Board rejects approval of Tredwell House
Decision means development cannot proceed
BY LAYLIL WHTYE
Staff Writer

The Tredwell House before it was destroyed.

A decision by the Rumson Planning Board will leave the Tredwell House property, which has been at the center of controversy for the past seven years, undeveloped for now.

The board voted unanimously Monday against letting stand the previously granted approval for a minor subdivision of the Tredwell property on Ridge Road.

The property is the former site of the Tredwell House, a 300-year-old home that was destroyed by a fire in June.

Board Chairwoman Gertrude Parton was the first to voice her opinion Monday, saying she would vote against upholding the approvals.

"The house no longer exists," she said, "so nothing connected with the house [conditions of approval] could be enforced. For that reason, I do not think the variances and the approval of the application should survive."

Rumson Mayor John E. Ekdahl, also a member of the Planning Board, said that the reason the application was approved in the first place was because it would have allowed the borough to preserve at least the older portion of the Tredwell House, and now that the house has been destroyed, there is no reason to uphold the resolution.

"Our overriding concern was to see the Tredwell House preserved," he said. "I'm not sure we would have approved the plan otherwise."

All five eligible board members voted against upholding the resolution of approval of the Tredwell application.

After the vote, Dean Gaver, attorney for applicants Arthur and Leslie Parent, who own the property, said he would have to sit down with his clients to decide what the next step will be.

Arthur Parent said he had no comment on the board's decision.

Mary Lou Strong, one of the founders of the Tredwell Preservation Coalition, said she was very pleased with the board's decision.

"I feel we have made a huge step in the right direction," she said.

Planning Board Attorney Michael Steib said that Parent could appeal the board's decision to state Superior Court.

The fire that destroyed the structure occurred while an appeal was pending in the Superior Court Appellate Division regarding the board's approval of plans for the Tredwell House that permitted demolition of the newer parts of the historic structure and subdivision of the property. The appeal had been brought by the Tredwell Preservation Coalition.

In December, the Appellate Court ruled that because of the destruction of the Tredwell House, Parent, of Red Bank, would be unable to fulfill certain conditions of the approval, rendering the approval moot.

The Appellate Court remanded the application back to the Planning Board where it was heard Monday night in front of more than 30 residents, many of whom are members of the Tredwell Preservation Coalition.

Only five members of the board were eligible to hear the case, because, according to Parton, only members who signed the original resolution of approval could vote on whether or not the resolution should be upheld.

Parton explained that the entire application for subdivision would not be reheard by the board, and that the board was limited to considering only whether or not the approval of the subdivision was still valid since the Tredwell House has been destroyed.

Gaver said at the meeting that although the Tredwell House itself had been considered historic, the land on which it had been constructed was not.

"In [the borough's] Master Plan," he said, "the only relevant reference to the Tredwell House being historic is to the building itself, not the area, not the land, not the site. It's the building. That building doesn't exist any more."

Board member and Borough Councilman Mark Rubin asked Gaver, who is with the firm of Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith and Davis, if his clients would still undertake an archeological dig of the site, one of the conditions of the board's previous approval.

Gaver said that his understanding of that condition was that it only applied to work done within ten feet of the house, and now that the house no longer exists, its foundation footprint.

"I don't read this as requiring a dig," he said. "We would only have to do a dig if we were going to do any construction activity within ten feet of the structure or the foundation."

Gaver said that phase one and phase two archeological digs had already taken place, and that the Parents were in possession of those results, as well as artifacts that had been found on site.

Rubin asked at which point the Parents would be willing to turn over the archeological surveys that have already been done.

"As soon as we get our approval," Arthur Parent replied.

This comment was met by shouts of "blackmail!" from some audience members, and Parent turned around to address the crowd.

"If anyone wants to buy the property," he said, "please step forward and pay for it."

An offer was made by the Tredwell Preservation Coalition in August 2005 of $4.1 million for the entire Tredwell property, measuring 6.1 acres. The Parents rejected the offer, asking $4.8 million.

At the end of 2006, the property was on the market for an asking price of $5.7 million.

Gaver argued that the subdivision layout that had been approved by the board had "good planning reasons" for being approved, and the approval should stand.

David J. Hoder, a planner and engineer with Maser Consulting, Red Bank, testified to this, and stated that the way the 6.1 acre lot had been subdivided into three new lots was the best configuration for the property.

The lot would have been divided into one 1.5 acre lot, one 1.9 acre lot and one 2.7 acre lot, if the board had voted to uphold its original approvals.

Michelle Donato, the attorney representing the Tredwell Preservation Coalition, questioned Hoder about the historic relevance of the site, aside from the house.

Since the destruction of the Tredwell House, the coalition has been trying to negotiate with the Parents to conduct an archeological dig on the site and share those findings with the public, she said.

Parton said repeatedly during the hearing that the board was aware of the historic and archeological significance of the property.

"We fully appreciate the historic significance," she said, "and we do not wish to go over it too many times more."

Donato encouraged the board to reshape the conditions of approval so that an archeological excavation would have to take place on the property, or to vote against upholding the previously granted approval.

Steib said that no aspect of the resolution could be reshaped, and that the board could only consider whether or not the variances and conditions of approval that were granted could stand since the house was destroyed.

Parent spoke to the board about the history of the application, which has been in the works for seven years.

"When we initially approached the Planning Board with this plan," he said, "we planned to raze the house. We provided substantial testimony that the house was not worth saving. The Planning Board then approached us and asked us to reconsider and save the house. We didn't have to do that. I do not have any plans to spend the next seven years fighting for this.

"You [the board] have a unique opportunity to get what little you can get out of what has already been done. We have already had two archeological digs. We have agreed to preserve the Gardener's Cottage, so you could get two things which you would otherwise not get. If you add one condition that is to do another archeological dig, you'll be left with nothing."

Parent also stated that he has agreed to place a plaque near the foundation of the Tredwell House, acknowledging the historic home.

Donato asked Parent about what artifacts were found at the site during the two previous archeological digs.

"We found arrowheads, coins, shards of pottery," he said, adding that no tools were found at the site.

Gaver said that borough ordinances are clear on the standards for what is a historical site.

"Arrowheads on the site does not constitute a historical site," he said.

Although Donato attempted to enter photographic evidence of prehistoric items that had been found on the site before the Parents bought the property, as well as testimony from Monmouth University Professor of History and Anthropology Richard Veit, Steib said that would not be necessary, reiterating that the board could only accept the previously approved resolution or reject it.

"This board," he said, "from day one, was aware of the historic and archeological significance of this site. I don't think we need exhibits. I think it's a 'gimme'. The question is: how does this impact the heart of the resolution?"

Donato was permitted to make a closing statement.

"They [the Parents] want to walk away here with the same approvals," she said, "but without the same conditions. They should release those [archeological] reports so that we know what we have, so we can restructure the resolution."

Gaver also made a closing statement, stating that the board only had to decide if the previously approved subdivision was still suitable to the site.

"It is absolutely irrelevant if someone found arrowheads on this site," he said. "This is a legal question before the board. Arrowheads are not significant enough for this board to overturn the previously approved resolution. I'm sure the concerns heard here tonight are heartfelt, but they are of no legal significance."

The cause of the fire that necessitated demolition of the Tredwell House is still unknown and the Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office has stated that the investigation is ongoing.