Quick Chek Mountatin Ave Project Update

August 18, 2017 - Hackettstown, NJ

With approximately 100 people in attendance for the August 15th zoning board meeting, the second installment of historic considerations was delivered in reference to the proposed Quick Chek gas station for Mountain Avenue at Bells Lane. The attendees, including an army of lawyers and representatives for Quick Chek along with concerned citizens, business owners and town officials heard additional testimony and questions regarding the historic value of homes scheduled to be demolished under the project. Due to time constraints, the public was again not permitted to present individual testimony and commentary.

As with the July meeting, Ms. Nichols who represents Quick Chek, was given extensive leeway and opportunity to respond to issues. Yet again, Ms. Nichols brought forth another paid expert to present testimony toward their application, in the form of Mr. John McDonough. Mr. McDonough has represented Quick Chek in the area of planning and was included in this project from its inception. It is clear from his testimony and also by Dr. Bedford at the July meeting, that there is no legal precedent that the Hackettstown Historic Ordinance possesses to prevent the demolition of the homes. However, as board attorney Mr. Roger Thomas pointed out, it is a standard that the town aspires to attain. Mr. Thomas also referred to the National Park Service, which maintains many historic sites across the country, and expresses that each district should be tailored to specific community needs.

As pointed out by Mr. McDonough, the properties being proposed for demolition represent approximately 1% of the existing historic district and is clearly not in the central core area, but by contrast is on the extreme outlying edge. His testimony also notably included the planned buffer created with foliage and in his opinion presents a more appealing view for the homes directly adjacent to the back and side perimeters of the property.

Ms. Nichols’ efforts reiterated the lack of specifics and enforcement in the town historic ordinance. Contrarily, the community questions reflected the fact that the ordinance in place has been used by the town to ensure a minimum compliance with keeping the district style congruous. The use of modern materials allowed on a case by case basis to permit homeowners to make needed repairs without severely impacting the look and feel of the neighborhoods, which are all different parts of the historic district.

At the request of the board, Mr. Raymond Lemasters presented testimony as to the historic nature of the homes in question. Mr. Lemasters submitted information that is part of Dr. Bedfords testimony from the July meeting, so his testimony is especially relevant to the decision making process for the board.

Many in Hackettstown know and respect Mr. Lemasters for his passion for our collective history. His books give insight into how the town was formed and prospered in the Mid-19th Century. Many homeowners have the benefit of his expertise and are able to follow the full history of their homes, thanks to his hard work and dedication. Though not classically trained, he is without doubt the foremost expert in Hackettstown history.

It was astonishing to be witness to not only Ms. Nichols, but also property owner counsel Mr. Michael Selvaggi call into question Mr. Lemasters qualifications as an expert. The line of questioning was intended to not only demean Mr. Lemasters but to call into doubt his ability to classify and identify the homes intended to be demolished. In particular Mr. Selvaggi implied that Mr. Lemasters was not truly concerned about the integrity of the historic district since he was not present at prior meetings where other historic structures were decided in favor of demolition. Mr. Thomas reiterated for the benefit of Mr. Selvaggi that Mr. Lemasters submitted testimony for this case at the request of the board.

But Mr. Selvaggi brings up a valid point, and perhaps his questioning has more bearing with all of the citizens of Hackettstown. Where were we when the meetings proposing demolition for other structures were being held?

You have to be familiar with Hackettstown to answer that question, more importantly Hackettstown politics, which includes a lot of trust. People in town trusted the historic society, zoning and planning boards, town council and mayor to make decisions for the good of the entire community, not just a few property owners and developers. Maybe this case is the result of people watching by as structure after structure is completely demolished because of promises made by developers. Maybe the residents of this town want to draw the line and say ‘no more’.

Particularly of concern is the domino effect. If these homes are removed, what is there to keep the next homes from being removed? Based on Mr. McDonough’s testimony, there is frankly nothing in place to keep any home, regardless of its historic value from being willfully demolished without consequence.

Ms. Nichols also questioned Mr. Lemasters if there was any mechanism in place to financially assist homeowners in restoration efforts. Yet another unfair question to ask Mr. Lemasters as he is in no position to be aware of or empower such a policy. But Ms. Nichols might need to be reminded that the current property owner not only has the financial means to properly maintain the homes, which he has not, but also to complete restoration if he so chose to, so that argument in this instance is of no purpose.

With respect to the property owner, he is valid in his quest to sell and/or develop the commercial portion of the property and the town for improving ratables for the general tax fund. However, changing the zoning of the existing homes to commercial is not necessary with the abundance of both completely vacant commercial space as well as unoccupied/underused buildings.

After being regaled with the supreme qualifications of the historic expert, critique of our historic ordinance as well as his detailed assessment of the 5 homes in question, the following comes to mind.

1) In the absence of detail in our historic commission regarding demolition, the board should err on the side of prudence since there are so many buildings at stake, whose removal distinctly changes the boundary of our historic district.

2) In his expert opinion Dr. Bedford stated that the homes in question are adjacent to commercial and vacant properties which contributed to their diminished historic value. He would not extrapolate that were those homes removed, the remaining homes would then experience diminished historic value. It is implausible that the remaining homes would not lose historic relevance and value, based on the criteria he himself asserted. His inability to answer the question is of concern, only committing to ‘I can’t predict the future’ as his standard answer.

3) Though the 5 homes do not reflect 19th century affluent homes, they do represent the people that lived in the neighborhood at the time and over the years. They do have value relevant to the history of Hackettstown and the makeup of the neighborhood. The history of our town in the carriage making industry should have some consideration, which Dr. Bedford did not value at all. The implication that working-class homes do not have historic value is an insult to not only those founding families, but also to those who make up the current fabric of our community.

4) As noted by Dr. Bedford, the current historic ordinance dictates that any new structures with new materials comply with the current historic setting (ie. the replacement of Centenary's President House). I don't think the Quick Chek would ever be able to comply with that condition.

5) Dr. Bedford, in his 30+ career in historic preservation, has recommended only 3 buildings in a prior case for demolition 4 years ago.It is worth noting, that for decades he did not recommend demolition at all and now these 5 homes have been determined to have no redeeming historic value.

Notwithstanding the historic issues, property owner, other gas stations and town leadership, one major question comes to mind. Why has Quick Chek corporation been so focused and determined to acquire this particular property? With so many other available properties that are already zoned appropriately in the area, why this one? All new Quick Chek gas stations that have been built in the region have followed a particular model - vacant or underused already commercially zoned high-traffic corner, with a traffic light, easy access in and out, plenty of room for pumps and traffic. Overall they are clean, well-maintained, quality staff, great coffee and often a preferred destination for travelers. However anyone who passes through town knows that this particular location would be one to avoid. The area is already a congested traffic and pedestrian hazard, and would be one to steer clear of. It would become more of a nuisance to the people of Hackettstown, hardly quick or convenient.

Even if the project is able to overcome the historic hurdle, it appears as if it will face mounting community objections as the process continues. With so much resistance, it is quite likely that this matter will still be in debate when the recently approved Wawa on Mountain Avenue will be open for business.

There are both physical and online petitions circulating in the community. The online petition can be found at the following link: http://www.thepetitionsite.com...

The next zoning meeting will be held on Tuesday September 19th - location to be announced due to anticipated public attendance.