City of Burlington Historic Preservation Commission Meeting Minutes: July 6, 2016 The City of Burlington Historic Preservation Commission held its regular monthly meeting on Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:00 PM in the City Hall Complex, 525 High Street, Burlington, NJ. 1. Introduction: The meeting was called to order at 7:02. Chairman Van Sciver opened the meeting with an introduction to the procedures of the Historic Preservation Commission. He then led the Pledge of Allegiance; HPC Secretary Cindy Crivaro conducted the Roll Call. 2. Roll Call vote: Present: Chairman Van Sciver, Vice Chairman William Buehrig, Commissioners Elizabeth Baird, Emma Jean Morgan, Milton Smith and William Stewart. Commissioner Brian White arrived at approximately 7:20. Commissioner Frank Caruso was absent. Also present: Commission Secretary Cindy Crivaro and Historic Preservation Consultant John Hatch. 3. Consideration of Minutes: Chairman Van Sciver asked if the Commissioners had reviewed the minutes from June, 2016. After general assent, Vice Chair Buehrig made a motion to approve the minutes; Commissioner Baird seconded. The vote was 6-0 in favor. 4. Applications: These were heard out of order to accommodate applicants who were present at the meeting: HPC Application 2016-14: Owner: Applicant: Apply new graphics to an existing street sign. Christine Cecchi Main Street Burlington Site: 317 High Street, Block 135, Lot 7 Street Furniture; High Street State and National Historic District a. Description of the Property: This is an existing sign on High Street, likely from the 1950 s or 60 s (or perhaps as early as the 1930 s), which advertised an adjacent store. The original graphics have long-ago faded away. b. Documents Submitted: 1
An application with a description of the proposed work and design drawings was submitted on June 14 2016. c. Scope of work proposed by applicant: Main Street Burlington proposes to apply new graphics relating to the City s history. This includes an image of a sailing ship and text stating Welcome To The Historic City Of Burlington. d. Discussion/ Public Comment: Mr. Derek Owings of 333 East Pearl Street #2, representing Main Street, was sworn in and described the project. He explained that the existing sign had long been faded and that this new sign would promote the City and its history. The design includes the depiction of a sailboat. Mr. Hatch stated that he found the design and colors to be appropriate for the Historic District. Commissioner Buehrig noted that he was glad that it wasn t a steam ship in the graphics; Commissioner Baird asked the applicant to check the history of the boat and make sure that it was an authentic boat that could have sailed to Burlington. Commissioner Smith noted that the original sign likely had neon lighting and asked if there were any photos showing its original configuration. Mr. Owings said that they had looked but couldn t find any. Chairman Van Sciver asked if the sign would be two-sided; Mr. Owings confirmed that it would. There was no comment from the public. e. Commission Decision: Commissioner Stewart made a motion to accept the application as presented. Commissioner Buehrig seconded. Vote: 6-0; all in favor. f. The Historic Preservation Commission has made its recommendations for the following reasons: The Commission believes that the proposed improvements will have a positive impact on the character of the Historic District. HPC Application 2016-15: Construct outdoor bar with awning at side of the building Owner: Brickwall at Endeavor, LLC; 522 Cookman Avenue, Suite 3; Asbury Park, NJ Applicant: James Watt Site: 19 East Union Street, Block 118 Lot 31 Key, Burlington City Municipal District 2
a. Description of the Property: 19 East Union Street is the former Endeavor Firehouse, now renovated as the Brickwall Tavern and Dining Room. The building consists of an older, front-gabled, two-bay brick structure with a prominent clock tower. This part of the building has Greek Revival detailing (the cornice and eaves are wood and have prominent moldings) and large wood windows, six over nine, double hung configuration. The former truck bay now has a large steel awning over it, and the opening has been filled with wood planking to create a multi-paned window and a bench. According to a recent article, this part of the building is from the late 18th century. The addition on the left is brick with a flat roof and three bays. On the first floor, these former truck bays now have metal and glass windows that fill the openings. The right hand opening also has a door and is covered with a steel awning. Like the original part of the building, the upper floor windows are also six over nine, double hung. A large sign, running almost the entire width of the addition, has been placed close to the top of the building. The left side of the building is stuccoed and has steel awning windows. A large graphic of a trowel has been painted on the stucco; new rooftop equipment is visible over the parapet. The rear of the building faces onto public parking. This side also has steel windows and a stucco façade. Ventilation ducts have been attached to the exterior wall. The equipment or water tower has been left in place. Signage has also been painted onto this elevation. b. Documents Submitted: An application with a description of the proposed was submitted on June 3, after work was already completed. c. Scope of work proposed by applicant: The applicant proposes to install an awning over an outdoor bar in the side yard to match the new awnings on the front of the building; and to install a wood fence to replace the chain link fence that was formerly in that location. The new fence will be 42 high with horizontal boards and 4x4 posts with ropes at certain sections. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a board fence, six feet high with a gate, around the dumpster at the rear of the restaurant. This will be painted black. d. Discussion/ Public Comment: Frank Hornek of 19 East Union Street, representing the applicant, was sworn in. He described the project, and apologized that the work had been completed prior to coming before the Commission. A number of Commissioners, including Chairman Van Sciver and Commissioner Morgan, expressed concern that this is the second project at the restaurant completed prior to coming for approval before the HPC. 3
Commissioner Smith expressed concern that the application was not complete. He also noted an electric line that was hanging out of an upper window. Mr. Hornek apologized again and responded by saying that he thought the full project had been presented to the Land Use Board, and that the electric line is no longer hanging from the window (the permanent electrical outlets and lighting have been installed). Mr. Hatch noted that the structure of the awning on the side is wood and therefore visually heavier than the steel awnings on the front. He also asked if all of the exposed wood, including the wood structure for the awning and the fencing would be stained black. Mr. Hornek acknowledged that the structure is different and confirmed that the exposed wood structure and fence posts have been stained. Commissioner Baird expressed her pleasure that the restaurant had moved to Burlington and asked if there were any other projects proposed for the exterior. Mr. Hornek noted that they want to enclose the dumpster area with a wood board fence. The fence would be painted black to match the rest of the wood at the site. Commissioner Buehrig noted that the allowable height of the new fence should be confirmed with the Land Use Board. There was no additional comment from members of the public. e. Commission Decision: Commissioner White made a motion to accept the application for the construction of the already completed exterior awning and bar area, with the understanding the exposed wood structure and fence posts would be stained black; and to accept the application to install a wood board fence, painted black, to enclose and hide the dumpster at the rear of the restaurant. It is understood that the applicant will confirm the permitted height with the Land Use Board. Commissioner Buehrig seconded. Vote: 6-1; all in favor with the exception of Commissioner Smith. f. The Historic Preservation Commission has made its recommendations for the following reasons: The Commission believes that the proposed improvements will not have a negative impact on the historic character of the building and the Historic District. HPC Application 2016-13: Owner/ Applicant: Replace asphalt shingle roofing and aluminum siding. Jerry Hollander Site: 215 Stacy Street, Block 117, Lot 35 Non-contributing, Burlington Municipal Historic District a. Description: 215 Stacy Street is one of a series of rowhouses built in the 1960 s or 1970 s to replace older structures at the river end of the street. Like its neighbors, 215 Stacy is two stories tall with a 4
side gabled sloping roof with asphalt shingles, aluminum siding (recently replaced with dutch lap vinyl siding) at the upper floor and brick veneer at the lower level. There is a pent roof with asphalt shingles (recently replaced with brown dimensional shingles) over the first floor entry door and bay window. The house has two bays on both floors; the upper windows are one over one, double hung aluminum. The first floor window is a larger window and is divided into three unequal parts. The front door is paneled aluminum with an arched light. The side of the house is visible as 215 is at the end of a row. a. Documents Submitted: An application with a description of the proposed work and photographs was submitted on June 7, 2016. The described work has already been completed. b. Scope of work proposed by applicant: The applicant has replaced the existing painted aluminum clapboard siding with new, dutch lap vinyl siding in a pale yellow color. The asphalt shingle roofing has been replaced with new dimensional shingles that are brown. These are visible, particularly at the pent roof over front door. c. Discussion/ Public Comment: The applicant was not present. Mr. Hatch described the completed work, which includes the installation of new pale yellow dutch lap vinyl siding and brown asphalt shingle roofing. Mr. Hatch noted that if the applicant had proposed the work to the HPC prior to completion that he would have recommended white clapboard siding and slate gray asphalt shingle roofing to match the adjacent buildings. He noted, however, that these houses are not contributing to the district and therefore there is more leeway in terms of materials, configuration and colors. Commissioner Smith noted that the installed colors of the siding and the roofing are not a good match with the existing brick front. Commissioner Buehrig suggested that the owner add shutters. Commissioner Baird noted that the buildings are not historic and that the completed work looks need and attractive. She asked that Mr. Hatch follow up with the contractor to make sure that in the future he comes before the HPC prior to completing work. d. Commission Decision: Commissioner Baird made a motion to accept the application as already completed. Commissioner White seconded. Vote: 7-0; all in favor. e. The Historic Preservation Commission has made its recommendations for the following reasons: The Commission believes that the proposed improvements will not have a negative impact on the character of the building and the Historic District HPC Application 2016-16: Add signage to the exterior of the building. Applicant/ Owner: John Brady; 1 Colles Ave., Morristown, NJ 5
Site: 6 West Pearl Street; Block 12, Lot 59 Contributing, Municipal Historic District; individually listed on the State and National Registers of Historic Places a. Description of the Property: This is a free-standing, 2 ½ story, front gabled house with vernacular gothic revival detailing, particularly the attic window. The first floor has three bays, with the door and transom on the left. The second floor has two bays. The windows are two over two double hung. Heavily altered, the exterior is covered with a textured stucco finish. The Historic Survey indicates that the house is from the mid-19th century, while the applicant indicates that the house was built in 1678. The earlier date is also what is indicated on the State and National Registers of Historic Places. b. Documents Submitted: An application with a description of the proposed work; photographs of the house and proposed signage; and a tax map were submitted around June 23, 2016. c. Scope of work proposed by applicant: The applicant proposes to hand paint signs in black lettering onto the existing stucco exterior in various locations. d. Discussion/ Public Comment: The applicant, Mr. John Brady, was sworn in. Responding to Chairman Van Sciver, he indicated that he had read the comments in the memorandum from the HPC consultant, Mr. Hatch. He said that he understood the concerns about painting the signs directly on the building, acknowledging that this is a 19th, not 18 th century practice in the U.S. He is now interested in exploring the possibility of installing signs painted on boards. After extended discussion about reducing the total amount and locations of signage, the Commission agreed that a prominent sign at the front over the second floor windows with the business name, a pole sign at the side door, a pole sign near the front gate with historic information about the house, and a sign to the right of the front door indicating the hours of operation. Commissioner Buehrig noted that installing a sign at this location would interfere with the installation of shutters on the first floor window. Mr. Brady indicated that he preferred having a sign there. There were no additional comments from the public. e. Commission Decision: Commissioner Stewart made a motion to table the application pending the provision of additional clarifications. Commissioner Morgan seconded. The vote was 7-0, all in favor of tabling the application without prejudice until the next meeting. After some additional discussion, Mr. Brady asked for approval on the board signs as described above. Commissioner Baird voted to untable the application; Commissioner Buehrig seconded. Commissioner Baird then made a motion to approve, in concept, the signs as described 6
above, pending final approval of material, graphics and colors. Commissioner Smith seconded. The vote was 7-0; all in favor. f. The Historic Preservation Commission has made its recommendations for the following reasons: The Commission believes that the proposed improvements will not have a negative impact on the historic character of the building and the Historic District. HPC Application 2016-17: Demolish the existing Water Works buildings Owner/ Applicant: Westrum Development Site: 225 East Pearl Street; Block 114, Lot 8.01 Key Contributing Burlington City Municipal Historic District (There is also an opinion from the NJ Historic Preservation Office stating that this building is eligible for individual listing on the State and National Registers of Historic Places) a. Description: The primary two-story building, set back from and facing Pearl Street, was constructed in 1897. A handsome structure with two gambrel gables flanking the main entrance, this is a key building along Burlington s waterfront. In addition to the original structure, there is a prominent, octagonal smoke-stack, and additions from the early 20th century, including gambrel roofed areas; the historic survey indicates that these additions were built between 1908 and 1915. There are smaller portions of the building that may have been constructed later. b. Documents Submitted: No documents have been submitted by the owner regarding this proposed demolition. c. Proposed Work: The applicant intends to demolish the structure. d. Discussion/ Public Comment: As the applicant was not present, Chairman Van Sciver provided context for the current situation and proposal. He stated that he had recently received a telephone call from Mr. Ballard, City Administrator, that the owner of the Water Works wanted to make roof repairs. Chairman Van Sciver confirmed that the City s Historic Preservation Ordinance permits owners to make in-kind repairs and replacements of existing materials and features. He was then told that the owner s contractor began work by pulling out a beam and that the roof partially collapsed. The owner then proceeded with demolition of the building, stating that it was unsafe. Mr. Hatch then interjected, stating that he had been told of the demolition, that he d visited the site and that he d told representatives of Westrum that they are required by ordinance to 7
get approval for demolition of any structure in the historic district prior to the start of work. Mr. Ballard indicated that he had told them the same thing. Chairman Van Sciver indicated that he had been in the building over the past several months and that the interior had felt unsafe to him. Vice Chairman Buehrig stated that the overall situation seemed to be a case of demolition by neglect. Commissioner White asked if the building was now unsafe, and stated that it appeared that the owners had circumvented the rules. Mr. Hatch stated that because the building is relatively isolated, even if portions of the building were in danger of collapse, it likely did not present a hazard to the public because of lack of access. Commissioner Morgan stated that the City should issue a Cease and Desist order, and Commissioner Baird stated that she thought that the City should have been faster in responding to the situation. Chairman Van Sciver stated that the City responded quickly by placing a stop work order at the site almost immediately. Mr. Hatch indicated that the owner was apparently ignoring this order. Chairman Van Sciver asked if there were any comments from the public. John Brady of 6 West Pearl Street stated that it would be ideal to preserve at least a portion of the building, and that often preservation of a damaged building is a question of will and commitment. He asked if there were any DEP or contamination issues at the site. Frank Hornek of the Brickwall Restaurant stated that his group had been interested in purchasing the building until the current situation had occurred. He suggested that the carved stone or terra cotta reliefs on the exterior of the building be salvaged. Commissioner Smith reiterated that the building likely could have been preserved if there had been the will on the part of the owner. Chairman Van Sciver stated that, unfortunately, there had been no serious redevelopment interest at the building in many years. It was agreed that a letter should be written to the City Administration referring to the Historic Preservation Ordinance and expressing concern that the process had been circumvented. Commissioner Baird made a motion to that effect, and asking Mr. Hatch to provide a draft for the Chairman to revise and send to the Administration. Commissioner Morgan seconded. The vote was 7-0, all in favor of sending a letter expressing concern about this situation to the Administration. 5. Old Business: a. NA 6. New Business: a. NA 8
7. Correspondence: a. NA 8. Public Comment: a. NA 9. Adjournment: a. Commissioner White made a motion to adjourn the meeting; Commissioner Morgan seconded. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45 PM. Respectfully submitted on July 28, 2016 by John Hatch, FAIA, historic preservation consultant to the Burlington City Historic Preservation Commission. 9