Saying they needed more information, the City Council put off decisions on two ordinances involving historic designation until the May 6 meeting. One ordinance would establish a new historic district on the West Side of Jersey City, and the other would modify the existing Powerhouse Historic district to allow the demolition of a former machine shop.
The proposed amendment to the city’s Municipal Register of Historic Places would create a new historic district near Lincoln Park. City officials said the amendment was initiated by members of the community in order to protect the neighborhood from inappropriate development that would “adversely affect the special character and integrity of the West Bergen East Lincoln Park Historic District.”
But those opposing the amendment claim it will impose additional costs and restrictions on people who might want to upgrade their houses in the area.
Councilwoman Diane Coleman proposed removing a one-block section in Ward F, which she represents, saying that some residents in that area had expressed concerns about the financial impact imposed by the restrictions.
“Are we going to put everyone under a historic designation?” – Patrick Finn
____________
While a few residents raised concerns at the April 22 meeting, most of those who lived in the area said they supported the move.
The proposed district with the currently-recommended boundaries – that extend from Harrison Avenue on the north to Montgomery Street in the south – has been listed on the state Historic Registry and will soon be listed on the National Historic Registry as well, city officials said.
Charlene Burke, a resident of the area, said the district would be joining four others in the city, and that she hopes that it will do for the west side of Jersey City what other historic districts have done
“This will make our part of the city a destination and will include it in the urban renaissance,” she said.
Michael Hsia, who lives in the district, said he also wanted his home to be included.
William Deslauriers, another resident of the area, also supported the move.
“To think our section would not be included breaks my heart,” he said.
Justin Frohwirth also spoke out in support of the distinction.
A resident dissents
The most outspoken critic of the plan was Patrick Finn, who called the revisions “an aggressive expansion of historic districting.” He said the plan had been rejected by the community in the early 1990s. “Are we going to put everyone under a historic designation?”
Among his issues were the imprecise nomination process for historic distinction and inadequate notice to the public that would allow community input.
In a letter to the Hudson Reporter, he said studies to justify this historic district are decades old and in some cases no longer relevant.
“The Historic Preservation Commission’s rules and regulations are not only onerous and burdensome, but they are also vague and ambiguous, leaving the door open to arbitrary and capricious oversight and enforcement,” he wrote.
He said there are no state, federal, or local grants or tax benefits to available to assist property owners with the increased cost of compliance.
“This may not be an issue in the downtown districts, but it will significantly impact homeowners in less affluent areas of the city,” he wrote. “Low to moderate income homeowners should be incentivized to maintain the historic character of their homes, not penalized for being unable to do so.”
Yvonne Balcer, formerly a resident of downtown, said she once fought for a historic district there, but is opposed to it now.
“I fought for it to keep Colgate from tearing down a lot of buildings,” she said. “But I regret it because many of the working people were driven out of that part of the city by the increased costs.”
The plan was approved by the Jersey City Planning Board in March, but was pulled from the council agenda at the request of Coleman. While most of the proposed district is in Ward B, the district spills over into Ward F for one block.
Coleman said she has spoken to people in that neighborhood and they are against the district. Ward F is considered among the poorest neighborhoods in the city.
This would be the first new historic district since the city set up four districts downtown in the 1970s. The new district would affect about 600 residences.
While the distinction would protect the district from large development projects such as those currently proposed for the Journal Square area, the change would also require additional approvals for homeowners seeking to upgrade their homes. This would also include additional fees to the city.
Coleman said she might support the district if the block in Ward F was removed. But some residents said this would start a precedent that might cause other areas of the district to try to opt out as well.
Machine shop is not historic
The council also postponed a decision to modify the Powerhouse Arts Historic District ordinance to allow the demolition of a former machine shop. While the former Juan Ribbon Machine Shop Building located on First Street was built in 1857, the building is in disrepair.
Representatives for the owner said the building is not historic, despite its age, and quoted from testimony given to the city’s Planning Board to bolster the case.
The owner wants to demolish the building and build an 11 story residential building on its footprint.
Many residents at the public hearing spoke out against the change, saying that while the building itself may not be historic it is part of the historic fabric. The building is protected from development because it lies within the boundaries of the historic district.
City Attorney Jeremy Farrell said the council has the power to protect the structure or put limits on development, but would likely result in legal action against the city.
“The owner could argue that we are depriving him of obtaining full value from the land,” Farrell said.
Joshua Parkers, a local attorney, said the shop represents a historic time when many small machine shops operated within Jersey City.
“This is the only one that is left,” he said. “It would be a real loss, and it could lead to our losing other properties once you start making exceptions.”
Katherine Moore, another resident, said that she was not aware of any opportunity for public comment on the changes, and opposed the change.
Lavern Washington, a well-known community activist, said the council should approve it.
“This is shameful,” she said. “We’re trying to build a community. People need places to live. This is the 21st Century. Things change.”
Christopher Lane, another resident, said the city should get an independent review. “While this building is not on the national registry or historically significant, it is locally significant.”
Councilwoman Candice Osborne said she needed more time to look into the matter, and would revisit the question at the May 6 meeting.
Al Sullivan may be reached at asullivan@hudsonreporter.com.