City mulls demolition of building at 73 Bridge St. owned by Christopher Carson
By: Sue Kramer
LAMBERTVILLE — Residents and visitors alike expressed curiosity this week over the property at 73 Bridge St. as yellow tape and barricades appeared, directing pedestrians away from the building, and electrical and gas services were disconnected.
The house has long stood with its windows covered, holes in the roof, cracks in the exterior walls and vegetation growing up and out of its exterior, speaking to years of neglect.
Now, after a years-long battle, the property has been condemned with owner Christopher Carson, who has Lambertville, Yardville and Toms River addresses, under orders either to begin repairs to the structure by June 15 or demolish it by June 1.
He was given until May 26 to submit plans from a licensed architect, but did not respond. The City Council will discuss what to do next at a special meeting tonight.
Lambertville building inspector William White said this week the condemnation came after numerous complaints about the condition of the building.
“The big question,” he said, “is where does the water go over the years?” referring to the holes in the roof of the structure.
That question was answered May 15 when officials, armed with a search warrant, enlisted the services of a locksmith to enter the building for an interior inspection. What they found were rotting beams and joists, a jerry-rigged electrical service, piles of trash and a second floor that had collapsed into the first floor.
Mr. White said, “The city building department, under the former administration and the current one, had considerable complaints forwarded that the building was obviously structurally unsound as evidenced by the holes in the roof and cracks in exterior walls. We followed the prescribed procedure outlined in the Uniform Construction Code and sent unsafe notices after various requests for the owner to allow us to make inspections.”
The first notice was sent to Mr. Carson by former building inspector Eugene Venettone March 27, 1996. At that time, Mr. Carson was ordered to repair the roofing, loose shingles, gutters, downspouts, remove scaffolding, repair siding and clean the side alley area or demolish and vacate the building.
According to building department records, this notice and the subsequent ones issued in June and September 1997 were ignored until Mr. Carson filed an appeal with the Hunterdon County Construction Board of Appeals.
The board ruled in Mr. Carson’s favor in 1997 because no interior inspection had been made, and Lambertville, therefore, couldn’t prove the structure was unsafe. The ruling went on to say that “reasonable grounds exist” for an inspection.
Mr. Carson refused all requests for Mr. Venettone and/or a structural engineer to enter his home to perform an inspection.
“After the passage of more time and more observations and more complaints by the community, which were even expressed at a borough council meeting,” Mr. White said the city pursued and obtained a search warrant from Municipal Court Judge Jeffrey Martin May 9. The search warrant was executed using the services of a professional engineer to evaluate the structure structurally.
Accompanying Mr. White and structural engineer Dick Hoisington of Hoisington Engineering of Newtown Pa., a structural and forensic engineering (engineering as it applies to the law) firm, were: Alan Horton, electrical subcode official and inspector; Christopher Rose, plumbing subcode official and inspector; Mr. Venettone, fire subcode official and inspector; Carla Hobbs, inspector for the Hunterdon County Board of Health; Don Fusco, Holicong locksmith; and Patrolman Robert Brown of the Lambertville Police Department.
The May 15 inspection, which began at 12:50 p.m. and lasted until 2:20 p.m., allowed officials to inspect the basement, first, second and third floors and view the attic. It verified that Mr. Carson’s property posed a hazard to the health and property of its neighbors. The inspection revealed 1-inch-wide cracks running across and down the front of the structure, rotting support beams, a steel support beam in danger of rotating and a building in danger of collapse.
Further, the front second floor had collapsed into the first floor, leaving electrical wiring, insulation, ceiling material, flooring and other materials exposed and dangling.
The Beacon was able to view photos of the interior, taken by Mr. Venettone, that verified reports that each and every room in each story of the building was a maze of 12-inch-wide pathways lined with boxes, newspapers, plants, flower pots, clothing and garbage strewn to heights of at least 4 feet and sometimes to the ceiling.
A metal ladder led to the second floor at the area adjoining the interior collapse; the remaining second floor was propped up with jacks.
According to the follow-up reports prepared for Judge Martin, Mr. Rose found the building contained no heat or toilet facilities. Mr. Horton reported that while most of the electrical service had been disconnected, there was one large electrical cable running to the first floor with extension cords running to other parts of the building, some of them buried under the debris.
Mr. Hoisington reported rotting joists and floor decking and, “Only one structural threat to the public; the front wall.” His report cites horizontal cracks with 1-inch separation that run across the front of the building. Both Mr. Horton and Mr. White also cited the front wall of the structure as being in danger of imminent collapse.
Mr. White and the city wasted no time in cordoning off the front of the building to protect the public.
Mr. Venettone said, “My concern was if there was a fire. I’m concerned about the safety of the firefighters. I told them no way are they to go in, to protect the exposures (the neighboring buildings).”
Mr. Venettone explained that the construction official is empowered to cite a homeowner, particularly if the property is considered to be an imminent hazard, where a building is in danger of falling down or is too dangerous.
The former building inspector, who recommended the street be cordoned off in front of the property, added, “Unfortunately, by the time you go through the process, it takes time. He had his time in court, and he ignored it. We had to get a search warrant.”
Mr. Carson, who had been living in the building on weekends and still reportedly is using a back entrance to spend some time there, could not be reached for comment.
City Clerk Mary Elizabeth Sheppard said this week the building would be discussed in closed session. An ordinance ordering the demolition of the building by the city could be introduced.
Ms. Sheppard added that the city would have to advertise for bids to demolish the building, a process that takes 30 days.
“Nothing’s going to happen before the middle to the end of summer at the earliest,” she said.