Eric and Patricia Hineline must get permits to rebuild or demolish 310 and 312 N. Union St. by Nov. 2.
By: Mae Rhine
LAMBERTVILLE The owners of two fire-gutted row homes have until Nov. 2 to get permits to rebuild or demolish the structures or city officials may step in and have the buildings razed.
Eric and Patricia Hineline, owners of 310 and 312 N. Union St., have been held up by their insurance company as well as their petition for bankruptcy. But, while sympathetic to their plight, city officials want residents of the adjoining properties, also severely damaged by that same fire a year ago, to be able to make repairs.
"It’s evident from the amount of time that went by, the city has been very tolerant," said construction code official William White.
Mr. White held a hearing Friday, but the Hinelines did not appear. Their attorney, Eric Pagan of Lambertville, showed up on their behalf.
While Mr. Pagan told Mr. White the Hinelines want to demolish the badly damaged buildings, the insurance company has refused to settle thus far.
So, in accordance with Lambertville’s code, Mr. White deemed the structures "uninhabitable and a danger to the health, safety and welfare of the community," said city attorney Philip Faherty.
"There were no arguments," Mr. Faherty said. "Their attorney tried to convey to the construction official that they were trying to work things out with the insurance company. That’s all well and good, but has no bearing on what we’re doing. They’ve had since December 2000, for crying out loud. How much time do they need?"
Meantime, adjoining property owners can’t rebuild because their insurance companies won’t release any money until the problem with the Hinelines’ property is cleared up, he said.
If the Nov. 2 deadline elapses with no further action by the Hinelines, Mr. White said he would direct City Clerk Mary Sheppard "to make the next move; put the structures out for bid for demolition."
When bids are received, Mr. White said he would review them "informally" with city officials before going any further. And any bid specification would have to include how the properties would be demolished without causing any further damage to adjoining structures, he added.
"There may be some kind of an impact," Mr. White said.
The next step would be for the city to go ahead with the demolition unless, "by some incredible stroke of luck, their (the Hinelines’) attorney persuades the insurance company either to finance the operation or give them a blank check to sell it to someone else."
He added, "If someone could remedy the situation in a relatively short time period, we could be open to other alternatives, if approved by the city."
A similar situation occurred when property on Bridge Street was scheduled to be demolished, but local businessman and contractor Donald Hart stepped in and made repairs after buying the property.
"It would have to be someone with resources," said Mayor David Del Vecchio. "The city has no problem entering this situation financially. We’ll get it back."
He was referring to costs the city incurred for engineering and inspections.
And he said he is "confident" the structures at 310 and 312 N. Union St. would be sold if repaired.
Part of the problem is the buildings are in the flood plain. If it is determined the damage is 50 percent or more of the buildings’ worth, any repairs would be considered "a substantial improvement," Mr. White said, and, thus, be subject to flood plain ordinances, which require raising the first floor past flood stage.
The decision to bring the matter to Mr. White began after a U.S. Bankruptcy Court judge in September postponed a hearing on the city’s argument that the Hinelines should be forced to improve the properties despite their petition for bankruptcy.
However, Mr. Faherty discovered through research an order from a construction official could supersede the power bankruptcy proceedings. The city has to pick up the tab for the demolition, however, and tack on the expense as a lien on the property.
Despite the cost, moving ahead with the Nov. 2 deadline is the right decision for the city, the mayor added.
"We’re not trying to be punitive here," he said. "We want to resolve the problem so people can go back to their homes. What’s more basic than that?"

