Olde Union House to be reduced to a marker

BY RONNIE GANTSTEIN
CORRESPONDENT

This mixed-use four-story structure designed by architect Jack Purvis, Allenwood, will be built on the site of the Olde Union House. RED BANK — Members of the borough’s historic preservation community this week decried the Planning Board’s decision to permit demolition of the Olde Union House to clear the way for new development.

Joel Iverson, president of Preservation Red Bank (PRB), said he is disappointed with the Feb. 23 vote by the Planning Board to approve destruction of the Olde Union House and permit construction of a 28,000-square-foot, four-story retail and residential development by Union Street Village LLC.

“A commemorative plaque cannot replace a building that stood for hundreds of years,” said Iverson regarding the board’s requirement that the developer install a bronze plaque or other historic marker on the site of the Olde Union House on Wharf Avenue.

“The Olde Union House is a symbol of the town that future generations won’t be able see. History is a horrible thing to lose. It cannot be replaced. It is disappointing, as there seem to be alternatives.”

George Bowden, chairman of the Red Bank Historic Preservation Commission (RBHPC), also expressed disappointment.

“I still feel that the [historic] district is critical. It is the last site on the river, and it is a shame that they are putting up a monolith,” said Bowden, also a trustee of PRB. “I do not think that the PRB concept got much consideration. It merited more.”

The preservation community had lobbied to save the Olde Union House, which is located in the borough’s Historic District, from demolition, urging the developer to build around the structure instead. PRB hired its own attorney and experts to supports its case before the board.

Timothy McMahon, historian and preservation advocate and consultant to the RBHPC, was also frustrated at the board’s approval of the site plan application.

“The site is still historic. I do not like what I heard. They could have done better,” he asserted.

McMahon, who had raised questions about the legal status of the alleyway that will be used to access the underground parking structure that is part of the project, also expressed frustration that “too many questions were unanswered about ownership of the alleyway.”

Stanley Sickels, borough administrator and board member, asked the developer’s architect, Jack Purvis, why the PRB proposal to build around the Olde Union House was not feasible.

Purvis replied that the existing two-story building was on the property line that abuts the Chetkin property.

“It would entail tearing down and rebuilding the structure,” he said, which was probably not in compliance with current fire codes. He added that “keeping the building would mean losing the parking that we are looking to create.”

Purvis asserted that a concept incorporating the Olde Union House into the new development, which had been proffered by PRB at the board’s previous hearing on the application, could not exist.

“Though two styles could work, moving and rebuilding the structure was not feasible in cost and loss of parking. It would bring the new building too close to the property line,” Purvis said.

Sickels commented that what was historic was the existing building’s use, rather than the site. The tavern use is the thing that everyone has embraced, he noted.

He called for the developer to commemorate the spot with a historic marker or bronze relief and for the design to be submitted to the Planning Board.

At the meeting, developer Union Street Village submitted modified plans that reduced the proposed floor area of the proposed retail and residential use property by 1,996 square feet and reduced lot coverage to 53.8 per cent, where 65 percent is permitted by the zoning ordinance.

In response to comments made by board members at the previous hearing on the application, the fourth floor of the building fronting on Union Street will be recessed 6 feet from the third floor. The change will create four terraces for the residential units. The goal is to reduce the impression of height and scale of the building from Marine Park.

The building height is lower than originally planned. The reduction was accomplished by lowering the ceiling heights and by converting the parapet wall on the roof into a cornice. On Wharf Avenue, the finished roof height will be 45.4 feet, almost 6 feet higher than the adjacent building.

Developer’s attorney Martin McGann Jr. presented photographs that he asserted established that the building would be shielded from view from the park.

Jeremy Lange, professional engineer and planner, testified that the developer would spend approximately $27,000 for asphalt paving of Union Street and $63,000 for paving stones and curbs along the alleyway that will be utilized for access to the underground garage.

There were no comments on the application by members of the public.

In summation, McGann noted that there was a lot of discussion in the Red Bank Master Plan of roof heights of about five stories. He asserted that the proposed structure was consistent with the goals of the plan. He also commented that the parking structure would cost about $800,000 plus contributions for parking deficiencies.

Dr. Guy Maratta, a board member, moved to approve the site plan application as revised by the developer, with the requirement that it install a plaque or other commemorative, and improve the streetscape, lighting and paving in accordance with the board’s comments.

The vote approving the development was unanimous, except for Councilwoman Sharon Lee, a recent appointee to the board, who did not vote.

The board also heard testimony on the site plan application of 93 Shrewsbury Ave. LLC for construction of a mixed use, retail and residential structure on the northeast corner of Shrewsbury Avenue and Oakland Street. Testimony on that application will continue on March 21 at 7 p.m.