BY MICHAEL OLOHAN
OF NORTHERN VALLEY PRESS
TENAFLY, N.J. –– You might say in the history of Tenafly it may go down as a historic decision by the Borough Council on the importance of preserving Tenafly’s history.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
But the 3-2 borough council vote Oct. 24 to approve an ordinance declaring two homes at 89 and 93 Highwood Avenue as “historic” properties was strongly opposed by both property owners, the first time that occurred since the Historic Preservation Commission was established in Tenafly in 1990, said Mayor Peter Rustin.
Voting to approve the historic designations were councilmen Mark Zinna, Maxim Basch and Paul Stefanowicz. Opposed were Shama Haider and Daniel Park. Councilman Anthony Barzelatto was absent.
Both homeowners indicated they are likely to appeal the designations. Matthew Farley, son of George Farley, owner of 89 Highwood Ave., said he would consult with his father on a possible appeal, although George Farley previously retained an attorney. Patrick Farley, another son who spoke at the meeting, said his father would appeal the designation.
Belinda Pestana, owner of 93 Highwood Ave., said via phone Oct. 25 that she would appeal the designation. She was not present at the meeting.
The split council vote followed emotional appeals from the sons of George Farley – Matthew and Patrick – to oppose the designation of 89 Highwood Ave. It was also the culmination of more than a year of research and hearings by the Historic Preservation Commission, and public meetings and comment periods before the Borough Council, with a review and approval from the Planning Board.
The council introduced the historic designation ordinance for the two homes Sept. 12, when both homeowners originally appeared before council. Following introduction, the Planning Board had 35 days to comment on the ordinance. On Sept. 12, both homeowners opposed the designations – though Farley appeared ambivalent – but both homeowners strongly opposed the designations at the next Oct. 10 council work session.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
Farley’s attorney, Greg Mueller, wrote a letter prior to Oct. 10 citing the “heavy financial burden against a key asset (home) that such a designation would doubtlessly cause.”
Pestana, owner of 93 Highwood Avenue, appeared in person Oct. 10 and said she did not believe her home merited historic designation and previously said she felt its resale value would be reduced.
George Farley wrote a second letter to council prior to Oct. 24 to emphasize his opposition to historic designation, calling the designation “a taking.”
Matthew Farley, George’s 49-year-old son, said he wondered with his dad turning 80 and mother 79 this year if the borough code “makes accommodations” for a wheelchair ramp or other Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) modifications for historic homes.
He said repairs to a historic home “is more cumbersome” for a homeowner, even something “as simple as painting your front door.” He said even for “minor changes, you need to submit a certificate of acceptance to the historic commission, then the planning (board) to have it approved.” He said both time and cost of repairs will be increased by a home’s historic designation.
He said he felt the two properties were “being singled out” of 186 properties that are identified as potential historic properties by the local Historic Preservation Commission.
He said there “was a stigma on the title” if a home is designated as historic versus having a “historic district” where individual homes are not designated.
“A house in a historic district has curb appeal,” he said, and “you don’t have the stigma on the title.
“The question isn’t whether it’s historic or not. The question is are we being fair to the property owner,” said Farley.
“I’m questioning why there’s only two…I’m just concerned you guys are opening a Pandora’s Box for 186 properties potentially putting a burden on individuals down the line and discriminating against senior citizens,” Farley said.
“My parents are totally against this. We’re going to fight it, make sure my parents are treated properly and fairly,” added Patrick Farley.
Karen Neus, chair of Tenafly’s Historic Preservation Commission, said “we’re looking at the most important (historic) homes as we go along” and not “singling out” any properties.
She said she wished Matthew and Patrick Farley had attended previous historic preservation commission meetings held on 89 Highwood Avenue prior to the Borough Council final hearing and vote.
She said that calling historic designation a “stigma” and “black mark…I’m not sure that’s a perspective shared by everyone,” said Neus. “Whether landmarked or not, repairs are going to have to be made to homes. This is just part of owning a house, unfortunately. Whether we landmark a house or not…we don’t require certain repairs,” she added.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
Neus said local building codes apply to many home renovations, and that the commission processes requests for repairs to historic homes “in a very timely way.”
Haider noted that both owners were against designation.
“That bothers me. I love the idea of historic houses in Tenafly but it concerns me that two owners are vehemently opposed,” Haider said. “I just feel uncomfortable voting yes for it. That’s all I want to say.”
Basch questioned whether anything could be done to decrease taxes on historic homes. Borough Attorney William R. McClure said it may be possible for a homeowner to ask the local tax assessor for a reduced assessment if they believe there has been a reduction in assessed value.
During a revaluation year (generally every seven years), McClure said, a homeowner would receive a reduction in taxes equal to the percent of the reduced assessment. However, in a non-revaluation year, the reduced assessment must be 15 percent or more to qualify for a reduced tax assessment.
Councilman Stefanowicz said he understood both sides.
“The [historic designation] policy is sound. The HPC did everything they were supposed to. A lot of things have changed since [1990]. I wish that everyone had come together and spoken at the hearings. I think that the program is valid [and] I think the town taking an interest in historic sites makes sense.
“And most of us would not support a body of government telling anyone ‘this is what you have to do.’ That’s not the goal,” noted Stefanowicz.
Councilman Mark Zinna said previously the council “blamed” the HPC after two previous historic properties were razed. He said the council tasked the historic preservation commission with identifying historic homes before they are lost.
“This is about the outside architectural view of the houses,” he stressed.
“Our decision tonight is whether we have any respect for the history of this town and we want to preserve it and protect it. Otherwise, why do we have a historic preservation commission if all we’re going to do is discuss it,” said Zinna.
Rustin called the decision “very difficult” and said “I’m going to take a lot of responsibility for it also.” The mayor noted the preservation of the two homes is “in the best interests of the town for those homes to be preserved because they’re special homes.” He praised the Historic Preservation Commission “for being very, very proactive here and they did it in absolutely the correct fashion.”
“The question before this body is the rights of the homeowner versus the rights of the community,” Rustin said. “I think we have to take into account our goals for the community but I also think we have to take into account the feelings of our property owners,” he said.
Before the final vote, Patrick Farley offered an olive branch to the council.
“If you guys can iron out a fair and equitable [solution] we’d be totally supportive of it. We’re not against a historic designation, we just haven’t seen any empirical evidence. You lost two properties, I’m sorry. I love this town very much. I want to see the town preserved. But this isn’t the right way to do it,” he said.
Both homes at 89 and 93 Highland Ave. are examples of the Second Empire style of architecture and were built between 1867 and 1874. Both were owned by Charles Grandison Sisson, a railroad tycoon, developer and businessman, who was important to the development of Tenafly and other northern New Jersey communities as railroad suburbs,” according to T. Robins Brown, an architectural historian who prepared detailed reports to nominate both homes for historic designation.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
Efforts to reach McClure for comment on possible routes for homeowner appeals were not returned by press time.