MINUTES OF THE MONTCLAIR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION

MAY 20, 2004

Present:  Chairman Jerry Mosier, Vice Chairman Ira Smith, Susan Brady, Sabine Eck, Edward Lippincott, Kathleen McDonough, Denis Orloff, Jonathan Perlstein and John Morris.

Also present:  Wayne McCabe, Historic Preservation Consultant and Matthew M. Millichap, Esq.

Order and Announcements:  The meeting was called to order at 7:30 pm by Chairman Mosier.  The notice of compliance with the New Jersey Open Public Meetings Act was read, indicating that appropriate notice was forwarded to the officially designated newspaper or Montclair and also posted in the municipal Building.

Approval of Minutes: On a motion by Commissioner Orloff and seconded by Commissioner Lippincott, the minutes of the May 20, 2004 meeting of the Commission were approved on a vote of seven ayes and no nays.

Public Hearing on Individual Designation of the Marlboro Inn as a Landmark.  Commission Chairman Mosier noted, at the beginning of the public hearing, that Historic Preservation Commission had discussed the issue of individually designating the Marlboro Inn as a landmark at the April 2004 meeting of the Commission.  At that time, the Commission had agreed to hold the formal public hearing on this matter on May 20, 2004, at 7:30 pm.  The Commission Chairman noted that the building in question is located at 334 Grove Street, and is locally known and referred to as Tax Block 4513, Tax Lot 43.

The Commission Chairman noted for the record that Section 347-135 of the municipal code deals with the process for “Designation of Buildings, Structures, Objects, Sites and Districts as Historic.”  The ordinance specifically cites five points of criteria that have to be addressed regarding the integrity of the location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association of the building, structures, site, etc. that is being considered.  In the case of the Marlboro Inn, the Commission found that the building and site met all five points of criteria delineated in the ordinance.

Chairman Mosier had a letter of protest from Steven D. Plofker, Managing Member of Marlboro Park Partners, LLC, owners of the building in question.  Acting Commission Attorney Matthew Millichap read the letter into the record.  The letter of protest stated two principle reasons for opposing the contemplated designation.  These two reasons are:

            1.  “Marlboro Park Partners, LLC has explored repairing and upgrading the Marlboro Inn and expanding its building and operations but has determined that it is economically and legally impractical to do so.  As a non-conforming use in a single-family zone, any change or expansion of use would require a use variance from the Board of Adjustment, and it is well-established that the expansion of a non-conforming use is disfavored (especially those impacting negatively on residential neighborhoods) and that it should be returned to conformity as soon as possible.  Past efforts to expand have met with neighborhood opposition.”

            2.         “Marlboro Park Partners, LLC has obtained approvals from the Planning Board to subdivide the Marlboro Inn property and construct permitted single family homes on the property in substantial conformity with the zoning ordinance.”

The Chairman next opened the meeting to the public for purposes of receiving comments on the proposed designation.  Nancy Pi-Sunyer, of 149 Watchung Avenue, came forward and stated that she supported the designation of the Inn as an individual historic site.  She stated that the building and site are important to the history of the municipality, and that the designation as an historic site would encourage the appropriate use of the building in the future.  She further stated that the building is readily recognized by local residents and visitors.

Monica Abbott of 121 South Mountain Avenue, testified that she had been at the court hearing on the lawsuit regarding the building designation yesterday (May 19, 2004).  She provided the Commission with a brief update of what had transpired at that court session.  Ms. Abbott also stated that she felt it may be appropriate to issue a local bond to finance the reuse of the building.  She also felt that the Marlboro Inn would provide a place for people to gather in the neighborhood.

Morris Kleinman of 179 South Mountain Avenue also testified that he had lived in the municipality for about fifty years.  He stated that he felt that the tract type of housing proposed by the applicant, and approved by the Planning Board, was inappropriate for the neighborhood.  He further stated that the Inn, in his opinion, sets in very well with the character of the neighborhood.

Mary Ann Apple of 153 Watchung Avenue, had a question regarding the written protest submitted by Mr. Plofker.  It was explained to Ms. Apple that the letter of protest was read into the record, as it is an official document submitted to the Commission, as a part of the hearing record, from the property owner.  Ms. Apple stated that she did not understanding how a building could fall into such a state of disrepair in so short a time between the initial nomination of the Marlboro Park Historic District and the present date.  She further stated that although the proposed subdivision had been locally approved, it still needed approval from the Essex County Planning Board.  She further commented on the litigation (Court hearing on May 19, 2004) to demolish the building and that it was continued by the judge to June 4, 2004.  She finally had a question regarding what will happen as a result of tonight’s public hearing.  Commission Attorney Millichap explained the purpose of the public hearing and the action the Commission would take as a result of the input it received from the property owners and residents and what documents had been submitted in support of the nomination.

Emily Rodin-McGrath, of 70 South Fullerton Avenue, thanked the HPC for its past support for the designation of the Marlboro Park Historic District.  She stated that it was her feeling that the Marlboro Inn greets people coming into Montclair, and is a visually prominent local landmark.  She said that the decision regarding the Inn will tell developers what they can do in terms of tearing down old buildings or old building complexes in favor of new houses or other developments.  Therefore, it is important, in her opinion, that the Commission vote in favor of designating the Inn as an individual landmark.

Frank Godlewski, of 10 Crestmont Road stated that he encouraged the HPC to preserve the Marlboro Inn and thus save a part of the historic fabric of the town.

There being no other members of the public present wishing to testify or ask questions regarding the designation of the Marlboro Inn, Commission Chairman Mosier formally closed the public hearing on this matter.

Adoption of Resolutions

            A.        Greg Spinelli (Application 2004-07)

                        12 Church Street

                        A motion made by Ms. Eck, and seconded by Mr. Lippincott, to approve the resolution as submitted.  The Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes being cast.

            B.        Richard DiGeronimo (Application 2004-09)

                        420 Bloomfield Avenue

                        A motion made by Mr. Lippincott, and seconded by Mr. Smith, to approve the resolution as submitted.  The Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes being cast.

            C.        Ho Jung (Application 2004-04)

                        292 Bloomfield Avenue

                        A motion made by Mr. Lippincott, and seconded by Ms. Eck, to approve the resolution as submitted.  The Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes being cast.

            D.        Gerry Pontones (Application 2004-08)

                        499 Bloomfield Avenue

                        A motion made by Mr. Orloff, and seconded by Mr. Lippincott, to approve the resolution as submitted.  The Commission voted six in favor, with no negative votes and Commissioner Smith abstaining.

New Business

Marlboro Inn Nomination as Individual Historic Structure

Commission Attorney Millichap opened this portion of the meeting by stating that the Commission has to consider this matter as a totally new application, and is not directly associated with any part of the previous proposed nomination for the Marlboro Park Historic District.  Commission Chairman Mosier stated that at the April 15 meeting of the Commission, the HPC determined that the five points of criteria as outlined in the municipal ordinance (Section 347-135) have been met. Vice Chairman Smith, at that meeting, eloquently outlined how the building met all five points of the criteria.

Commissioner Morris stated that he had concerns regarding the designation of a building and how that designation will be carried through the full process. Chairman Mosier and Mr. Millichap stated that the Commission has a tightly defined role in this process, and thus has somewhat limited authority.  The Commission can recommend action on the proposed designation based only on what is in the record.  This recommendation would be then sent up to the municipal governing body which has final say on that designation.  It was also noted that it is very important for the public to participate actively in future public hearings on this matter, especially in front of the Planning Board and governing body.

Vice Chairman Smith stated that he felt that the non-conformity of the building (in terms of zoning) is actually an attribute for the building and site.  The building currently exists and is part of the historic fabric of the community.  The renovation and appropriate adaptive reuse of the building could readily fit within the neighborhood in which it is located. However, the removal of the building would create a considerable disharmony in the texture and makeup of the neighborhood.

Commissioner Eck stated that she felt it is important for the HPC to take whatever action is needed to preserve the Marlboro Inn, because once it is gone it cannot be reclaimed.  Commissioner Perlstein stated that since the Commission has already determined that the five points of criteria as set forth in the ordinance have been met, it would seem to him that the Commission could only but act affirmatively on the proposed designation.  Commissioner Brady questioned what takes place after the vote by the HPC on this nomination proposal. Chairman Mosier explained the timelines and where the follow up package of information will have to be sent.

Commissioner Morris stated that he felt it was very important that the Commission talk not just about the building, but the space around it as well. He said that the site gives people coming into the municipality from the Garden State a visual landmark that identifies that they have entered Montclair.  He further stated that he felt it was important for the Commission and the public to take this message to save the building and space to the Planning Board and governing body.

There being no further comments offered by the members of the Commission, Vice Chairman Smith made a motion to recommend that the Marlboro Inn, located at 334 Grove Street, and locally known and referred to as Tax Block 4513, Tax Lot 43, be designated as an individual landmark, in accordance with the municipal ordinance.  His resolution also stated that the Commission feels it is appropriate that the building be adaptively reused so that it can remain a viable use within the neighborhood and the community as a whole.  Commissioner Orloff seconded the motion.  The Commission voted seven in favor, with no negative or abstaining votes to recommend designation of the Marlboro Inn as an individual landmark.

Public Comment

Marvin Schwartz, of 35 Gates Avenue, asked who follows up to make sure that the other agencies (Planning Board and governing body) process the recommendation.  The Commission responded by saying that it is the responsibility of the public at large to follow up with the members of the governing body and Planning Board, as that is not a role officially designated to the Commission.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the Commission, Commissioner Lippincott made a motion that was seconded by Commissioner Eck to adjourn the meeting at 9:05 pm.  The Commission voted unanimously.

Respectfully submitted,

Wayne T. McCabe, PP, AICP

Secretary

Montclair Township Historic Preservation Commission