On January 26TH, 2024, a public notice announced the City of Plainfield's approval of a developer's plan that involves the demolition of a portion of an historic church complex and removal of historic stained glass windows, an historic 47 bell carillon and other external historic elements. The developer’s plan is NOT an adaptive reuse of an historic building. Instead, it is the destruction of a very important, well-preserved building on the National, state and local registries. How was this permitted to happen?
Plainfield's Vice Chairman of the Plainfield Historic Preservation Commission attended the December 7th hearing of LE Development’s application, with his hands tied, believing he had no power to insist external elements of the historic portions of the building be preserved. This is based on a longstanding misinterpretation of the law documented in Cox and Koenig’s New Jersey Zoning and Land Use Administration. It asserts that submitting the HPC’s recommendations to the Planning Board weakens the power of the HPC. It does not weaken the power of the HPC. The HPC is simply submitting its report with binding recommendations to the Planning Board, allowing the Planning Board to instruct the developer to make appropriate changes to their plans to bring the plan into compliance with historic preservation laws. The Planning board does not have the power to override HPC’s binding recommendations. If the Developer does not make appropriate changes, the Planning Board must reject the plan.
No one has the power to create a weak commission. Section 17:10-8 of the City Land Use Ordinance states the “decision of the Historic Preservation Commission shall be a recommendation only, which recommendation may be approved, disapproved, or amended by the Planning Board or the Board of Adjustment.” This contradicts the state’s Municipal Land Use Law and so it is not valid. In fact, it was recently stated in the 2023-2024 Pocket Part of the New Jersey Practice Series Volume 36 Land Use Law, Third Edition, by Ronald D. Cucchiaro, under an addition to Section 12.31, that “Historic preservation ordinances, however, must comply with the enabling legislation contained within the municipal land use law.”
On June 26, 1978, the United States Supreme Court agreed that saving Grand Central and buildings like it wasn’t A MERE REAL ESTATE MATTER, but AN ISSUE OF PUBLIC GOOD, in Penn Central Transportation Co. vs. New York City, not just in regards to Grand Central but in the SPIRIT OF THE LANDMARKS LAW ITSELF, with Justice William Brennan writing that to rule in favor of the building’s owners would “invalidate not just New York City’s law but all comparable landmark legislation elsewhere in the nation.”
We need to put an end to the undermining of historic preservation laws. The loss of historic properties throughout the country is devastating.
The cavalier attitude of all of those involved in the dismantling of Grace Church is distressing.
This is an important case and an attorney should step up to the plate to fight it. Contact ElizabethFaraone@yahoo.com if you would like to take on a lawsuit or can find someone to take on a lawsuit.