Plan calls for razing historic building

Posted via APP.com:

The first major construction project to fall under the borough's new redevelopment guidelines soon will come before the Planning Board.

But the details of the plan -- which involve tearing down an historic East Main Street building -- are already causing at least one local history buff to cry foul.IMG_2301

"I think it's a terrible idea," said the borough's historian, Kevin Coyne.

Hazlet firm Fox Associates wants to remove the existing two-story structure at 42 E. Main Street and put up a three-story office building.

The building currently houses an architecture firm and a family practitioner.

Known as the Richmond House, the structure was built in the early 19th century in the Greek Revival style, according to a 1980 county history.

It is one of a handful of pre-Civil War buildings left in the borough, Coyne said.

"Freehold has bulldozed way, way too many of its old buildings," Coyne said. "This will be one more piece of our history that will be gone."

The borough's Historic Preservation Commission signed off on the plans with a handful of recommendations, including that an area be set aside to depict the property's history.

The new building would fit in with the downtown streetscape, said Edward Ketcham, who owns Fox Associates with Monmouth County Democratic Party chairman Victor Scudiery.

The Borough Council reviewed the application Monday. Council members do not have to formally approve the plan, Borough Administrator Joseph Bellina said.

The Planning Board is to hear the application Oct. 14. The applicant is requesting preliminary and final site plan approval, as well as a variance to have three less parking spaces than the 26 required.

The site currently has five parking spaces. Some parking would be on the ground floor of the new building, Ketcham said.

Five additional spaces would be provided by modifying the adjacent Market Yard lot, according to Planning Board documents.

The building would be nearly 41 feet high, almost 6 feet higher than allowed under the property's original zoning. But buildings in the new redevelopment area are allowed to have height comparable to existing structures in the area, according to borough documents.

The Borough Council adopted a plan in December that set parameters for redevelopment in the downtown area bounded by Throckmorton, Spring, Broad, Lafayette, Mechanic and Hudson streets. Those guidelines take precedence over the original zoning in that area.

Share

10 Responses to “Plan calls for razing historic building”

  1. paulteicher  on September 28th, 2009

    As a lifelong resident of Monmouth County, I was dismayed to read of the potential demolition of one of the county’s landmark structures, especially a rare Greek Revival building in such a prominent location in Freehold Borough. I do not know the history of the structure, but its unique proportions and central location on Main Street certainly indicate an important reason for its existence. Please inform me as to the review process of the Historic Preservation Commission and why it is considered unworthy of preservation, yet it is important enough to set apart an area in the new proposal to explain its history! As is done elsewhere around the country, if the demolition becomes inevitable, there are still different approaches for its preservation. 1. Offer it to be moved off the site by a private party and preserved elsewhere in the Borough. 2. Have the Borough aquire it and move it to a different Borough owned property. (This could be for a Borough related use). 3. Not as desireable, but offer it to a company that disassembles it and resells it to private buyers elsewhere. The full value of the property, historicaly and culturally, is to preserve it and restore it on site. Perfect location for a visitor center and/or a Freehold Borough historic museum! Anybody can tear a piece of history down in a minute to make a buck. It takes courage, dedication and imagination to preserve a piece of history for future generations. A bold move to save this structure certainly will have a more positive impact than the simple choice to demolish it. This building has been arouhd for 180 years. Give it the necessary time and attention to preserve its future. Paul Teicher

    Reply

  2. hillsider  on October 1st, 2009

    THis was always one of my favorite buildings downtown, truly a slice of old time Freehold. What makes the downtown nice is the sense of history- and this building has value as well as can be reycled to meet the new owners needs, without destroying it. WHY CAN”T THIS BUILDING BE SAVED? at least in facade, it sould remain preserved. How lousy- but then again, the Dem Chairperson is part of the process, so,….no one will dare stand up and do the right thing I guess. This is a shame.

    Reply

  3. Marilyn  on October 3rd, 2009

    I completely agree with Mr. Teicher’s response above, and with Mr. Coyne.
    And THIS building catches my eye EVERY SINGLE TIME I drive down Main Street!!! it is an integral part of the downtown landscape – and if these historic structures continue to be torn down, Freehold will lose all the charm that makes it special to residents, visitors, and business owners – it will eventually cease to be a destination in Monmouth County.
    A plaque as a replacement for a 180-year-old, Pre-Civil War, Greek Revival Building?! – are they crazy?!

    Reply

  4. Lisasjf  on October 3rd, 2009

    How many buildings in the borough do they plan to destroy? They just knocked down a house at 9 Broad street dateing from 1890. These buildings make up the charecter and personality of this town. Is it ever gonna stop??????

    Reply

  5. Marilyn  on October 3rd, 2009

    What representatives or offices can we call to voice our protest?

    Reply

  6. factman  on October 3rd, 2009

    How many Lisa’s does this site have posting?

    Marylin, contact the town council. Actually, go to their meeting and let them know what you think. It really does look like this town is going from historic preservation to historic demolition. What a shame. maybe that house that was torn down on Broad can be the place for the Olive Garden. (not)

    Reply

  7. Barry Jay  on October 6th, 2009

    I’m always amazed how everyone wants to preserve a building for “historic” reasons, yet where not there when it was covered with very modern and unattractive vinyl siding. In a time when the local economy can use a shot in the arm and benefit from a new business location, suddenly everyone comes out from the woodwork crying fowl. I hope Mr Coyne preserves the local 7-11 Eleven for furture generations so they can revisit the historic Freehold muster zone.

    Reply

  8. paulteicher  on October 6th, 2009

    In reply to Barry Jay’s comments, vinyl siding can be removed and original siding restored or replaced to match the original. Towns and cities that have chosen to restore their historic buildings have reaped rewards through increases in property values and the infusion of visitors’ dollars into the economy. The building is HISTORIC in that it represents a rare style of architecture in a prominent location in Freehold Borough that has survived in its original form since the 1830’s. It IS currently a business location that pays taxes to the Borough. Paul Teicher

    Reply

  9. jdwilliams  on October 8th, 2009

    It is admirable that many people would like to preserve a part of American History. The debate is what makes our society great. The issue, however, is the no debate regarding this structure ever resulted in restoration or thoughtful preservation. As I drive past the massive Freehold Mall, the Racetrack and the commercial district, has Freehold not already determined that business, tax base, etc. has and will be the priority? There are a number of options to consider if this debate will result in actions, rather than mere words.
    1 – Leave everything as is. At the very least, this structure should be tax abated as a landmark.
    2 – Restore it. Obviously it hasn’t been seriously considered, unless you consider vinyl as a Civil War era building product. If restoration is to be seriously considered, please work on a business plan.
    3 – Move the building and allow the owners to build on the property. Will Freehold pass legislation to move this valuable piece of History? Where would such an artifact be moved to? Again, more public funds and legislation is needed.
    4 – Allow the people that actually own the property to determine its next use and configuration.
    Given the commercial landscape and taxes currently being accepted for this property, I believe Freehold has already made it’s decision. Construction, therefore, should be approved.

    Reply

  10. Barry Jay  on October 8th, 2009

    If this sort of interfearance is something that will become the standard by the non-elected officals in town, Mr Coyne should do the citizens a favor and begin visiting every home…every business and begin serving notice BEFORE they begin other plans with their private property. This building may be paying taxes, but shouldn’t the owners be able to improve upon their investment? Any town that plays the “historical” preservation card after the fact, better be ready at its expense to move it. Actually, towns should not be using taxpayer money to “preserve” buildings. It’s always intresting how private investors know that you will never break even with a “museum” and never attempt to make that their business…but the local elected officials love to use taxpayers money to do it. No wonder we’re in the financial straights that we are in.

    Reply


Leave a Reply

It is a condition of your use of the comment features associated with this site that you do not: Use the site to post or transmit any unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane or indecent information of any kind, including without limitation any transmissions constituting or encouraging conduct that would constitute a criminal offense, give rise to civil liability or otherwise violate any local, state, national or international law. You alone are responsible for the material you post or send. For more information, refer to our parent site's Terms of Service