The Village of Thomaston’s Landmarks Preservation Commission recommended landmark status be granted by the village to the former Belgrave Motors and Tower Ford building at 124 S. Middle Neck Road during a meeting on Tuesday night.
The five-member commission unanimously recommended the building be granted landmark status after strong community support to preserve the structure and prevent overdevelopment from potentially harming residents’ quality of life. Commission Chairman Donald Stern said landmarking the structure could potentially raise costs for the owner in maintaining, repurposing and redeveloping it along with a potential reduction in its assessed value.
“I wish I had a crystal ball so I could look into the future and see what is going to happen to this property,” Stern said. “But I have come to my own conclusion that the building should be designated as a landmark.”
The state’s Department of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation declared the site eligible to be considered as a historic place on Oct. 29.
The building has been a hot-button issue since July, when initial plans were submitted, and subsequently withdrawn, to develop a five-story apartment complex on the property. During the commission’s Jan. 4 meeting, peninsula residents, historical experts and the village’s hired consultant, Archeology Historic Resource Services, made presentations contending that the building deserves the village’s landmark designation.
Stephen Limmer, the legal counsel for 124 Middle Neck Realty LLC, who put forward the plans to develop the five-story apartment, asked the commission during the meeting to adjourn the matter for 120 days so the applicant can “adequately make a presentation to protect its interests.”Â
Residents asked the panel not to grant Limmer’s request for the delay, saying everyone in the village was aware of the Jan. 4 meeting date when it was scheduled in late November. The commission ultimately decided not to grant the adjournment.
Limmer, in a follow-up letter sent to the village, again asked for the commission to adjourn the matter until May 1 so his client could come up with a multifamily dwelling unit acceptable to the village, despite strong residential opposition. Limmer also said his client does not believe the building deserves to be granted landmark status.
“My client believes that there is no particular historic, aesthetic, or other aspects of the building for which it should be given landmark status thus unduly restricting its use and imposing unjustified added expense to its upkeep,” Limmer said in the letter.
Village residents Aaron and Wendy Halpern submitted a letter to the village rejecting Limmer’s claims and said he and his client “were well-aware of the commission’s pending review for landmark designation.”
In December, the village repealed a local zoning law that, along with the proposal, was met with strong opposition from the public. The law was passed during a July meeting and allowed the Board of Trustees to have “sole and unfettered discretion” on what conditions and incentive use permit may be granted to certain applicants. The law applied to applicants that have a property located partially in the Apartment B and Residence 10 zoning districts, a total area of at least 0.75 acres but not exceeding one acre, a depth at its greatest point of at least 200 feet and street frontage on Middle Neck Road of at least 230 feet.
The property at 124 S. Middle Neck Road, the former site of Tower Ford and the previously proposed apartment complex, lies partly in the Apartment B and Residence 10 zoning districts, has a total area of 0.96 acres, and has a depth of 234 feet, according to village documents.
The commission’s recommendation now goes to the village Board of Trustees, scheduled to meet on Monday, which can affirm or modify the landmarking decision.
“The five-member commission unanimously recommended the building be granted landmark status after strong community support to preserve the structure and prevent overdevelopment from potentially harming residents’ quality of life.”
From Berkeley, California to Point Elizabeth in Maine, the same lame, selfish excuses. At least this one isn’t preserving a parking lot.
There are over 100,000 “Tower Fords” in this country, and plenty of narrow minded people to preserve them. For each dwelling you stop, someone, somewhere, ends up living on the street. Some of them are children. It’s just a matter of how close they are to the precipice today, and where they will wind up tomorrow.
Imagine thinking this little hamlet as being “overdeveloped.”
Remember the liberal battle cry: “Think globally, act insular locally.”
This building is a remarkably intact example of Tudor Revival architecture, and it documents the role automobiles played in Great Neck’s ascendancy as a premier country retreat, and then suburban enclave, in the early 20th century.
I am proud that this Landmarks Commission upheld its mission, and acted to protect Great Neck’s cultural heritage.
Interest in preserving historic buildings should not be blamed for this country’s disinvestment in affordable housing, and its lack of housing policy on any level – local, state, or federal.
There is nothing that would preclude this building from being adaptively used as something other than a car dealership, or prevent it from becoming part of a complex where a thoughtfully approached addition would provide additional improvement to the lot. If designated a Landmark, its rehabilitation would also be eligible for historic tax credits from the state and federal government, equal to 20% of rehab costs.
“This building is a remarkably intact example of Tudor Revival architecture, and it documents the role automobiles played in Great Neck’s ascendancy as a premier country retreat, and then suburban enclave, in the early 20th century.”
Oh, please.
Automobiles didn’t play any role in Great Neck’s ascendency. The train station, opened in 1866, certainly did.
Cultural heritage? Really?
There’s nothing you can re-purpose this for, and even if you could, usage by actual people would bring out the “parking and the noise and the traffic” opponents claim to oppose. This is a building surrounded by apartment buildings, and another apartment building is the best possible use for the property.
Penn Station, it ain’t.
I’ve heard all of these arguments before. Just facile nonsense designed to keep any newcomers from moving in. I suggest before anyone closes the door on using this for needed housing, you better find an alternate use that makes sense NOW. Otherwise, you’re complicit in exacerbating our housing problems for the flimsiest of reasons.
Most of the houses in Great Neck date to the 1920’s and 1930’s, which is consistent with the housing boom that happened in that period across the country. Because cars had become widely available and affordable, and allowed people to move away from urban centers. Up until the 1920’s, the entire Great Neck peninsula was still predominantly farm land, with clusters of small villages near the steam boat landing and the train station, and a smattering of large estates that were ‘country homes’ for the wealthy from the city, which were built mostly in the 1900’s, 1910’s, and 1920’s. The roads in Kensington, the Estates, University Gardens, Russel Gardens, Great Neck Station (now GN Plaza), and Great Neck Hills (now Thomaston) were laid out in the 1910’s, in preparation for subdivision by developers who had bought up the farms. Because they could see that the wide use of cars was coming, and would create a market for new housing. Although these roads were laid out in the 1910’s, there were not many houses on them until the 1920’s, when cars took over. Every commercial building lining Middle Neck Road, from the train station to the Old Village, is from the 1920’s.
Why does everyone have to be so negative in their online comments? This is why people can’t even be civil to each other in person anymore. If the other commentor and I were talking face to face, would he still be so condescending and derisive?
“Because cars had become widely available and affordable, and allowed people to move away from urban centers.”
None of this makes the building a “cultural icon.”
By THAT standard, the entire Island should be landmarked. When I moved here in 1962, what is now Route 110 was all farmland. Sorry if this comes off as “derisive,” but this is being played out all over the country. One community claimed a police tow pound was “part of the fabric of the community” when someone proposed putting up an apartment building.
Cal Berkeley wanted to build new dorms for it’s growing student body. “Sorry, it’ll affect our quality of life,” said the NIMBYs. Now they dorm in an underground parking lot. Beats the gutter, anyway.
People are reflexibly against ANY new housing development, but they didn’t seem to have a problem when development provided for THEIR families.
You have no idea how much resentment is simmering against people who are getting the door to homeownership shut in their face. And that resentment is justified.
Look, it’s a nice building, but this is a bauble no one really NEEDS. The County (and the country) most surely need more residential construction.
Again, I suggest you figure out what you can actually USE the building for before you landmark it and you’re stuck with a White Elephant. We’ve torn down more Gold Coast mansions, Innisfada and all kinds of “culturally significant” buildings because they just didn’t fit into the 21st century. This is just another one of those buildings.