had received no response from any party to its May 1 letter, that the parapet had not been removed, and inquired whether the public safety situation had been abated, asking for a response by October 30, 2009.

On November 30, 2009, Remington & Vernick, the city's outsourced engineering firm, reported to Wenson-Maier the conclusions from its inspection that 'the roof overhang' (the marquee suspended over the entry by chains from the facade) be removed; noted water penetration of the building and recommended a further inspection of the interior to determine required repairs or a recommendation of demolition of the building.

Gentle reader, keep in mind -- 1) we are now more than six months past the date of the previously ordered demolition, and 2) the engineers -- who get paid like a cabbie -- are suggesting they be called upon once again, for a further fee, to make the inspection and recommendation. (Did I forget to mention these are politically connected donors to the mayor's campaigns?)

The North Avenue Historic District, designated in 1983 under Plainfield's first African American mayor, and as a result of the efforts of activists such as Bill Hetfield (who owned a property at North and Park) and Jan and Henry Johnson (publishers of the Plainfield Today newspaper, who also owned property on North Avenue), languished until the late 1990s.




This plaque in the North Avenue sidewalk highlights
historic Plainfield sites, including the train station.



At that time, New Jersey Transit invested more than $12 million in restoring the eastbound main station building and razing and replacing the westbound building with a new passenger platform with an elevator, a reopened tunnel between the two buildings and a large plaza, where the plaque picture above is permanently mounted in the walkway.

With the demolition getting under way today, Plainfield will be left with a gap-toothed streetscape for riders on the Raritan Valley trains to peruse. Sort of like a Halloween jack-'o-lantern, but definitely not amusing.

The sad thing is that none of it needed to be this way. A couple of months ago, Frank Cretella, putative developer for several proposed projects in the downtown train station area, lamented to me personally that he really would have liked to do development of the North Avenue Victorian commercial properties (of which the demolishee is one), but that 'no one will talk to me'.

Has there been criminal neglect?

I suppose it depends on your definition of 'criminal'.

How could the owner, the mysterious Melva Solis, who paid $110,000 for the building in 2000 and converted it to the current LLC ownership by a quitclaim deed in 2006 (for $1), care so little about her investment? She is lucky that no one has been injured, for that would have been legal 'criminal neglect'. But I am concerned about the neglect of our downtown transit-oriented development that the Robinson-Briggs administration has engaged in from its inception.

(How ironic that the public is invited to an all-day workshop on Visioning a revitalized Plainfield along its rail corridor, to be held this Saturday -- see notice below.)

Under the McWilliams administration, a redevelopment plan was conceived for the North Avenue Historic District which elicited interest from a number of developers with track records in development and historic preservation.

All to naught.

The Council at the time declined to entertain serious negotiations. Assemblyman Green was not interested in pursuing matters.

Jennifer Wenson-Maier, Robinson-Briggs' hand-picked Director of Public Works and Urban Development in her first term, carried out an aggressive policy of hostility and disrespect toward Plainfield's strong historic preservation heritage and assets, one has to assume with the blessing of her boss the Mayor.

While my last official duty before retiring was to create for Wenson-Maier a photographic inventory of the North Avenue and East Second Street redevelopment areas, no further action was ever taken with regard to these projects.

Robinson-Briggs, instead, concerned herself with cockamamie schemes like the Capodagli proposal at West 3rd and Richmond (since vanished into thin air) and the 'no-cost-to-Plainfield' Monarch condos project on East Front Street (for which ground was broken at the precise moment the housing bubble burst, and is now floundering).

The neglect by the Robinson-Briggs administration of the possibilities of North Avenue development while the market was hot is the real crime.

With the demolition of 187-191 North Avenue due to her administration's inaction over the past year, Plainfield taxpayers will now suffer for it.




This historic North Avenue property, shown yesterday, will start to come down today,
a victim of the Robinson-Briggs' administration's neglect.




PLAINFIELD VISIONING WORKSHOP

Saturday - March 27
9 AM - 3 PM

Washington Community School
427 Darrow Avenue
(Parking available in the Spooner Avenue lot)

Residents and business owners are invited to join with local officials and
a team of Rutgers and NJIT faculty and students in re-imagining Plainfield's future
with a focus on the Main and Netherwood Stations and the Western rail corridor.
Lunch will be served. Free, but please confirm your attendance
with Jacques or Jeanette at (908) 226-2513.




-- Dan Damon [follow]

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Monday, August 31, 2009

Kicking up a little (historic) dust


Last Thursday's post on historic preservation (see here) kicked up a little dust.

As Plainfield groped its way through the 1970s and 80s, two forces played out which would shape the city for decades to come.

Regional shopping centers (led by Short Hills and Woodbridge) administered the coup-de-grâce to Plainfield's dominance as a regional shopping center that had begun to slide as highway strip malls sprang up after WWII, luring away shoppers with the promise of easy parking (Miron's, Guarino Furs, and Crown Cadillac are just three examples). Like other downtowns across the country, Plainfield's would take decades to be reborn in a very different guise.

More positively, a grassroots movement began to capitalize on Plainfield's Victorian-era architecture as an asset that would draw new residents, preserve neighborhoods and stanch the bleeding in property values that was caused by local realtors engaging in 'blockbusting'.

This movement culminated in the development of a number of historic districts
(including the North Avenue commercial area) and a Historic Preservation Commission.

Though sometimes wrapped in highfalutin verbosity, the bottom line on historic preservation has always been the bottom line: it makes neighborhoods attractive, it's good for property values in the historic districts, and in the community generally.

In the early days, there was a good measure of both enthusiasm and participation, not only in creating the districts, but in promoting them and educating the general public, primarily through house tours.

As usual, these kinds of activities fell on the backs of a small number of highly motivated individuals who, sooner or later, became burned out. The districts entered a period of relative quiescence, with only the Van Wyck Brooks and Netherwood Heights HDs maintaining consistent and enduring organizations (three cheers!).

Tools had been put in place to help historic preservation keep things on a generally positive track -- the Historic Preservation Commission, a series of 'Design Guidelines', and a specially designed website full of information of use to all.

Last week's post kicked up a little 'dust' when commenters noted that the Robinson-Briggs administration had either 'lost' or taken down the historic preservation website when it trashed the site it inherited and then left the city without a functioning website for the better part of a year (what!? you forgot!?).
When you have second-class for so long, it's possible to forget what is was like when you had first-class.

At any rate, the loss of the web pages (whether or not owing to the antipathy of Director Wenson-Maier to historic preservation, as some allege), has now come to the attention of folks who may get it restored.

Council President Burney emailed to say he was unaware the web pages had been taken down and that he is going to advocate funding for both the website and translation of the Design Guidelines into Spanish in the upcoming budget.

Though none of this addresses my proposal to get Historic Preservation 'off the dime', thanks to the dust kicked up in the comments, we may yet get the ball rolling again.


-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Thursday, August 27, 2009

The problem with Historic Preservation





Maybe not THE problem, but AN IMPORTANT PROBLEM confronting Plainfield's Historic Preservation Commission.

The spectacle of yet another property owner having to come before the Commission in regard to work on the exterior of their property where the owner claimed to be unaware of their obligation to have proposed work reviewed by the HPC was witnessed yet again on Tuesday evening.

A long discussion ensued among HPC commissioners after the applicant left the meeting, highlighted by consultant Gail Hunton's plea that a way needs to be found to both enforce the legislation which created Plainfield's historic districts and the Historic Preservation Commission, and to do so in a way that is supportive and not adversarial.

One suggestion floated was to put an informational ride-along piece in the tax bill mailing at least once a year. I'm not sure how helpful that would be if owners aren't even aware they live in an historic district.

There seem to be two points here: one that property owners are unaware of their obligation, and the other that Plainfielders generally are unaware of the beneficial effect of historic preservation efforts on property values CITYWIDE.

It seems to me there could be a more effective way to address at least the first issue.

And that would be to enlist the real estate community at the most important point in the cycle -- when a property exchanges hands.

Sellers and realtors are subject to many conditions -- smoke and CO² alarm certificates, asbestos, radon and underground storage tank tests, and even the size, placement and duration of 'FOR SALE' signs (for example, South Plainfield in today's Courier -- see here) -- in the sales process, and it is the one point at which the municipality can get everyone's attention.

So why not use it to the advantage of Plainfield's historic districts and properties?

How about an ordinance that requires every real estate broker offering a Plainfield property for sale to --
  1. Include a notice in the listing if a property is in a Historic District or is landmarked that the new owners will subsequently be bound by the rules regarding changes to the property's exterior.

  2. Obtain from the city personnel responsible for monitoring historic properties a form letter designating the property by both street address and lot and block number, confirming that the real estate professional is hereby complying with the ordinance, and

  3. Require the countersignature of the new owners at the closing on the property sale, this countersigned form to be kept on file by the city personnel responsible for monitoring historic properties, and

  4. Provide for a fine if the real estate broker fails to comply with both requirements.
Of course, this would oblige the City, in good conscience, to make an effort to supply any all brokers with the tools needed to comply (access to up-to-date and accurate maps of the historic districts, and an online version of the historic preservation ordinance).

The advantage is the City is applying pressure at the point at which it is most likely to have the full attention -- and cooperation -- of the concerned parties. Money rules!

Then there is the other side of the issue, the long-term, community-wide educational task of helping ALL PROPERTY OWNERS understand that a benefit of strong enforcement of the rules in the Historic Districts spills over in regard to value of all other properties. It can be a tide that lifts all boats.

Of course, that would require the Robinson-Briggs administration to take up the cause in a pro-active way.

But why wouldn't it?

The mayor and any of her cabinet living in Plainfield could benefit, just like every other property owner.

And who knows, someday she -- or they -- may put their house on the market.





-- Dan Damon
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Two Historic Plainfield Properties: Can They Be Saved?



The Lampkin Farmhouse (1690-1720). Photo by Dan Damon.
(Click on image to enlarge.)


Two of Plainfield's many historic homes are currently on the market.

But their futures are probably as divergent as can be.

One of Plainfield's oldest extant structures, the Lampkin Farmhouse on Terrill Road, originally constructed between 1690 and 1720, is currently on the market -- for an astounding $129,000 (details here).

But, before you whip out your checkbook, consider this: the building, which is the estate of the late Viginia Terrell, a legendary Plainfield grand dame, is currently marked by a brillliant red placard which declares the building 'uninhabitable'.

And therein lies part of the tale. The house is, to put it mildly, decrepit. And it has a barn that appears to be in just as bad shape. Add to this that it sits -- literally -- on the side of the road. That would be the ever-busy Terrill Road, where a corner of the building comes within less than a yard of the roadway.



The farmhouse, from the rear, note the tarp. Photo: Dan Damon.
(Click on image to enlarge.)





A view of the barn. Photo: Dan Damon.
(Click on image to enlarge.)




The red placard warns the structure is uninhabitable. Photo: Dan Damon.
(Click on image to enlarge.)


Over the years, many people, both friends and real estate professionals, tried to help Mrs. Terrell salvage the situation of this property, but to no avail.

Though the property is historic, that does not mean it cannot be torn down, which is what seems to be on its horizon. The estate, through its attorneys, have applied for a demolition permit. The only step remaining is to secure the review of the Plainfield's Historic Preservation Commission.

Barring a white knight rescue, the Lampkin Farmhouse's days look to be numbered.

The same cannot be said of the OTHER historic property on the market.

In fact, you might be surprised to think it IS historic.

And that is because it was built in the late 1950s, a classic postwar starter home, of which Plainfield has hundreds of examples.

Hundreds, except that none of the others ever had Paul Volcker as owner and resident.

That would be Paul A. Volcker, former chair of the Federal Reserve under presidents Carter and Reagan, who, as a young banker started his family and career here in Plainfield.

And that house, at 912 Carnegie Avenue, is currently on the market. You can get more info from The Burney Group, (908) 668-5252.



The house where Paul Volcker lived, at 912 Carnegie Avenue.



-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.

Sunday, September 21, 2008

Olive Lynch's Open House, or Wall Street meltdown meets Main Street red tape and it ain't good.



Olive Lynch's 'Coriell Mansion', at the corner of Central and Stelle Avenues, and the adjoining ranch home at the corner of Stelle and Madison are on realtor's open house today, from 1 to 4 PM.

The public is welcome to come out and look, and the hope is that some -- potential -- buyers will as well.






The sight is not pretty, but it is not the state of the Coriell Mansion, which is frozen in the midst of a complete restoration of the exterior and renovation of the interior that is shocking.

Rather, it is the unprettiness of a dream crushed by market realities and bureacratic snares.

I will let Olive tell the tale in her own words, via an email she sent and is willing to share --


Let me tell you about what happened.

It took me 3 years to get through the city process to get the building rezoned from a 4-family to a single family with a B&B variance. In the historic districts, B&B's are an allowed use. But, because I wanted to do events, weddings (which are not allowed per the Plainfield zoning
code for a B&B), I had to get a variance.

I went before the Planning Board, then the Historic [Preservation] Commission, then the Zoning Board of Adjustment, then back to the Historic
[Preservation] Commission. The process cost me out of pocket $60,000 for architect's drawings (for the house), engineer's drawing, attorney's fees (I had to go 4 times to the zoning board meeting, because they kept putting me at the back of the agenda and "continuing" me) and a planner. I was required to change my engineer's site plan about 8 times ... Sometimes one change was put back to what it was originally, in the going back and forth between the zoning board, fire department and historic commissions. I was required to get a tree expert to analyze whether the proposed circular drive would harm the large oak tree at the street.

After I got through this process, then came the bonding. I was required to put up $60,000 in CASH as a bond for the site work. I had these funds, but I was planning to use this to do the site work. So, I had to put that money in an account and it was held by the city until the work was deemed complete. Unfortunately the engineering firm that the city used way overestimated the costs ... And after the fact, I really should have only had to put up $20,000 or so.

I also had a delay related to the fact I wanted to put in pavers at the driveway apron, instead of asphalt. The city engineer at the time (now not there), demanded I create engineering drawings. What made me angry, was in his letter to planning, he stated these drawings then could be
used as a standard for any one else who wanted to do pavers in [a] historic district. I objected, provided engineering calculations from the paver manufacturer, that the concrete pavers could meet the load requirements(in fact, better than asphalt).

So ... I went through a lot before I could even start work.

Next came getting financing. I put together a complete SBA proposal package and went to 2 local banks, and 3 other banks trying to get an SBA loan. I had $100,000 in the bank. I was turned down by all of them, citing that Plainfield was not a viable location for a Bed and Breakfast. It didn't matter that the Pillars had been there for 10 years.

I finally got a home construction loan through Wells Fargo (because a B&B is your home). This, with my cash on hand, should have been enough
to complete the project.

Then I was informed by the city and state that I required fire sprinklers throughout the building. When I did my research with the B&B association of New Jersey, they said I would not need sprinklers, so this was completely unexpected. The average price I got for this was $100,000.

Also, the city inspections department has, to date, rejected every drawing, plan, spec submitted by my architect, plumber, contractor and electrician. I went to the permit office many times, where they could not find my file, and I had to resubmit drawings and diagrams.

Also, when we got into the project, we found that the repair done [before I bought the property], right over the porch, was dangerously substandard. It is incredible to me that the city approved the architect's plans and passed it in inspection. When we opened that part of the building up, my engineer and framing contractor said eventually the house would have come down, and that the building was actively moving downward. This surprise cost a substantial amount of money, not in my original budget.

So ... Since January I have gone through approximately 18 banks looking for the additional funds to complete the project. I have been turned down by every one. The criteria:

1. In the past year, since the building was last appraised, the mansion value has dropped by $200,000. This is based on recent house sales. This was huge, because banks determine what they will loan by the appraised value. This property is especially difficult, because ther are no 15,000 sq ft single family homes ... Even when the appraiser looked up to 30 miles away.

2. Banks again did not want to invest in a B&B in Plainfield ... It doesn't have the right population mix to support such a business (that was their opinion).

3. With the bank crisis, funding that could have been available for a special project (ie, banks that would have funded a "riskier" loan for a higher interest rate) ... All that funding has dried up.

4. I went to brokers that specialize in funding B&Bs ... Much of their funding has dried up, and the few that remain are being very conservative, and did not like my project because I was the sole source of income, the location and it was a start up.


So, a post-mortem is:

The city of Plainfield's process caused me $60,000 and three years. If I had gotten through the zoning process in a few months, at that time the funding would have been available, and the B&B would be open already. My feeling is at every turn the city put up roadblocks on this project. Given that bank funding will be very tight for the next 2-3 years, I realized I would not get the funding for years, so I'm selling.









Above, the newly built elevator shaft awaits its elevator.





The adjacent ranch home is also on Open House today.

Coriell Mansion

Realtor Open House
Today
1 PM - 4 PM

Contents Sale
Final Day: Sunday
9 AM - 4 PM
At Central & Stelle Avenues
CASH only



-- Dan Damon

View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.