The long-running saga of the fate of the Grover Farmstead was once again front and center at the May 13 West Windsor Town Council Meeting. Representatives from the Grover Farmstead Restoration Committee, including Rocky Procaccini, Debbie Hepler, Pete Weale, David Goldstein, and Ted Grover, were present to answer Council member questions about their recently-released report. (The full text of the report can be found at www.westwindsornj.org).
Tempers once again flared as the Council members debated with the committee, and with each other, about the fate of the farmstead. The Council will vote at the June 10 meeting whether to restore the farmstead or demolish the structure as it had originally planned. (The vote will not take place on May 28 because at least one Council member will be out of town.)
The Farmstead Committee members, along with Council member Bryan Maher, emphasized that they were only seeking $53,000 to replace the windows and doors on the house. “This is less than the $60,000 the town would have to spend to tear the house down,” said Procaccini. “We are not asking for a $400,000 bond ordinance to preserve the house.” The Committee hopes to able to raise enough funds through donations and volunteered services to make the house functional, and perhaps usable as a rental property under the Township’s aegis.
However, as several council members pointed out, there are additional costs involved in preserving the house besides replacing the windows and doors. For instance, Linda Geevers noted that there might be mold that needed to be removed; and George Borek advised that there is asbestos in the basement that will need to be abated or encapsulated. “When the issue of preserving the farmstead was originally addressed by the former council, and I reviewed my notes, it was decided that the kitchen and bathrooms would have to be updated,” he added.
Township attorney Mike Herbert said hat the house would have to meet Department of Environmental Protection requirements. “We will have to go through the public bid process for all contractors, even volunteers, in accordance with state green acres requirements,” he said. “In addition, insurance or waivers would need to be obtained for all contractors and especially all volunteers working on the rehabilitation, and it will have to be inspected before we can even obtain insurance.”
Said Geevers: “I have asked the committee for an estimate of the additional expenses, which could cost taxpayers a lot of money. I have yet to receive these estimates. Do you have them with you?”
Procaccini responded that the committee would only provide such numbers if the Council voted to save the Farmstead. And Weale explained that the costs could not be calculated, “because the Committee has never received the police report relating to the theft and vandalism of the property. We cannot give you cost estimates until we receive that report.”
Council member Kristina Samonte pointed out that “the committee has been given somewhat of an unfair task. The original intent was for them to determine whether the building should be saved, not to crunch numbers or come up with possible uses. It is our fiduciary duty to do so, not theirs.”
Maher agreed. “The only cost to the taxpayers will be $53,000. We will rent out the space and generate rental income for the town, approximately $2,000 a month. Had the previous Council and the administration kept the building from deteriorating, we could have been renting it out all this time. A lease was drawn up but never executed. It is the fault of the administration and the prior Council.”
Said Borek: “I was on the council when we voted to demolish the building on September 20, 2010. We talked about renting it, and then we left the issue alone and did not follow through. But we also agreed to take a second look.”
Council member Kamal Khanna asked the Committee, “is the driving force to save the building to preserve history, or to have the Township make a profit?”
“Both,” said Procaccini. “We want to save it for historical value, and if we can make a profit, then it is a win-win for everybody.”
Hepler added, “I ask the Council members to consider, before you make a decision, what do you want to do with the land that is better than [preserving] the Grover Farmstead?”
Koran Goldstein, teenage son of David Goldstein, spoke movingly about the farm. “I am here tonight to earn a merit badge for Boy Scouts, but I want to say something. If a war hero grew up in that house, and you destroy it, that kills everything. It is basically the key, the symbol of West Windsor. You will be wasting 107 years of history-why?”
And Ted Grover himself spoke out against the demolition. “I think that it is disgraceful that you would knock down the house that my brother, the most celebrated veteran in this town, a Silver Star recipient, was born in.”
But long-time resident Donna Bevensee had another view. “I have lived in this town my whole life. I was born in 1938, the year the Martians came to Grover’s Mill. And I knew Pete Grover. He would be appalled by this fiasco. He was happy to take the 3.2 million dollars for the property, without preserving the house. He could have reserved frontage rights, and had the house moved to the front of the property, but he chose not to. It will always be a farm, regardless of whether the house is torn down.
“[His son] Ted Grover, now sits on the Restoration Committee. I believe this is a conflict of interest — unless he is willing to donate the money to preserve the house,” she added.
In observance of Memorial Day, the next Council meeting will be held on Tuesday, May 28, at 7 p.m. in the Municipal building.
The Site Plan Review Advisory Board meeting scheduled for Monday, May 27, has been canceled. The next regularly scheduled meeting for SPRAB will be Monday, June 10, at 7:30 p.m. in Room C.
