Demolition of Tredwell House now complete
Owners contest $500 fine for destruction of Gardener's Cottage
BY LAYLI WHYTE
Staff Writer

The Gardener's Cottage, part of the Tredwell House property, has been demolished.

The Gardener's Cottage, the last remaining structure on the site of the historic Tredwell House property, has been demolished.

The demolition of the cottage, which was built in the late 1800s, occurred less than a week after the Rumson Planning Board rescinded its previous approval of a subdivision of the property.

According to Borough Zoning Official Fred Andre, Arthur and Leslie Parent, owners of the Tredwell property, had the cottage demolished early last week without the required demolition permits and were fined $500.

Andre said the Parents are contesting the fine, claiming that the cottage was included in the demolition permit they secured to demolish and clear away the debris of the Tredwell House after a fire destroyed the 300-year-old structure in June 2006.

"I didn't see anything about the cottage in the permit," Andre said.

Repeated phone calls to Dean Gaver, attorney for the Parents, for comment, were not returned by deadline.

Michelle Donato, attorney for the Tredwell Preservation Coalition, said last week that she does not believe there is any action the coalition could take now concerning the Gardener's Cottage.

"It's a very sad situation," she said. "It's very sad when people don't appreciate the resources they have. There is a growing body of evidence that historical preservation is a strong marketing pull. Some people look at it as an impediment, rather than an advantage. Pretty soon, we won't have anything left."

Hollis Colquhoun, former chairwoman of the borough's Historic Preservation Commission, said last week that she was shocked to hear of the destruction of the Gardener's Cottage.

"The whole thing is just terribly sad," she said. "Based on Arthur Parents' comments at the Planning Board meeting, he pretty much gave a warning, making an offering of two things: the archeological dig report and the Gardener's Cottage. He basically said that we should be happy about that, grant the approvals, and everyone would be happy."

Colquhoun said that she thought the offer by Parent was an empty one.

"The archeological reports don't do us any good if we're not allowed to take the stuff out of the ground," she said. "His [Parents] idea of celebrating history is putting a plaque on the ground where the buried foundation [of the Tredwell House] is. It's absurd. That's not preservation."

Rumson Mayor John E. Ekdahl said the Parents should have applied for a permit before demolishing the Gardener's Cottage.

"They didn't apply for a demolition permit," said Ekdahl last week. "They just went ahead and did it. I can't say what their motives were, but it was done rather hastily because they didn't apply for the permits."

Ekdahl said that aside from the fine, there is no recourse for the borough.

The five eligible voting members of the borough Planning Board voted unanimously to rescind the previously granted approval for a minor subdivision of the Tredwell property on Ridge Road at a meeting Feb. 5.

The Parents filed an application with the board in 2000 for a subdivision of the property, stating their intention to demolish the Tredwell House.

A subdivision was granted on Dec. 18, 2000, with the condition that no part of the Tredwell House be demolished. The application lapsed without any action.

They filed a new application in 2004, which sought approval for a subdivision and demolition of the house.

The board passed a resolution at its February 2005 meeting that allowed the subdivision and would have permitted the Parents to demolish the newer additions to the 300 year-old home, but they were required to keep the "historically significant" part of the building intact.

The fire that destroyed the Tredwell House occurred during the time an appeal brought by a preservation group was pending in the Appellate Division of state Superior Court.

The Tredwell Preservation Coalition appealed a June 2005 decision by Superior Court Judge Alexander Lehrer that upheld the Planning Board's February 2005 approval for a minor subdivision of the property, and demolition of the newer additions to the Tredwell House

The Appellate Court ruled last December that because of the destruction of the Tredwell House, the Parents, residents of Red Bank, would be unable to fulfill certain conditions tied to the approval of the subdivision, and that the approval was rendered moot.

The Appellate Court remanded the case back to the Planning Board, where it was heard earlier this month in front of more than 30 residents, many of whom are members of the coalition.

During the hearing, Arthur Parent testified that if the approval was upheld, he would hand over the reports of two archeological studies he had done, as well as preserve the Gardener's Cottage.

"You [the board] have a unique opportunity to get what little you can get out of what has already been done," Parent said, "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, chairman of Cornerstone Management Solutions Inc., Woodbridge, also stated that he has agreed to place a plaque near the foundation of the Tredwell House, acknowledging the historic home.

When Parent said that he would make the archeological studies of the property available to the borough, there were shouts of "blackmail" from members of the audience.

"I'm not defending the Parents," Ekdahl said, "but in fairness to them, they did offer the Gardener's Cottage for sale. Some residents had made offers, and in fact one very nearly bought it, but ultimately he decided not to purchase it."

Ekdahl said that the Parents could subdivide the lot into two lots without going before the borough's land use boards.

"If they did come back to get approvals for a three-lot subdivision," he said, "the board would have to treat it like a new application, and it's not supposed to take into account past factors. It would not be germane to the new application. Evidence like [the destruction of the cottage] would not be admissible."

Ekdahl said that although the borough would not be able to mandate the preservation of historic homes, the Historic Preservation Commission is being reconstituted and that might be the best thing the borough can do for the future of other historic sites.

"If we try to mandate preservation," he said, "we'd get taken into court, and, eventually, we'd lose. It seems to me that at least 85 percent of people don't want to be told what they can and cannot do with their homes."