By Lea Kahn, Staff Writer
LAWRENCE — Does the William Gulick House — built in 1855 on the corner of Route 206 and Province Line Road — deserve to be saved from the wrecker’s ball?
Two architects who specialize in historic preservation offered opposing viewpoints before the Zoning Board of Adjustment Wednesday night. However, the board will not rule on the fate of the house until its Aug. 17 meeting for lack of time.
CareOne Management LLC, which owns the property, is appealing Construction Official Anthony Cermele’s denial of its application for a demolition permit. Mr. Cermele based his decision on the township Historic Preservation Advisory Committee’s denial of the company’s request to tear down the house in November 2015.
Using the standards set out in the historic preservation section of Lawrence Township’s Land Use Ordinance, architectural historian Mark Alan Hewitt outlined the reasons for demolishing the William Gulick House. He has been retained by CareOne Management LLC.
Mr. Hewitt, who is also an architect, told the zoning board Wednesday night that he had visited the house in 2005 and it was in much better condition. Since then, the house has suffered a small fire. Vegetation has grown over the house, and the first-floor windows and doors are boarded up.
The William Gulick House is included on the township’s list of historic properties, and the State Historic Preservation Office determined in 2013 that “based on a review of the available documentation” that the house is eligible for listing on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places.
Nevertheless, Mr. Hewitt questioned an earlier historic properties survey that described it as “the most elaborate high-style Italianate (architectural style) dwelling in the township.” Architectural significance is one of the criteria for saving a house from demolition, under the township’s Land Use Ordinance.
The Italianate style was popular in the mid-1800s, but to contend that this house is an outstanding example of that architectural style is “dead wrong,” Mr. Hewitt said. Most of the original architectural details that would have marked it as an Italianate-style house have been removed. And besides, there are other examples of Italianate-style homes within a few miles of this house.
During the 1920s, the William Gulick House was remodeled in the Colonial Revival style, which was popular at that time. It retains some details from its earlier, Italianate style, along with Colonial Revival-style details.
The lack of a front porch devalues the house in architectural terms, Mr. Hewitt said. There is nothing in the house that would make it significant — that is unusual enough to make it irreplaceable, such as the cornices or the doors. It does not have plaster ornaments on the ceilings, or elaborate fireplace mantle pieces.
Mr. Hewitt also pointed to the deterioration of the house, especially the first-floor joists that support the floor. There is evidence of mold and termite damage. The house will fall in on itself in another three or four or five years, as the first floor caves in, he said. The house has been vacant for more than 20 years.
But historic preservation architect John Hatch, who is a consultant for the Zoning Board of Adjustment, countered many of Mr. Hewitt’s arguments for demolition. He argued that there are not many houses in the area that are as large or grand as the William Gulick House.
Mr. Hatch also disagreed with the assessment that the house is actually in poor condition. The vines growing on the house, the deteriorated front steps, and the windows — some boarded up, some open — make the house look worse than it is, he said.
The structural issues are minor and can be resolved, Mr. Hatch said. If one looks at the interior, “peeling paint is peeling paint. It is not structural damage,” he said. The house is “filthy,” he said, adding that he has worked on houses in much worse condition. It appears to be in poor shape because it has not been secured or stabilized. The technical term for that is “demolition by neglect,” he said.
The William Gulick House is important to Lawrence Township and to the region, Mr. Hatch said. The house sits on an important corner, and the people who live here know how important and beautiful the house is, he said.
Mr. Hatch also pointed to the 2013 letter from the State Historic Preservation Office regarding possible listing on the New Jersey and National Registers of Historic Places, which he termed a “significant statement.”
“Those letters are not written lightly,” he said. While it may not be enough for the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the letter “underscores” the significance of the William Gulick House, he added. In some sense, the house is a survivor.
The house needs “a ton of work,” Mr. Hatch said, but he said he disputes Mr. Hewitt’s inference that the house is in imminent danger of collapse. It will collapse, however, if it continues to be neglected, Mr. Hatch said.
When the meeting was opened for public comment, historic preservation architect Max Hayden — who was hired by the Friends of the Gulick House — said Mr. Hewitt is correct in asserting that there are many examples of Italianate-style houses in the area.
But those houses are located in Hillsborough, Franklin and Branchburg townships in Somerset County, which are places that people from Mercer County are not likely to visit, Mr. Hayden said.
There are very few Italianate-style houses south of Route 22 or the Sourland Mountains, Mr. Hayden said. That’s what makes the William Gulick House significant, he said, adding that the Gulick family was among the earliest settlers in New Jersey.
CareOne Management LLC and its predecessor, Lawrenceville Realty Co., which bought the house in 1995, had sought permission to develop an assisted living facility on the property and to incorporate the historic house into that plan.
A use variance was required because an assisted living facility is not a permitted use in a residential zone. The zoning board denied the use variance application, and CareOne Management sued. After extensive court battles, the applicant received approval from the zoning board for the assisted living facility – but never followed through.
