FREEHOLD – Members of the Borough Council are continuing to examine a plan that calls for the demolition of a 19th century building on East Main Street. April 16 may mark the next time the issue comes before the governing body.
The demolition of the Christopher house, 49 E. Main St., has been sought by the property’s owners, Glenn Freeman and Kevin Freeman, amid concerns of underground contamination.
The Freemans, who operate the Freeman Funeral Home next door at 47 E. Main St., have been attempting to obtain a demolition permit for about eight months, according to Glenn Freeman, who appeared before the council on April 2 to ask why he had not yet received a permit.
Council members set April 16 as the next date to discuss and possibly provide final authorization for the building’s demolition.
The issue of the Christopher house’s demolition was heard before council President Sharon Shutzer and council members Kevin Kane, George Schnurr, Jaye Sims and Ron Griffiths.
Mayor Nolan Higgins, who owns the Higgins Memorial Home, Center Street, and Councilman Michael DiBenedetto, who owns Joe’s Barber Shop, South Street, recused themselves from the issue.
According to borough historian Kevin Coyne, the Christopher house was built circa 1830-40 and is named after former owner Daniel Christopher, who served as the Monmouth County clerk in 1846 and as president of the Farmer’s Bank of Freehold in 1853. Christopher was identified as the house’s owner in 1851, 1855 and 1860; its original owner is not known.
Glenn Freeman said his family has since owned the house for more than a century.
The Freemans and environmental expert Adam Musgrave appeared before the borough’s ad hoc Land Use Committee in December and before the council in January to seek permission for the demolition. Attorney Vincent Halleran represented the owners.
Musgrave testified before the council and the Land Use Committee that a heating oil tank under the Christopher house leaked and he said oil is spreading toward Main Street. He recommended that immediate action be taken on the property before the contamination spreads.
In order to address the leak and the contamination without demolishing the house, according to Musgrave, the building would have to be lifted, entailing costs of about $90,000. That plan would allow the contamination to spread during the months it would take to lift the house and there would not be a guarantee the house would survive the lifting process, he said.
The Land Use Committee recommended the demolition due to the danger of the contamination continuing to spread, the likelihood of the building sustaining significant damage if it was lifted and the cost of lifting the building.
Council members supported the Land Use Committee’s recommendation and determined the demolition was warranted due to the testimony and evidence presented. In February, the council passed a resolution authorizing the demolition.
On April 2, Freeman asked officials why he still did not have a permit to demolish the building.
“I am kind of frustrated because it has been eight months to clean up a contaminated property and I keep going through these hoops,” he said.
Borough Attorney Kerry Higgins told Freeman the delay began with an appeal from the Freehold Borough Historic Preservation Commission, which recommended against the building’s demolition and sought to have the plan for its demolition heard by the Freehold Borough Planning Board, which functions as a combined planning and zoning board.
In addition to voicing skepticism about the evidence provided, members of the Historic Preservation Commission argued that under the Freehold Center Core Redevelopment Plan ordinance, the plan for the building’s demolition must be heard by the Planning Board because of where the Christopher house is located in the borough.
The issue returned before the Land Use Committee in March, which again recommended the building’s demolition and determined that a demolition permit should be issued.
Higgins said in her legal opinion, because the building is in the core redevelopment area, that supersedes all zoning and the matter must go before the body that has authority over the core redevelopment area, which is the Borough Council.
No subsequent action was taken by the council because, according to Shutzer, the Land Use Committee’s decision in March had not yet been discussed by all council members eligible to hear the issue.
“We want to make sure everything is done legally,” Shutzer said.
Kane recommended that all of the documents pertaining to the potential demolition of the Christopher house be put together for the council members to review prior to the April 16 meeting.
