Closure an Apparent Reaction to Pending Historic Designation
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]
BY MICHAEL OLOHAN
OF NORTHERN VALLEY PRESS
TENAFLY, N.J.—Tenafly’s only cinema has gone dark until Nov. 19 at least.
Apparently peeved with treatment of their attorney during an Oct. 23 Borough Council meeting and opposed to the building’s designation as a historic landmark, the owners of Bow Tie Cinema closed the popular moviehouse to local patrons.
Within days of a heated exchange between an attorney for Tenafly Cinema and Borough Council members Oct. 23, the Tenafly Cinema shuttered its doors, giving local moviegoers short-shrift.
Closed until Nov. 19 at least
Following a nearly three-hour hearing Oct. 23 on an ordinance to designate the Tenafly Cinema’s facade as historic—where several council members exchanged testy remarks with an attorney representing the borough’s only theater—the moviehouse closed its doors and plans to remain closed unless the council backs off its plans for historic designation, said Mayor Peter Rustin Nov. 6.
Ben Moss, owner and CEO of Bow Tie Cinemas, told an online news site that historic designation would force him out of business but provided no specifics. He said a designation “will inhibit our ability to renovate or rehabilitate the property” but conceded that there were no current renovation plans.
Rustin called the council’s questioning of the cinema’s attorney “an interrogation…and very inappropriate behavior from the council.”
An attorney for Tenafly Cinema’s owners contended historic designation will lower future property value and infringe on their commercial property rights.
The council was considering landmarking the property due to its neo-Classical architectural design and distinctive marquee, following a designation report prepared by T. Robins Brown, a historical consultant who called it “a rare surviving building of its type.”
The theater is across from Tenafly Railroad Station, designated as a national historical site in 1979.
The shutdown threat was repeatedly mentioned by Bow Tie Cinema’s attorney Gary T. Hall, of McCarter & English, Newark, during a combative council appearance Oct. 23 which resulted in the council tabling ordinances for four downtown buildings—including the theater—until further consultation with the borough’s historic consultant and attorney.
Rustin said he spoke to the cinema’s chief operating officer who informed him the cinema would only be re-opened when the council withdraws the historic designation ordinance.
Rustin said that attorneys for Tenafly Cinema told him the council’s inappropriate questioning and demeanor in addressing their attorney and expert witness led them to shut the theater until the council decides not to landmark the property.
‘A big blow to downtown’
“I believe that losing that movie theater would be a big blow to the downtown,” said Rustin. “To me that designation is not that important if it means losing the theater,” he added. “It’s hurting us as a town…and it’s hurting them economically.”
“I would agree that it is their right to shut down the theater for any reason they want. Unfortunately, our community suffers downtown and a lot of businesses will suffer,” he said.
The council voted 4-1 to table all the designation ordinances Oct. 23 until Nov. 19. Councilman Jeff Grossman opposed the move.
Reviewing procedural issues
The council had discussed designating five downtown buildings as historic but dropped one from the list. The four ordinances for historic designation will be considered Nov. 19 and additional testimony will likely be offered by a local historic commission consultant and attorneys representing property owners before a final decision.
In addition to seeking input from the historic preservation commission’s consultant, council members were also to consider whether property owners within 200 feet of properties to be designated historic required notification.
This alleged “procedural deficiency” was raised by attorney John Schepisi, representing Wells Fargo Bank at 1 West Clinton Ave., another property owner opposed to historic landmarking.
Both borough attorney William McClure and Borough Administrator Lissette Aportella disagreed with his assertion, though Schepisi said he would press the issue if not resolved prior to Nov. 19 public hearing.
Over the last year, several homeowners have opposed historic designations approved by the council but none have filed legal appeals.
‘Their absolute right’
“If they chose to close the theater, that’s their absolute right,” said Hall Oct. 23 when pressing council members to drop plans to designate the theater as a historic landmark.
“They will seriously consider closing the movie theater if you do this,” he repeated later in the meeting.
Following testimony from an architectural historian, Mark Hewitt, testifying for owners of Wells Fargo building and Tenafly Cinema, he said “from an objective historical point of view, the building does not merit designation.”
Councilwoman Lauren Dayton noted the cinema building was owned by one of the first Jewish families in town and later Councilman Maxim Basch stated that distinction made him change his mind and want to vote on designating that night.
Cinema ‘fairly run of the mill’
During his testimony, Hewitt called the theater “a fairly run of the mill building…and not architecturally significant” based on four national and state criteria used to designate buildings.
Hewitt said although Tenafly’s historic preservation ordinance indicated four similar criteria for designation, the two criteria cited by its consultant for theater landmarking were not elaborated on.
‘Not their lifeblood’
“This is not their lifeblood, they can close it if they choose,” said Hall, noting the owners did not want the council “to micromanage their property.”
When asked by Rustin who authorized possible closing, Hall referenced a letter sent to council members by Bow Tie Cinema management Oct. 22.
“They can afford to do whatever they want,” noted Hall.
The council postponed a final decision on designating four downtown properties until Nov. 19.
Also during the Oct. 23 meeting, Schepisi, the attorney representing Wells Fargo’s opposition to its bank building being designated as a landmark, came under intense questioning by council members—notably Dayton, Basch and Grossman.
At a June council discussion, Historic Preservation Commission Chair Karen Neus disputed assertions that historical designation was a negative for a property owner.
“We’re not looking to freeze the downtown but…preserve the look of the downtown by preserving the facades,” she said.
Neus said people can and do make changes to facades over time and “as we move forward we seek to improve the authenticity of these buildings.”
‘A positive [not] a negative’
“Some of those [downtown] facades are desirable to a new tenant. I think you can think outside the box and think how these facades would represent a positive rather than a negative,” Neus suggested then.
The local commission submitted separate designation reports for each property pointing out what architectural and historical features qualify each for historical designation. The commission previously held separate public hearings on each application to allow property owners another opportunity to provide input.
Rustin has repeatedly noted the loss of two historical structures—the Mackay-Lowe Estate and 87 Knickerbocker Road—which were recommended for preservation by its local commission and not designated by the council.
[slideshow_deploy id=’899′]