Westfield ‘Watcher’ House Will Not Be Demolished

WESTFIELD, NJ — It took more than four hours of testimony, questioning and statements before the Westfield Planning Board unanimously decided to deny the application to demolish the infamous “Watcher” House last night.

This meeting was continued from the Nov. 7 meeting that last three hours before being moved to Dec. 4.

It seemed the entire Boulevard neighborhood came out last night to fill the Westfield court room and speak out against the plan.

The owners of the Westfield home at 657 Boulevard had filed an applicant seeking approval to subdivide the property into two lots, remove the existing dwelling, and construct two new homes.

As part of the application, the owners were also seeking variances for land use ordinances:

• 11.07E2 – Ordinance requires a minimum lot width of 70 feet. Proposed is 67.40 feet and 67.60 feet.
• 11.07E2 – Ordinance requires a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet within 143 feet of the front property line. Proposed is 9,638 square feet and 9,667 square feet.
• 11.07E3 – Ordinance requires a minimum lot frontage of 70 feet. Proposed is 67.40 feet and 67.60 feet.

The plan raised concerns as the lots would be smaller than the required 10,000 sq. ft., the garage would not be set back and to build two driveways would remove several of the 100-year-old Red Oak trees that lined the street.

A planner, Andrew Thomas, spoke on behalf of those opposed to the project citing his reasons the plan would be bad for the neighborhood.

James First, the attorney representing the applicant, then presented a rendering of the proposed project which caused a large stir since he did not enter it prior to the meeting for anyone to review.

It was ultimately allowed in.

Both First and Robert Simon — hired by neighbor Catherine Conti who lives across the street to fight the application — both went back and forth for a while before the public had a chance to speak.

Many of the neighbors were concerned with the changing character of neighborhood. They disagreed “vehemently” with the decision to tear down the house and build two more.

“I have lived on Boulevard for 28 years,” Glenn Dumont, a neighbor said at the meeting. “My wife and I purchased out home for the charm of Boulevard and the wide tree lined streets.”

Dumont submitted a postcard photo into evidence from 1911 that showed the street and the trees.

“You can see how significant the trees are that 105 years ago they were already towering over the houses and it would be outrageous to have these removed,” said neighbor Edward Israelow.

Multiple neighbors noted how they have moved from another part of town to the Boulevard for the character of the area. Some even doubled their expenses just to live here.

One resident, Tom Higgins, brought up the “elephant in the room" during his statement.

“I am very doubtful the owners bought the house just to the tear it down… but have you ever wondered if the lunatic guy has been arrested?… Or what if we tear down the house and put up two more houses for him or her to watch. Putting up two houses will stick out like a thorn…”Higgins said.

Some residents did speak out in favor of the homeowners saying they are not doing this for monetary gain and are actually at a loss with this plan. They noted the family is struggling financially.

Conti spoke towards the end. She said she didn’t expect to speak but was compelled to over the proceedings.

“I live across the street and I hired the attorney so you can see how strongly I am opposed to this subdivision. I don’t see how this is beneficial to anyone in the neighborhood regardless of circumstances. We all feel bad about it… none of us are happy about seeing an empty house… Many times I have to call the police department to get people off the property… but despite everything you can guarantee the character will be ruined by this subdivision,” Conti said.

Attorneys on both side finished up with their final statements and then the board discussed. All of the board members agreed the application did not meet the burden of proof to show hardship or the necessity to grant this variance.

“We should be particularly vigilant in preserving the streetscape of this particular block, one of the most beautiful in town,” Francis Smith said. “The streetscape would be dramatically changed for the worst.”

Vincent Wilt noted the homeowners were “just trying to get out of a bad situation” but agreed with the board that they did not show enough proof and did not want to disturb the character if the neighborhood.

(Photos by Alexis Tarrazi: Residents huddle around the renderings of the proposed two new homes)

Have a news tip? Email alexis.tarrazi@patch.com.

Get Patch breaking news alerts sent right to your phone with our new app. Download here.