Morris County Master Plan: Historic Preservation Element

8/3/2019 Morris County Master Plan: Historic Preservation Element

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/morris-county-master-plan-historic-preservation-element 1/255

1



2



MORRIS COUNTY BOARD OF CHOSEN FREEHOLDERS

Leanna Brown, Director

Peter J. Burkhart Eileen McCoy

Rodney P. Frelinghuysen Douglas H. Romaine

S. Charles Garafalo Alphonse W. Scerbo

MORRIS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD

Robert N. Zakarian, Chairman

Eugune H. Caille, Vice Chairman

William Keitel, Secretary

Leanna Brown

George E. Burke

Dorothy Jurgel

William J. Mathews

Douglas H. Romaine

John Stevens

Dudley H. Woodbridge, Planning Director

3



contents

Page

Illustrations 8

Acknowledgment 9

INTRODUCTION

Section I WHY PRESERVE? 13

Philosophy 14

Pragmatism 17

Section II PRESERVATION IN CONTEXT 22

Social Preservation 23

Environmental Preservation 25

Adaptive Preservation 27

Section III WHAT TO PRESERVE 33

Criteria 34 Documentation 37

Section IV PRESERVATION TOOLS 43

Historic District Zoning 44

Landmarks Commissions 45

Supplementary Municipal Power 46

County Action 47

Acquisition Alternatives 47

Tax Relief 49

Section V PAYING FOR PRESERVATION 53

Private Initiative 54

Federal Assistance 58

The State Role 61

County and Municipal Resources 63

4



MORRIS COUNTY PLANNING BOARD STAFF

Dudley H. Woodbridge, Planning Director

Long Range Planning Section

James L. Roberts, Assistant Planning Director

Raymond K. Molski, Supervising Principal Planner

Raymond Zabihach, Principal Planner

Robert P. Guter, Senior Planner

William M. Chambers, Senior Planner

William A. Fredrick, Jr., Assistant Planner

Edward Matey, Assistant Planner

James C. Willis, Planning Draftsman

Development Review Section

Miron C. Meadowcroft, Assistant Planning Director

James D. Woodruff, Supervising Principal Planner

Arne E. Goytil, Principal Planner

Frank A. Marquier, Senior Planning Aide

Clerical Staff

Rhoda B. Chase

Marie C. Gilmartin

Rosamond M. McCarthyEvelyn Taylor

STAFF FOR THIS ELEMENT

Project Director Robert P. Guter

Text and Research: Robert P. Guter

Research Assistance: Jeanne Korp

Editing: William M. Chambers

Graphics: James C. Willis

William M. Chambers

5



maps

Page

Historic Transportation Routes 65

Planning Regions 92

Site Location Maps:

REGION A

Butler, Kinnelon, Lincoln Park, 101

Pequannock, Riverdale

REGION B

Boonton, Boonton Township, Denville, 122 East Hanover, Hanover, Montville,

Mt. Lakes, Parsippany Troy—Hills

REGION C

Chatham, Chatham Township, Florham Park, 150

Madison, Passaic

REGION D

Harding, Morris Plains, Morristown, 183

Morris Township

REGION E

Rockaway, Rockaway Township, Jefferson 189

REGION F

Dover, Mine Hill, Mt. Arlington, Randolph, 202

Roxbury, Victory Gardens, Wharton

REGION G

Chester, Chester Township, Mendham, 215

Mendham Township

REGION H

Mt. Olive, Netcong, Washington 227

6



Section VI GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS Page

FEDERAL

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 67

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 68

National Trust for Historic Preservation 69 National Register of Historic Places 69

National Register of Historic Landmarks 69

Historic American Buildings Survey 70

Department of Transportation Act 70

Department of Housing and Urban Development 71

National Environmental Policy Act 72

STATE

Historic Sites Section, DEP 74

New Jersey Register of Historic Places 74

Section VII PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS

Local Historical Societies 76

Other Organizations 79

Section VIII CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

Municipal Action 85

County Participation 85

State Action 86

Federal Action 86

Section IX INVENTORY OF HISTORIC SITES

Introduction 88

Region A 94

Region B 102

Region C 123

Region D 151

Region E 184

Region F 190

Region G 203

Region H 216

APPENDICES Appendix A

Proposal for a Landmarks Commission 229

Appendix B

Morris County Historical Societies 237

Appendix C

Glossary of Architectural Terms 239

Appendix D

Resource Bibliography 242

Appendix E

Footnotes 254

7



illustrations

The line drawings which introduce each section are reduced copies of

measured drawings made by the Historic American Buildings Survey. Section 10

shows a complete sample sheet from a full HABS documentation series.

The buildings are identied as follows:

INTRODUCTION: Hilltop Church, Mendham

Section I: Lewis Pierson House, Hanover*

Section II: Van Ness House, Pequannock*

Section III: Jacobus Out-Kitchen, Montville*

Section IV: Sayre House, Madison

Section V: Dickerson Log Cabin, Parsippany*

Section VI: Moses Hateld House, Morristown*

Section VII: John Jacobus House, Montville*

Section VIII: Thomas Dey House, Lincoln Park*

Section IX: Green—Cook House, Hanover

APPENDICES: David Miller House, Washington

*Destroyed

8



acknowledgment

Mo r e t h a n a n y o t h e r e l e me n t o f t h e Mo r r i s C o u n t y Ma s t e r P l a n , t h i s s t u d y h a s

beneted from direct citizen participation. We would like to thank:

Ri c h a r d I r wi n , Ch a i r ma n , Hi s t o r i c S i t e s C o mmi t t e e ,Mo r r i s Co u n t y H i s t o r i c a l S o c i e t y ;

T e r r y Ka r s c h n e r , Hi s t o r i a n —Cu r a t o r , Hi s t o r i c S i t e s S e c t i o n , Ne w J e r s e y

De p a r t me n t o f E n v i r o n me n t a l P r o t e c t i o n ; a n d

Ha r o l d S c a f f ,

Mo r r i s C o u n t y P l a n n i n g Bo a r d Ci t i z e n s ’ A d v i s o r y Co u n c i l , f o r t h e i r r e v i e w o f

g o a l s a n d o b j e c t i v e s a n d o v e r a l l c o mme n t s ; Vi r g i n i a Ha r r i s o n , Mo r r i s C o u n t y

F r e e L i b r a r y ; a n d

Ba r b a r a Ho s k i n s , J o i n t F r e e P u b l i c L i b r a r y o f Mo r r i s t o wn a n d Mo r r i s T o wn s h i p ,

wh o s e k n o wl e d g e i s a s i n e x h a u s t i b l e a s t h e i r p a t i e n c e , f o r r e s e a r c h a n d

b i b l i o g r a p h i c a s s i s t a n c e ; a n d t h e f o l l o wi n g i n d i v i d u a l s , wi t h o u t wh o s e

g e n e r o u s c o n t r i b u t i o n s t h e i n v e n t o r y s e c t i o n o f t h i s r e p o r t c o u l d n e v e r h a v e

b e e n c o mp l e t e d :

E l e a n o r Bo g e r t , J a me s A. Bo l a n , J a n e t Bo s t o n , Ba r b a r a S . Bu r n e t , T e r r y

Ch r i s t i a n o , B e t t y Co o k e , Ma r j o r i e M. Da v i d s o n , J o s e p h De c k e r , b a g a i 1 F a i r ,

Al e x D. F o wl e r , Br u c e Ha mb l e n , Ha z e l W. Ho we l l , Ba r b a r a Ka l a t a , F r a n K a mi n s k i ,

Ma r g a r e t Ke i s l e r , Cl a i r e B . Ki t c h e l l , Ch r i s t i a n L a n n e r , J e a n W. L u m, Ha r r i e t

Me e k e r , C h r i s Mu e n c h i n g e r , S u s a n P a r i s e r , J o h n P i c k i n , E l i z a b e t h Ra u b e , Mu r i e l

Re n n i e , E l i z a b e t h R i g g s , S wi s s S c h r o e d e r , Ca r me n H. S mi t h , Me a d S t a p l e r , W.

P a g e T a g g e r t , F a e N. T o wn s , Ro b e r t T u r n q u i s t , J u n e Wa d e r s , Ma l c o l m Yo r k s t o n .

9



10



The obliteration of the past must not beaccepted as the inevitable price of progress

Lord Duncan Sandys

This report is neither a history of Morris County nor simply a collection

of site inventories and physical descriptions. The former task has been

accomplished by others far better equipped to do so, and the latter is merely

the means to an end which is too often mistaken for the end itself. This

report has two primary goals: to make apparent the genuine value of historic

preservation, and to furnish some guidance for practical action to accomplish

preservation goals.

Such ends stand in need of continual reevaluation because they lend

themselves to misunderstanding, despite the groundswell of enthusiasm for

historic preservation in the last decade. The opportunity for misunderstanding

occurs largely because of the understandable human penchant for the splashy

effect. Unfortunately, every important preservation victory obscures ten less

impressive demolitions, which, taken in the aggregate, may be every bit as

signicant. It seems that we have fallen into the habit of saving monuments to

put under glass, while the fabric of our daily life is worn thin by historic

amnesia. This complaint is not meant to discount the need for priorities or

the value of monuments per Se. We would all be poorer without Mt. Vernon,

Valley Forge, and the Ford Mansion. But their value is primarily symbolic, or

ceremonial. The time has come to return historic preservation to the sphere

of everyday life, which has become impoverished by its absence; to pay more

attention to living, usable history, the kind that enriches neighborhoods and

lives; to historic sites that can function usefully in the present without

apology; and to an integration of past and present that reveals our own

continuity to us, so that we can know how we became who we are.

This report will try to point out the specic advantages of such a

comprehensively designed preservation program, at the same time that it shows

11



citizens and their local governments how to achieve practical preservation

goals. The only value of a study such as this lies in the use to which it is

put. In that sense it will remain unnished until its readers transform it

into action.

12



13



The fathers did not erase the past,

But linked it by rm ties to the futureHomer

PHILOSOPHY

“Why preserve?” can be a difcult question to answer. Like all action

that determines what we’ve come to think of as the quality of life, many of

the values of historic preservation rely on intangibles. How can we measure

the aesthetic impact of Morristown’s Green, the real signicance of a piece of

monumental architecture, or the importance to a town of a main street that’s

“looked that way forever.” Often we fail to recognize such values until they

have been destroyed — when loss sharpens our perceptions too late.

Perhaps one of the most important contributions historic buildings can

make is the individual ambiance they lend a place. It is difcult to imagine

Washington, D.C. without its dozen most familiar buildings, or to picture

Mendham without its aggregate of Main Street shops and houses. The essence of

a particular place is fragile, hard to create and easy to destroy.

Ironically, as all aspects of our lives become more homogenized, and we

lose the old, natural distinctions of place and customs, we strive to assert

individuality articially. In his book Future Shock, Alvin Tofer suggests

that our towns and cities may become so bland or so mechanistically ugly that

everyone will have to be sent off for periodic bouts of rest and recuperation

— to places like Sturbridge Village, Williamsburg - or Disneyland. How much

better if we could halt the disintegration of our daily environment instead of

reserving beauty and variety for special occasions.

Psychologists have long pointed out the importance of man being able

to identify his own territory as special: note the attempts of subdivision

homeowners to establish individualism by painting their front door assertive

colors; witness the transformation of Levittown (once the standard example

of stiing conformity) after twenty—odd years of individual alterations and

landscaping. This need operates on a larger scale as well. Life would be at

14



indeed without the local and regional contrasts in architecture, landscape,

politics and even cooking which differentiate areas of the United States,

and which the economics of modern life are doing their best to smooth out.

Contemporary architecture and urban planning needn’t contribute to this trend,

but too often they do. In the face of such pressures, preservation of historic

buildings and sites can supply an invaluable measure of contrast.

As National Trust advisor Constance Greiff has put it, historic buildings

can function as physical and psychological “benchmarks” or “sighting

points” to indicate community pride, social cohesion and even political

responsibility. Each of these values or activities is contingent in some

degree upon being able to say “I live here”, and to be able to say that with

any degree of relevance, the “here in question must possess some degree of

reality different from its fellows. Historic preservation can be a deciding

factor in establishing the parameters of that kind of difference.

Another preservation value which has grown meaningless because it has

been too often mouthed as a cliché is the value of education. Not the kind

of education which implies sending school children out to gawk at some

place where Washington allegedly slept, but the process of genuine learning

through involvement and participation. Probably the best-known example of

education related to preservation is the now world—famous Foxre Magazine,

written and produced by students of the Rabun Gap Nacoochee School, Rabun

Gap, Georgia. The project was conceived when a teacher there realized that

standard curricula bore little relevance for his Appalachian students. Instead

of continuing to impose unlearned lessons or writing off his students as

uneducable, he conceived the idea of teaching skills like writing, editing

and business management by having his students turn out a journal describing

the folkways of the mountain people, as explained directly to the students by

the people themselves. Foxre’s enormous human and commercial success teaches

lessons which transcend the boundaries of Appalachia: the remains of earlier

cultures can teach practical skills while demonstrating to people how their

lives are part of an ongoing continuum, which, no matter how much it changes,

always carries striking remnants of its past which can enrich present lives.

Similar projects are not hard to nd, and are certainly not limited to

rural areas. In Bedford—Stuyvesant, where substandard housing and inadequate

15



public facilities might suggest community apathy, the discovery of several

original buildings of a 19th-century black community known as Weeksville

galvanized residents into rediscovering their heritage and exploring interests

which made learning relevant for the rst time. One observer remarked, “people

said, ‘Oh, these kids can’t even sit in school two minutes quietly and learn

anything’. But they were so dedicated to Project Weeksville that they worked

many hours for Youth in Action, under whose aegis the project began… . . .

Many of the kids had never heard the word ‘archaeologist’ before. They were

turned on to all the new careers available to them — not just archaeology but

all the attendant disciplines as well... . New horizons were opened up.”1

As well as discovering their own unsuspected past and gaining exposure to

the value of professional disciplines, the children and adults of Weeksville

learned that government can be responsive when people communicate their needs

directly instead of leaving that job solely to elected representatives: at

a hearing to consider designating the buildings a New York City Landmark,

Weeksville school children presented supporting testimony, while parents and

teachers raised money to put toward purchase. Both efforts were successful.

For years, Morristown has enjoyed a project of like value in the Timothy

Mills House, a cooperative effort of the Morristown Board of Education and

Fairleigh Dickinson University’s American Civilization Institute of Morristown

(ACIM). Students have studied the construction methods of the house itself,

have accomplished archaeological work on the grounds, and have reconstructed

a barn on the property. Such experience is a valuable adjunct to the kind of

everything-polished-and- in—its-place restorations which are ne as aesthetic

displays, but often lack the learning potential they claim for themselves.

The educational value of historic preservation can also be explored,

ironically, through up-to-date technology. The Joint Free Public Library of

Morristown and Morris Township has utilized videotaping equipment to create

a program about the Friends Meeting House in Randolph Township. The tape

includes interviews with descendents of the founders, as well as views of

the building’s interior and exterior details. Other libraries have begun

oral history programs, making tape recordings of older residents’ invaluable

recollections.

It should be evident that education in the present context implies

16



more than learning battle dates and famous names. Not only can preservation

of historic buildings and sites furnish the opportunity for grasping the

realities of history in a way textbooks can never equal, it can also open the

door to an inexhaustible array of related experiences. It can impress citizens

with the importance of community action to preserve neighborhoods and values

that are important to them; it can teach students that learning needn’t be an

exercise grafted to their real lives; it can bring generations closer together

as they make an effort to interpret their own history to each other.

PRAGMATISM

The foregoing values alone should be sufcient justication for

preservation. But in an age beset by economic compromise, when money

for public amenities, pleasures and even some necessities is frequently

rechanneled to “higher priorities,” it is well for preservationists to be

armed with the hard nancial answers to the hard nancial questions they are

likely to confront. Fortunately, the answer to “Why Pre— serve?” has another

side which can prove to the most obdurate town manager, chamber of commerce

or private developer that preservation is a sound investment and an integral

part of enlightened planning, which can benet individual property owners,

can provide needed commercial and residential space, and can stimulate local

building trades.

Morris County’s municipalities, for example, share many common problems.

Chief among them are a dependence on property tax ratables and the threat

of new commercial development occurring outside established town centers.

Experience with historic preservation across the country speaks positively

to these issues. In order to provide a solid tax base, for instance, stable

residential neighborhoods are desirable. But a neighborhood is a changing

organism with a delicate point of balance. Throw that point of balance one

way, and property values soar; another, and they may plummet. Richmond,

Virginia’s experience proves the point. The Church Hill section of Richmond

was a blighted neighborhood which cost the city more to service than it

returned. A combination of public and private investments began to restore the

Hill’s rich array of 18th-and 19th-century residences. Soon after the project

was begun, a survey of assessed valuations covering restored and unrestored

blocks, otherwise identical and sometimes just across the street from one

17



another, yielded comparisons like this:

Before restoration, a group of houses on the north side of a particular

block was assessed at $41,010. Five years later, restoration improvements

had caused aggregate value to reach $96,900. In contrast, nine houses on

an immediately adjacent block, only one of which was restored, enjoyed anincrease in aggregate valuation of only $7,820 in the same ve year period.

This impressive growth was achieved through private restoration efforts, the

application of uniform architectural standards and the adoption of an historic

district zoning ordinance.

Similar success has been enjoyed by The District of Columbia’s

Georgetown, which changed rapidly from a slum to a valuable source of city

income under the application of architectural renewal of historic structures.

Jersey City is enjoying the beginning of a brownstone revival which promises

to make a signicant contribution to that city’s revitalization. These

examples don’t conne their benets to residential renewal. They can include

commercial renewal as well. In fact, one of the oldest and most dramatic

examples of historic preservation saving a downtown from economic decay is

New Orleans’ Vieux Carre District. In 1936, New Orleans pioneered in the

establishment of strict architectural controls for the historic core of

the city. Rather than stiing economic incentive, those controls have been

responsible for unprecedented growth. The Vieux Carre has become a prestige

address for businesses, has developed into a major tourist attraction,

and has successfully combated the enervating results of highway spread

development. Such examples abound throughout the country: San Francisco’s

Ghirardelli Square, Sante Fe’s Old Town, whole sections of Newport and New

Bedford — each has used individual approaches to historic preservation to

solve unique problems and to stimulate economic growth. Lest the prospects

seem exaggeratedly optimistic, it must be admitted that renewal of historic

districts does suffer from one grave drawback. If older neighborhoods are

turned back from deteriorating units to luxury housing with luxury rents, the

already meager low—and middle—income housing pool is further reduced. This has

caused justiable resentment among those whose homes are grabbed up at deated

prices only to be transformed into housing beyond their reach.

Although economic class-stratication can be a by—product of

18



preservation, it needn’t be the case if urban renewal and private development

goals incorporate a concern for the community as well as its architecture. One

smal1--scale undertaking of the Pittsburgh History & Landmarks Foundation has

proven the point. With help from local banks and the chamber of commerce, the

foundation acquainted the residents of the city’s largely Victorian Birmingham

section with the architectural value of their homes and guided restoration

and repair efforts with loans and professional advice. Because of careful

planning which worked with residents from the outset, the neighborhood was

upgraded and stabilized without being wrested from the hands of its owners. So

if preservation redevelopment is subject to the same abuses found everywhere

else, it also enjoys the same positive potential if managed in a socially and

morally responsible manner.

A second major aspect of preservation economics is the lure of tourism,

which estimates show is among the three largest revenue producers in every

state. In New Jersey it occupies second place, with minimal promotion,

especially when compared to the efforts of adjacent states to the north and

south which have long cultivated tourism as a natural resource.

The Virginia Travel Council has pointed out that “The great economic

benet of tourism is its infusion into an area of new money earned elsewhere

and left behind to circulate through the local economy. While that dollar

demands an effort on the part of the community to attract it, the investment

is generally less than for the industrial dollar, which requires additional

schools, housing and related services.’2

Morris County already has historic attractions which generate tourist

income, chief among them Morristown National Historic Park. But development is

possible in other areas as well. Not every historic building and site can or

should be viewed as a commercial attraction. Most simply lack enough inherent

interest to draw visitors from afar. But with proper cultivation and promotion

Morris County should be able to capitalize on more of its indigenous historic

values.

Before leaving the topic of tourism and turning history to commercial

advantage, one must answer the purists who balk at the very idea of new uses

for old buildings. Responsible commercial development of historic attractions

is not a task to be taken lightly. Opportunities for misuse, misinterpretation

19



and exploitation abound. Undoubtedly more examples exist of the wrong way

to proceed than one likes to admit, but the challenge must be met without

recourse to sentimentality. The age of large scale philanthropy is gone

for good, and even our patrimony must be made to pay its own way whenever

possible. Since it must be done, it’s the job of preservationists to see that

it is accomplished with maximum returns and without hucksterism.

Preservation has another practical value recently highlighted by the

restrictions of an energy shortage whose magnitude we are just beginning

to comprehend. Buildings constructed before our contemporary dependence on

articial systems (heating and cooling) often use less energy because of

design features which were necessities in their time. Many buildings of the

18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries use natural materials for insulating, and

are sited to take advantage of solar warmth and prevailing winds. They often

employ high ceilings and attics to equalize summer and winter temperatures,

and make use of built-in circulation systems operating independently of

mechanical means. Contrasted with today’s prodigal use of energy—wasting

materials (aluminum, for example, which takes ve times more energy per pound

to produce than steel) and “climate—controlled” systems (like ofces where

over—intensive lighting produces excess heat that takes extra energy to cool

because windows can’t be opened3), buildings of the past are not only a

cultural asset, but can be an energy bargain as well.

As Mark Latus observed in Historic Preservation, recycling old buildings

for adaptive uses can amount to considerable savings, because “the energy cost

of dismantling a building must also be considered . . . . Demolition requires

a crane equipped with a headace ball or clamshell bucket. Trucks must be

employed to carry away the debris. A grader or bulldozer is usually necessary

to ll in the foundation and smooth over the site. This machinery consumes

great quantities of diesel fuel and, in the process of operation, contributes

signicantly to the air and noise pollution of the area.”4 Add to this the

energy intensive construction techniques needed to erect a new building on

the site, and you are left with a strong case in favor of preservation.

Undeniably, some buildings must be destroyed for reasons of health and safety.

But their number is fewer than conventional practice suggests. Too often,

demolition is an unwarranted drain of resources and energy. Latus also points

20



out that the claim of functional obsolescence (a building becoming unsuitable

for its intended use) is made carelessly. “Although a use or activity may

outgrow a building, there is no reason why the building cannot be recycled and

modied to serve a new use. Thus functional obsolescence is merely a temporary

condition and should never be the basis for justifying demolition.”5 Similar

arguments can be brought to bear against claims of physical and economic

obsolescence. Examples of suitable adaptive use are not hard to nd, and will

be discussed at length in a later section.

The question “Why preserve?” should only have to be answered once.

Ideally, an appeal based on the value of history as an irreplaceable cultural

asset should overwhelm all other considerations. But when the “practical”

obtrudes, there is no reason that aesthetic, environmental, and economic

requirements can’t coexist. Prot—making can actually enhance the primary

values of history when handled intelligently. Sometimes, in fact, the prot—

motive will be the only incentive for preservation. As long as preservation

standards remain uncompromised, the methods used to achieve preservation goals

are secondary.

21



22



The preservation of historic buildings and

sites has now become a part of the larger

job of creating and managing complex environments.

Preserve one building and you preserve one building.

Preserve the setting and the larger environment,

and you keep open a thousand doors and opportunities

for a better life for the entire community.

Grady Clay

Historic Preservation

Like all movements, historic preservation has been altered by changing

fashions and even by changing social values. For years, preservation was the

domain of those blessed with spare time and idle money — one more fashionable

pastime in an era of fashionable pastimes, when old pedigrees and new fortunes

fought for control of philanthropic endeavors. Today it has become equally

fashionable to denigrate those times. But for all their faults, the Mt. Vernon

Ladies’ Association, the Rockefellers and all the other genteel power brokers

left a foundation for preservation on which we can build. Today, however,

we hear talk of the “New Preservation” and we ought to be conscious of its

implications. Three adjectives can serve to introduce the changes: “social,”

“environmental,” and “adaptive.

SOCIAL PRESERVATION

“Social Preservation” is a double—edged sword implying preservation

by and for all classes of society. We have come to the belated realization

that in the service of a relatively objective picture of our history, the

preservation of a row of 19th—century workers’ houses is every bit as valuable

as the preservation of a steel magnate’s pseudo—Gothic castle. History resides

in the great and the small, the rough and the rened. The canal that oatedthe goods that amassed the fortunes is just as important as the great estates

those fortunes built. Too often history has been written from the top down.

The new preservation attempts to see history from the center out. Such a

realignment of sights calls for a broadening of forces, too. Preservation for

23



all the people means encouraging community involvement so people can learn how

“the heart of historic preservation will always be in our town, where we live,

work, shop and mingle daily.”6

This change in preservation goals and practices is by no means complete.

Power in the hands of a few will continue to be a factor, if only becausepreservation is often expensive, and still benets from private largesse. But

preservationists can continue to be elitist only at the risk of alienating

those whose participation is essential.

Grady Clay in Historic Preservation, talks about the distortions

preservation suffers when controlled exclusively by one class or special

interest group:

As a sometime visitor—tourist and consultant reporter… . I have

come away with the impression that the behavior expected by most

preservationists has the following aspects:

1. Reverence or respect for the past, and especially for an

Establishment version of the past. Historic places and their message

systems seem to be carefully screened to give a tidy, prissy, low—key

version of history with few open questions, nothing controversial.

2. The visitor-tourist is constantly told that “things work out for

the best”——and that American history is largely a matter of achieved

consensus. “We’re all pretty much alike, fellows” is the message that

ows out.

3. Everything seems to have been run through a middle or upper

class screen, as though historic preservationists were using

preservation as a gimmick to induce lower class reverence

for upper class taste and culture. There is a tone of “Hail,

all Hail, to Chippendale,” especially in pre—Civil War

restorations............................................

I would submit that there are many histories, not one; and that the

new rise in self-identity among blacks and other racial and ethnic

groups across the country offers a whole new range of motives for

historic research, preservation and restoration-— not on outsiders’

terms, but on terms set by the people who live there.7

24



A practical example of the need to involve “the people who live there”

can be found in Morristown, where an extensive historic district was recently

named to the State and National Registers. Hopefully, that district will be

preserved by people who can afford to buy and maintain the big houses with

notable histories. But what about the rest of Morristown, whose residential

fabric is composed of architecture which is often harmonious but rarely

“important”? These are the kind of houses which create a pleasant overall

impression, but probably won’t attract those seeking a prestige address.

Unless people of all incomes and backgrounds can be involved in preservation,

and granted the means to achieve it by all levels of government, (especially

municipal) the future of Morristown and towns in similar circumstances

throughout Morris County is questionable.

ENVIRONNENTAL PRESERVATION

One way to generate broad social involvement is to include preservation

as part of other programs, like urban renewal. This consideration leads to the

second aspect of the new preservation — “Environmental Preservation”. To be

effective, preservation needs not only broad social support but a realistic

physical context. If viewed in a vacuum, there is ample justication for the

attitude that historic preservation is an expendable luxury instead of an

integral part of planning. Competent planners and environmentalists, however,

realize that ecological and historical concerns are merely opposite sides of

the same coin. For purposes of theoretical work, it is necessary to sort out

topics like land use, water facilities, open space and preservation. But of

course they cannot be separated in practice.

The complementary nature of these concerns has been recognized by a

number of references in federal legislation, like the 1966 Department of

Transportation Act, whose provisos have been interpreted with equal strength

for the benet of both historic preservation and open space preservation.

Examples abound in practice as well. Pennsylvania’s historic Brandywine

River Valley has beneted since 1967 from the enlightened stewardship of aprivate foundation known as the Tri-County Conservancy of the Brandywine.

The Conservancy not only manages open space, but directs the programs of

the Brandywine River Museum, created from a 19th—century mill, and actively

promotes the restoration and registration of historic sites. These activities

25



are not seen as discrete, but as different levels of a common historical/

ecological matrix. Andrew L. Johnson, executive director of the Conservancy,

put it this way:

The Conservancy believes that the combination of cultural and

environmental activities is not only compatible but more important, a

vital necessity The history of an area should be an important aspectof its planning and future growth. Historical registration provides

one check on land use when federal funds are to be utilized. It is

only one, however. We must closely tie in this activity with others if

we are to achieve a balance between growth and quality. We do not view

our activities as being against progress but, rather, hope to show how

it is economically, ecologically and historically expedient to redeneprogress in light of new information.”8

Another case in point is Fallingwater, the famous Frank Lloyd Wright house

built over a waterfall outside Pittsburgh. When efforts to preserve the

house were begun, the question naturally arose, “What is the source of the

water?” From that seemingly simple question resulted the eventual acquisition

of 2000 acres surrounding the house as public lands. “Thus, the ecological

interdependence of house site and watershed was nally acknowledged.”9 As

a negative example, to throw into high relief the whole question of what

constitutes an environment, take the case of Williamsburg, where millions

upon millions of dollars have been poured into a faultless (though sanitized)

recreation of 18th—century life. But the welcome one receives when driving

through the gentle Virginia countryside towards the best of the 18th century

is, ironically, composed of the worst the 20th century can offer: the

all—American strip of motels, gas stations and fried chicken joints, each

stridently competing for attention. Too often, the environment judged worthy

of preserving stops short of the real world.

And the exercise of irony doesn’t just happen someplace else. We in

Morris County have had the dubious privilege of watching the “progress” of

Interstate 287, as one federal agency nearly undermines the foundation of a

national landmark duly recognized and registered by another. No thought of

history—in—context for the Ford Mansion, it seems, despite the existence of

vocal citizens willing to remind Washington of its responsibilities.

Fortunately, other levels of government are beginning to see the

connection. The Morris County Park Commission’s new headquarters building

26



is a 19th-century mansion on the grounds of the Frelinghuysen Arboretum. The

mansion’s character has been retained so that it can be seen as a logical

extension of the landscape design which surrounds it. The Park Commission is

also restoring a mill on part of its Black River property in Chester. Another

project of greater scope is Patriots’ Path, a linear park along the length of

the Whippany River from Mendham Township to the Whippany’s conuence with the

Passaic River in East Hanover. This park will be a joint venture of the towns

through which it passes, achieved with the help of New Jersey Conservation

Foundation and a private organization known as Friends of Patriots’ Path. As

well as protecting the Whippany from encroachment, Patriots’ Path will provide

a connecting link to various historic sites, such as the Lewis Morris/Jockey

Hollow area, Acorn Hall and the Frelinghuysen Arboretum. These minor victories

to retain amenities in a rapidly urbanizing area suggest a new awareness that

preservation is an environmental activity — one that presupposes just as much

respect for the natural environment as it does for the man—made.

ADAPTIVE PRESERVATION

The last aspect of the new preservation might be called “Adaptive

Preservation.” Not too many years ago any building worth saving was

automatically put in one of two categories: museum or residential. Today the

social and environmental factors discussed previously, combined with a third

factor, economy, have made such reasoning obsolete. Many historic buildings

deserve preservation; we must admit that only a fraction possess the kind of

value that warrants museum use. W. M. Whitehill, writing in With Heritage So

Rich, put it bluntly. We already have on exhibition more historic houses and

museums than we need, or are good for us as a nation. Indeed, they multiply so

fast that some form of institutional contraception must soon be invented.”10

Out of this need to preserve in spite of alleged obsolescence grew

the concept of adaptive use. Taken at its simplest, it means nding a new

productive use for an old building. That goal appears simple enough until one

is confronted with the variety of buildings demanding imaginative solutions.

Sometimes the answers are obvious. Morris County has enough houses from all

periods which have been converted to professional ofces to prove the point.

But what happens when you are confronted with something as unique as an entire

city block of turn—of-the—century trolley barns? Bulldoze them for a parking

27



lot? Not if you live in Salt Lake City, Utah, where just such a problem was

solved by creating a shopping center capitalizing on the genuine thematic

features already present. That may appear to be an extreme example, but it

emphasizes the need for imaginative and iconoclastic thinking when tackling

the problems of adaptive use. The importance of adaptive use really can’t be

minimized, not only because most buildings must pay their own way to survive,

but because active use integrates an historic site more satisfactorily with

its surroundings. Although local needs and special circumstances must govern

the applications of adaptive uses, describing some successful endeavors around

the country might prove stimulating.

1. The Actors Theatre of Louisville was informed in 1969 that it

would have to abandon its building - an old railroad station that it

had previously saved from demolition — because it stood in the path of

an expressway. Searching for. new quarters, it found the 1834 Bank of

Louisville (a National Historic Landmark) and an adjacent 19th—centurywarehouse, which combined with a new auditorium, now provides ample

lobby, ofce and rehearsal space. Not only did downtown Louisvilleretain an important cultural and economic asset, but the theatre

gained a building for less cost than new construction would have

entailed.

2. Boston’s new City Hall, presented one major problem: what to do

with the Second Empire style old City Hall it replaced. The beauty and

convenience of the old building became a usual setting for private and

state ofces, a bank and a restaurant.

3. Like many of the rambling gingerbread hotels found along

the Jersey shore, the historic Windsor Hotel in Cape May seemed to

have outlived its usefulness. Appearances proved to be deceptive,

according to a consultant hired by the city as part of its urbanrenewal program’s feasibility study. The consultant’s report advised

interior modernization,and stated, “It is likely that the unique

quality of the Windsor, as compared to the rather anonymous quality of

the newly constructed motels on the New Jersey Shore, will make its

preservation a sound business investment.” The owner agreed to follow

the recommendations, so that Cape May now has a valuable tourist

attraction which new construction couldn’t equal.

4. Another example of preservation achieved through urban renewal

can be found in Portsmouth, N.H., where a new shopping center and

ofce complex will include fourteen Georgian or Federal style housesbuilt between 1715 and 1826. The private developer agreed to alter his

original plans and join preservationists to create “an economically

viable, tax producing example of adaptive use preservation.” Thearchitect in charge of the project believes that this sort of

development can help the urban blight and desertion caused by”

…..the proliferation of strip shopping centers, widening the areas

that people use and mitigating the feeling of community that is so

important to human beings.” Of special interest is the fact that the

new architecture makes no attempt to ape the old; both stand on their

28



own merits.

5. Countering the usual practice of turning residences into ofcespace, a former commercial structure, the 1897 Detroit Cornice and

State Company Building is being restored for use as a townhouse and

studio. The owner—occupants expect to defray restoration expenses by

renting the rst oor as ofce space.11

The foregoing examples are noteworthy for the diversity of building

types and for the variety of new uses to which they are being put. It is

also instructive to note that one particular period is not emphasized at the

expense of another, unlike the practice in Morris County, where the general

public and preservationists alike are too often obsessed with “colonial”

architecture.

Looking around Morris County for examples of adaptive use, one may

be blinded by the familiar. Drew University and Fairleigh Dickinson both

utilize historic buildings originally built for different purposes. Two

non—professional theatre groups make use of old churches, while St. Mark’s

Lutheran Church in Convent Station occupies a mansion built to resemble an

Irish castle. The General Drafting Company and Morristown’s municipal ofces

also put former private homes to good use. In Madison, the generous spaces of

a Renaissance Revival commercial building now house a professional artist’s

studio. In fact, every type of use, from restaurant to funeral home, may be

discovered occupying buildings of historic or architectural note. The fault

with much adaptive use, however, is its haphazard and slipshod nature. Old

buildings are often used not out of recognition for their value or unique

qualities, but simply because they are accessible. On the surface there is

nothing wrong with such an attitude. After all, the whole point of adaptive

use is keeping valuable buildings in circulation, regardless of motives. But

when such use becomes casual, it can result in unnecessary changes to the

site, or inappropriate renovations. Then again, adaptive use may be merely

a holding action on the owner’s part until an irresistible offer makes it

more desirable to bulldoze and rebuild. To combat drawbacks like these, a

public education campaign is called for to highlight the practical values ofadaptive use. It would be even more useful, perhaps, if preservation agencies

joined forces with realty interests to bring together worthy buildings and

potential users — something like a computer dating service for preservation.

If this kind of formalized procedure were to replace the present hit—and—

29



miss approach, a great many more buildings might be saved for productive

use. Once a building is united with an appropriate use, controls are still

needed to protect it from damaging changes. This is where municipal action is

imperative. Architectural review boards, landmark commissions, and historic

district zoning are some measures a town can use to safeguard its historic

buildings and its own economic interests simultaneously. Above all, successful

adaptive use demands imagination. One must learn to examine buildings and

their potential uses without preconceptions, so that the novel approach

becomes commonplace.

Before leaving the question of practical preservation through adaptive

use, attention must be given to an intimately related practice which wreaks

nearly as much havoc as uninformed renovations or willful destruction. This is

20th century “revival” architecture, which blights Morris County from border

to border. The plague of “colonial” supermarkets, “colonial” gas stations,

banks, town halls, ice cream shops, and furniture showrooms exhibits little

sign of abating. David Poinsett, State Supervisor for Historic Sites in the

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection has put the case strongly:

Historic preservation is not new structures that are “colonial” in

style. With 13 original colonies, each having several indigenous

styles of architecture, there can be no single “colonial” style. In

spite of this, we insist on red-brick, pseudo-Georgian gas stations

and mini—Mount Vernon supermarkets complete with pedimented facades

and the ubiquitous cupola, the latter often illuminated to attract

night shoppers. At best these are bad copies; at worst they are an

admission that we cannot create anything good or new ourselves. 12

Worst of all, this kind of architecture detracts from the impact of the

genuine structures it often alleges to enhance. Sometimes the efforts to

bypass the genuine in favor of the sham are truly dumbfounding. The recent

inexplicable craze for “1890’s” restaurants, for example, has caused two of

the county’s 18th—century hostelries to suffer interior renovations which

reect a style totally foreign to their architectural virtues. Banks, too,

are prime offenders. Morristown’s Green offers an instructive contrast: one

institution has sensitively renovated an interesting nineteenth-century

building, while nearly in its shadow stands a “Georgian” neighbor built

yesterday, complete with precisely the kind of “ubiquitous cupola” Mr.

Poinsett decries as symptomatic of the disease. Shunning pasteboard copies

in favor of contemporary architecture is no guarantee of quality, that much

30



is sure. But every age must be free enough to cultivate its own excellence,

borrowing from the past just enough to create new solutions.

The whole question of appropriateness is further confounded by the

frequent necessity of erecting new buildings in historic districts, or of

adding to a ne building, of the past. Experience has demonstrated that thesurest way to destroy an eighteenth- or nineteenth—century structure, short

of the bulldozer, is to ank it with well-intentioned copies. As Ada Louise

Huxtable, architecture critic of The New York Times put it, “The best of the

past deserves the best of the present, not make—believe muck.” Describing

successes would be meaningless without illustration, but nearly any issue of

the leading architectural journals displays imaginative examples of what can

be achieved when competent designers manipulate parallels of scale, texture

and overall conception. As architect Robert Weinberg has observed:

“Attempts to honor a ne old building by extensions in slavishimitation of its original period are seldom successful. On the

contrary, when a building of a style distinctive of its own age is

used for some commercial or institutional purpose and an enlargement

is required, the skillful architect can add a wing to it in a

thoroughly contemporary manner and yet do it so imaginatively that the

new blends harmoniously with the old.”13

If preservationists will only keep in mind the comprehensive

environmental nature of their commitment, they will be able to better judge

what complements their hard—won victories and what compromises them.

Because it spends huge amounts on public facilities, government has a

special responsibility to exercise sensitively in this area. The federal

government has been notorious for the poor quality of its own buildings,

although some progress has been made since the Kennedy administration. In the

absence of national leadership, it is not surprising that other levels of

government have fared little better. Sadly, the whole framework of priorities

and taste has become so debased that a recent municipal master plan in

Morris County could boast of honoring its town’s heritage by constructing a

pseudo-colonial municipal building. Meanwhile, this same town’s unusually

representative stock of genuine colonial and pre—Revolutionary structures

stands unprotected by municipal ordinance. Lest this judgment appear self—

righteous, it must ruefully be admitted that Morris County Buildings are some

of the worst offenders to be found (the Court House annexes and the County

31



Library provide ample substantiation). One need only keep in mind that quality

of design, not period, determines a harmonious neighborhood or streetscape.

32



33



A landmark, basically, is something that is

important to a community. There are only a

limited number of great buildings. But there

are many important sites, districts or streets

that are important to particular towns or

neighborhoods. That really is what historic

preservation is all about, not just saving

mansions or architectural greatness or

historical importance, but trying to preserve

the quality of life in a community.

James Biddle

Preservation News

CRITERIA

When American preservation took its rst tentative steps in 1859 with the

purchase of Mt. Vernon by a private group (after the federal government had

failed to act), it was concerned with three overriding although unarticulated

criteria. All preservation was purely “associational”, i.e. concerned only

with cultivating the memory of a great man, usually a military or political

gure; it insisted on drawing quasi- religious inferences, i.e. historic sites

were referred to as “shrines”, and were expected to inspire patriotic fervor

and abstract ideals through their mere physical presence; and nally, it was

concerned only with buildings and gures of the eighteenth century.

Since those parochial beginnings we have learned that preservation

has different dimensions, although the Historic 2merican Buildings Survey

(HBS), as late as 1934, could without apology devote itself almost entirely

to eighteenth century architecture. But at least the HABS rmly established

the appropriateness of architecture per se as a legitimate concern of

preservation. With that hurdle out of the way, preservation continued to

broaden, so that today we recognize the value of all periods, styles and

uses. Although houses continue to account for a large proportion of historic

sites, the absolute tyranny of domestic architecture is over. Mills,

factories, railroad stations, car barns and iron foundries have diversied the

preservation eld. And the once exclusive politico/military category has beenjoined by structures and buildings associated with achievements in medicine,

transportation, engineering, education, and the arts. Preservation has been

pushed back to prehistory and pushed forward to the twentieth century, so that

it can be seen in its full cultural and environmental context.

34



With the foregoing broad assumptions in mind, a community must sort out

its assets and decide which of them reects its identity best. Considerations

of state •or national importance should not hinder local preservation

initiative. Not every town can expect to have a Ford Mansion or a Vail

Factory, but every town does have sites which visualize its unique identity.

There are probably no more than half a dozen buildings of any single period

or style which are important to the entire nation, and these usually by

association. This realization should in no way discourage Montville from

protecting its Dutch stone houses, Morristown its Victorian mansions,

Roxbury its unique canal plane, or Madison its nineteenth—century commercial

buildings. These and countless other buildings, districts and neighborhoods,

are important not as museums, but as part of our everyday surroundings, as

evidence that our common culture is not wholly transitory, and that experience

and canons of taste can bridge generations. Local preservationists should

not be hunting for isolated monuments (although some may turn up), but for

remnants of a better way of doing things, clues to a more humane and human

landscape and townscape. Walter Muir Whitehall succeeded in dening this

contextual imperative when he said, “Preservationists should try to keep

America Beautiful, rather than to create little paradises of nostalgia in an

ocean of superhighways and loudspeakers, billboards, neon signs, parking lots,

used car dumps and hot dog stands.’14

One of the most important factors in choosing sites is objectivity.Although all choices are ltered through a degree of human fallibility

and subjectivity, personal preference should play no part in historic

preservation. Everyone has preferences, of course - for certain periods,

certain styles and even for specic architects. But when approaching the task

of recording information or of actually preserving, all periods and styles are

equal. To deny this basic axiom is to destroy two of preservation’s leading

goals — knowledge and enjoyment.

Even within one period, it is easy to miss potential sites through

unconscious bias. Because of their associations and numerical preponderance,

houses are likely to occupy rst place on any inventory. But the wealth of

other categories can’t be ignored. For interest and sheer beauty, it is

hard to equal nineteenth—century commercial structures; warehouses, mills,

35



factories and stores all deserve more interest by preservationists in Norris

County. Then there are structures and sites related to transportation —

primarily railroad stations in this area, but also the Morris Canal, turnpike

toll houses and inns, and even structures associated with the early history of

the automobile.

With the foregoing generalizations in mind, it might be useful to try

and assemble a list incorporating as many specic considerations as possible.

The following list is indebted to work done by the Delaware Valley Regional

Planning Commission. It leaves room for additions, but includes the major

criteria which should inform any effort at site selection.

Criteria for Selecting Sites

A. History

1. Sites and structures associated with signicant cultural, political,economic, military, artistic, and social events.

2. Sites where important activities of notable people took place,

especially sites connected with such people during their active

careers.

3. Sites and groups of structures representing community development

patterns such as: railroads and canals, agricultural centers, county

seats, religious and education sites and the like.

4. Indian burial and camp grounds, military campsites and battle-elds,and others of an archaeological nature.

5. Cemeteries which are outstanding by virtue of their length of use;

because of important events (battles, for example) which took place ontheir sites.

B. Architectural

1. Buildings by great architects or master builders, and important works

by lesser masters.

2. Noteworthy examples of various styles, periods, and methods of

construction.

3. Sole or rare survivors of a period, even when undistinguished per se.

4. Curiosities such as octagonal buildings.

5. Groups of buildings which are undistinguished themselves; but which

together create a unied streetscape.6. Commercial, industrial, and transportation facilities representative

of particular periods and uses.

C. Setting

1. Is the building on its original site?

36



2. Is its present setting appropriate?

3. Is the structure or site subject to detrimental encroachment?

4. Is it readily accessible to public use or at least to public view?

D. Use

1. Is the building threatened with demolition?

2. If it requires restoration, is the cost economically feasible?

3. Is it suitable for adaptive use?

4. Can its owners be persuaded to cooperate with the furtherance of

preservation goals?

No single building or site is likely to encompass all the values cited

above, but the more values any one site incorporates, the higher on a list of

priorities it might be placed. It has been suggested that once subjected to

the discipline of precise criteria, sites should be weighed by being subjected

to a strict mathematical rating systems: so many points assigned for so many

values met; the more points, the higher the preservation priority. This method

has, in fact, been used by some communities. It risks becoming a mechanistic

procedure, however, which can easily ignore contextual and subjective factors.

Many open space inventories employ this method and overcome the objection by

assigning points for subjective factors.

Perhaps the nal question that should be asked about any potential site

is: How valuable will its preservation be to the community, in terms of

practical use or simply for its visual impact? Aside from a few exceptions

which are primarily of scholarly interest, this is a useful measuring device.

DOCUMENTATION

The second integral part of site selection is documentation. Factual

data, properly researched and authenticated, must be secured for every site

chosen for preservation. Adequate documentation can be a crucial factor in

gaining nancial aid and public support, and unquestionably adds to the

pleasure and instructive value of any site.

One way to accomplish documentation is for the state to undertake a

comprehensive study. In New Jersey, this kind of program gained a start in

1960, but only in 1970 did the State Register Program begin. Since that

time, the Department of Environmental Protection’s Historic Sites Section

37



has located and described 2500 buildings, structures and sites throughout

New Jersey. Only a fraction of this number has been approved for the State

Register. Severe budgeting restrictions have resulted in a staff which is not

large enough to devote sufcient time to the necessary work. For this reason,

the responsibility of recording must be shared. Even if a more realistic

budget enabled the state to be more efcient, however, its perspective is

necessarily broad, so some sites important locally would never appear on

its list. This is a primary reason for soliciting local participation and

encouraging preservation by municipalities.

These considerations suggest that a supplementary source to a state’s

effort might best be coordinated by counties, with the assistance of

municipalities. This is logical, but practical considerations impede once

more. Morris County, for instance, lacks the resources and staff to mount

a full-scale inventory on its own. Out of this dilemma grew a compromise

solution: this report employs the state’s master inventory (though still

in progress) as a base list, supplementing it with sites suggested by

municipalities, local historical societies, citizen advisory groups and

individuals.

The resulting inventory is included as a major component of this study.

It contains a great many sites which are signicant only on a local level.

Hopefully, this will be a positive factor, which will encourage municipal

action and community concern. Above all, it should be seen as a document—in—

progress, subject to periodic revision.

Just as the Morris County Inventory of Historic Sites will benet from

periodic updating, the national and state registers continue to grow. Even

though they are more restrictive, they deserve support because of the prestige

attached to them and because of the limited but important protection they

afford.

Morris County is fortunate to have an active County Historical Society

through whose work many sites have been named to the New Jersey Register and

then to the National Register. The Historic Sites Committee of the Morris

County Historical Society is composed of a Chairman who directs the efforts

of members drawn from local societies and from the county at large. Anyone

interested in preservation may join the Committee’s work. Each year, the

38



Historic Sites Section of the State Department of Environmental Protection

informs the Committee how many nominations for State Register status will be

accepted for review. Working with that stringent numerical restriction in

mind, the Committee prepares applications from a list culled by its members

from the larger pool of potential sites. The completed applications (including

documented data, photographs, etc.) are sent to Trenton for evaluation by

DEP’s professional staff which refers them to the State Review Committee for

nal determination. The state, of course, is free to initiate and investigate

sites on its own, and sometimes does so. But the budgetary limitations

mentioned earlier keep this activity to a minimum, thus making contributions

from the county vitally important. This is best exemplied by a striking

case from among the 1973 nominations. The State Historic Sites Section and

the County Sites Committee both agreed that the Morris Canal deserved prime

consideration. Because the state lacked the immediate resources to document

such a complex site, the designation of this important remnant of commercial

and transportation history was doubtful. Fortunately, the County Historic

Sites Committee was able to enlist the aid of a knowledgeable volunteer who

had already undertaken exhaustive research for a history of the canal. The

enormous research task was completed in 1973, and the canal was approved for

inclusion on the New Jersey Register. This is one telling example of how local

expertise can become a decisive factor in successful documentation.

Those interested in working for the Historic Sites Committee of theMorris County Historical Society should write to:

Chairman, Historic Sites Committee

C/o Morris County Historical Society

68 Morris Avenue

P.O. Box l7OM

Morristown, New Jersey 07960

Additional nominations for updated editions of the Morris County Historic

Sites Inventory contained in this report may be made by writing to:

Historic Sites Inventory

Morris County Planning Board

CourthouseMorristown, New Jersey 07960

To give a better idea of the kind of information which must be available

about a site (for inclusion on either the Morris County Inventory or the State

Register), note the New Jersey Historic Preservation Survey Form reproduced

39



in this section. This is a short form containing the minimum amount of

information sought by the County Historical Society’s Site Committee. The

Morris County Planning Board also uses this form to gather information for the

inventory presented here. Persons with information about a specic site, or

with questions about either the Planning Board’s or the Historical Society’s

preservation activities, may get in touch with either agency, since their

activities are coordinated.

40



41



Suggestions for Completing New Jersey Historic Sites Survey Form

The information called for on this form is the minimal amount of

documentation necessary to initiate consideration for inclusion on either

the New Jersey or the National Register, or the Morris County Historic Sites

Inventory. Even partial completion is valuable, however, because it may

aid further research on a site that might otherwise have been overlooked.

Questions are largely self—explanatory, but the following clarications may

prove helpful:

SECTION 1A: To avoid confusion, use the name of the present owner only

if the original owner is unknown or if there is no traditional name

associated with the property. Compound names are sometimes traditional

or helpful, i.e., “Schuyler—Hamilton House”, “Van Saun-Van Gelder

House.”

SECTION 2A: Refer only to incorporated entities (“Montville”, rather

than “Towaco”).

SECTION 2C: Include house number if one exists. Otherwise, be as

specic as possible. Location on U.S. Geologic Survey Maps isadvisable (available from the Morris County Planning Board).

SECTION 5A: Unless an exact date can be veried with little doubt,an approximate period is preferable. Conrm dates from more than onesource whenever possible.

SECTION 6: Avoid confusion between period and style. “Colonial’ (pre

1776) and “Victorian” are periods, not styles. Their use unqualied istoo vague to be of much value. “Dutch Colonial,” “Federal,” or “Gothic

Revival” are more useful although they should be supplemented with

detailed descriptions, since styles and periods are rarely absolute.

SECTION 7: Make clear the distinction among builder, architect, andoriginal owner, if this information is known.

SECTION 8A: If a building has been moved, note its original location

and date of move if known.

SECTION 8B: This may be specic, as in “State Highway Department,” orgeneral, as in “Threatened by commercial zoning.”

SECTION 9: When citing documentary sources, please be complete

(Author, title, publisher, date of publication, and page number).Location of unpublished sources should be included. Also note here

whether the site is already included in any survey or inventory, and

give appropriate identication number (H1BS, NJHSI, etc.).

42



43



Ways will have to be found to let planners use

the powers of the community to guide urban growth

toward a clear and pleasing pattern of new and

old landmarks, where people can once again feel

well—oriented, exhilarated, and at home.

Karl Deutsch

The Future Megalopolis

Once a community has been convinced of the value of preservation, and

has made some effort to judge what is preserveable, the ght has just begun.

In order to pursue preservation in a rational and effective manner, certain

predetermined steps must be taken, to avoid facing every fresh challenge in

an atmosphere of crisis. Citizen participation is essential at this stage,

government commitment equally so. Before anything of lasting value can be

achieved, municipal government must consent to exercise the police power*

already granted it under state legislation. This police power can be exercised

in either of two primary ways.

HISTORIC DISTRICT ZONING

Of the two basic options available to a town, historic district zoning

is more familiar, probably because it is a clearly dened extension of

regular zoning powers granted by N.J.State Enabling Legislation. If the

zoning approach is chosen, a town can employ standard ordinances to regulate

development within a xed area designated by it as an historic district.

All the controls exercised over any other standard zone are operable under

these circumstances. The chief argument against historic district zoning is

its exclusiveness. Protection is afforded only to those buildings and sites

contained within the strict boundaries of a designated district. This approach

has worked well in places like Newport, Nantucket, and New Orleans, where a

_______________________

*police power in this context refers to regulations in the public interest

as they affect private property. Zoning, which limits the freedom of the

individual (with no compensation) in favor of the public good, is the mostcommon example.

44



homogenous “old town” can be clearly dened. In Morris County, the zoning

approach to preservation is less relevant, because sites tend to be scattered.

Even in places like Chatham and Morristown, where historic districts are

recognizable (and have, in fact, been named to the State or National

Registers), other buildings worth preserving abound outside district limits.

LANDMARKS COMMISSION

To overcome such a serious drawback, landmarks commissions are a

suggested alternative. Although not specically addressed by enabling

legislation, they are generally conceded to fall under the blanket of police

power provisions. Such commissions (sometimes known by different names —

“cultural conservation commissions,” “heritage commissions,” etc.) have been

enacted with success in other parts of the country; the cities of Trenton

and Jersey City have recently followed suit. The usefulness of a commission

lies in its exibility. Its provisions can include the possibility of

historic districts, if relevant, but can also protect individual sites with

equal efciency. Once a town passes an ordinance establishing a landmarks

commission, its operation is simple. The commission is empowered to hold

hearings for the purpose of designating landmarks. It may accept suggestions

from citizens or act solely on its own initiative. Once a landmark has been

designated and approved by the governing body, demolition or alteration cannot

be carried out until the owner’s plans have been scrutinized and subjected

to possible modications or alterations. Demolition cannot be forbidden

absolutely (the owner has recourse to appeal), but the opportunity to review

reasonable alternatives has proved unusually fruitful in most circumstances*.

For a detailed discussion of how a commission can operate, see Appendix

A, which contains a model ordinance for creation of a municipal landmarks

commission.

_______________________

*For a discussion of New York City’s successful landmark commission, seeJohn S. Pyke, Jr , Landmark Preservation, a handbook published by the

Citizens Union Foundation, Inc., of the City of New York.

45



The question of individual property rights, involving the reasonable

exercise of police power and sometimes of eminent domain, is one of the most

delicate areas of preservation policy and practice. The proper balance between

personal rights and public welfare must always be kept f ore- most in mind.

It is essential to proceed with diplomacy and respect for individual rights,

while at the same time realizing that unwarranted timidity can endanger the

existence of a common heritage which is everyone’s right to learn from and

enjoy.

Recent environmental actions have helped to dene this critical question

of where the common good begins. Just as no individual or agency has the right

to pollute the air we breathe or the water we drink, the physical evidence of

our collective past deserves equal protection. As cases are brought before

them, the courts will continue to provide valuable precedents for preservation

action. When establishing a basis for historic district zoning or landmarks

commissions one should remember that the judicial branch is more sympathetic

to broadly-based measures. Despite the 1954 Supreme Court decision (Berman

vs. Parker) which ruled that a city has as much right to be beautiful as it

has to be safe and clean, an ordinance based solely on aesthetic concerns has

little chance of survival. One citing various practical justications as well

- to stabilize and improve property values, to strengthen the local economy,

to promote historic sites for the education, welfare and pleasure of citizens

- will almost certainly be upheld. And these considerations, not incidentally,are an important part of what preservation is all about.

SUPPLEMENTARY MUNICIPAL POWER

The value of the two primary means of preservation described above

is largely contingent on a comprehensive back—up program, which should

incorporate the following features:

1. All municipal master plans should include a section devoted to

preservation. This serves as a formal articulation of planning goals

to which citizens can refer. It can also serve as legal evidence

of prior commitment when applying for state, federal or private

foundation aid.

2. All departments of municipal government should be instructed to

examine their programs for compatibility with published preservation

goals.

3. Until passage of a uniform statewide building code, municipalities

46



have a special responsibility to see that the architectural integrity

of historic buildings is not impaired by unreasonable restrictions. In

the interest of public safety, certain standards are necessary, but

exceptions to others may be negotiated when feasible.

4. The possibility of using general obligation and revenue bonds for

nancing preservation should be investigated. Municipalities should

also make it clear that they are in a position to accept gifts ofmoney or land to support preservation. Prospective donors can be

deterred by apparent disinterest or lack of cooperation. Such donors

will look elsewhere — there is always someone willing to accept gifts.

5. Municipalities should take every opportunity to cooperate with other

levels of government in the interest of preservation. No substitute

exists for a continuing program of cooperation among local historical

societies, concerned individuals, and state, federal and local

ofcials. The fruits of this kind of cooperation are well exempliedin the efforts to secure a cover over Interstate 287 as it passes the

Ford Mansion in Morristown.

6. Stringent design standards should be passed to prevent blight

resulting from signs and billboards located and designed without

attention to the towns overall appearance. These regulations shouldapply to an entire town, but they have special relevance to historic

sites and neighborhoods.

COUNTY ACTION

Most of the points made about municipal action apply to county government

as well. Both have a special responsibility to pursue excellence in the design

of their own buildings, for example. Nothing is more discouraging to the cause

of preservation than to see new buildings which ineptly mimic their historic

prototypes. In Morris county, municipal and county administrations must make

an effort to reverse this trend, as a matter of policy.

The county can see that the historic sites inventory published as part of

this report is widely distributed and regularly updated, in order to provide

general guidance to all interested organizations, as well as specic data for

environmental impact statements. In the absence of legal protection for any of

the sites listed, the county should instruct its departments and agencies to

refer to the inventory to avoid whenever possible any action detrimental to a

listed site or structure.

AQUISITION ALTERNATIVES

Sometimes it may seem that a building can only be protected by public (or

semi-public) acquisition. Usually a municipality or preservation agency lacks

47



sufcient cash or credit to purchase a property important to its interests.

Outright purchase can be supplemented by several devices which entail lesser

expenditures.

1. Joint Use

Occasionally a public agency acquires land which also includes anhistoric structure incidental to the agency’s primary use. . A

preservation organization might, under these circumstances, arrange to

lease the historic parcel for its own purposes.

2. Easements and Development Rights

These measures can be used to prohibit property owners from altering the

exterior of a structure, or its setting, usually when public access is

not a necessity. A fee less than purchase price compensates the owner

for loss of unrestricted use. Surrendering rights in favor of historic

conservation may also qualify the owner for tax benets.

3. Tax Delinquency

County and municipal governments should review tax delinquent properties

for preservation suitability before offering them for general sale.

Properties of historic or architectural value could be used by a local

government agency or offered on a rst refusal basis to a preservationorganization or to an individual buyer who agrees to restore or maintain

the property. This latter approach has been used by some cities as part

of a redevelopment program known as “urban homesteading.” Abandoned or

tax delinquent houses are offered free, or at minimal cost to anyone

willing to rehabilitate them within a stated period and to assume the

mortgage if one exists.

4. Condemnation and Eminent Domain

Condemnation should be exercised with caution because the ill— will it

produces can negate its benets. Nevertheless, it is valuable in rare

circumstances, when legitimately applied. Eminent domain is applicablemost frequently in cases of urban renewal. Neither of these procedures is

innovative. Their value lies simply in their suitability under certain

circumstances.

48



TAX RELIEF

Sometimes individuals or organizations willing to protect an historic

structure are prevented from doing so by an excessive tax burden. Abatement

or reduction of taxes in these circumstances can be a legitimate form of

preservation support. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission points

out that, “To be entitled to the relief, the owner would have to agree through

a formal contract that the structures shall never be altered or demolished

without the approval of an authorized control commission.”

New Jersey already has a law (N.J.Rev. State Sec. 55:4 - 3.52), passed

in 1962, which provides some recourse. It states that: “Any building and the

land whereon it is erected and which may be necessary for the fair enjoyment

thereof owned by a nonprot organization and which has been certied to

be an historic site to the Director of the Division of Taxation by the

Commissioner of Conservation and Economic Development (now the Commissioner of

the Department of Environmental Protection) as hereinafter provided shall be

exempt from taxation.”

Two specications limit this law’s usefulness. First, a property must be

owned by a nonprot corporation. This leaves the vast majority of historic

buildings unprotected, because they are privately owned. Since obtaining

nonprot corporate status usually means permitting public access, it is

not surprising that private owners make no effort to seek eligibility. The

law’s second drawback involves the necessity of property being listed on

the State Register of Historic Places. Only ten nominations are accepted to

that register from Morris County each year, so relief from this quarter is

distinctly limited. These provisions must be extended before the law will have

more than limited application.

Another way to approach tax relief for historic sites is to consider

reduction instead of exemption. In some instances, owners could maintain

historic properties if they were fairly taxed according to actual use, rather

than possible highest use. This kind of situation is exemplied by an actual

case in Morris County which is by no means unique. In question is an unusually

ne pre—revolutionary house, recorded by HABS and listed by the State and

National Registers. Due to zoning changes, it now stands in a commercial zone,

although its use remains residential. During the last six years, taxes on this

49



house have increased from $1,600 to nearly $5,000. The owners’ commitment to

preserving the house has caused them to refuse considerations for commercial

development, but the conscatory nature of the taxes threatens to remove their

means of support. Because they do not enjoy nonprot corporate status, the New

Jersey tax relief law does not apply. Due to the prevailing tax structure,

which forces municipalities to be obsessed with land ratables, the town is not

likely to give up commercial assessment of this landmark. Result: the owners

must struggle along as best they can until economic pressure forces them to

submit to destruction.

In cases like this, it should be possible for an owner to le for a

reduction in assessment which would bring his taxes back into line with actual

residential use, consonant with the prevailing residential tax rate of the

municipality. This approach should be more attractive to local government

because it would not eliminate a ratable entirely.

California recently passed a law (Senate Bill 357) incorporating

precisely these measures, although it applies only to historic sites on

the State and National Registers. The law allows local governments to base

assessed valuation of historic properties on actual usage rather than

potential highest and best economic use. In return, owners must agree to

maintain or restore their property and to provide visual access as well as

access for professional study.

A third tax relief variation involves total exemption for a limited

period. This method would be useful in cases where a substantial capital

investment is necessary to restore a property or to make improvements which

will stabilize a continuing preservation effort. In such instances, an owner

can be granted exemption for a specied period, provided he agrees to apply

the money (or part of the money) saved toward an approved preservation plan.

Elements of each of these three tax relief variations can be incorporated

into a state tax reform package. The supervision necessary to make such a

program successful could be administered by the Historic Sites Section of

the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (provided the State

increased budget and staff sufciently). The following points are integral to

any tax relief program for historic sites:

1. Criteria for eligibility should not be uncritical, but application

50



should be broadened to extend below the level of State Register

properties.

2. Professional guidance must insure maintenance of architectural

integrity.

3. Adequate policing must be available to make certain that tax savings

contribute to the goals of the program.

4. Some degree of public accessibility (at least visual) is desirable,although cases might occur in which scholarly interest alone justiespreservation.

It must nally be noted that any such specic tax reforms will be best

received in a context of overall tax reform. Because present tax relief laws

allow a municipality thus deprived of ratables to seek refund from the state,

the state has not been eager to broaden coverage. Reform of the overall tax

structure making local government less dependent on property tax, would help

ease the strain.

Federal tax regulations do even less than New Jersey’s limited statute

to encourage preservation. Preservation News reports that: “Presently, the

Internal Revenue Code encourages demolition of old commercial structures

regardless of their historic or architectural merit. The code allows the

owner of such a building to deduct from his income the expenses of demolition

and his unrecovered investment in the building. It also allows the owner

accelerated depreciation on a new commercial building constructed on the

cleared site.”15 The proposed Environmental Protection Tax Act (HR 5584) would

remedy this state of affairs, but its write-off provisions would be applicable

only to the limited number of buildings listed in the National Register of

Historic Places. If the owner of a National Register building insisted on

demolition, depreciation on any new building occupying the site would be

limited, and deduction for demolition would be cancelled. Once again, the

proposed solution aids only those structures of national landmark status, and

leaves the fabric of our neighborhoods and towns threatened as before. Once

again, existing laws support actions which are contrary to the expressed aims

of good planning and responsible government. These laws in fact, encourage

private prot at the expense of the public welfare, contribute to the

disintegration of neighborhoods and aggravate the national housing crisis.

Preservationists must work to nd exceptions to them whenever possible, and

must lobby for their eventual reform.

51



The ultimate effectiveness of all preservation tools is dependent on four

interrelated factors. The rst of these is citizen action. Without a healthy

degree of public support for preservation, the apostles of “progress” can

easily make a shambles of the most carefully documented preservation plan.

The crucial back—up factor for public awareness is responsive state, and

particularly local, government. An articulate citizenry may do an excellent

job of making its desires known, but local government must implement goals

by passing appropriate preservation laws and by enforcing existing laws

which support preservation. The third factor is the compilation of adequate

information to justify preservation and to establish proper criteria for site

selection. Finally, sufcient funds must be procured to operate programs and

restore when necessary. This last factor has actually been overemphasized in

the past. If citizens and government agree on a vigorous preservation program,

money can usually be found to support it. In fact, a great deal of residential

and adaptive use preservation costs next to nothing.

None of these factors is an insurmountable obstacle in itself. Combining

them into a working mechanism requires a little more effort. The tools do

exist for the most part. The real job is seeing that they don’t lie dormant.

52



53



Who Controls the Past

Controls the Future.

George Orwell

1984

Unlike the prevailing practice in other countries, where subsidies

and actual government ownership account for a great deal of preservation,

Americans have had to rely for the most part on private enterprise. For this

reason, nancing preservation must be approached with as much imagination

as the related task of nding adaptive uses for old buildings. Recent

cancellation of federal programs has made the search for new methods more

urgent.

Individuals, local historical societies and organizations with similar

goals* should be familiar with as many methods of nancial support as

possible. The two simplest means of acquisition are bound to be the most

unlikely under usual circumstances: outright purchase and donation. Although

private buyers frequently can afford to purchase a structure for residential

use, the added cost of restoration sometimes makes this method impractical.

Aside from private buyers, small historical societies and other local groups

rarely have sufcient cash assets to consider outright purchase. Although

donation has gured prominently in the past, the demise of unlimited fortunes

and the concurrent revisions in taxation have made even medium—scale cash

philanthropy less common.

Sometimes, however, donation of an historic property may be advantageous

to its owner. In such an instance, several alternatives are possible:

1. The owner may donate the entire property at once.

___________________________

*The following discussion may be relevant to municipal government, as well,

because of its limited nancing capacity and its reliance on state and

federal support.

54



2. The owner may donate a portion of interest in the property over a

number of years.

3. The receiving agency may agree to assume all or part of the

maintenance costs while the owner enjoys life—right use, the property

devolving to the agency upon the donor’s death, or

4. A simple bequest may be arranged which allows the owner life occupancy

without any cost to the recipient.

Additional permutations of these alternatives suggest the wisdom of

professional legal/nancial advice. This may seem a luxury to many struggling

preservationists, but the eventual dividends returned can be enormous.

The Morris County Park Commission has beneted in a number of instances

from donations of this nature. The experience of the Park Commission has

demonstrated that tact and diplomacy can be valuable supplements to hard cash.

In order to benet from potential donations, preservation groups must make

the community aware of their goals through vigorous, articulate programs and

consistent action. No prospective donor is likely to be impressed by a group

whose aims are shortsighted or whose commitment is occasional.

Foundation aid is no panacea, but it can be valuable if handled properly.

Well—known foundations like Sears Roebuck and Ford customarily interest

themselves in more comprehensive undertakings than those found locally,

although the Ford Foundation did make grants to aid Patriot’s Path, probably

in recognition of the cooperative nature of the plan. Dozens of smaller

foundations operate on state and local levels, however. The Foundation

Directory, available in most libraries, should be consulted for addresses and

descriptions of their special interests. Foundation interest in preservation

can often be approached through other avenues, such as environmental quality

or programs to encourage citizen participation. Prospects are improved

whenever a proposal can be related to the special concerns of a particular

foundation.

The more specic the documentation and the more concrete the proposals

(exactly how much money is needed for precisely what purposes, and what will

it achieve) the better the chance of success.

Applying traditional nancing methods to historic preservation should be

investigated by an organization with a serious commitment and prospects for

continuity. Although seldom considered, mortgaging can work for preservation.

55



Consider the experience of a Georgetown group, described by William J.

Murtagh, former director of the Department of Education for the National

Trust:

An alert citizen learned of this (a proposed demolition) and bandedtogether with a few others to raise $600 through contributions for a

survey to determine whether the buildings could be bought, remodeledand rented as a business venture. They formed themselves into a prot-making organization and sold shares of stock in what has become known

as Historic Georgetown, Inc. Through this manner, $60,000 was raised,

and the contract was signed for the purchase of the properties for

$75,000. A $20,000 down-payment was made, and the buildings were

mortgaged for $55,000. With $40,000 available from the sale of stock,

it was decided to renovate the basements and create three shops on

the rst oors. Apartments were planned for the upper oors. HistoricGeorgetown now operates in the black with a substantial reserve fund.

It has reduced its mortgage to $45,000. Preferred stock amounts to

$30,000, common stock to $86,000.16

In cases where an organization may be wary of accepting a bequest for

fear of being unable to maintain or restore the property, a mortgage can come

to the rescue. The National Trust itself has employed this method to restore

and maintain some of its properties.

Revolving funds are another method which can multiply a limited initial

investment. As employed by preservation groups, a revolving fund is cash or

equities used for purchasing and restoring for sale, structures of historic

and/or architectural signicance. All prots are returned to the fund for

additional use. Thus, the fund revolves. Revolving funds are important for

a number of reasons. Not only do they focus an organization’s efforts, they

attract donors, because their benets are tangible and quickly perceived.

Finally, as the annual report of the National Trust’s Preservation Fund

expresses it, preservationists need power. ‘Without it, legislation cannot

be effected and bulldozers cannot be stopped. The quickest way for an

organization to gain political stature is to contribute to real estate by

buying and restoring, selling and renting property.’7 With the help of a small

local foundation and several private donors of limited means, the Historic

Charleston Foundation, in Charleston, South Carolina, purchased several

properties which it renovated. These properties were then rented or resold

under stipulations which assured maintenance of their historic features.

Prots from the original transaction were returned for additional purchase

and renovation. Today the initial investment has done so well that the

56



Foundation is able to engage in more sophisticated consultant services, and

maintenance of its own properties. Because the Foundation is an incorporated

nonprot organization, its tax deductible status encourages support; renewal

of commercial and residential uses has made it a respected adjunct to

Charleston’s hard—headed business community.

Once the exclusive preserve of private foundations, revolving funds have

recently found wider acceptance. The City of Seattle authorized $600,000

in revenue sharing funds not long ago, for just this purpose, and Utah is

studying the merits of a statewide revolving fund with a grant from the

National Trust. Revolving funds are versatile because they can be scaled

to the needs and resources of different kinds of groups, and represent a

sequential approach to funding, i.e., projects or parts of projects can be

paid for one step at a time as money returns.

Sometimes government monies can be utilized indirectly by private

preservationists if a preservation activity can be related to an existing

program. For example, Department of Housing and Urban Development funds can

be made available to purchase land on which an historic site stands — if the

land also qualies as a park, or is part of an urban renewal project. HUD

funds may also be used for supplementary services like street lighting and

road improvements. Other agencies than HUD should also be investigated, even

if their concerns seem peripheral. Citizens in Kentucky were concerned about

the fate of the abandoned nineteenth—century Shaker Village at Pleasant Hill.

Due to the economically depressed nature of the area, someone thought to

interest the Area Redevelopment Agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The

APA agreed that a revitalized Pleasant Hill would provide jobs and generally

stimulate the local economy, so a substantial loan was approved to nance

development and operation.

Morris County may not seem economically depressed, but its recent

design nation as a Title I area under the Federal Public Works and Economic

Development Act of 1965 qualies it for projects designed to reduce

unemployment. If an historic structure or group of buildings can be related

to a project eligible for EDA assistance, two ends might be achieved

simultaneously.

In addition to the funding methods described above, more traditional

57



means of raising money with volunteer help and minimal cash outlay should not

be underestimated. Historic house tours and auctions have enriched sponsoring

agencies considerably. With careful scheduling for optimum season and

concurrence with other programs of interest (ower shows, classic car rallies,

outdoor art exhibits), such events not only raise money but dramatize thecause of preservation. Preservation groups should also be sure to coordinate

their activities with local business, civic and religious groups, which are

often concerned with environmental quality, broadly interpreted. Sharing

diverse perspectives may result in recognizing a common problem, which can

then be attacked with concerted nancial resources.

FEDERAL ASSISTANCE

Discussing government assistance for preservation at this time is

difcult, because federal funding programs have recently been reconstituted

in different forms. On January 5, 1973, U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development funds were frozen pending their incorporation into a new

program. HUD funds were previously available for historic preservation

under Title VII of the 1961 Housing Act, urban renewal planning assistance,

and the demonstration grant program. Matching grants from HUD for historic

preservation totaled $5.8 million in scal 1972.

The mechanism designed to replace the HUD categorical grants is Title

I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (HCDA), Public Law

93—383. Title I is designed to nance local projects with federal funds. This

goal is to be achieved by replacing former categorical grant programs — such

as urban renewal, sewer and water grants, open space (including historic

preservation), neighborhood facilities, etc. — with one block grant for each

community and county. Within federal guidelines, local ofcials will then

prioritize their needs, deciding how much of the block grant money should be

spent on certain projects.

In practical terms, HCDA means that preservationists will be working

in a smaller geographical arena (no longer competing nationally with otherproposals for categorical grants) but will be competing against a broader

range of other community needs. HCDA’s guidelines emphasize the interrelated

nature of all program goals. The more needs any one project can serve, the

greater its community impact, and the greater its likelihood for funding. For

58



preservation this means special emphasis on adaptive and diversied reuse of

worthy buildings. For example, if a local group sought funds to preserve an

historic building for use as a house museum, its goal would probably be viewed

as tightly circumscribed. If the same building were to be preserved for use as

a senior citizen center, a library or a day care center, it might have greater

relevance to contemporary community needs and thus enjoy more likelihood of

nancial support from a municipality’s block grant apportionment.

HCDA is also set up to elicit maximum public participation during

the formulation of local priorities. For this reason, citizens concerned

about preservation must see that their local government is supplied with

the information necessary to judge the comparative merits of preservation

projects. HCDA has been initially funded for three years. Each year’s program,

however, must be individually planned and prioritized. Local historical

societies and similar groups should lose no time in determining if their goals

are compatible with HCDA funding, and in making concrete proposals to their

local governing body. This should be accomplished in time to take advantage

of the funding schedules for 1977 and 1978, which will end the trial funding

period.

In addition to the potential for funding preservation projects, HCDA must

also avoid adverse environmental impact in the areas of natural and man—made

resources. Specically, section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act,

and Executive Order 11593 must be complied with whenever relevant. This is

another reason for citizens to contribute to and monitor the progress of their

local HCDA program.

For further explication of this complex act, see a four—page supplement

published in Preservation News, May, 1975.

Because of the abolition of categorical grants formerly available

for preservation through HUD, preservationists would be wise to seek aid

from other federal agencies as well. The chief federal department directly

concerned with preservation is the Department of the Interior, which manages

funds granted to the National Park Service. The National Park Service

administers the following programs:

1. The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Under this act, matching grants for up to fty percent of the cost

59



of acquisition and development of historic sites may be granted to

individual states or to the National Trust. Funds may also be made

available to local governments and private preservation organizations,

but must be administered through the State.

To be eligible, a project must be part of a comprehensive statewide

preservation plan. Such plans may themselves be subsidized up to the

same fty percent limit.The grantee must guarantee continued maintenance if monies are

advanced for physical restoration. Funds are available for

reconstruction and museum use, unlike grants under the former HUD

programs. For information, write to:

Chief, Ofce of Archaeology and Historic PreservationNational Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Washington, D.C. 20240

2. Recreation and Public Purposes Act:

Under this act, state and local governments, and private nonprotorganizations may buy or lease federal lands at minimal cost, through

the Bureau of Land Managements. Additional information may be obtained

from:

Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Bureau of the Interior


3. Land and Water Conservation Fund

This program authorizes fty percent matching grants to state andlocal governments to be used for outdoor recreational pro— grams.

If sites of historic or archeological signicance are part of arecreation site consonant with the state’s recreation master plan,

they may be eligible for assistance. For information write to:

Director, Bureau of Outdoor RecreationU.S. Department of the Interior


Another federal agency potentially useful to preservationists is the

General Services Administration, which manages the Surplus Property Act. This

act enables state and local governments to acquire land, buildings and other

real property no longer in federal use. For purposes of historic preservation

or wildlife management, ownership of properties is transferred without charge.

The GSA has recently become more aggressive in its search for obsolete

properties suitable for preservation through adaptive use. Information may be

obtained from:

Regional Director

Property Management and Disposal Service

General Services Administration


60



The National Trust for Historic Preservation receives funds from the

Department of the Interior under the National Historic Preservation Act of

1966. In addition to many other activities, the National Trust administers

grants from its National Historic Preservation Fund. More than $140,000 was

distributed in 1973. The Trust describes its funding program thusly:

The National Historic Preservation Fund was established by the National

Trust in 1971. The fund’s principal purpose is the encouragement

and assistance of private efforts at preservation by acquisition of

buildings through the establishment of local revolving funds.

Through the fund, the National Trust offers to its nonprot member

organizations matching grants, loans and guarantees. A small portion of

the fund is also allotted to meet emergency needs; to be so considered,

a property must be in imminent danger of destruction or serious

impairment.

Resources of the fund are not available for brick—and-mortar projects,

general organizational administrative costs, educational programs or

conferences.

Loans are provided on matching and non—matching bases; all loans bear

interest and are repayable over specied time periods. Nominal interestis charged on current or deferred basis.

A limited number of matching grants are awarded to help in establishing

programs or rening existing ones.

For information about grants or membership, write to:

The National Trust for Historic Preservation

748 Jackson Place, N.W.


The National Endowment for the Arts was established as an independent

Federal agency in 1965. One of its twelve program areas is the Architecture +

Environmental Arts Program which frequently include grants directly related to

preservation. Inquiries should be addressed to:

Architecture + Environmental Arts Program

National Endowment for the Arts


THE STATE ROLE

State funds for preservation in New Jersey have not been a high priority

budget item in Trenton. The Historic Sites Section of the New Jersey

Department of Environmental Protection administers the State Register of

Historic Places, and through this program makes limited technical advisory

services available in the interest of authenticating proposed sites. Although

61



this is the only state department directly responsible for preservation,

no funds are available for actual “bricks and mortar” preservation or

rehabilitation. In fact, the budget of the Historic Sites Section is so

limited that its comprehensive statewide preservation plan has remained

unpublished for several years.

The New Jersey Green Acres Program has in the past expended millions

of dollars on the purchase of open space for recreation and conservation,

which can include historic preservation. Grants—in—aid are made to local

governments for up to fty percent of purchase price. Because the Green Acres

Program is supported by issuance of public bonds, nancing capability must

be periodically renewed. For this reason, it is currently dormant, until a

decision is made on a new bond issue. For details of eligibility write to:

Green Acres Division

Department of Conservation and Economic DevelopmentTrenton, N.J. 08625

Local preservation interests sometimes nd it necessary to accomplish

specic research about a site or district before being able to interest local

governments or outside nancial support. The New Jersey Historical Commission

conducts an annual research program in the history of the state which can

be relevant to local research needs. Grants of up to $500 are available to

academic and amateur historians to aid certain kinds of studies. To determine

the nature of eligible projects and application requirements, write to:

New Jersey Historical Commission

State Library

185 West State Street

Trenton, N.J. 08625

The New Jersey State Council on the Arts runs a variety of changing

programs primarily to stimulate appreciation of a participation in all the

arts. It accomplishes this partially through support of native New Jersey

artists. Its programs sometimes touch on preservation—related activities,

although historic preservation is not a chief goal. A local group interested

in including indigenous craft production as part of restoration or fund

raising, for example, might be able to solicit aid from the Council if its

project were complementary to the Council’s program. Inquiries should be

addressed to:

New Jersey State Council on the Arts

62



State House

Trenton, N.J. 08625

The New Jersey American Revolution Bicentennial Celebration Commission

has been appointed to coordinate statewide activities in observance of the

nation’s 200th anniversary. The purely historical aspects of its duties are

almost entirely of a commemorative and ceremonial nature and to date have been

of virtually no interest to practical preservationists, despite its $250,000

annual budget.

COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL PESOURCES

There is a familiar paradox which effects all political entities: the

branch of government most suited to solve local problems is granted the least

ability to exercise nancial remedies. This situation can easily be recognized

when evaluating the roles of county and municipal potential for aiding

preservation. Discussed elsewhere in the report are a number of important

legal and procedural steps local government can take. But monetary support

will undoubtedly remain thin, although application of revenue sharing monies

may ease the strain somewhat in the future.

At present the most direct way Morris County government contributes to

preservation is through the activities of its Bicentennial Committee, whose

goals are similar to the state Bicentennial Commission’s and therefore, not

involved with concrete preservation. Several municipalities have bicentennial

organizations as well, like Randolph Township’s ARBOR (American Revolution

Bicentennial Observance Randolph). Several more townships, such as Pequannock,

have begun to incorporate preservation goals into the regular duties of their

professional planners. Quite understandably, nancial commitments have not

paralleled theoretical commitments.

In cases where funding capacity is limited, it is especially important

for county and municipalities to include preservation awareness as part

of other regularly funded programs, like those for recreation and social

services. This way, at least, minimal preservation objectives might be served

without incurring extra costs. Parsippany has demonstrated the ease with

which this can be accomplished by instructing its planner to investigate the

adaptive use potential of historic buildings when any municipal service must

be expanded.

63



If a possibility of new appropriations does arise, county government

could provide an impetus to practical action by examining the virtues of a

course taken by New Castle County, Delaware. Realizing that private initiative

is often stied by the difculty of raising matching funds, New Castle County

operates a program of aid to civic associates, service clubs and other groups.

Grants of up to fty percent are made available for development of scenic and

historic sites. Such a plan might be supplemented or replaced by a county—

sponsored revolving fund.

Without knowing how well federal revenue—sharing programs will succeed,

it is difcult to predict the changes local preservation funding will undergo.

Whatever the changes, it is unlikely that the kind of small government units

making up Morris County will suddenly nd money to lavish on preservation. It

is safe to say that preservationists will have to look beyond local boundaries

for the foreseeable future, whenever signicant projects need funding.

64



65



66



You can’t go home again these days,

not because you’ve outgrown it

spiritually, but because they’ve torn

it down and put up a gas station or

supermarket. One consequence is that,deprived of familiar and beloved sites,

men turn inwards, each cultivating his

own garden, losing responsibility for

the community and abandoning its older

sections to an infectious neglect and

decay.

Constance Greiff

Lost America

FEDERAL

Not until 1966 did the federal government provide legislation embodying

a broad recognition of preservation needs. This legislation is the National

Historic Preservation Act, the rst federal effort to afford protection from

destruction by the federal government itself. Although a number of the Act’s

provisions are only policy statements, they should not be underestimated. As

one critic has put it: “Congressional statements of policy may affect the

conduct of ofcials in mission— oriented operating agencies by providing

guidance supplementary to the terms of their own authorizing legislation.

Such declarations may help a sympathetic ofcial justify decisions, and

even expenditures, based on considerations outside the primary mission of

his agency. Policy statements, in addition, may inuence courts to require

agencies to consider issues which they might otherwise prefer to ignore.”18

In terms of concrete measures, the Historic Preservation Act authorizes

the Secretary of the Interior to maintain and expand the National Register

of Historic Places, a master list of structures, sites and objects judged

signicant to the history and culture of the United States. It further

empowers the Secretary to establish a fund for grants to states on a

matching basis, for the preservation of “properties that are signicant in

American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture.” Similar grants

are made available to aid the work of the congressionally chartered National

Trust for Historic Preservation, a quasi—governmental organization which

67



administers some properties itself, publishes material on the art of historic

preservation, and serves as a coordinating agency for public and private

efforts.

Aside from its funding provisions, the Preservation Act’s chief

contribution is creation of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Tenmembers are chosen directly by the President, eight are the heads of federal

agencies; the remaining two are the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution

and the Chairman of the National Trust. The Advisory Council bears the

following responsibilities:

1. As a review board, it reviews and comments on federally funded or

assisted projects that might adversely affect properties which are

listed in the National Register;

2. As an advisory body, it advises the President, Congress, federal,

state and local agencies and private institutions and individuals on

matters relating to historic preservation, including legislation;

3. As a body of experts, it recommends measures to coordinate

preservation activities at all levels of government and at the private

level; it also recommends studies in such areas as the adequacy

of present legislation and administrative regulations relating to

historic preservation and the effects of tax policies on historic

preservation; and

4. As an ofcial spokesman, it encourages public interest andparticipation in historic preservation and encourages training and

education in that eld.

It may seem as if the Council is merely a paper organization, but its

accomplishments can be considerable, depending in part on the prestige

and aggressiveness of its members, and the willingness of Congress and

the President to make use of it. The positive weight of this inuence was

demonstrated by the Council’s review in 1969 of the impact of the proposed

New Orleans Expressway on that city’s historic Vieux Carre District. After

studies and on—site hearings, the Council recommended nding a new route,

or depressing the expressway below ground level. Even though its report was

not binding, the Secretary of Transportation ruled that federal funds would

be denied, because, “the public benets from the proposed highway would not

be enough to warrant damaging the treasured French Quarter.” Without the

Council’s review, the Secretary would have had no expert consideration to

inform his decision. Indicative of the need for the public interest to be

represented in cases like this was the suggestion by the Federal Highway

68



Administration that addition of wrought-iron grillwork would make the

expressway compatible with the historic district.

Mentioned above as a recipient of grants under the National Historic

Preservation Act, the National Trust for Historic Preservation was chartered

by Congress in 1949. Since that time it has become the foremost source ofpreservation expertise and of coordination efforts. Although it benets

from some government funds, it is supported primarily through membership

and private contributions. It occupies a unique position, inasmuch as it is

free from direct government control but can exercise considerable inuence

in government circles. Recently, it has expanded its program of consultant

service grants, which enable local government and private groups to study

the feasibility of individual preservation projects before making extensive

nancial commitments. It also maintains twelve historic house museums

acquired, for the most part, through bequest.

Created in the same year which saw the passage of the National Historic

Preservation Act, the National Register of Historic Places is a master

list of signicant properties recognized by the federal government, but

not necessarily restored or maintained by anyone but the owner. Sites and

buildings proposed to the National Register must rst be accepted by a state

register. In New Jersey, the State Liaison Ofcer who forwards appropriate

nominations is the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection.

These nominations are reviewed by the National Park Service for accuracy and

suitability, and are entered on the National Register if they meet federal

criteria for signicance. Inclusion on the National Register does not prevent

private owners from disposing of their property in any way they choose,

including inappropriate alterations and demolition. It does require that no

federal aid for a specic project can be granted without prior review if the

project in question will endanger a building, site or district which is on the

National Register.

The National Register of Historic Landmarks, an entirely separate list,

is maintained by the National Park Service, subject to declaration by the

Secretary of the Interior. Sites and buildings on this list are awarded

certicates and bronze plaques attesting to their unique role in the history

of the nation. Private owners must agree to allow periodic inspection by the

69



Park Service.

Fullling the need for visual documentation of signicant American

architecture is the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS), operative

intermittently since the 1930’s. Photographs, measured drawings and

descriptions are made under the direction of the Ofce of Archaeology andHistoric Preservation of the National Park Service. The permanent archive

resulting from this continuing survey is maintained in the Library of

Congress. When it rst began recording, HABS concentrated on eighteenth-

century architecture, since few architectural historians had investigated

later work. Today, hampered by a limited budget, it is striving to bring

its collection up to date, and has made some strides in that direction. The

Historic American Buildings Survey is empowered to offer no protection to

the buildings and structures it records. In fact, nearly one half of those

buildings and sites have been destroyed or irreparably damaged, leading

some to call the HABS a death mask for American architecture. It remains,

nevertheless, an invaluable and prestigious program which can help provide

justication for individual preservation efforts.

In addition to the National Historic Preservation Act, 1966 also saw

Congressional enactment of the Department of Transportation Act (Pub. L.

No. 80—670 Stat. 931) which embodies specic references to preservation of

historic sites. In fact, the references to preservation of historic sites

and parklands have been described by a federal district judge as one of the

primary purposes of the act.19

Unlike the National Historic Preservation Act, which in its present form

allows jurisdiction to include only endangered sites already accepted by the

National Register, the DOT Act requires the Secretary of Transportation to

give equal consideration to state and local sites. Because of this liberal

application, as well as the enormous amounts of money funneled through DOT,

the potential for preservation protection through this measure is signicant,

especially when one remembers that the Department oversees such additional

activities as the Federal Aviation Administration, the Coast Guard, the Urban

Mass Transportation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration.

Recent court decisions involving the Department’s powers under this

act have further bolstered its strength. In the Overton Park Case,20 the

70



court ruled specically in the matters of parklands, but the ruling applies

equally to historic preservation. It said, in part, that the DOT Act’s own

language meant that protected lands “were not to be lost unless there were

truly unusual factors present in a particular case or the cost of community

disruption from alternative routes reached extraordinary magnitude.“

Although the DOT Act paradoxically grants broader powers through a

more specic agency than does the previously mentioned National Historic

Preservation Act, the two are actually complementary. Not only can the DOT

Act provide protection to properties not eligible under the NHP Act, but the

Department of Transportation can make use of the review expertise of the

Advisory Council to dene the nature of the “special effort” for preservation

which section 2(b) (2) of the DOT Act demands.

Since 1966, various acts (the Urban Mass Transportation Assistance

Act of 1970, for example) governing activities within the jurisdiction of

the Department of Transportation, have reafrmed the federal commitment

to preservation, going as far as to say that a site not yet placed on the

National Register, and in an area where no local or state authorities

are active, may be reviewed for suitability by the Ofce of History and

Archaeology of the National Park Service, or by the National Trust, if

threatened by projects of the Department of Transportation.

An entirely different approach is found in programs carried out by

the Department of Housing and Urban Development.* Since most structures of

recognized historic worth are relatively old, they are often found in areas

slated for slum clearance and urban renewal. This frequently puts the federal

government, through HUD, in the position of destroying the very kind of

structures its other programs commit it to protect. Even recommendations from

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation bear no weight on federally—

sponsored housing projects affecting historic sites.

______________________________

* This discussion of HUD programs is subject to the same qualicationsdescribed in section 5.

71



Ironically, since 1966 (through the Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan

Development Act) HUD has been able to support both destruction and

preservation simultaneously, because of an authorization which allows it to

make grants to municipalities and counties for 2/3 of the cost of historic

preservation surveys. It should be noted that none of the monies in such

grants are available for restoration or preservation.

In addition to the grant provision, the Act amended two other laws in

order to broaden the base of housing—program supported preservation efforts.

Title VI of the 1966 Act allows the inclusion of historic preservation within

the denitions of urban renewal plans and projects. Monies appropriated

under Title VI may be used for “brick and mortar” purposes — acquisition,

relocation, restoration (such as the relocation to Speedwell Village of two

houses in Morristown’s urban renewal district). In a provision which amends

the Housing Act of 1961, the 1966 Act also includes historic preservation as a

possible category when offering direct funding for acquisition of properties

in urban (though not necessarily in urban renewal)areas, for public use.

To be funded under any HUD programs, structures or sites must meet

criteria comparable to those employed by the National Register, but the

actual selection of sites is determined by the localities involved. This

degree of local control is further claried by the House Committee Report

which states that those who “treasure a building for its pleasing appearance

or local sentiment do not nd it less important because it lacks properhistoric credentials.”21 By “proper historic credentials”, the Committee meant

qualications of National signicance. This, then, represents an important

recognition of local control of local sites, aided by federal funds.

As a nal provision, section 603 (a) of the 1966 HUD Act provides the

National Trust for Historic Preservation with up to $90,000 per structure for

renovation or restoration of buildings maintained.

On January 1, 1970, a law was signed that put historic preservation

squarely in the context of environmental preservation, the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).22 NEPA requires all government agencies

to review their actions in light of possible environmental damage and to

issue statements detailing such potential damage prior to initiation of the

contemplated action (the so—called “environmental impact statements”). “While

72



it permits environmental damage, the requirements for a detailed advance

statement provide strong incentives toward an honest search for alternatives

for any public ofcial who would prefer not to brand himself as a vandal”.23

To date, most actions under NEPA have involved strictly environmental

issues (the Alaska pipeline injunction probably the most notable), but itslanguage specically includes the admonition to “preserve important historic,

cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage...”, so its application

in these areas holds great potential, should in NEPA’s words a “major federal

action signicantly affecting the quality of the human environment” involve

historic value as well, such as the New Orleans Expressway case. Recent

events, however, indicate that the new Better Communities Act does not require

compliance with NEPA’s provisions (or with those of the 1966 National Historic

Preservation Act). This is a serious oversight which could force years of

litigation unless Congress claries its intent.

Evident from the foregoing discussion is the fact that Congress has

provided a number of legal tools which can be used in the interest of historic

preservation. Unfortunately, the various acts and departmental programs mix

methodologies, appropriation measures and priority systems in a patchwork

quilt of programs which cannot help but confuse the concerned layman on whose

efforts so much local preservation action depends.

While it is true that many government agencies whose programs touch

historic preservation peripherally (such as DOT and HUD), require separate

and specic provisos recognizing that inuence, it should be pointed out

to Congress that one central coordinating ofce for historic and cultural

preservation would add immeasurably to the value of all the presently existing

discrete measures, whose relationship must sometimes be puzzled out. Until

that happens, preservationists must continue to play bureaucratic hopscotch on

their own.

STATE

Preservation in New Jersey is the responsibility of the Historic Sites

Section of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). This agency is

given the task of preparing a statewide preservation plan and site inventory.

It reviews nominations for the State and National Registers of Historic Places

and maintains a number of historic house museums of statewide signicance.

73



Work on the state inventory of sites has been in progress only since 1970.

Already information has been gathered for some 2500 sites, and research is

continuing. The comprehensive preservation plan has been completed, but has

never been published, due to lack of funds. The Historic Sites Section is

presently unable to offer specialized consultant services because of its small

staff and meager budget.

The New Jersey Register of Historic Places, like the National Register,

designates sites, structures and buildings representative of the Nation’s

historic and cultural achievements. The Historic Sites Section of DEP, which

maintains the State Register, relies on local informants to identify potential

sites and supply preliminary (and sometimes nal) documentation. The staff

reviews a nomination for accuracy, scholarship and physical integrity,

and then decides whether it meets the criteria established for inclusion

on the State Register. Because of the limited resources of the Historic

Sites Section, no more than ten sites per county are accepted annually for

consideration. Inclusion on the State Register protects a property from

alteration or demolition resulting from state, county or municipal action

without prior review. Like the National Register, it affords no alternative to

private destruction. The New Jersey Register of Historic Places should not be

confused with the New Jersey Historic Sites Inventory. The latter (NJHSI) is

merely a list of sites for which some documentation has been gathered.

74



75



But when the whole world becomes oneMcDonald’s Hamburger Stand after another,

you too will cry out for even a scrap of

integrity.

Raymond Mungo

Total Loss Farm

America’s experience is unique in the world of preservation. In other

developed nations, government occupies a position more in the vanguard,

alerting citizens to the dangers of destruction and investing enormous sums to

prevent it. Of course, bureaucratic shortsightedness crops up in London and

Tokyo as well as in Washington. But the prevailing sense of ofcial commitment

to preservation by governments outside the United States creates a climate

in which preservation is more easily recognized as an integral ingredient of

planning and policy. Because of this difference, American preservationists

have had considerable experience in organizing to press for government action

(or in some cases to block it). This necessity for direct citizen involvement

may, in fact, indicate that our form of government is less paternalistic and,

therefore, healthier than its foreign counterparts. Whatever the implications,

one .thing is certain: private leadership (professional and non—professional)

must continue to convince, coerce, and when necessary, initiate legal action,

to assure that government fullls its responsibilities. In pursuit of this

goal, preservation organizations fall into different categories. One of the

most important is societies operating at the local level.

LOCAL HISTORICAL SOCIETIES

Morris County is home to a number of historical societies devoted to

investigating the history of specic localities. Some have written and

published histories of their towns, most have contributed to the research

needed to submit site nominations for the New Jersey Register of Historic

Places, and a few have restored buildings for use as headquarters or historic

76



house museums. But actual “brick and mortar” preservation (directly, through

ownership, or indirectly, through aid) has not been a primary concern of local

groups.

In addition to the purely local groups, the Morris County Historical

Society serves a dual function. It acts as the local society for theMorristown area where it is situated, and invites county—wide membership

as well. In this latter capacity, its historic sites committee has brought

together representatives from local societies to provide information needed

by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s historic sites

inventory program. The work of this committee is described in Section 3.

It would be hard to minimize the contributions to site research made

by local societies in the past. As a result of their efforts, Morris County

possesses a good basic knowledge of what needs to be preserved, accompanied in

most cases by sufcient data for authentication. This existing foundation will

enable local groups and the Morris County Historical Society’s historic sites

committee to continue advising the state about which sites merit priority

designation.

Now that the preliminary task of documentation is so far advanced, it

behooves the local societies to redirect their energies toward realization of

the primary goal — preservation per Se. All the years of hard work spent on

gathering information can easily become an exercise in irony, if carefully

documented inventories become mere epitaphs for a bulldozed past.

To keep this from happening in the face of economic pressure will be

no easy task. Local societies will have to abandon their accustomed low

prole to become preservation activists. It is up to each local group to

see that preservation issues are constantly before the community — not just

crisis issues, but the mundane facts which relate preservation to land use,

ecology, housing and vital services. This kind of public awareness can be

stimulated by several means. Every historical society and preservation group

should plan a public relations program to keep local news sources supplied

with press releases and stories, to organize public meetings for discussion

of community preservation issues, and to launch a program of education,

perhaps in cooperation with local libraries and schools. Some of these aims

can be accomplished through publications, others will require more direct

77



involvement. All of the tools for public awareness and action must be handled

with professionalism. Appendix D includes a number of helpful sources.

Stimulating public action incurs. the obligation to be knowledgeable

oneself. To accomplish this, members of preservation organizations should

familiarize themselves with local government by regularly auditing towncouncil and planning board meetings. One of the rst goals should be to press

for enactment of a municipal landmarks commission, or an historic district

zone without which little practical preservation can be achieved (see Appendix

A). State and federal sources of aid should also be investigated. Hard—pressed

municipal governments often run on a part—time basis in Morris County, and

frequently lack the resources to investigate specialized subjects; expertise

offered by preservationists could foster a fruitful spirit of cooperation. If

a town is able to employ a full-time professional planner, his cooperation

should be enlisted.

The value of this approach has been demonstrated in Parsippany and

in Pequannock, where volunteers have been assembling site information

under direction of the township planners. Manpower lacking on one side and

professional skills on the other are thus fused together into a complementary

whole.

Opportunities to join forces with other groups - for specic projects

or on a long—term basis — should also be investigated. It cannot be

overemphasized that all components of comprehensive planning are interrelated,

so preservationists need to integrate their goals into the overall fabric of

local government and its subsidiary special-interest groups. A good example

of how different groups might combine their energies involves acceptance of

the crucially important municipal landmarks commission idea. Because some

Morris County localities feel they are already overburdened with committees

and commissions, local action on this issue has languished. A number of

towns already support active environmental commissions. Since environmental

considerations encompass the man—made as well as the natural world, historic

preservation might be incorporated under the aegis of existing environmental

commissions. While not a universal solution, the combination could work well

for some towns.

It should be evident from the foregoing examination that preservation

78



successes will depend largely on active local involvement. Ninety percent

of all concrete preservation — the actual physical salvation of sites and

buildings - can be accomplished only by municipal power; and municipalities

will only exercise that power if voters make their wishes known consistently

and loudly. This need for pressure, applied intelligently, suggests the

usefulness of concerted action. A dozen or so local historical societies can

make limited progress. By surrendering some of their autonomy to a county—wide

coordinating body, aggregate inuence could become formidable. By pooling

resources, such a hypothetical Morris County League of Historical Societies

might be able to employ a professional director of publicity and publications,

could lobby more effectively for municipal action, and might nance a

revolving fund for the purchase of sites in imminent danger. Not incidentally,

the dedication and foresight shown by such united action would unquestionably

impress foundations and government sources of nancial aid. This new power

would in no way compromise the unique familiarity with local situations that

gives the individual societies their present value.

Organized preservation has matured enormously in recent years, to become

an instrument of great sophistication, especially in large cities, where

preservation laws with teeth have been enacted. Suburbia has not kept pace,

perhaps because the sheer physical concentration of historic buildings is not

as obvious outside the cities. Citizens and government action must take the

initiative now before opportunity vanishes in the dust of irrevocable land usedecisions. This means that historical societies and sympathetic organizations

in Morris County must put aside old rivalries and abandon the unproductive

fascination with mere nostalgia and historical sentimentality that sometimes

passes for preservation. Unless preservationists join the mainstream of what

Ada Louise Huxtable has characterized as the change from a cultural nicety

to”.. .an environmental necessity of important sociological impact” — their

efforts will become increasingly impotent.

OTHER ORGANIZATIONS

In their struggle to keep philosophy and practice relevant to the real

needs of preservation, the all—important local groups can look to other sources

for assistance. Described below are a number of private and quasi—governmental

organizations active on the state and national level which offer help:

79



1. The New Jersey Historical Commission is a State—nanced organizationwhose professional staff is directed by a chairman and board of

trustees. It publishes a monthly newsletter under the auspices of

the State Library’s Department of Education. The Commission has

sponsored conferences for local and county planners, administers a

research grant program, and coordinates the efforts of volunteer and

professional workers. Although its programs and grants are aimed

primarily at historical scholarship, its newsletter reports on currenttopics and reviews new publications as well. For information, write

to:

The New Jersey Historical Commission

State Library

185 West State Street

Trenton, N.J. 08625

2. The New Jersey Historical Society , founded in 1845, keeps an extensive

library of primary source materials, including manuscripts and

newspaper les. The society sponsors student history clubs, holdstwo major conferences each year, and publishes two periodicals, the

quarterly New Jersey History and the monthly New Jersey Messenger .

Questions about membership and programs may be addressed to:

New Jersey Historical Society

230 Broadway

Newark, N.J. 07104

3. The League of Historical Societies of New Jersey , as its name implies,

compiles information about the programs and publications of the

state’s local historical societies. Its recently published directory

of societies can help local agencies avoid duplication of effort.

Request information from:

The League of Historical Societies of New Jersey

Mr. Kenneth Hirsch, Chairman

1254 W. Brook Road

Newfoundland, N.J. 07435

4. The American Association For State And Local History does nationally

what the preceding New Jersey League does for the State. Information

about its directory and other publications can be obtained from:

The American Association for State and Local History

1315 8th Avenue, S.

Nashville, Tennessee 37203

5. The National Trust For Historic Preservation describes itself as “...

the only nonprot education organization chartered by Congress toencourage public participation in the preservation of districts,

sites, buildings, structures and objects signicant in 1rnericanhistory and cu1ture. It is unquestionably the single most valuable

organization to local preservation groups. It administers grants-in-aid for restoration feasibility studies; offers consultant services

to members; and publishes technical studies and monographs devoted

to topics as mundane as how to write better press releases, and as

complex as the intricacies of tax relief for historic properties.

Its two periodicals, the monthly Preservation News and the quarterly

Historic Preservation, belong in the library of everyone seriously

80



committed to preservation. They provide extensive coverage of current

news, and do a superb job of relating preservation to other vital

events in the elds of planning, government, environment and socialsciences. These two publications offer a wealth of new ideas and

innovative solutions to old problems which should prove stimulating

to the work of local preservation volunteers. For information about

membership and programs, write to:

The National Trust for Historic Preservation

74—748 Jackson Place, N.W.


6. The Victorian Society For America is devoted to fostering appreciation

of Victorian architecture and decorative arts. It offers guidance,

through workshops and publications, on the preservation and

restoration of Victorian buildings. Additional information can be

obtained by writing to:

The Victorian Society for America

The Athenaeum

East Washington Square

Philadelphia, Pa. 19106

The organizations described here do not constitute an exhaustive list.

Preservationists should be especially alert to organizations devoted to other

ends whose interests might complement theirs. Special attention should be

given to various local, state and national conservation and environmental

groups. For information about such groups in the Morris County area, consult

the Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions, Box 157, Mendham,

N.J. 07945.

The informational value of all the organizations described here is

important, but secondary. Providing the average citizen with a forum

for preservation action is their primary value. For the last few years,

environmentalists, strictly dened, have been in the forefront of citizen

action, establishing legal precedents and ghting test cases. Now,

preservationists must join that ght by identifying themselves with the total

environmental movement. In preservation as in other matters, taxpayers have an

opportunity and an obligation to help determine how their taxes are spent.

Whatever new preservation tools and organizations are created, one thing

is certain: Without citizen involvement, they can’t work. This obligation

to participate measures the great importance of local historical societies

and related organizations. By becoming activist groups, they can help open

government processes to public scrutiny, can broaden representation by serving

on the advisory committees of ofcial bodies, and can mold policy by demanding

81



development of desirable programs while bringing suit to stop others. Without

engaging the political process, local historical societies may be devoted to a

number of causes, but preservation won’t be one of them.

82



83



Remember the days of old,Consider the years of many generations,

Ask thy father and he will show thee,

Thy elders, and they will tell thee.

Deuteronomy 32:7

Historic preservation in Morris County has reached a critical point.

The means are available to assure a future for the past, but time is on the

side of “progress,” growth, expansion. By 1980 it is estimated that our

population will have increased by more than one third from its 1970 level.

Support services for this growing population mean more housing, more roads and

more commercial/industrial facilities. The older transportation corridors,

where so many of our historic structures stand, will feel greater pressure

for improvement; our older town centers, each with its own historic identity

and values, will likewise undergo transformations in population density

and physical concentration; rural areas will diminish, and open space will

shrink. The traditional preservation safeguards of physical isolation, limited

population and limited economic growth vanished when Morris County became part

of the wave of large—scale development which swept the metropolitan areas of

the East Coast.

The prospects for preventing repetition of past errors — careless development,

uninformed land use decisions, archaic transportation policies — are not

sanguine, especially in New Jersey, where the home rule tradition pits

municipalities against one another so that they must ignore regional

interests. If there is any hope for preservationists and planners to win

some of the coming battles, it is dependent on accepting the vocabulary of

progress and using that vocabulary for their own ends. Rather than running

from growth, it must be embraced and tamed. This means abandoning once and for

all the outmoded approach which says: save isolated buildings and make museums

of them. That is antiquarianism, and no defense against the enemy. Only if

preservation is recognized as an environmental factor, and historic buildings

84



as ripe for adaptive use, can change accommodate the best of the past.

Such a healthy preservation climate presupposes certain reforms. The

following recommendations have evolved from the ideas examined in this report,

and are designed to cultivate such a climate:

A. MUNICIPAL ACTION

1. Local Government must formally incorporate preservation goals in

ofcial master plans and in the day-to-day functioning of its variousdepartments and agencies. Existing ordinances must be examined and

enforced in light of their relevance to preservation. These include

building codes, tax assessment, design standards, and environmental

statutes.

All municipalities must enact landmarks boards or commissions, which

are given the power to designate historic sites and control their

alteration and demolition to the extent this is legally possible.

2. Local Historical Societies must turn their attention from

documentation to active preservation. This means engaging the local

political process to interpret specic preservation needs. In orderto consolidate inuence and economic strength, some union of localsocieties is called for. Such a confederation would be able to see

preservation on a county—wide basis without surrendering intimate

knowledge of local needs. A primary function of local historical

societies must be to provide expertise to local government, through

cooperation with professional planning consultants and membership on

municipal landmarks commissions.

B. COUNTY PARTICIPATION

1. This report should be viewed as evidence of ofcial commitment

to preservation by the Morris County Planning Board. All County

departments should be instructed to familiarize themselves with the

goals expressed herein and with the sites listed in the accompanyinginventory, so that any County action potentially detrimental to

historic preservation can be reviewed for suitability by the

Freeholders, the Planning Board and the department involved. Such

review has special relevance to the Departments of Roads and Bridges,

the Park Commission, the Department of Buildings and Grounds, the

Shade Tree Commission, and any department contemplating capital

improvements.

2. The County should establish an architectural review board to reverse

the trend of constructing buildings in the ubiquitous pseudo-Georgian

style which dilutes the impact of genuine historic architecture and

degrades public taste.

3. The County should investigate the feasibility of establishing an

historic preservation revolving fund or matching grant program toaid local government and historical societies. Such monies should

be entirely reserved for the purchase, restoration and improvement

of properties which can be put to productive adaptive use while

maintaining their historic values.

4. The inventory section of this report should be updated periodically ,

85



in cooperation with state and local agencies, to encourage awareness

of sites at the local level and to stimulate additional nominations to

the State and National Registers of Historic Places.

C. STATE ACTION

1. In order to make historic preservation economically feasible on a

broader scale, the state should examine the suggestions for tax relieffound herein and incorporate them into a statewide tax reform package

which reduces the crippling dependence on the property tax.

2. Specic state enabling legislation for historic preservation should

be passed so that municipalities have a clearer idea of their powers

under state law. Such legislation should address itself concretely

historic district zoning, municipal landmark commissions, and tax

relief, if the latter is not treated separately.

3. The Historic Sites Section of the New Jersey Department of

Environmental Protection should be granted a realistic budget so

that it can carry out its present duties more expeditiously, and can

increase its staff to meet the demands made upon it.

4. The State should consider establishing a revolving fund to purchasebuildings on the State Register for resale when such action is

necessary for their preservation.

D. FEDERAL ACTION

1. The General Revenue Sharing Act should be claried so that compliance

with the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and the National

Environmental Protection Act is assured.

2. Federal Income Tax regulations should be revised so that demolition

of historic commercial buildings is penalized instead of rewarded, as

described in an earlier section of this report.

3. Overall federal appropriation for historic preservation should be

increased by emphasizing the use of historic buildings for housingand social services. This can be accomplished in part by instructing

all departments to investigate the adaptive use of historic buildings

before approving funding for new construction.

4. Criteria for National Register Sites should be broadened to encourage

inclusion of districts and areas liberally dened.

86



87



The inventory which follows is the rst attempt in Morris County to

develop a countywide survey of sites derived from a number of different

sources. Included are sites named to the National Register of Historic

Places, the New Jersey Register of Historic Places, and the Historic 1merican

Buildings Survey, as well as sites not recognized by the national or state

registers but important to Morris County. Taken together, these represent

the minimum number of sites recommended by the Morris County Planning Board

for preservation through government and private means. This inventory is not

meant to be all—inclusive, so a particular site’s absence does not necessarily

imply its inappropriateness. As new information is brought to our attention,

the inventory will be periodically updated to reect awareness of different

sites. Some communities, like Harding and Jefferson, are even now researching

additional sites for future inclusion.

In addition to actual buildings and structures, a number of entries

represent sites only. These fall into two categories. First are those sites

which never supported structures (e.g. The French Army Encampment); second

are those designations which mark the site of a building now vanished (e.g.Dickerson’s Tavern). The second category calls attention to sites which are

important even without buildings, and also serves as a reminder of how many

buildings have already been lost. All HABS sites which could be located are

included, regardless of their present condition.

Sites not registered by the state or federal government have been

chosen in terms of their suitability for those registers or for their local

signicance. This philosophy sometimes creates obvious differences in the

kinds of sites chosen from one municipality to another. Thus in Mountain

Lakes, for example, where settlement and political incorporation occurred

later there are a number of early 20th—century buildings important to the

community which might be overlooked in towns with more venerable histories,

like Mendham and Florham Park. Such differences are natural and help to

88



cultivate the special identity which each locality should strive to preserve.

Emphasis on local sites and local initiative is important because only

municipalities can protect historic sites from their biggest single threat -

the economic pressure of private development.

The scope of this report cannot encompass the many historic cemeteriesfound in Morris County (some associated with historic churches are included,

however). Readers are referred for more specic information to the Morris

County Burial Grounds Inventory , prepared by Edward J. Raser on behalf of the

Genealogical Society of New Jersey (see Appendix D, Section II).

The following codes are used in the inventory and may be of interest to

some readers:

1. A number in the left margin is the Morris County Historic Sites

Inventory reference, identifying an individual municipal site. The

same number is used to locate sites on the maps which accompany each

section.

2. “NJHSI” following a site’s name stands for New Jersey Historic Sites

Inventory. This indicates that some information for a particular site

is on le with the Historic Sites Section of the N.J. Department ofEnvironmental Protection. It does not indicate that the site has been

accepted by state or national registers.

3. “HABS” will sometimes be found following the preceding NJHSI

designation, or alone. This means that the site in question has been

recorded by the Historic American Buildings Survey and that measured

drawings, photographs and descriptions are on le in the Library ofCongress. The complete reference includes “NJ” between HABS and the

number. This has been dropped for simplicity, since all entries here

are part of the NJ series.

4. “NR” or “NJR” following an entry indicates that the site is on the

National Register of Historic Places or the New Jersey Register of

Historic Places, respectively. All sites in Morris County named to

the National Register have previously been accepted by the New Jersey

Register.

5. “NHL” will be found rarely. It stands for National Historic Landmark.

Sites so designated are considered the elite of all national

landmarks. Should a site meet established criteria, designation occurs

at the request of the owner, who is then entitled to a certicateand bronze plaque, as well as technical advice on preservation and

interpretation.

89



Historic Sites By Municipality And Region

MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF SITES* REGION PAGE

Boonton 8 B 79

Boonton Township 4 B 81

Butler 0 A -

Chatham 8 C 99

Chatham Township 6 C 104

Chester 7 G 175

Chester Township 5 G 178

Denville 2 B 83

Dover 7 F 163East Hanover 8 B 84

Florham Park 28 C 106

Hanover 10 B 87

Harding 12 D 126

Jefferson 2 E 161

Kinnelon 1 A 72

Lincoln Park 6 A 73

Madison 15 C 114

Mendham 22 G 180

Mendham Township 6 G 184

Mine Hill 1 F 166

Montville 19 B 88

Morris Plains 5 D 131Morristown 42 D 133

Morris Township 20 U 149

Mt. Arlington 0 F -

Mt. Olive 4 H 187

Mt. Lakes 5 B 93

Netcong 1 H 189

Parsippany - Troy Hills 11 B 95

Passaic 3 C 125

*Number of sites does not necessarily reect the actual number of separatebuildings or structures, since a district or group listed as one site may

contain any number of individual buildings or structures.

90



(Historic Sites By Municipality And Region, continued)

MUNICIPALITY NUMBER OF SITES REGION PAGE

Pequannock A 75

Randolph 8 F 167

Riverdale A 78

Rockaway 6 E 158

Rockaway Township 3 E 160

Roxbury 13 F 170Victory Gardens 0 F -

Washington 36 F 190

Wharton 1 F 174

The following inventory is arranged by region. The sites within each region

are arranged alphabetically by municipality. Within each municipality they

are arranged alphabetically by individual name. The maps included in this

section were designed for maximum legibility of historic site locations. For

that reason, all extraneous information was deleted, including many natural

features and most local roads:

91



92



THE MORRIS CANAL

Multiple Locations

Individual canal sites are singled out in the inventory by municipality.

The following general description applies to all:

Conceived by George Macculloch as an economical means of uniting

Pennsylvania’s anthracite coal elds with New Jersey’s iron foundries, theMorris Canal was begun in 1825. It connected Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania

with Jersey City, employing a system of inclined planes, unique in this

country, to overcome severe topography. Besides fostering a revolution

in 1merican transportation and engineering, it created demographic and

industrial explosions still felt today. By the turn of the century, rail

transport had rendered it obsolete. (NR)

93



KINNELON REGION A

Al KAYHART HOUSE

240 Brook Valley Road

Frederick Gearhart was born in 1757 on a Dutch ship bound for 2merica.

By about 1784 he had moved to Stony Brook (then part of Pequannock) ,hadmarried and fathered two sons, and had changed his name to Kayhart. The

family’s rst dwelling on this site was a log cabin. The original part ofthe present house was raised between 1790 and 1800. Unlike most “added on”

houses which evolve through wings and additions of various dimensions, the

size of this house was doubled about 20 years later by attaching an exact

duplicate, creating an unusually long six—bay facade. The result is not

awkward, despite the oddly placed doors which betray the join. It is one of

Kinnelon’s earliest and least altered houses.

94



LINCOLN PARK REGION A

A2 BENJAMIN HOMESTEAD

117 Main Street (Rte.202)

Owned by Benjamins since the Civil War, this farm once extended from

Towaco to Pine Brook on the east and south, and into the Bog and Vly on the

north. Evidence, presently inconclusive, suggests that its builder was one

of the area’s prominent Dutch families.

The house is 1 1/2—story, ve—bay structure with high eldstonebasement, brownstone lintels and four interior chimneys. In plan and

elevation it closely resembles the noted pre-Revolutionary Martin Berry

House in Pequannock. Both have through center halls and gambrel roofs,

features which point to relative afuence. One important difference isconstruction materials: eldstone for the Berry House, brick in this case.In Morris County, brick usually implies a construction date no earlier than

1790. Thus, the Benjamin Homestead is probably about 175 years old, but may

be older.

Despite the addition of shed dormers, the exterior remains in

excellent condition. Two unusual features, brick construction and

festooned bargeboards, merit special attention. Hopefully, conversion to

institutional use will not seriously damage the house and grounds.

A3 THOMAS DEY HOUSE (SITE) HABS-536Junction of Two Bridges and Faireld Roads

Thomas Dey built his 1 1/2—story stone house in 1779 on part of his

father’s homestead land. A tannery, fur hattery, and store, also owned

by Dey, stood not far away. After his death, the house passed to his

daughter’s family, the Posts (another well-known local name). Like the Doddhouse, it is marked on Erskine’s map. The house has been demolished.

This is also the site of Two Bridges, the earliest settlement of the

area now known as Lincoln Park. In 1780, the N.J. Revolutionary Army camped

here and established an army post ofce and commissary.

A4 JOHN DODD (OR DODS) HOUSE HABS-9311 Highland Street

Built c. 1770, this house originally stood on a farm of 200 acres. Like

most Dutch houses of the 18th century, it faces south and incorporates

interior chimneys, both features designed to conserve heat. Two sunburst

design mantels, probably added around the period of the Revolution, are the

work of a skilled woodcarver. The house is noted on a map drawn by Robert

Erskine, Washington’s military surveyor. Its present condition is excellent

with few alterations; even the shutters are thought to be original. (NJR)

95



LINCOLN PARK REGION A

A5 JOHN DODD (OR DODS) TAVERN8 Chapel Hill Road

The 18th-century owner of the previously listed house operated this

building as a tavern. It is identied as such in military correspondenceof 1781 between Cols. Tilghman and Van Courtland, and in a 1780 letter

from Van Courtland to General Washington. Whether it was constructed for

commercial purposes is unknown; it differs not at all from the area’s Dutch

Colonial houses intended solely for domestic use. Despite some alterations,

its appearance has not been changed substantially. (NJR)

A6 FAIRBANKS FARM

7 Pinebrook Road

After the Revolution, the Dutch inuence in northeastern Morris Countybegan gradually to diminish. Built c. 1810, this house is one of the

rst in the area not derived from Dutch/Flemish forms Jonathan Fairbankspurchased the Farm from Henry Van Houten, one of the signers of the

Committee of Safety - a citizens group formed to monitor the activities of

those suspected of Loyalist leanings.

A7 PETER MEAD HOUSE, BREITINGER FARM HABS-87

612 Pinebrook Road

This 3-story farmhouse is an atypical combination of stone and wood. The

rst two oors are eldstone, the full third oor is frame and clapboard,suggesting that an addition was made by raising the roof. The front facade

bears the date 1793 in iron numerals. The late 19th-century porch is the

only exterior change.

TWO BRIDGES (SITE) see: Thomas Dey House NJHSI-1767.1

96



PEQUANNOCK REGION A

A8 MARTIN BERRY HOUSE NJ HSI-2520.3; HZBS-546

581 Route 23 (Eastern terminus of Cedar Rd.)

The only substantially unaltered pre-Revolutionary building in

Pequannock, this eldstone house was built by Martin Berry (1693— 1784),son of the rst family to settle on the Plains, and one of the rst eldersof the Pompton Reformed Dutch Church.

In contrast to the modest farmsteads more typical of this area’s Dutch

settlers, the generous proportions and ne details of this house reect anafuent lifestyle uncommon for 18th—century Pequannock. The broad centerhail with wide staircase, the several mantels, built—in cupboards, and wide

oorboards are still impressive today. Some details are Greek Revival,evidently the result of an 1825 modernization.

The nomination for National Register status reads in part, “Few private

homes in New Jersey can compare with the workmanship and authenticity

of the Martin Berry House.. . it is an important source of instruction

for serious architectural historians.” The HABS report describes it as

“possessing exceptional architectural interest. ..“ In 1972 it received the

N.J. Historical Society’s Landmark Award. (NR)

A9 JOHN DeBOW HOUSE

150 Mountain Avenue

In a will of February 11, 1767, John DeBow divided his land and conveyed

to Paulus DeBow “the rear part of a plot of land where John DeBow now

lives.” The stone ground—oor section of the present house was presumablyJohn DeBow’s dwelling at that time. Physical evidence suggests that the

original house was only about twenty feet long, the present kitchen being

a later addition. The wooden rst and second oors are 19th—centuryadditions, much in the manner of Lincoln Park’s Mead House. A stone house

apparently represented such an investment of labor that expansion justiedraising the roof if other alternatives were undesirable.

Like the Berrys, Mandevilles, Van Gelders and others, the DeBows were

one of the earliest Dutch families to settle the Plains. Their landholdings

were frequently extensive, and their remaining houses impart a distinctive

identity to Northeastern Morris County.

97



PEQUANNOCK REGION A

A10 PAULUS DEBOW PLANTATION

134 Mountain Avenue

Circumstantial evidence suggests that this house was built as early as

1790. If so, it is remarkably sophisticated for such a provincial location.

Despite its Federal details, the center gable double doors and porch

gingerbread are obviously Victorian additions.

What makes the house worthy of interest is its double plan. Each half

of the main section has a 1 1/2-story subsidiary wing, and each half is

completely self—sufcient, with its own kitchen and stairs. Physicalevidence supports the supposition that this is the original plan, probably

designed to accommodate parents and their married songs family.

All GILES MANDEVILLE HOUSE NJHSI—2520.2

515 Newark-Pompton Turnpike (Rte. 504, M.C.—60)

The Mandeville House is 1 1/2-stories with l8”—thick brownstone wallsand clapboard gable-ends. The 12/12 sash windows are nished with stonelintels. Family records give the date of construction as 1788, and indicate

that the space over the kitchen served as slave quarters. The Mandeville

family was descended from Gilles Jansen De Mandeville, who is said to have

arrived in America in 1647, from Normandy via Holland. The house is now

owned by the Reformed Church, which uses it as a parsonage.

Al2 THOMAS MANDEVILLE HOMESTEAD

679 Newark-Pompton Turnpike (Rte. 540 M.C.—60)

The center hall of this modest house has rare soot or candle— decorated

plaster walls. The style is familiar as a typical small farmhouse ofthe rst half of the 19th century. The roof of the larger wing has been

extended to cover a porch, and also bears long shed dormers. It has been in

possession of Mandevilles since its construction.

A13 REFORMED DUTCH CHURCH AND CHAPEL

525 Newark Pompton Turnpike (Rte. 504, M.C.-6O)

From 1771 until 1892, this church was the only house of worship in

Pequannock and Butler, reecting the hegemony of the early Dutch community.The original building has been altered and enlarged by subsequent

congregations, but always with respect for its architectural integrity.

In 1937 a re necessitated restoration, which was accomplished under thedirection of Hobart Upjohn, a prominent exponent of

98



PEQUANNOCK REGION A

the Colonial Revival. No other Georgian church of the 18th century has

survived in Morris County.

The adjacent 19th-century chapel is notable for its luxuriant gable-end

gingerbread. The juxtaposition of these two buildings affords a commentary

on the evolution of architectural taste.

Al4 SLINGERLAND HOMESTEAD

143 Boulevard (M.C.-19)

The land on which this house sits was once part of the Bog and Vly

Meadows. In addition to being farmed, it was also used to produce

industrial vinegar for surrounding iron mines.

Except for its unusually wide, recessed Federal doorway, this house is

unremarkable. It is, however, a good representative of the transitional

“added—on” house spanning the late 18th and early 19th centuries. This

fact, combined with its ne condition, makes it worthy of continuedpreservation, even though it is neither architecturally nor historically

extraordinary.

Al5 VAN GELDER-VAN SAUN HOUSE

770 Newark-Pompton Turnpike (M.C.-6O, at Rte.23)

Although the main facade, with its large center gable, full porch and

double doors unmistakably reects the Victorian farmhouse style of the1850’s when it was built, the rear wing is pre-Revolutionary. Its thick

stone walls are typical of the Dutch style prevalent in this part of

the county, and provide a striking contrast to the main house. Evidence

suggests that this property, part of the highest ground on the Plains, was

a favorite campsite of the Leni Lanape.

The earlier section was originally owned by the Van Gelders, one of the

rst families (together with the Berrys, the Vanderbecks, and others) tosettle the Plains. The property is a small piece of the vast land holdings

of Paulus Van Der Beck, Martin Berry’s stepfather.

Al6 VAN NESS HOUSE (SITE) HABS-545Village Road (Eastern terminus of Church Lane)

Another of Pequannock’s Dutch families lived here in a brownstone house,

no traces of which remain, although it was fully documented in the 1930’s

by the Historic American Buildings Survey.

99



RIVERDALE REGION A

A17 SLATER’S MILL

Paterson-Hamburg Turnpike M.C.-45 (N. side at intersection of Newark-

Pompton Tnpk.)

The present mill was built in 1861, and occupies the site of a number

of former mills, the earliest operative in 1757 (one owned by a member of

Morristown’s Ford family). During its years of peak activity, Slater’s Millemployed from six to eight people making felt from beaver pelts. The felt

was used primarily for the manufacture of Stetson hats.

Vacant for a number of years, the structure was allowed to deteriorate

until recently tenanted once more. It is still threatened however, by

projected road improvements. Stucco covers the original frame walls. The

1861 bull gear and wheelpit are extant. (NJ)

A18 RYERSON HOUSE

A19 AND MILL

Newark-Hamburg Turnpike (M.C.-45, 3/4 mile ± west of Newark-Pompton Tnpk.)

This and Slater’s Mill are the only remaining mills on the entire length

of the Pequannock River. It was a gristmill operated by Samuel Van Ness

until 1882. It now houses a restaurant.

The mansion opposite was the home of the Ryersons, prominent iron-

masters and property owners early in the century. The surrounding land was

part of Schuyler’s Plantation, a portion of the 5,500 acre Pompton Patent

purchased from Indians in 1695 by eight Dutch settlers.

A20 POST L1NE CORNER

Nos. 41, 44 & 46 Post Lane

This has been called the oldest developed area in Riverdale. The

structure known as the Barn (now converted to residential use, No. 46)

was the area’s only general provisions store c. 1757. It was run by John

Post, who also operated a tannery and gristmill. Its exterior has been

considerably altered.

The frame house (no. 44) and the stone house (no. 41) are also Posthouses, although the sequence of ownership is unclear. The small wing of

no. 44 is late 18th century. Despite the enclosure of a porch, the exterior

presents a generally unaltered picture. The size of the stone house (only

two bays wide) suggests it may originally have served a non—residentialuse. No date has been suggested for its construction.

100



101



BOONTON REGION B

B1 JAMES HOLMES HOUSE

619 Main Street (M.C.—24)

This was originally a simple Greek Revival structure, built c. 1840.

Additions and alterations made between l870&1895 include the third oorwith bracketed eaves. Extensive remodeling of other areas has left this

oor virtually untouched.Built for commercial use, it was later the residence of James Holmes,

one of Boonton’s most successful citizens. Holmes bequeathed it to the

newly formed (1889) Boonton Library, which still occupies it.(NR)

B2 METHODIST CHURCH

515 Main Street (M.C.-24)

The Beers Atlas of Morris County (1868) pictures this church primarily

as it stands today. The body of the building is composed of a familiarmix of Classical and Gothic details. What lifts it out of the ordinary

is a handsome Italianate Tower, of a kind not often seen on churches, at

least not on those executed in wood. Now occupied by the Trinity Church of

God, the building and site are in neglected condition, and will soon be

demolished for post ofce construction.

B3 MILLER-KINGSLAND HOUSE NJHSI-462.3;HABS-96

445 Vreeland Avenue

The original west wing of this house, c.l740, makes it the oldest known

house in Boonton. Despite the addition of wood shingles in the 1930’s, it

remains an almost ideal example of the blend of early Dutch features withthe later Federal style. Much original woodwork and hardware survive. (NR)

B4 MORRIS CANAL

PLANE NO. 7 EAST

South of Main Street

Coal—carrying canal boats rose or fell 80 feet in Plane No.7 East. Coal

and ore for the New Jersey Iron Company were delivered from the canal above

the plane, and manufactured iron was shipped out.

102



BOONTON REGION B

(Morris Canal, continued)

B5 LOCK NO. 12 EAST

South of Main Street (M.C.—24) at Powerville Road (M.C.-11) intersection

A difference of nine feet was equalized by this lock, part of the

Boonton stretch which contributed to the town’s industrial prosperity.

OCTAGON HOUSES

B6 211 and

B7 244 Cornelia Street

In 1848, Orson Squire Fowler, a “professor” of phrenology, wrote a book

called A Home For All, or the Gravel Wall and Octagonal Mode of Building.

Fowler’s book claimed that the octagon provided a healthful, economical and

scientic dwelling, in contrast to the decadent, revival styles concocted

for the wealthy. His thesis proved unexpectedly popular, so that withina decade of its publication, octagons were springing up throughout the

East, especially in the Hudson River Valley.. Few of these houses remain.

The early examples (1855-57) here are probably the only two in MorrisCounty since the recent destruction of a third in Riverdale. They are

neat expressions of the genre at its simple best, without the excesses it

sometimes suffered. Except for a small addition which breaks the form of

no. 224, their condition is excellent.

B8 ST. JOHN’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Cornelia Street (N.W. Corner at Cedar St.)

No more representative example of a board—and—batten Carpenter GothicChurch exists in Morris County. Fanciful details like pierced bargeboards

and the open, cross—braced bell tower do not overwhelm the total design.

The main doorway, carved with trefoils and quatrefoils, and the tiny

triangular dormers set deeply into the roof, further enhance the decorative

scheme. The architect was Richard Upjohn, designer of New York City’s

Trinity Church.

The rst services were held here on July 8, 1863, ve days after theBattle of Gettysburg. Church records indicate that prayers of thanksgiving

were offered for the Union victory. The present congregation is seeking a

new location, and has offered the building for sale.

103



BOONTON TOWNSHIP REGION B

B9 DIXON FARM

Rockaway Valley Road (N. side, 1800’± N.E. of Valley Rd.)

Frederick Miller (1729—1816) was the original owner of this property.

It acquired its Dixon identity when Miller’s daughter Eleanor (1792—

1867) married James Dixon (1787—1844), whose father was a surgeon to theContinental Army.

The oldest building on the farm is the stone house, begun c. 1790. Like

the dwellings of Adam and James Miller, its north end is built into the

side of a bank. Subsequent additions increased the house to its present

size. About 1830 the gristmill (its original machinery still intact) and

the forge keeper’s house were built. The house on the hill followed in

1857. Two large barns (1860 & 1899) complete the picture. Considering the

customary fate of such buildings, their condition is unusually ne. Inaddition to the milling and forge operations, the large pond was a local

source of ice until the late 1940’s.

The Dixon property presents a comprehensive picture of a self— sufcient18th— and l9th—century farm in a bucolic setting of exceptional appeal.

In few other places has the preservation of natural and man—made features

produced such an integrated result. (NJR)

B1O ADAM MILLER HOUSE NJHSI-2549.2; HABS-]93

Rockaway Valley Road (W. side at Farber Hill Road)

Adam Miller was one of Boonton Township’s rst settlers. In 1767 headvertised this property for sale, describing it as:”... a good plantation

containing 350 acres of land.. .about 4 miles from Hibernia Furnace (where

there is a good market for all country produce) .“ When this offeringfailed to attract a buyer, he built the present eldstone and framedwelling for himself in the same year.

In 1776, Miller freed his slaves, thus establishing the rst recordedmanumission in Morris County. Forty—eight years later, the house and 163

acres became the rst poor farm in the county. Although no longer theseat of a “plantation,” the house stands today with surprisingly few

alterations.

B11 JAMES MILLER HOUSE

Rockaway Valley Road (N. side, at terminus of Valley Rd.)

James Miller, son of Adam, built this house c. 1800 on land which was

originally part of his father’s large plantation. Not long after its

construction C. 1811), Miller sold the house to James Dixon. Thus the landsranging from the present Dixon farm through this acreage and that of the

Adam Miller house share a common history relating to the Valley’s earliest

settlement.

104



BOONTON TOWNSHIP REGION B

B12 WILLIAM SCOTT MANSION NJHSI-2549.l; HABS—558

Powerville Road, M.C.—11 (W. side, 1500±’ 5. of Old Denville Rd.)

Successful speculation in iron and land enabled William Scott to build

this imposing house c. 1825. It is at once a summation of the colonial

architectural tradition and an exponent of the Classical Revival. Notable

features include a triglyph frieze below the eaves, pilastered and

pedimented windows, and an unusually wide doorway. The large porch is a

later addition. The mansion presently houses a nursing home.

105



DENVILLE REGION B

Bl3 EBELING HOUSE

Openaki Road (W. shore of Lake Openaki)

Although nominally “Victorian” (c. 1885), this 3-story stucco house has

none of the architectural excess popularly associated with that era. In

fact, its unadorned lines look surprisingly contemporary. Originally built

as a vacation lodge, it became the second American home of the Seeing Eye

foundation from 1929 to 1931. During the 18th century, the nine—acre lake

furnished power for a grist mill, and earlier still was a favorite stopping

place of the Leni—Lenape.

The present owners have carefully preserved the house and grounds. The

interior reects the taste of the 1890’s and early 1900’s, and suggests theinuence of art collector William T. Evans, who made the property a weddinggift to his daughter Florence Ebeling in 1908.

B14 MORRIS CANAL

LIFT LOCK NO. 8 EAST

Intersection of Diamond Spring and Boonton Roads ( M.C.-3) ,E. side

Canal boats were lifted or lowered 7.3 feet by this lock. An adjacent

lock—tender’s house also served as a general store for local people and

canal personnel. One thousand feet east of the lock, the stone and timber

Denville Aqueduct carried canal water and boats across the Rockaway River.

106



EAST HANOVER REGION B

Bl5 COOK’s BRIDGE (Site) NJHSI—964.4Mt. Pleasant Avenue (M.C.-2) at East Hanover/Livingston line

On the east end of this bridge was located the last toll gate of

the Newark-Mt. Pleasant Turnpike. The gate was operated until 1877 by

a resident of Hanover Village, who was a surviving stockholder of the

Turnpike Company and thus reserved the right to levy tolls. Cook’s Bridge

also saw the crossing of stage lines which delivered newspapers weekly from

New York.

B16 COXE LINE (Site) NJHS1974.5River Road at Merry Lane

The 1715 Coxe Line was the division between lands of Coxe and Budd,

drawn straight across Hanover Neck from the Whippany to the Passaic River.

The 1,250 acre Coxe tract was one of the largest private holdings in Morris

County at the time.

B17 JACOB GREEN HOUSE

27 Hanover Road (M.C.-2)

Jacob Green was once described as “preacher, teacher, doctor,

proctor, miller and distiller.” He was the rst vice-president of the

College of N.J. (Princeton) in 1748, and his tract “Observations on theReconciliation of Great Britain and the Colonies” called for independence,

universal religious freedom and abolition. As might bet a man of so manyaccomplishments, his house (c. 1760) is commodious and well—proportioned ifnot grand. The long, 5—bay main wing has tiny eyebrow windows and interior

gable-end chimneys; the small wing a narrow porch and broken sweep roof.

Bl8 HALF-WAY HOUSE or ELLIS COOK HOUSE NJHSI-964.l7; HABS-676

174 Mt. Pleasant Avenue (M.C.-2)

This mid-l8th--century ve-bay frame building was maintained as an inn.Its owner, Colonel Ellis Cook, served in the Eastern Battalion of the

Morris County Militia during the Revolution. Cook was also a member of the

Committee of Correspondence, the Provincial Congress of 1776, and later a

member of the State Legislature. A number of its features, including arched

dormer windows, paneling and ne mantels, make this a more sophisticatedexample of pre—Revolutionary architecture than is usually found locally.

Its name may be derived from the fact that Sussex County farmers anddrovers stopped here on their way to the Newark markets. (NJR)

107




B19 AMBROSE KITCHELL HOUSE

434 Ridgedale Avenue (M.C.-32)

Ambrose Kitchell, the son of Senator Aaron Kitchell, lived here in 1810,

when this house was the largest and most pretentious in the neighborhood.

Subsequent alterations have given it the appearance of a house built thirty

or forty years later. Ambrose Kitchell was the grandfather of Smith Ely,

Mayor of New York City (1877) and opponent of the Tammany machine.

B20 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF HANOVER

Mt. Pleasant Avenue (M.C.—2), Terminus of Hanover Avenue

The congregation of the First Presbyterian Church traces its roots back

to 1710 when a group of settlers, attracted by iron deposits, formed a

small community around the Whippanong River. The rst crude meeting housewas raised c.l7l8. The versatile Jacob Green (see Jacob Green House) served

as pastor from 1746 to 1790. During the winter of 1777, when Washington wasquartered in Morristown, the second church building was used as a smallpox

hospital.

The present frame building is the congregation’s third, built in 1835.

Gothic and Classical Revival motifs were combined in a sophisticated manner

under master builder Elijah Hopping. Two unusual features were designed to

improve the view of the pulpit: a gently sloping oor and angled aisles and

pew blocks.

B21 ADONIRAM PRUDEN HOUSE NJHSI-964.l3

644 Ridgedale Avenue (M.C.—59)

Built c. 1750 by Adoniram Pruden, later a soldier in the Revolution,this frac1apboard farmhouse was the seat of an extensive plantation,

occupying much of the land between the Whippany and Passaic Rivers. The

land holdings shrank under successive owners, but the house stands today as

a reminder of that time in the 18th century when large contiguous portions

of Morris County were privately owned. The pedimented dentiled doorway with

sidelights and pilasters is noteworthy. The property is threatened with

proposed road widening.

B22 TIDEY FARM

Ridgedale Avenue, M.C.-32 (W. side, 400±’ N. of Mann Avenue)

The rear wing of this house appears to be early 18th century; the mainpart is considerably later. Aside from installation of modern conveniences,

virtually no changes have been made. Of special interest are 12/12 pane

windows on the rst oor, lunette windows in the

108




TIDEY FARM, Continued.

garret, and three decorative panels on the front facade where eyebrow

windows might be expected. The introduction of classical details, combined

with a gambrel roof, makes this house architecturally noteworthy.

B23 MATHIAS BURNET HOUSE

212 Whippany Road (M.C.-22)

The Burnets were prosperous farmers and tradesmen throughout the 18th

and 19th centuries. Mathias Burnet built this large house around 1774. Like

the house of Daniel Burnet in Madison, built not long before, it suggests

an uncommon degree of prosperity for its time.

B24 REVEREND EDWIN FORD HOUSE

30 Ford Hill Road (M.C.—64)

This house was built c. 1857 by Reverend Edwin Ford, a descendant

of John Ford (see Old Forge, Below) to replace one built in 1732. Thebrownstone sills and lintels and beautifully scrolled porch brackets

are noteworthy. House and grounds, both carefully preserved, present a

distinctive picture of mid—Victorian rural life.

FRENCH ARMY ENCAMPMENT (SITES) NJHSI-l365.3

B25 S. of Troy Hills Road, easterly from Rte. 10;

B26 S. of Reynolds Ave. near Highland Ave.; and

B27 Route 10 near bridge at Whippany

Comte de Rochambeau’s troops camped here with heavy artillery and siege

trains on their way to Yorktown and back (1781—1782).

B28 GREEN-COOK HOUSE HABS-639

135 Route 10

This house once marked the easterly end of the Village of Whippany, near

the site of Ball’s Mills. The small (c.1790) and large c. 1830) wings tella familiar story of rising prosperity. Like so many 18th— and 19th-century

houses built close to roads for convenience, its proximity has become a

liability in the 20th century.

109



HANOVER REGION B

B29 OLD FORGE (SITE)Whippany Road (M.C.-22) at Route 10 (N. side of Whippany River)

In 1710 John Budd and John Ford built the rst forge in Morris or Sussex

Counties. Iron later became one of Morris County’s major resources.

B30 LEWIS PIERSON HOUSE (SITE) HABS-689

Horsehill Road, near N.W. corner of Hanover Avenue

HABS documentation gives 1840 as the construction date for this

house. In 1853, a Lewis Pierson (Jr.) operated a carriage—making shop inMorristown. A connection is likely but circumstantial. The house was razed

about 1972 by AT&T.

B31 JOSEPH TUTTLE HOUSE HABS-469

341 Route 10

This house was built by Joseph Tuttle, a blacksmith and justice of the

peace, c. 1796. Tuttle farmed or leased more than 1,000 acres, served as a

colonel in the Militia, as a deacon in the Presbyterian Church, and as a

county freeholder. His house is now the best preserved of the 18th century

Whippany Village houses. Like the Green— Cook House, there are two wings,

the larger with a ne Federal doorway. (NJR)

B32 WHIPPANY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH NJHSI-l365.2

Route 10 (N. side, opposite Whippany Road)

The New Jersey Anti—Slavery Society was founded here on August 27, 1839,ve years after this church was dedicated. Its general plan parallels thatof the Presbyterian Church in East Hanover, but relies less on Classical

details. Elijah Hopping supervised the construction of both. The recent

addition seeks to echo the windows of the original in modern materials.

110



MONTVILLE REGION B

Montville’s unusually rich stock of 18th and early 19th century stone

buildings should be viewed as a collective phenomenon which preserves

a picture of Dutch settlement patterns. For that reason, some of the

individual houses listed here are not of exceptional interest in

themselves.

B33 HENRY BEACH HOUSE

129 Change Bridge Road (M.C.-21)

Reputedly modeled after the Ambrose Kitchell House (1810) in EastHanover, the elegant neo—classical details of this later house make such a

supposition possible. It was built in 1840 by Henry Beach, who maintained

the Montville post ofce in its lean-to section when mail still arrived bystage coach.

During the Gold Rush, Beach ran a restaurant in Sacramento, California

and sent his prots (in the form of gold dust) home to his wife. After his

California venture, he returned to the life of a farmer in Montville, wherehe died in 1865.

B34 BOTT OR COOK HOUSE HABS-452

824 Main Road (Rte. 202)

Despite the late name popularly associated with it at the time of the

H2BS survey in 1936, this might more properly be known as the Cook House,

since records show that Henry and Ann Cook owned the property in 1796, when

the house was probably built. Except for the addition of aluminum awnings,

it is little altered.

B35 DEMAREST FARMHOUSE HABS-309

Change Bridge Road (E. side, 1600±’ N.E. of Horseneck Rd.)

HABS research suggested a 1.720-1730 date of construction for this

house. Recent investigation uncovered a previously overlooked deed,

making 1780 more likely. Like most of Montville’s Dutch houses, it is in

excellent condition and has been little altered. Its ared roof and narrow

stone section make it particularly evocative of early building practices,

regardless of its date.

B36 CORNELIUS T. DOREMUS HOUSE

107 Change Bridge Road

In her book Early Dutch Houses and Families, Rosalie Fellows Bailey

observes that, “A notable feature of the Dutch style is the

111



MONTVILLE REGION B

(CORNELIUS T. DOREMUS HOUSE, continued

combination of various building materials. . .to form a beautiful

composition, with each element contributing its share and adding life and

style by its individual quality.” The Doremus house, with its integrationof eldstone, sandstone, brick and shingle could serve as a textbookillustration of this quality.

Cornelius, son of Thomas Doremus, acquired this land from his father

c. 1812. At least part of the stone walls may have survived from a house

constructed as early as 1785. It is thought that a re, referred to incontemporary accounts, destroyed most of the rst structure c. 1837, and

that Cornelius had the present house built a few years later, incorporating

parts of the earlier walls. Such a date makes plausible the neo—classic

details (Doric columns, lunette windows) which stand out crisply againstdark brick and stone.

B37 THOMAS DOREMUS HOUSE NJHSI—306l.l; HABS-488490 Main Road (Rte.202)

This is one of the earliest stone houses in the area, as well as the

least altered. Each of the two ground oor rooms has a separate entrance — a feature typical of the earliest Dutch/Flemish houses in New York and New

Jersey.

Its inclusion on several Revolutionary War maps, as well as in several

contemporary written accounts, establishes that it was standing before

1775. Military expense accounts verify that Washington and his staff spent

the night of June 24 or 25, 1780 here. One of the principal military Routes

from Morristown to West Point passed this way. (NR)

B38 ABRAHAM JACOBUS OUT-KITCHEN 1ND WIDOW JACOBUS HOUSE HABS-492

Main Road (Rte 202, N.E. corner at Jacksonville Rd.)

Only the deteriorated stone walls of the kitchen remain. The adjacent

house (not part of the HABS description), is of relatively late brickconstruction. The rear wall is stone, however, leading to the supposition

that the remains of an earlier building were incorporated into the later

structure. The property is for sale, so the abandoned house and the remains

of the kitchen will probably be demolished in the near future.

P39 JOHN J. JACOBUS HOUSE (SITE) HABS-474

Waughaw Road (W. Side, 1000’± N. of Botts Lane)

Only the foundations remain of this HABS-recorded house. The Jacobus

name appears frequently in local records.

112



MONTVILLE REGION B

B40 EFFINGHAM LOW HOUSE

101 Hook Mountain Road

This land was part of William Penn’s 1715 Hook Mountain Tract. In 1775,

Penn’s heirs compelled unauthorized settlers like Efngham Low to buy theirholdings for 2 per acre. Tax records show that a house was standing here in

1778, probably the one—room stone wing of the present large house, built

c.l8l2.

B41 MONTVILLE SCHOOLHOUSE

Taylortown Road (250’± N. of Main Rd.)

Originally a schoolhouse, this one—room brick building has served a

number of other public functions since its construction in 1867. The

Methodist Episcopal congregation met here for a time, as did the Temperance

Society. In the 20th century it served as town hail and post ofce before

being relinquished to the Montville Historical Society.

MORRIS CANAL

B42 INCLINED PLANE NO. 10 EAST

North of Route 202 (near Osborne Lane)

This incline was called the Pompton Plane because it rose 56 feet from

the Pompton (Pequannock) River.

B43 MONTVILLE CHANGEBRIDGE

Route 202 at Changebridge Road

Because of changes in terrain, the canal towpath was sometimes moved

from one side of the canal prism to the other. Mules and their drivers had

to cross the canal in order to regain the relocated towpath. This they did

by means of changebridges, one of which stood here, giving its name to the

road that crossed the canal on it - Changebridge Road.

B44 INCLINED PLANE NO. 9 EAST

Route 202, opposite River Road

This is the companion plane to No. 8 East, originally separated from it

by a small basin.

113



MONTVILLE REGION B

B45 PLANE NO. 8 EAST

South of Myrtle Avenue (E. of Boonton boundary)

This plane enabled boats to negotiate a difference in elevation of 76

feet. A small basin separated it from Plane No. 9 East.

B46 JOHANNES PARLAMAN HOUSE HABS-49

Vreeland Avenue (1000±’ E. of Boonton Town boundary)

The Parlaman family occupied this property for more than 200 years, from

about 1736 when it came into the possession of Barber, mother of Jahannes

Parlaman. The west section was built c. 1755, the frame additions c.1829.

The exterior has not been changed since the latter date.

B47 SAMUEL STILES HOUSE

Changebridge Road, M.C.-21 (S.W. corner, at Horseneck Rd.)

The apparent contradiction of a New England style house in this

predominately Dutch community is explained by the Connecticut origins of

its builder. The 1 1/2—story west wing is the original part, built before

1777.

Early in the 19th century, it was the parsonage for the Dutch Reformed

Church of Boonton, and subsequently became the home of Montville physician

George Wurts and later of his successor, Dr. Ezekiel B. Gaines.

B48 VAN DUYNE-JACOBUS HOUSE

29 Change Bridge Road (M.C.-2l)

Because this is one of the few Dutch stone houses in Montville denitelyascribed to the pre—Revolutionary period, its omission from the HABS survey

is puzzling. The southwest section is the original structure. Van Duyne

ownership ended on May 19, 1858 when Isaac Van Duyne, great grandson of

the builder, hanged himself in the barn, reportedly despondent over his

daughter’s refusal to dismiss a suitor.

B49 ABRAHAM/MARTIN J. VAN DUYNE HOUSE NJHSI-2064.l; HABS-489

292 Main Road (Rte.202)

Evidence suggests that a modest house stood here prior to 1771. The

north addition was probably built by Martin Van Duyne c. 1795 or later, andveries the tenacity of the Dutch vernacular style, with its typical frontsweep and overhang.

Through the vigorous efforts of former owners, it was spared demolition

for Interstate 287. The exterior is virtually unaltered.

114



MONTVILLE REGION B

B50 SIMON VAN DUYNE HOUSE HABS—147

58 Maple Avenue

This was another part of William Penn’s Hook Mountain Tract which

attracted squatters, among them Robert Sanford, the rst owner of thisparcel. Circumstantial evidence has dated the house either before 1750 or

c. 1788.

B51 JOHN H. VREELAND OUT-KITCHEN HABS-493

52 Jacksonville Road (M.C.—8)

Only two out—kitchens were recorded by HABS in all of Morris County.

This unadorned stone structure is the sole survivor, Date of construction

is c. 1790.

115



MOUNTAIN LAKES REGION B

B52 COMMUNITY CHURCH

46 Briarcliff Road

Forty—eight people were received as charter members of the Community

Church in 1913, before the congregation had a building of its own. In 1914,

the present neo—Gothic structure was built, using the local boulder—like

stone common in the area. Like many churches of the 18th century built in

pioneering communities, this church was originally unafliated, servingworshippers of different denominations. It thus became a cohesive social

force for burgeoning Mt. Lakes, one of the rst modern planned communities.

B53 JOHN GRIMES HOMESTEAD NJHSI-2108.1

45 Bloomeld Avenue

Part of this rambling wooden farmhouse is known to have existed in 1776

when it was owned by John Grimes. Later it was the birthplace of Dr. John

Grimes, abolitionist and editor of the antislavery newspaper New JerseyFreeman. It was also the birthplace of Quincy Grimes, killed in the Civil

War, whose letters are in the collection of Rutgers University. John

Grimes’ obituary in the New Jersey Freeman of 1875 stated that the house

was a station on the Underground Railroad, used to move slaves from Baxter

Sayer’s Post (in what is now Florham Park) to Newfoundland, N.J. The houseis endangered due to its location in a commercial zone.

B54 LAKE DRIVE SCHOOL

10 Lake Drive

Another of Mt. Lake’s early 20th-century stone public buildings, this

was originally a four-room school, built at a cost of $24,000 when itopened in 1914. The large window-wall in one section imparts a surprisingly

contemporary appearance. The supervising stonemason was D. Padovano, also

responsible for the Mt. Lakes Railroad Station.

B55 MT. LAKES RAILROAD STATION

Woodland Avenue and Midvale Road, N.W. corner

On November 16, 1912, the rst train scheduled to stop at Mt. Lakes

from Hoboken arrived at 1:21 A.M., greeted with a display of reworks. Thestation’s cornerstone had been laid in August by Belle de Rivera, famed

suffragette and local resident. In 1915 the station was destroyed by re.

The present building was completed in 1918 after eight months of work bymaster mason and stonecutter

D. Padovano.

116



MOUNTAIN LAKES REGION B

B56 RIGHTER HOUSE

99 Pocono Road

A will of 1793 refers to this and surrounding land as the “plantation”

of Gasper Righter. It was probably the rst house built on the land nowincorporated as Mt. Lakes. Early in the 20th century it served as an inn

and tavern, when Pocono Road was a highway instead of a back road. The

original 6—room structure has been considerably altered and enlarged to

twelve rooms.

117



PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS REGION B

B57 BEVERWYCK (SITE)Route 46 (S.W. corner) and South Beverwyck Road

Beverwyck is one of Morris County’s greatest preservation losses.

Although it was bequeathed to the Morris County Historical Society in

1963, complications arising over the site and the relocation of Beverwyck

Road made it imperative that the house be moved. Despite vigorous efforts

(the State Department of Transportation even agreed to let an unopened

section of Route 80 be used), local interest was not sufcient to raise thenecessary funds. In 1971 a re of undetermined origin gutted the house,making its demolition inevitable.

Built about 1778, Beverwyck was the seat of a ourishing 2000— acreplantation owned by Lucas von Beverhoudt of St. Thomas, Virgin Islands.

During the Revolution, Washington’s military family and distinguished

guests were entertained by Beverhoudt at lavish balls. After his death,

the house was owned by Boudinots and Condits, and remained in excellent

condition until the end.

B58 STEPHEN CONDIT HOUSE

41 North Beverwyck Road

Both the interior and exterior of this 1870 house exhibit a degree of

preservation equalled by few Victorian farmhouses. Careful proportions and

handsome but restrained decoration make it representative of the best of

late 19th—century 2merican rural architecture. Condits have owned this land

since 1828. In the years when Route 46 was still a country road, this was a

horse and dairy farm. (NR)

B59 CRAFTSMAN FARMS

Route 10 (N. side, 1/4 W of Morris Plains boundary)

Craftsman Farms was the Utopian dream of Gustav Stickley (1858 — 1942)leader of the American arts and crafts movement, designer, architect and

publisher of the inuential magazine The Craftsman. Between 1908 and 1912,Stickley bought more than 400 acres for establishment of a “factory—farm”

where - young men would learn hand craftsmanship under the direction

of masters, and where the entire working community would be supported

by the products of its own farm. Stickley’s intention was to counter

the dehumanizing inuence of modern production by reviving the ancientapprentice system. Before the grand design could be fully realized his

multifarious interests drove him into bankruptcy, and in 1917 he was forced

to sell Craftsman Farms.

Aside from the barn, which burned a few years ago, his other stone and

log buildings, merely the beginning of a great dream, survive.

118




B60 DICKERSON LOG CABIN (SITE) HABS-644Mt. Tabor Golf Course (N. of Park Rd.)

HABS drawings depict a small log cabin directly attached to a 3-bay,

Federal dwelling. Apparently both units were demolished shortly after the

survey was made. No traces of the site remain. This was the only 18th—

century log house recorded by HABS in Morris County not incorporated into a

later structure.

B61 GREYSTONE PARK STATE HOSPITAL ADMINISTRATION COMPLEX

Between West Hanover Avenue and Grannis Avenue

Known during its history by a number of names (New Jersey State Hospital

at Greystone and State Asylum for the Insane among them), Greystone wasopened in 1876 as the second New Jersey State Asylum. It resulted from the

same reform movement led by Dorothea Lynde Dix which had produced Trenton

State Hospital some years earlier. The rural site was carefully chosenfor its potential therapeutic value, and well into the 20th century the

hospital maintained its own farm. Before a decade had passed, the 600-

bed capacity had been exceeded and makeshift expansion was necessary.

Regardless of subsequent scandals, Greystone was remarkably progressive

for its time — a time when many state institutions for the “insane” were

no more than poorhouses which actually proted at the expense of their

inmates.

By 1887 the huge plan of the central complex had been completed. Like

its Trenton counterpart it was known as a “Kirkbride Hospital,” named for

Dr. Thomas S. Kirkbride whose general plans were widely imitated in the

latter part of the 19th century. Until the construction of the Pentagon, it

was often described as the largest building under one roof in the United

States. The domed main wing of the original complex follows the Second

Empire style. Despite numerous interior changes, the ensemble stands much

as it was built, an important milestone in American medical and social

history.

B62 LIVINGSTON-BENEDICT HOUSE NJHSI-2 371.1; HABS-630

25 Parsippany Road (M.C.-30)

Because it remained a safe distance from British troops during most of

the Revolution, this house served for three years as the home of William

Livingston, rst governor of the State of New Jersey. It was built c.1760 by Lemuel Bowers, a tavern—keeper and merchant who served at various

times as county judge, captain of militia, and commissioner of the peace.

The cottage directly across the road was originally a dependency of this

property. (NR)

119




B63 ISAAC MAY HOUSE

1200 Parsippany Boulevard (Rte.22)

Typical of Parsippany’s 18th-century agricultural identity, this house

is related to the early history illustrated by the Vail District. Earliest

records presently available place the house in Isaac May’s possession in

1796. His tombstone in the Vail Cemetery bears the dates 1771—1807.

Location of the house in an Ofce/Commercial zone on a busy cornerimperils its future. Development and road widening appear to he imminent

threats.

B64 MT. TABOR DISTRICT

Route 53 on Parsippany/Denville Border

Like Drew Theological School, Mt. Tabor was founded as a direct result

of the Methodist Episcopal Church’s centennial celebration in 1866. Its

charter, granted by the State in 1869, made it one of two communities inNew Jersey empowered to function as a municipality within a municipality.

Tents and other temporary structures were adequate for the rst campgroundrevival meetings, but permanent summer cottages soon followed on small

lots, with streets barely wide enough for horse and carriage. An account

written during Tabor’s early years describes it in the following terms:

“The tabernacle, from whose portico the sermons are delivered, is a

tastefully planned and richly painted structure, which, together with

the light and tent- like buildings for prayer meetings, gives an almost

oriental atmosphere to the place.”

By 1877, Mt. Tabor was “a unique summer colony with a moral and

religious atmosphere all its own.” By 1891 the evangelical fervor had begun

to fade, but a community had grown which soon became year—round, with its

own school, library, church, clubhouse, hotel and golf course.

Mt. Tabor was for years the most comprehensive display of Victorian

vacation architecture outside of Cape May. Because the cottages were not

intended as permanent homes, their designers approached them without

inhibitions, resulting in a riot of scrolled, pierced, cut and applied

wooden gingerbread. Renovations and winterizing alterations have by now

removed or obscured most of these fanciful details. Enough remnants

survive, however, to verify the picture recorded by a sheaf of early

photographs, which document the evangelical era so important to the growth

of Methodism.

B65 PARRITT-SMITH HOUSE HABS-562

460 S. Beverwyck Road (M.C.-37)

The central unit of this well—preserved house was probably built

120




(PARRITT-SMITH HOUSE, continued)

between 1788 and 1801. The two wings appear to have been added in the rstthird of the 19th century, judging in part from their window trim, common

to the Greek Revival. A three part “mansion house” of this sort became thestandard plan for better class residences between the end of the Revolution

and the mid-19th century.

B66 VAIL DISTRICT

Route 46 (between Smith Rd. and Troy Rd.)

This area represents the remains of “Percipenny Village,” the hub of an

18th- and 19th-century farming community.

The district’s most signicant structure is the Presbyterian Church,one of Morris County’s only two brick churches of the period. Although the

present building was dedicated in 1829, the history of the parish dates

back to 1755. The Trustees’ Oath of Ofce, drawn up by Aaron Kitchell in1787, reads in part, “I do swear that I do not hold myself bound to bear

allegiance to the King of Great Britain. ..“

In 1814, the Rev. John Ford, who served the congregation for forty

years, was the tutor of the New York—New Jersey Presbyterian Synod pilot

program to train black ministers. Graduates of this program carried the

gospel throughout the United States, and to Haiti and Africa. A roll call

of trustees since 1755 reveals names prominent in the history of Parsippany

and Morris County - Baldwin, Benedict, Condit, Crane, Farrand, Frost, and

Kitchell.

The district includes the following sites: Meeker Store, Presbyterian

Cemetery, Presbyterian Church, Presbyterian Manse, Righter Hotel, Righter

Store.

121



122



CHATHAM REGION C

C1 NATHANIEL BONNEL HOUSE

32 Watchung Avenue (The Shunpike, M.C. 46)

The Bonnels and the Days were the largest and most important pre—

Revolutionary families in Chatham. Until some time after the Revolution,

the Bonnels controlled all of the mills from Chatham to New Providence.

The house was built c. 1750 by Nathaniel Bonnel IV, a direct descendant

of Nathaniel Bonnel of Elizabethtown. It bears a number of general

similarities to the Paul Day House (below) built around the same time. Itappears to be the only house in Chatham where 12 over 12 window lights are

preserved. Commercial use has kept the house in fair condition with few

major alterations.

C2 DAVID SAYRE BOWER HOUSE


Solid and spacious without being extravagant, this 1865 house has carvedrosettes over the windows and a bracketed porch cornice. The 15” thick

foundation is hand-hewn eldstone. Rococo ceiling medallions and stuccocornices inside complement chestnut and mahogany woodwork.

Like the slightly more elaborate house of Edward Harris (see below),this represents the mid-to late-Victorian ideal of upper- middle—class

convenience and beauty — a house in which the various revival fashions

(notably Gothic) have been subsumed into a comfortable domestic whole.

C3 CHATHAM HISTORIC DISTRICT

Main Street, Route 24 (Between Hillside Avenue and Passaic River)

The Chatham District represents a typical 18th to mid 19th- centurycommunity, essentially agrarian, with a small scale commercial identity.

The district is primarily signicant for the composite impression madeby its individual houses, and because of the following historical

associations:

New Jersey’s rst turnpike (now Route 24) was chartered in 1801,connecting Elizabeth with the Upper Delaware River Valley (cf. “Toll Gate,”

Madison). Its stone and gravel surface represented a vast improvement overearlier dirt roads. During the Revolution, Chatham played host to many

of the top ofcers of the Continental Army; more than a dozen lettersof Washington’s military correspondence were written here. Perhaps most

signicant of all, New Jersey’s second newspaper, The New Jersey Journal(1779— 1783) was printed in Chatham after Shepard Kollock, its editor/

printer, ed from the British across the Passaic. Its news and propagandain support of the colonists made an important contribution to bolstering

123



CHATHAM REGION C

(CHATHAM HISTORIC DISTRICT continued)

civilian and military morale.

Few of the remaining houses predate the Revolution. Most are Federal and

later, A few exhibit simple Greek Revival motifs. Most are well preserved,

although a number of commercial renovations, notably fake colonial bay and

picture windows, have compromised the district’s architectural probity.

And the intrusion of an oversize modern ofce building opposite RooseveltAvenue has had an overbearing effect on the scale of the street. Despite

these problems, the abundance of architectural styles and the historical

associations of the Chatham District are evident. Buildings of interest

include (but are not limited to) the following (designated by an asterisk).

The Chatham District has been named to the New Jersey Register of Historic

Places. (NJR)

* NANCY BONNEL DAY HOMESTEAD

76 Main Street

Basically an early 19th—century house, the small wing and third oor

are later additions. Console brackets and rectangular panels enliven the

facade. The larger section reputedly had a gambrel roof before the third

oor was added, and the small wing was a doctor’s ofce later in the 19th— century. (NJR)

* WILLIAM DAY HOUSE NJHSI-67l.5; HABS-490

70 Main Street

During the Revolution this was the home of William Day, a captain in the

Morris County Militia under Col. Sylvanus Seely. Original features include

a beehive oven, 9/6 windows, and a steeply gabled roof. The original narrow

width and breadth have been doubled by additions, without substantially

changing the 18th-century feeling of the house. (NJR)

* DAVID MINTON HOUSE

56 Main Street

Built after 1870 on the site of The New Jersey Journal, the irregular

form of this house is typical of the late Victorian period. Modern siding

has obscured some details, and additions have enlarged it. (NJR)

124



CHATHAM REGION C

* JACOB MORREL HOUSE

63 Main Street

Washington probably stayed here for two or three days during the summer

of 1781 while executing a diversionary maneuver to outwit British troops

under Gen. Clinton. The house had been built about forty years before, and

purchased during the Revolution by Jacob Morrell, a merchant. Like a number

of Main Street houses, it is aficted with a rash of modern bay windows.

(NJR)

* GEORGE TOWNLEY PARROTT HOUSE

63 Main Street

The Parrott name is associated with an 1850 mill which has not survived.

This house was probably built soon after the Revolution. The gambrel roof

was typical of late 18th—century Chatham houses. A modern addition has left

the original structure largely intact. (NJR)

* SAYRE HOUSE NJHSI-671.9; HABS-94

94 Main Street

The smaller wing with eyebrow windows and original replace was probablybuilt late in the 18th century. The larger wing (pre— 1860) with Victorian

double doors turns its gable end toward the street. Numerous additions to

the rear do not compromise the integrity of these sections. This is a good

example of adaptive use, handsomely landscaped. The present commercial

name, William Pitt Inn, has no historic signicance. (NJR)

* DR. PETER SMITH HOUSE

7 University Avenue (Moved from Main St.)

This is a ne example of the frame Federal style built prior to 1792.Features of interest include the main doorway with sidelights, transom and

four pilasters, and the widely spaced windows on the gable end. Despite the

modern porch and some minor changes, this is probably the least altered

18th-century house in the Chatham District. (NJR)

* NEHEMIAH WARD HOUSE

127 Main Street

Built late in the 18th century, this narrow frame house has a

125



CHATHAM REGION C

(NEHEMIAH WARD HOUSE continued)

delicate fanlight door. It is so well proportioned and nely detailed thatit nearly succeeds in overcoming the gross affront of two picture windows

added for commercial use. Montgomery Ward was born here in 1843. (NJR)

A more extensive description of these and other houses in the district

can be found in Margaret Keisler’s A Saturday Stroll Down East Main Street,

published in 1972 by the Chatham Historical Society.

C4 PAUL DAY HOUSE

24 Kings Road

When this house was built, around 1750, King’s Road was the main

thoroughfare from Chatham to Morristown — and a primary troop route during

the Revolution. Two walls are brick-lled, and two original re—placesremain. Considerable restoration work has been accomplished.

STEPHEN DAY HOUSES

C5 62 Elmwood Avenue HABS125

C6 272 Main Street, Route 24 (SITE) HABS356

Stephen Day (1726—1815) was the son of Joseph Day (1695—1774) patriarchof the numerous Chatham Days, prominent since early in the 18th century.

Both Stephen Day houses were situated on substantial holdings which ran

from Day’s Brook probably as far as St. Paul’s Church, on the King’s

Highway (Rte.24). Another 18th-century house formerly on the Day propertyhas been moved to Florham Park, and is known as the Joanna Day Tuttle

House. Stephen Day is believed to have lived in the house on King’s Highwayduring the Revolution, but information regarding the two houses still

remains confusing, since the property at 62 Elmwood Ave. has also been

identied as the Stephen Day Homestead.Since being surveyed by the Historic American Buildings Survey in the

1930’s, the Main Street house has been demolished and the other has been so

altered and modernized that the exterior is no longer of an architectural

interest. Both are included here because of their notation by HABS.

126



CHATHAM REGION C

C7 EDWARD C. HARRIS HOUSE

331 Main Street (Rte. 24)

Probably built between 1860-1870, this house combines a number of

favorite Victorian details - exuberant bargeboard, balusters topped with

nials, board-and-batten gable, carved window molding, and pedimenteddouble doors. Present commercial use has left the exterior mostly

unaltered, except for an enclosed side porch. Alice Harris became the wife

of Fredrick Harvey Lum, Sr. the rst mayor of Chatham Borough.

C8 BENJAMIN P. LUM, JR. HOUSE AND STABLE


During the mid-l9th century Benjamin Lum operated a bustling brickyard

just south of the railroad. His business accounts for the construction

material used here, uncommon for surviving Main Street houses of the

period. The Lums were large land owners and prominent in Borough affairs(see Edward C. Harris House, above).

Few of the stables, carriage houses and other dependencies so important

to the Victorian era remain, even when the houses they served have

survived. Aside from removal of the large doors, this rare example is in

excellent condition. A 2—story brick structure with diagonally set cupola

and toothed bargeboards, it now serves a residential use. Especially

valuable are the four gables, each decorated with bold star and trefoil

cutouts.

127



CHATHAM TOWNSHIP REGION C

C9 BOISAUBIN NJHSI-672.1

Treadwell Avenue (W. side, 1000+’ N. of Woodland Rd.)

Built around 1800 for Amidee Boisaubin, once an ofcer in Louis XVI’s

bodyguard, this mansion occupies a hill where the Continental Army camped.

One of the columns of the 2-story pedimented portico is hollow, and

contains stairs allegedly used to smuggle escaping slaves.

M. Boisaubin was active in the community life of Bottle Hill, and was

instrumental in founding St. Vincent’s R.C. Church. A.B. Frost, illustrator

for Joel Chandler Harris’ Uncle Remus stories, lived here from 1890 to

1906.

No other Federal house in Morris County equals the simple grandeur of

Boisaubin, which foreshadows by twenty years the full- blown classicism of

the Greek Revival. (NJR)

C1O DAVID BRANDT HOUSE

461 Green Village Road (M.C.-46)

In the eighteenth century much of the land hereabouts was held in large

grant tracts. (William Penn owned a parcel nearby). The land on which thishouse stands was part of William Alexander, Lord Sterling’s holdings. His

interest was primarily speculative and the house (c.l760) was probablybuilt for a tenant charged with protecting the land.

Sterling’s nancial difculties forced a sheriff’s sale late in the1780’s when Great Swamp (once called Sterling Valley) lands were valuablefor their timber. From 1792 until 1849 the property was owned by Brandts,

after passing through the hands of Elias Boudinot and Ben-5amin Burroughs,

two prominent landowners.

Aside from its lack of a center chimney, the 1 1/2-story house covered

with cedar shakes resembles a traditional Cape Cod design. Flooring,

foundation, windows, mud plaster and other details are original. It is

one of the earliest and least altered houses of its type in the Township.

Proximity to the road may eventually endanger its continued existence.

C11 WILLIAM GIBBONS RACE TRACK (SITE)

Noe Avenue, Overlook Drive, Sandy Hill Road area

Gibbons was the rst owner of the mansion known as Mead Hall, now partof Drew University. Around 1840 he had built an ellipse for trotting horses

and sulky carts — solely for his personal pleasure and that of his friends,

members of the elite social world of New York and Bottle Hill. “Fashion,”

one of the most famous horses to run here, is depicted in a Currier and

Ives lithograph.

128



CHATHAM TOWNSHIP REGION C

C12 JOHNSON HOUSE NJHSI 671.14

805 Fairmount Avenue

The original part of this house may have been built as early as 1775.

Of particular interest is a 19th—century hydraulic ram water system which

supplied water to the kitchen, milk room arid attic, as well as to an

articial well on the lawn, to a barn, and uphill to a gristmill. Part ofthe outside system is still operative. Judging from its present appearance,

the house was modernized sometime during the Victorian era with decorative

brackets, porch, and other details. It is pictured in Munsell’s History of

Morris County.

C13 NOE FARMHOUSE NJHSI-672.5

184 Southern Boulevard (M. C. —27)

Situated on part of a William Penn land grant, this farmhouse was the

home of Lewis Noe, a soldier in the Revolutionary War. His wife, Phoebe NoeMundy, is said to have been the rst white woman in the colonies to surviveamputation of a leg without anesthetic. Later additions have left a good

portion of the original structure, including massive chimneys at the gable

ends.

C14 RED BRICK SCHOOLHOUSE NJHSI-627.3

24 Southern Boulevard (M.C.-27)

This pre—1860 structure was used as a school until 1926. The unusual

care with which it was constructed, and its two stories, make it rare for

a schoolhouse. The construction features include foundations of layered

stone; oak and chestnut timbers, cut locally, which support the oorsfrom niches cut into the brick walls, using slate ag for bearing; walls

of hollow construction, using stretcher brick with intervening air space;

and stone pilasters supporting intermediate points of the oor. Withsome alterations, it presently serves as the Chatham Township Municipal

Building.

129



FLORHAM PARK REGION C

The area centered around Columbia Turnpike and Ridgedale Avenue was

a ourishing rural community for at least one hundred years, from about

the mid-l8th century. Until 1908 it was known as Afton. Unlike Chatham,

however, where the physical proximity of structures makes a district easily

denable, the early Florham Park houses are scattered. For that reason, anumber of those listed here may seem undistinguished in themselves, but

nevertheless contribute to an understanding of their historical context.

Cl5 BENJAMIN BURROUGHS HOUSE, BOXWOOD HALL NJHSI-1132.6

9 Smitheld Lane (Facing Ridgedale Ave., M.C.-2)

This late 18th-century brick and frame mansion with gambrel roof was the

home of wealthy landowner and slaveholder Benjamin Burroughs, who died in

1817. Baxter Sayre, a subsequent owner (1838) , was an ardent abolitionist.During his tenancy, this was alleged to be a stop on the Underground

Railroad.

The ample ve—bay facade, roof balustrade, arched dormers, and handsomedoorway make this one of the most notable Georgian/ Federal houses in

Morris County. The house itself has been carefully preserved, although

modern encroachments intrude on the grounds.

Cl6 BUDD FARM (SITE) NJHSI-1l32.557 Passaic Avenue (M.C.-l3)

John Budd (1670-1754) was one of the proprietors of East Jersey. His sonBernardus was a surgeon during the Revolution. A later descendant, Dr. John

C. Budd, was founder of the Medical Society of New Jersey, the rst suchsociety in the United States.

Budd Farm occupied land acquired in 1715, previously an Indiansettlement. During the 18th century so many relatives settled near the Budd

homestead that a family cemetery and schoolhouse were maintained. This was

also the site of the famous Budd Freshet,” a spot in the meadows where the

Passaic River periodically overowed, producing sixty to seventy—ve acresof ice in winter. Between 1920 and 1940 it was not uncommon to nd 400 to500 skaters here on a weekend, from as far away as Newark.

C17 BARZILLAI CAMPFIELD STORE NJHSI-1l32.1


This frame house was used as a dwelling and shop when it was built early

in the 19th century. The business was operated until 1820 by BarzillaiCampeld, a descendent of John Campeld, one of the founders

130




(BARZILLAI CAMPFIELD STORE, continued)

of the town in 1715. Despite alterations inside and out it remains a

tangible link to one of Florham Park’s earliest families, and a familiar

local landmark in its present incarnation as the Afton restaurant.

C18 JOEL CAMPFIELD HOUSE NJHSI-l132.11

180 Crescent Road

Aside from the fact that he was a member of the popular Campeld/CaneldClan, nothing is known about Joel Campeld, although this house has alwaysborne his name. Like a number of 18th—century houses in Florham Park, it is

representative rather than remarkable, and deserves to be preserved because

it contributes to the overall historical identity, of the community.

Nineteenth- century additions have contributed to the “added—on” appearance

without destroying its character.

C19 DANIEL CORY HOUSE NJHSI-l132.8


Corp. Daniel Cory commanded a cavalry company during the Revolution. His

house was one of many local broom “factories.” Original woodwork, replacesand doors remain. This house is neither architecturally remarkable nor

is it associated with a notable gure. But like many of Florham Park’ssmall, little-altered 18th— century dwellings, it represents the well-made

vernacular architectural tradition expressing the everyday life of the

common man. For this reason, and because of its ne condition, it meritscontinued protection. Road widening threatens it with encroachment.

C20 CRESCENT FARM NJHSI-1l32.26

110 Crescent Road (formerly 158 Columbia Turnpike)

Capt. William Caneld (also spelled Campeld) built a four— room housewith peaked roof c. 1756, and in 1780 enlarged it with a gambrel—roofed

addition. Many original features survive, including an Adam style mantel, a

hanging staircase of maple and cherry, chair rails and wainscoting.

During the Revolution, the Caneld homestead furnished food and lodgings

for some of Washington’s ofcers and troops. The property was sold in the19th century to Moses D. Ward, whose son Leslie, founder of the Prudential

Insurance Company, was born here. Although the house is not on its original

site, Crescent Road was also a pre—Revolutionary thoroughfare.

131




C21 ELY HOUSE

124 Columbia Turnpike (M.C.-40)

Unlike the foursquare simplicity of earlier 19th-century dwellings (the

Jonathan Richards house at 1 Hanover Road, for example), the irregularplan, porches and airy porte cochere of this house reach out to embrace

the landscape, exemplifying the back-to-nature Romanticism of the late

Victorians. The square tower, sh—scale shingles and cutout molding at theeaves add decorative interest.

C22 FLORHAM, THE TWOMBLY ESTATE NJHSI-ll32.l8

Main Entrance on Route 24 in Madison

Completed c. 1900, the mansion at Florham is the most imposing survivor

of the numerous lavish estates which made this area famous during the “Age

of Opulence” around the turn—of—the— century. Its design, inspired by a

wing of Henry VIII’S Hampton Court Palace, includes 100 rooms enriched withmarble and rare woods.

Guests arrived for weekend parties via a private railroad spur, and

might be served tropical fruit raised in Florham’s own orangery. The

estate was famous for its prize livestock as well (the working farm was

located east of Park Avenue where Exxon Laboratories now stands). FairleighDickinson University now owns the mansion and the southwestern part of the

estate, where much of the English park landscape design, with its broad

lawns and stately trees, survives. The name Florham is derived from those

of its owners — Florence Vanderbilt and Hamilton Mckay Twombly. In honor

of its benefactors, the village of Afton adopted this name itself when it

incorporated in 1899.

C23 FORD’s HAMMOCK NJHSI-ll32.33

310 Columbia Turnpike (M.C.-40)

The eldstone wing of this large house was built in 1721 by John Ford,the grandfather of Col. Jacob Ford, whose Morristown mansion served as

Washington’s headquarters. Later additions were made in 1800 and 1825,

including the frame wing which turns its gable end to the road.

In about 1757 it became the home of Samuel Ford, Jr., known as the most

artful and prolic counterfeiter of his time. With a dozen of the county’sleading citizens, he was accused of masterminding the great East Jersey

Treasury Robbery in 1768. In 1773 Ford escaped from prison and ed toVirginia. He never returned to New Jersey, and was never apprehended. (NR)

132




C24 GENUNG FARMHOUSE NJHSI-1132.29

112 Crescent Road

Built on what was originally part of William Caneld’s land, this

clapboard house of the late 18th century was at rst no more than threerooms. In 1850 it became part of the Aaron Genung homestead. The Genungs

were another of the area’s early settlers, whose name once served as a

local place name — “Genungtown.” The remains of a dry—laid stone wall

separate this property from Crescent Farms.

C25 GENUNGTOWN HOUSE

26 East Madison Avenue

This house, situated in the area called Genungtown in the 19th century,

was probably built in the last decade of the 18th century. A large cooking

replace can be found in the old kitchen at the rear of the house below

street level. The east wing is an exceptionally ne example of how acarefully designed modern addition can increase the size of a simple

farmhouse without destroying it architecturally.

C26 HANCOCK HOUSE, CIDER MILL

C27 AND CEMETERY NJHSI-1l32.32

45 Ridgedale Avenue (M.C.-2)

John Hancock (1776—1854) was a Methodist minister who preached inthe old East Madison schoolhouse and here in his home until 1843, when

a Methodist Church was built in Madison. In his will he left the family

cemetery as a “public burying place.”

Family records give 1803 as the construction date for this 2— story

frame house which still contains much original woodwork. It is now occupied

by the eighth generation of Hancocks, who until recently operated the cider

mill behind the house (with its original machinery intact). The house isthreatened by proposed road widening.

C28 HEDGES HOUSE NJHSI-ll32.2l

225 Brooklake Road

This and the following two houses all belonged to members of the Hedges

clan, emigrants from Long Island who came to Morris County in the mid—l8th

century. This house, the smallest of the three, was built early in the 19th

century. In 1860 it was sold by Henry Hedges to Thomas Quinlan, who moved

it about 200 feet from its original site. Aside from this move, and the

addition of modern windows on the main facade, it has suffered few changes.

133




C29 HENRY HEDGES HOUSE NJHSI-1132.35

216 Brooklake Road

This house belonged to Henry R. Hedges (b. 1802) who combined the

callings of wheelwright and minister of the Methodist Church. Because

Rev. Hedges was known to be an abolitionist, discovery of a tiny secret

chamber in the cellar suggests that this may have been another stop on the

Underground Railroad. The house, or part of it, was probably built before

the Revolution.

C30 WIDOW HEDGES HOUSE NJHSI-l132.34

206 Brookdale Road

One thousand acres belonged to this house when it was purchased c. 1750

by Gidieon Hedges, who left Long Island about that time with his wife and

two stepsons, Thomas and Nathan Fish. Thomas joined the Continental Army

when he was sixteen, serving with Capt. Carter’s Riemen.The front porch is decorated with spindled wooden arches, a rustic

attempt at carpenter Gothic ornamentation. Descendants of the Fish family

still live here.

C3l JOHN HOPPING HOUSE (SITE) NJHSI-ll32.31; HABS-692N.E. Corner of Ridgedale Avenue at Park Street

Built c. 1769 and enlarged in 1830 to ve-bay, center hall size, thisHABS recorded house has been destroyed.

C32 LITTLE RED BRICK SCHOOLHOUSE NJHSI-1l32.27Ridgedale Avenue (M.C.-2) and Columbia Turnpike (M.C.-40)

The 1866 construction bills for this schoolhouse record that William

Howell, carpenter, and masons B.F. and W.E. Conklin charged a total of

$2,225.00. These costs, of course, included labor and materials. Until

1905, all grades were taught here by one teacher. School use continued

until 1914.

The one—room schoolhouse has exerted a hold on the American imagination

entirely out of proportion to its physical presence, symbolizing as it

does the values of an entire era: frugality, self— reliance, community

cooperation, and the transcendent value of education itself. This school

and the one in Washington Valley, more than any others in Morris County,

have come to represent the historical vision of such ideals. (NR)

134




C33 MEADOWVIEW, THE WAR]) HOMESTEAD NJHSI-1132.17199 Brooklake Road

Originally a small farmhouse built before the Revolution, many

alterations have been made during its more than two hundred years of

existence, most notably the 2—story porch. Handmade nails and original

window glass attest to its age.

Brooklake Road was an important pre—Revolutionary thoroughfare running

from Chatham to Hanover, through a section called East Madison, or

Genungtown. Standing on Meadow Ridge, the house overlooks rolling meadows

and the “bubbling freshets” of Spring Garden Brook.

C34 DAVID RICHARDS FARM NJHSI-1132.22


The center part of this extended house was built sometime in the rst

quarter of the 18th century and occupied by David Richards and his wifeEdus, whose son Samuel was killed in the Battle of Springeld in 1780. Thewing to the right was added before 1800, and another addition was completed

as late as 1860. Windows with hand—blown panes survive, as well as pewter

door locks and a chimney constructed with clay mortar. The corn shed at the

rear of the house, used for broom corn, is still in good condition.

C35 JONATHAN RICHARDS HOUSE


Jonathan, the youngest son of David Richards (see above) , built thishouse c. 1800 on land that was part of his father’s homestead. In 1820

Jonathan opened a store at this crossroads. The house is a good exampleof how successfully the architecture of the Federal period can absorb

Victorian modernizations — in this case a center gable, bracketed eaves,

double doors, and some exterior paneling. It is now connected to a modern

structure with little harm to its appearance, proving that old buildings

can often serve practical purposes without intrusive alterations.

C36 ST. ELIZABETH, COLLEGE AND ACADEMY OF

Main entrance on Route 24 in Madison (Convent Station)

The distinctive buildings of St. Elizabeth’s, easily the tallest in the

vicinity, have created a familiar skyline’ for many years. Founded in 1899,

the College grew out of the Academy, founded forty years

135




(ST. ELIZABETH, COLLEGE AND ACADEMY, continued)

earlier. Principal buildings of interest date from the Civil War to the

rst quarter of the 20th century, and range in style from Gothic Revival to

mansard. The most impressive of these, derived primarily from the SecondEmpire style, is executed in buff brick with lime—stone and wood trim. A

columned, 3—story porch adorns the facade, and symmetrical wings support

highly decorated belvederes.

The campus also includes a Greek amphitheater modeled on the Theatre

of Dionysius. American troops marched across this land on their way to

Yorktown.

C37 TURF HOUSE NJHSI-l132.l9

6 Hanover Road (M.C. -2)

Another of the houses built by Barzallai Campeld c. 1810, this one has

two interior gable—end chimneys, an exterior chimney in the later kitchenwing, and eyebrow windows. James Woodruff bought it from Campeld c. 1825.Woodruff made a living by selling peat (“turf”) he cut from the swamp.

He also made brooms in this house, which he peddled throughout Morris,

Somerset and Hunterdon Counties. Road widening threatens the house’s

continued existence.

C38 JOANNA DAY TUTTLE HOUSE

67 Elm Street (original location, 400 Main St. Chatham)

Mathias Ward owned this house sometime after 1776. Although it follows

the spacious Federal plan of ve bays with center hall, the eyebrow windowssuggest that it may have been built a decade or so before the Revolution.

Dentil molding at the eaves adds a pleasant touch of decoration to an

otherwise utilitarian design.

Since 1869 when it was moved from 400 to 459 Main Street to become the

home of Joanna Day Tuttle, it has been known by her name. In 1966 it was

moved again, to its present location.

C39 UNNAMED HOUSE

309 Brooklake Road

Built c. 1730, this is one of the oldest houses in Florham Park. Its

long, low prole bespeaks a primary concern for shelter without adornment

and reects the building’s obvious antiquity. The modied saltbox line isevident when viewed from the gable end facing the street. Back—to—back

replaces are found in the present kitchen and dining rooms. The house wasenlarged in 1880 and again more recently.

136




C40 YOUNG FAMILY HOUSE

42 Park Street

An unidentied member of the John Young family built this house c. 1800.

Before it acquired its Victorian renovations (similar to those of the

Jonathan Richards house), it must have looked remarkably like the followingYoung house. In fact these two, together with the Joanna Day Tuttle house,

provide an instructive survey of the evolutionary course of the 5—bay,

center—hall plan from pre—Revolution to post—Civil War.

C41 JOHN YOUNG HOUSE

65 Elm Street

Apparently John Young’s family or his fortune increased substantially

from the time he moved into the stone house, because about 1825 he built

this large, 2—story center—hall house — a fairly typical expression of

moderate post colonial afuence which has survived virtually intact sinceits construction. The land was bought by Young from Samuel Ford of Ford’s

Hammock.

C42 JOHN YOUNG STONE HOUSE

44 Elm Street

Stone houses are relatively uncommon in southeast Morris County. The

stone wing of this house is thought to have been built c. 1729 by a

Scotsman named Stewart. By 1772 it was occupied by another Scotsman, John

Young, and his family. The north section, was built c. 1800, presumably by

Young, before he erected the larger frame house not far up the road.

137



MADISON REGION C

C43 BOTTLE HILL TAVERN NJHSI-l867.l; HABS-58


Lafayette was entertained here when he returned to the United States

in 1825. A contemporary account reports that thirteen little girls,

representing the thirteen original colonies, recited a poem composed in his

honor.

Opened in 1812 to serve travelers on the toll road, this was one of the

rst taverns built expressly for commercial purposes. Comparison with theChester House, built in the same year, shows the remarkable similarity

of these two simple Federal buildings. Mathias Burnet, carriage maker by

trade, may have been its builder. He and Baxter Sayre were its rst owners.In recent years the site, as well as the building have suffered from

commercial renovations, which include an attempt to transform the interior

into a “Gay Nineties” roadhouse. None of these changes appears to be

irreparable.

C44 BRUEN HOUSE NJHSI—l867.5; HABS—529


This building’s reputation as the rst on the Morris Turnpike puts itsdate of construction between 1801, when the turnpike was chartered, and

1804, when it was completed. The occupation of Jonathan Bruen, an early

owner, is not recorded, but his house suggests he was at least moderately

successful.

Although still in sound condition itself, comparison with a 1957

photograph demonstrates how ill—conceived commercialization has blighted

the site. The door on the smaller wing and the dormers are the only

signicant exterior features not original.

C45 BURNET HOUSE

Rosedale Avenue (N.W. side, at Longview Avenue)

The absence of deeds for this property implies that Daniel Burnet

acquired it on his father’s death in 1766. Although the house may have

existed then, its size suggests it was probably built sometime between 1766

and Daniel’s death in 1824.

The Burnet family was prominent in early Bottle Hill affairs. Mathias

Burnet was one of the original owners of the Bottle Hill Tavern, and also

operated a stage line on the Morris Turnpike. His similar house still

stands in Hanover Township.

138



MADISON REGION C

C46 CECILHURST

Route 24 at Morris Place

Early in the 20th century this was one of the estates which gave Madison

Avenue the name “.Millionaires’ Row.” It was the home of Adolph deBary ,

whose architect modeled it after the great English country houses built in

the neo—classical mode.

Bayley Ellard High School, its present owner, has maintained the

structure, although the overall impression has been diminished by several

new buildings designed in an incompatible manner. Nevertheless, Cecilhurst

stands as a representative survivor of an era whose physical exponents are

today rarer in Morris County than houses of the 18th century.

C47 DREW UNIVERSITY

36 Madison Avenue

Drew was founded in 1866 on the occasion of the centenary of 2mericanMethodism. Its benefactor was Daniel Drew, notorious on Wall Street as a

nancial manipulator. Originally chartered as a theological school of thethen Methodist Episcopal Church, Drew quickly became one of the foremost

theological schools in the nation, a position it enjoyed for nearly a

century. In 1928, with the endowment of a College of Liberal Arts, it

became a university.

Originally known for its wooded beauty, the campus still holds remnants

of its forest preserve, which includes a number of geologically interesting

glacial punch bowls. Buildings of architectural importance include the

following three, identied by asterisks:

* SAMUEL W. BONE HALL

Bowne Hall is one of the nest examples of English Gothic Revival inMorris County. Built in 1912, its main stair hall and Great Hall express a

quality of craftsmanship impossible to duplicate today.

Great Hall is modeled after the refectory of Christ’s Church College,

Oxford. It was, in fact used as a dining hall when Drew was still a

theological school. It is now used for lectures and special events. The

ground oor is devoted to ofces.

* HOYT-BOWNE HALL

This is one of two non—ecclesiastical Romanesque buildings in

139



MADISON REGION C

(HOYT-BOWNE HALL continued)Madison. Built in 1893, when the style was enjoying the height of its

popularity, Hoyt—Bowne eschews the Richardsonian fondness for massive

curved forms in favor of a primarily planar facade. The Romanesque curve

does appear in the stair towers and the arched doors and windows, which are

accompanied by such familiar motifs as foliated stone carving and terracotta, glazed and rough brick combined decoratively, and sandstone trim.

Hoyt-Bowne is still used as a student residence.

* MEAD HALL

This unusually ne Greek Revival mansion was built in 1834 for William

Gibbons, whose estate was known as “The Forest.” In his book, Architecture

In New Jersey, Alan Gowans describes it as having”.. .generous (even

lavish) proportions — a kind of stage for upper—class social and politicallife.”

Across the front extends a portico with six Corinthian columns, thirty-

six feet high. Portico and facade are further embellished with Greek keymolding, elaborate door and window heads, and a marble oor. Inside, an

oval well pierces the second story hall so that a skylight can illumine

both oors.

Today the mansion is used for administrative ofces, but a number ofrooms are furnished to approximate their mid—19th—century appearance.

Original woodwork and mantels can be found throughout the main oors.

C48 ERIE-LACKAWANNA RAILROAD STATION

Kings Road CE. of Green Ave.)

When the proposal was made to elevate grade crossings c. 1911, the

Delaware, Lackawanna & Western (later the Erie—Lackawanna) invited thetowns involved to help defray expenses. Most declined, but Madison’s

response was municent. To show its appreciation, the Railroad built thisstation, loosely modeled on Gothic forms. The imposing gray stone buildings

provide appropriate testimony to the importance of rail transit during the

rst third of the 20th century.

C49 DAVID HOWELL HOUSE

47 Madison Avenue Rte. 24)

This house originally stood west of Grace Episcopal Church. Its

140



MADISON REGION C

(DAVID HOWELL HOUSE continued)

oak frame is held together by oak pins, and a number of the walls are

brick lined. The center part and possibly one wing were built c. 1795.

Sometime between 1800—1812 the piazza and second wing were added. The nalsymmetrical appearance with graceful swept roof line demonstrates how the

apparently casual construction of an “added on” house could result in an

aesthetically integrated end product. Durest Blanchet, who owned it after

Howell, was a member of the French emigre community which helped found St.

Vincent’s Church.

C50 LATHROP HOUSE

Madison Avenue (Rte. 24) West of Loantaka Way

During the 1850’s Alexander Jackson Davis, architect, and Andrew Jackson

Downing, landscape architect, popularized the Romantic Gothic cottage set

in an equally Romantic landscape. The 1857 house was obviously constructedafter one of their most favored designs, characterized by huge center

gable, large brackets, towering chimneys and metal porch roofs, originally

painted to resemble awnings. A lithograph in Wm. Parkhust Tuttle’s

Madison and Bottle Hill, 1916, shows that no changes have been made since

construction.

C51 MAIN STREET DISTRICT

Green Village Road, Main Street, Waverly Place Area

Madison’s Main Street District represents a direct historical

progression from the neighboring Chatham District. The latter is basically

an 18th—century village with an economy that was agrarian— based. A modest

commercial identity evolved by the mid-l9th century; by that time the

appearance of the village was largely frozen in the mold of small—scale

frame structures which remain today.

The Madison District reects the next stage of the American national

experience — the aggressive economic expansion and civic pride of the late

19th and early 20th centuries. Instead of the small dwellings sometimes

converted for business use typical of Chatham, buildings were erected here

expressly for commercial purposes. Their height rose (commonly to three

stories) , and their materials changed from wood to brick or stone. Handin hand with economic prosperity grew a desire for social and cultural

amenities. These aspirations are represented in the district by the Madison

Library, the Young Men’s Christian Association, and the auditorium of the

James Building.The most signicant buildings in the district reect Renaissance,

141



MADISON REGION C

(MAIN STREET DISTRICT, continued)

neo-c1ascica1 and Gothic/Romanesque inuences. No other place in Morris

County offers such a high quality and concentrated collection of commercial

and public buildings of this era. They represent the link between thefading ideal of 1th—century eclecticism and the emergence of the modern

building idiom rst propounded by the Chicago School. Buildings of primary.interest in the district include the following, preceded by asterisks:

MAIN STREET, NORTH SIDE

* NO.14,YOUNG 1N’S CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION

The Young Men’s Christian Association completes the “civic triangle”

begun by the Madison Library and the James Building. The YMCA was formed in

1873, when in a progressive action for its time, it elected three women as

associate members.

The move to its own building 5 years later enabled the board of trustees

to embark on a varied program which put the Madison Y in the forefront of

community service with facilities of the most modern kind.

When the new facility opened in 1908, important civic buildings were

still expected to look the part. Architect H. King Conklin ably expressed

this requirement in a three-story building of dark brick with bronze

cornice and frieze and bronze pedimented windows. The principal entrance

is capped with a third pediment enclosing a blank cartouche. Thanks to

ample space and solid construction, the hull n was suitable for adaptiveuse- when changing needs forced the YMCA to seek new quarters in 1962. Few

exterior alterations have been made.

* NO. 60-64,BURNET BUILDING

The Burnets were among Madison’s earliest settlers, having been local

farmers, craftsman and businessmen since 1740. James Burnet opened a

hardware business here in l97. The 9bay length and two— color brickwork

make this one of the largest and most impressive buildings in the district.

Sunken panels above the windows and keystone lintels punctuate the facade.

The third story is nished with a richly paneled and bracketed cornice, and

a perforated balustrade. The rst story, like most along Main Street, hasbeen covered with a modern “Colonial” front.

Attached to the back of this building is a 1-story hoard—and- batten

structure with huge brackets beneath the eaves. This was

142



MADISON REGION C

(NO. 60-64, BURNET BUILDING, continued)Originally a freight depot for the Morris and Essex Railroad, probably

built after the re of 1877, and moved here from Lincoln Place c. 1913.

* NO. 66—68, GEE BUILDING

In 1881 Stephen Paulmier had this building constructed and opened what

was to become the 1st National Bank. During the 1890’s the Madison Eagle

occupied half of the building. In 1924 when the bank moved to its new

location, the building was sold to Anderson B. Gee, son of Charles Berriman

Gee, who had opened the Madison Pharmacy in 1897 in the Burnet Building.

The pharmacy was later moved to this three—story brick building. The

decorative cornice appears to be stamped metal. The triangular window heads

enclose an unusual ball and X design.

* NO. 70-72, NEIS BUILDING

A recent, pseudo—rustic covering on part of the rst story has notobscured the Romanesque central door decorated with foliated terra cotta.

This elegant detail suggests the richness that might be found behind other

modern facades in the district. Six brick pilasters running down the face

of the building terminate in sculptured human faces. Additional terra

cotta work embellishes the window heads. In contrast to these Medieval

elements is a simple wooden cornice nished with an egg and anchor molding.

Construction may be as late as 1894, when the property was sold to

Frederick Neis.

Two other buildings on the north side of Main Street, nos. 26- 28, and

no. 40, should be maintained as part of the composite streetscape, although

they are of lesser architectural interest.

MAIN STREET, SOUTH SIDE

* MADISON PUBLIC LIBRARY

Route 24 (S.W. Corner of Green Village Road)

Because it was used primarily for large public buildings in urban

centers, the Romanesque style is not abundant in Morris County. Most of

the local buildings in this style are churches, so the Library is doubly

unusual. Accounts contemporary with its construction labeled it Gothic, and

in fact some of its details are, but historical perspective has revealed

its unmistakable Romanesque roots.

143



MADISON REGION C

(MADISON PUBLIC LIBRARY, continued)When it opened on Memorial Day, 1900, the gift of D. Willis James was

Madison’s rst public library. Almost from the start its programs were

progressive. Until 1912, a horse—drawn bookmobile carried library benetsto outlying districts — an important service not renewed until 1922 by

the Morris County Library. From 1900 until 1906 a free public lectureseries was sponsored. Each year one series was delivered in Italian.

This, together with a substantial collection of Italian—language books,

recognized the importance of Madison’s largest immigrant community. Such

bilingual service was in the best tradition of large urban libraries and

settlement house programs of the time.

Architecturally, the Library employs the full Romanesque design

vocabulary in a plan so compact that its overall conception is immediately

comprehensible. A quality of miniaturization, combined with attention

lavished on small details, imparts a gem-like appeal.

The exterior is distinguished by an arched porch, foliated stonework,

and a tower with gargoyle rainspouts. Inside can be found stenciled

ceilings and walls, painted imitations of mosaic tile, oak woodwork

(including a spiral staircase, homiletic stained glass and custom—made

bronze hardware.

The Library is now tenanted by the Museum of Early Trades and Crafts,

which provides a much—needed adaptive use, however incongruous the

surroundings with the artifacts on display.

* JAMES BUILDING, THE MERCANTILE BUILDING

23-27 Main Street, 2-8 Green Village Road

The James building and the library opposite enjoyed a unique symbiotic

relationship early in this century, a rare example of speculation for

public benet. Built in 1899 by D. Willis James, its commercial rents weredesigned to nance construction of the Madison Library and furnish anendowment for its operation. This visionary plan was actually successful

until the crash of 1929, which eventually wiped out the commercial revenue.

Architecturally, the James Building is imposing and idiosyncratic. The

curved stepped gable is obviously Dutch; the grifn which surmounts it isGothic; the sculptured wreath framing the one remaining circular window

suggests della Robbia. These and other disparate elements are unied by theuse of orange glazed brick structures of this vintage, its ground oor shopfronts still approximate their original appearance.

144



MADISON REGION C

(JAMES BUILDING, THE MERCANTILE BUILDING, continued)Not content to provide the community with a library, the philanthropic

Mr. James included space for municipal ofces in the James Building, and

a third oor auditorium for public functions, complete with ne woodworkand stained glass skylight. This has been recently subdivided. Aside from

the removal of some facade detail, the building is in good condition andcontinues to house commercial/professional tenants. Viewed together, the

Library and the James Building provide a valuable picture of early 20th—

century social and architectural aspirations.

During the latter third of the 19th century, the Romanesque style

gained wide favor in America for churches and public buildings. Henry

Hobson Richardson, its chief exponent, has been called America’s rst

modern architect. He made the style so much his own it is frequently

known as Richardsonian Romanesque. In Richardson’s hands, the Romanesque

style yielded richly textured stone surfaces, massive curves, and highly

concentrated, often polychromed, decoration.

The Madison Library and the James Building bear striking resemblances

to two of Richardson’s more notable designs, the Winn Memorial Library

in Woburn, Massachusetts, and the Ames Building in Boston. Because the

Library (and probably the James Building) was designed by the Boston rmof Brigham and Adden, the similarity appears to be more than coincidental.

Thus, Madison is graced with two buildings reecting the direct inuence ofRichardson’s personal idiom.

* NO. 29, TIGER BUILDING

J.A.Tiger & Sons ran a grocery business here early in the 20th century.

The broken parapet with its dominant pediment lifts this otherwise

unassuming building out of the ordinary — even when seen in the shadow of

its grandiose neighbor, the James Building.

145



MADISON REGION C

* No. 45, JOHNSON BUILDING

The Madison Post Ofce could be found here c. 1910. The tan and buffbricks of this facade are laid in a Florentine pattern of uncommon

sophistication. The deep wooden cornice is decidedly un—Renaissance, but

handsome nonetheless. Here again the ground oor is faced with modernmaterials, although the contemporary design proves a better compromise than

the more common fake Colonial used elsewhere.

* No. 53.- 55, BRITTIN BUILDING

The Brittin Building dates from 1898. The 7-bay facade of this gray

brick building is a Georgian/Palladian hybrid complete with pediment,

pilasters and voussoirs.

WAVERLY PLACE, WEST SIDE

In general, the Waverly Place buildings are earlier and not as

impressive as those on Main Street. They do, however, constitute a uniedstreetscape which makes a vital contribution to the district.

* Unlike most of the district’s buildings, No. 1 (built c.l873,

enlarged after a re in 1875) has a gently pitched roof. The smooth,painted brick walls, circular window and cornice with pendants impart

a vague Italianate or domestic Gothic air. The adjoining No. 3 is the

smallest in the district, but even so has a bracketed cornice similar

to some of its large Main Street counterparts. The top of No. 5 is

embellished with decorative corbelling, and the facade is pierced with

small panels of brick set diagonally. The original second and thirdstory windows have recently been replaced with multipaned Colonial

copies. The dominant feature of No. 7—9 is a curved and stepped Dutch

parapet. Most of the facade has recently been covered with synthetic

siding. This was originally the rst Methodist Church built c. 1840.In 1870 it was sold to tinsmith Ichabod Searing, who jacked it up and

installed a rst oor of shops. No. 11-13 is decorated with brickpanels similar to No. 5. It is ve bays wide with three stories and adeeply bracketed cornice. Two like buildings at No. 15 and No. 17 are

capped with a Mansard fourth oor which continues around the cornerof the building along the entire south facade. Shop windows also run

along this facade, facing what is now an alley. The height of this

building, together with its Mansard roof and heavy bracketed cornice

make it the most imposing on Waverly Place. Both were built c. 1880.

The second home of the 1st National Bank (1924) is the only buildingon the east side of Waverly Place of any architectural value.

146



MADISON REGION C

C52 MADISON PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, (MASONIC TEMPLE) NJHSI-1867.l0170 Main Street (Rte.24)

This was the First Presbyterian Church from its construction in 1825

until it was rededicated to Masonic use in 1930. The distinction between

designer and builder was often unclear at the time. Lewis Carter however,

is listed as one of two “chief carpenters.” Since Carter is generally

credited with the joint design of the Morris County Courthouse two years

later, it is safe to assume that his hand was also inuential here. This isone of the rare Morris County churches not built of wood during the early

19th century or before.

C53 LUKE (OR ANDRE9 MILLER HOUSE* NJHSI-1867.l1; HABS-l24

105 Ridgedale Avenue

This was one of Madison’s earliest thoroughfares when Andrew Miller, c.

1730, built what was a relatively substantial house for its time. The higheldstone “basement”, seen at the back, actually functions as an additionalstory. Remains of a small forge can be found sixty feet north of the house.

Local tradition afrms that ofcers of the Continental Army wereentertained here during the Loantaka Valley encampment, and that Washington

himself was a frequent guest. A modern wing and dormers have been added

with respect for the building’s architectural integrity. Several smaller

houses of roughly the same age can be found on Ridgedale Avenue.

*The rst Miller to own this house has been a matter of dispute.

C54 ROSE GREENHOUSE (SITE)

Shunpike, M.C..—46 (at Stonehedge Lane)

Roses were rst grown under glass in this area c. 1856 on the Treadwellestate. By 1880, Madison claimed its rst commercial rose greenhouseon this site. The early installations, termed “ranges of glass” were

constructed of small panes set in heavy timbers. By 1900, Madison had

earned the name “The Rose City.” By 1930, it was producing 25—million

blooms annually, and was the most concentrated rose— producing area in the

United States.

In 1913, three nationally prominent Madison rose—growers, Messrs. Totty,

Duckham, and Herrington organized the rst International Flower Show, which

initially beneted from Madison’s prestigious reputation.

147



MADISON REGION C

C55 EPHRAIM SAYRE HOUSE NJHSI-l867.3; HABS—146

31 Ridgedale Avenue

General “Mad” Anthony Wayne made his headquarters here while his troops

were stationed at Loantaka Valley in 1777. Records show that he used the

north front room for his ofce, while his personal bodyguard occupied thelarge kitchen.

In correspondence dated 1936, descendants of the Sayre family stated

that the house was built in 1745 by Daniel Sayre. His Son Ephraim gained

the property in 1780. Ephraim’s son Baxter, one of Northern New Jersey’s

rst abolitionists, subsequently acquired the house. Whether he occupied it

is unclear, since he also owned a mansion (the Benjamin Burroughs House) inwhat is now Florham Park.

C56 TOLL GATE (SITE)Main Street, Route 24 (N.E. corner of Rosedale Ave.)

The Morris Turnpike (now Rte 24), chartered in 1801 and completed in1804, followed the old King’s Highway in Chatham to about Lafayette Avenue.

It was then built in a straight line to Madison. Churchgoers and farmers

on agricultural business were exempt from the toll. To avoid paying, other

roads were used, hence the name “Shunpike” which still exists. With the

advent of the Morris Canal (1831) and rail transport (1837), the turnpike

became less important, and was eventually turned over to the municipalities

through which it ran.

C57 UNITED METHODIST CHURCH

24 Madison Avenue (Rte.24)

Daniel Drew, benefactor of the University bearing his name, donated the

land for this church, which was built in 1870. The square tower design

with Romanesque windows was familiar since the middle of the 19th century.

Executed in wood and usually bracketed, it lent domestic architecture the

vague appellation “Italianate.” Here, raised to public scale and executed

in brick, it is more purely and specically Tuscan, and the only church ofthat style in Morris County. The Methodist congregation’s rst building,now greatly altered, still stands at 7—9 Waverly Place.

148



PASSAIC REGION C

SOLOMON BOYLE HOUSES

C58 47 Old Mill Road

Here and across the river a gristmill, sawmill and forge operated in the

mid-18th century, owned by Solomon Boyle, who purchased 600 acres of land

from the East Jersey Proprietors. The Mills built by Boyle and his children

gave Millington (pre—1833) its name. This house is reputed to have servedas a store and post ofce until c. 1902. It is well preserved and occupiesan unusually picturesque spot on the river.

C59 42 Old Mill Road

This house seems to have been built around the same time as No. 47

(1735—1750), although it was enlarged during the 19th century. The precisesequence of Boyle ownership and occupancy remains unclear between these two

and the following house.

About 1870 it was owned but not occupied by the German-born inventor,Frederick Nishwitz, whose disc harrow helped open the West to large—scale

agriculture.

Both houses are mortise and tenon, clapboard construction. No. 42 has

retained its beehive oven and a barn of indeterminate age.

C60 BOYLE, HUDSPETH-BENSON HOUSE

100 Basking Ridge Road (M.C.-7)

The earliest part of this rambling farmhouse may have been erected in

1732 when Irish emigrant Solomon Boyle married, and may be the earliest of

the three Boyle—associated houses. Like the others, it is a good example of

early mortise—and—tenon construction. Research prepared for the New JerseyRegister of Historic Places states that the “. . .design, oor—plan and

orientation of the building and the barn are signicant in interpretingearly colonial lifestyle in New Jersey.”

Boyle descendents retained title to this property until the late 19th

century, when it became the home of Mary Hudspeth—Benson, humanitarian

and social worker, whose anonymous efforts on behalf of Jersey City’s

disadvantaged eventually made her known as “the most prominent woman of the

city.” (NJR)

149



150



HARDING REGION D

Dl BAILEY HOUSE

Bailey’s Mill Road (W. side, 1/8 mile S. of Young’s Rd.)

The Baileys were large landowners and important to the community as

millers. The date of this house is unknown, but its broad gambrel roof,

interior chimneys and eyebrow windows probably place it in the late 18th

or early 19th-century. The Greek Revival porch appears in late 19th-

century photographs, which show how little the house has been changed since

that time. The combination of architectural styles and excellent state of

preservation make it one of the most valuable of early Harding houses.

D2 NICHOLAS CLOVIS GEOFFREY HOUSE

Spring Valley Road, M.C.-1 (W. side, 1/2 ± mile S. of Blue Mill Rd.)

This spacious, 3—story mansard roof house was built sometime in

the 1850’s and may in fact be one of the rst mansard style houses in

America. N.C. Geoffrey, the rst owner, was a French emigrant who becamea prosperous farmer and landlord. Until 1943 it remained in the Geoffrey

family, during which time virtually no changes were made.

D3 GLEN ALPINE

Mt. Kemble Avenue, Rte. 202 (N. side, at Tempe Wick Road)

Built in 1840, this 3-story gabled mansion is one of the most

outstanding examples of Cottage Gothic architecture in New Jersey. Its

massive stone walls are relieved by decorated bargeboards and fretwork

ornamentation made possible, (and popular) by the introduction ofmechanical saws. This combination of stone with wood decoration is by no

means unique, although the great majority of Cottage style structures arebuilt exclusively of wood. This is the original site of the Peter Kemble

House.

D4 JOSHUA GUERIN HOUSE HABS-l44

Jockey Hollow Road (at Morris Township boundary)

The Guerins were Hugenots who settled in Morris County to escape

religious persecution. Joshua and his brothers were employed by the New

Jersey Militia as wagoners during the Revolution. Joshua Guerin

151



HARDING REGION D

(JOSHUA GUERIN HOUSE , continued)

was also a blacksmith, and farmed a considerable acreage. Troops of the

Continental Army camped on the property, but were not quartered in the

house itself.The central part of the house, 1 1/2 stories with gambrel roof and

large interior chimneys was standing in 1776. The two wings were completed

by the mid—l800’s. For a house of its size the ceilings are high and the

rooms large. It was extensively restored in the l930s by the National Park

Service. It is not open to the public.

D5 INDIAN TRADING POST

Pleasantville Road (N. side, 1± mile E. of Long Hill Road)

This house is actually two separate houses abutting one another. The

older, eldstone structure bears the date 1782, and is a 1 1/2 story

building with Dutch characteristics. The clapboard house joined to it is oftypical 19th-century farmhouse design - a 3—bay structure with gable—end

chimney and porch. The reason for these two structures having been joined

(originally with no communication between) is unknown. There is strongsupposition that the stone part was a store which traded with the Leni-

Lenape.

D6 JOCKEY HOLLOW ENCAMPMENT (SITE) NJHSI-l371.5Jockey Hollow and Tempe Wick Roads

The main Continental Army of up to 10,000 men was encamped at Jockey

Hollow during the winter of 1779-1780 in rude log huts scattered over the

hillside. Severe snowstorms and lack of food made that winter as arduous

as the more famous Valley Forge encampment. Representative buildings have

been reconstructed by the National Park Service, which maintains the area

as part of the Morristown National Historic Park.

D7 PETER KEMBLE MANSION NJHSI-2064.12; HABS-48

667 Mt. Kemble Avenue (Rte.202) at Old Camp Road

Peter Kemble was made a member of the Governor’s Council in 1745, and

often served as chairman during the Governor’s absence. By 1765, he had

completed his mansion at Mt. Kemble (which originally stood on the site now

occupied by Glen Alpine, but was moved c. 1840). Kemble’s close connectionwith the English cause (his daughter married General Gage, Commander of the

British Army in America) threatened his properties with conscation. Duringthe winters of 1779-1781, the Kemble

152



HARDING REGION D

(PETER KEMBLE MANSION, continued)

plantation was the scene of Continental Army encampments under Generals

Smallwood and Wayne. Despite extensive alterations, many of the building’s

original characteristics survive, including the oor plan, mantels,staircase and carved window sashes and sills. (NJR)

D8 LARZALERE’S TAVERN, THE HALF MOON (SITE)Mt. Kemble Avenue, Route 202 (opposite Old Camp Road)

Like the two other important taverns in the Morristown area associated

with the Revolution (Arnolds and Dickerson’s), the Half Moon no longerexists. It was demolished for construction of Route 287. Brigadier Gen.

John Stark made his headquarters at Larzalere’s during the Jockey Hollow

encampment of 1779-1780.

D9 NEW VERNON VILLAGE DISTRICT

Lee’s Hill Road between Long Hill Road and Glen Alpin Road; Village Roadrunning 1,500±’ from Lee’s Hill Road

The name New Vernon is not recorded until about 1800, apparently in

commemoration of Washington’s presence during the Revolution. The village’s

earliest name appears to have been Passaik. During the winter of 1777,

with the headquarters of the Continental Army in Morristown, troops were

billeted here and in surrounding villages. The village appears to have

remained primarily a small farming community throughout the 18th and 19th

centuries, unlike Mendham and Chester where agriculture was supplemented

by industry. Research is now underway to document the most signicant ofthe district’s early buildings. Three of the more interesting are described

below (identied by asterisks).

* JOSEPH FAIRCHILD HOUSE

Lee’s Hill Road CE. Side) 1,500±’ S. of Glen Alpin Road

This house dates from the mid—l8th century and has suffered remarkably

few alterations. The 1 1/2—story design with side hail and gable—

end chimney is typical for the area (cf. David Brandt house, Chatham

Township, among others) . Joseph Fairchild was a carpenter and, likemost of his neighbors, a farmer as well. Joseph’s son Peter, who served

in the Continental Army, petitioned for a pension in 1833 when he was

77. Witnesses attested to his lifelong residence, which establishes the

existence of this house by at least 1756.

153



HARDING REGION D

* FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF NEW VERNON

Lee’s Hill & Glen Alpin Roads

Prior to 1834 when this wooden church was built, the residents of the

village of New Vernon traveled to Morristown for services. During its 100th

anniversary year, the church was renovated and strengthened, leaving the

exterior substantially intact, but making numerous alterations inside. The

building is a good example of how local craftsmen translated simple Gothic

Revival elements into a distinctive American building idiom.

* NEW VERNON STORE

opposite First Presbyterian Church

The earliest wing of this house was built c. 1760 making it roughly

contemporary with the preceding Fairchild house. Subsequent additions

enabled it to serve as a general store until 1890. In 1835 it became the

manse for the Presbyterian Church and during the Civil War the rear shedextension was used for tailoring Union Army uniforms.

Dl0 PRIMROSE FARM

Mt. Kemble Avenue, Route 202 (W. Side) 3100±’ S. of Post House Road

This 1 1/2-story frame dwelling with high eldstone foundation may be

the oldest house on Mt. Kemble Avenue, dating from 1730 when it was built

by or for George Bockoven, a tenant farmer for prominent Tory, Peter

Kemble. The large bake oven in the ground oor kitchen is said to haveprovided bread for the troops camped at Jockey Hollow.

Its existence is later veried by inclusion on a French Military map

titled “Map de Wippany a Bullion’s Tavern, 14 miles,” - showing thatRochambeau’s army passed this way in August 1781 on their march to Yorktown

from Whippany.

Several minor additions have not seriously impaired the house’s

architectural interest. Its proximity to Route 202 may pose a future

threat.

D11 REGGIO

Kitchell Road (S.E. side, 1/2± mile s. of Rte.24)

A 2-story stucco and brick house in the Florentine Villa style popular

in the early decades of the 20th century, this mansion was built in 1908

for Willard V. King, and reects the taste and lifestyle of the wealthy whomade Morris County estates famous. The

154



HARDING REGION D

(REGGIO, continued)

gardens were planned with equal care to complement the pseudo-Renaissance

architecture. Three Florentine artists were reportedly in residence for

eight months completing the interior decorative details.

D12 WICK HOUSE

Tempe Wick Road, M.C.-46 (N. side, W. of Jockey Hollow Rd.)

Henry Wick moved to Morris County from Long Island and built this house

c. 1750. During the winter of 1780 it was the headquarters of Maj. Gen.

St. Clair, commander of the Pennsylvania Line. Legend has it that when

St. Clair’s troops mutinied a year later, Temperance (Tempe) Wick, one ofHenry’s daughters hid her horse in a bedroom to prevent its requisition by

the rebellious soldiers.

The house is a relatively primitive center—chimney type, more like

early New England dwellings than the kind usually found in New Jersey. It

has been restored by the National Park Service as part of the Morristown

Historic Park. (NR)

155



MORRIS PLAINS REGION D

Dl3 JEREMIAH BETTS HOMESTEAD

21 West Hanover Avenue (14.C.—5O)

A deed of 1846 refers to this house by its present name, although it was

probably built about 1810. Both wings are now shingled, and a modern porch

has been added. Otherwise, the exterior is little changed. Even the Dutch

oven has survived, now boxed in for protection.

Dl4 DAVID FAIRCHILD HOUSE

1 Littleton Road (Rte.-2O2)

Although the porch and large dormers are 19th century or later, the

basic fabric of this well—preserved house appears to be early to mid—

l8th century. Distinguished by no decoration, its clean lines and good

proportions bespeak intuitive craftsmanship. No other houses of this size

and vintage have survived in Morris Plains with so few alterations.

D15 SETH GREGORY HOMESTEAD

63 West Hanover Avenue (M.C.—50)

Seth Gregory was a Captain in the Revolutionary War. He built this house

c. 1801, and opened a small ordinary, or tavern, which is mentioned in a

Burnet Stagecoach advertisement of 1809. The small wing is distinguished

by a sloping Dutch style roof and remnant of a Dutch oven. An extensive

modernization late in the 19th century has left original architectural

features open to question

D16 SHERMAN COTTAGE23 West Hanover Avenue (M.C. -50)

This land was originally part of the Jeremiah Betts property. Deeds

seem to indicate that the house was built sometime between 1854 and 1890,

although the small windows of the main wing suggest an earlier date. Only a

shed dormer mars its exterior.

Dl7 EBENEZER STILES HOUSE NJHSI-2061.l

77 Glenbrook Road

Ebenezer Stiles was a Morris County Freeholder and owner of two iron

forges, one on this property. The oldest part of the house, with

156



MORRIS PLAINS REGION D

(EBENEZER STILES HOUSE, continued)

three bays and side hail, was built in 1750—1760. Additions were made in

1868. Its present good condition (aside from some boarded up windows) and

pleasant park setting result from the town’s adaptive use of this building

as a public library.

157



MORRISTOWN REGION D

In September, 1973, the Morristown Historic District was named to

the N.J. Register of Historic Places, and Subsequently to the National

Register. The boundaries of the district may be determined by referring to

the detail map. Because most of the buildings in this district are known by

their own names, they have been incorporated into the general alphabetical

listing for easy reference. Their inclusion in the district is indicated by

a marginal asterisk.

According to the National Register nomination: “Within the Morristown

District there are over fty worthwhile structures... most are post CivilWar; a few are twentieth century Victorian. Private residences are by

far the most common, and most of these are quite substantial, reecting

the social position and afuence of their owners.” The report goes onto observe that at least four of the state’s major thematic categories

(religious, military, and educational activities, and transportation)are illustrated by buildings in the district. It concludes with this

admonition: “Numerous other buildings, not herein described, continue to

add character and integrity to this unique section of Morristown,. Only

because their owners were not so well—known, or their use public were thesestructures not singled out in the description. They must, nonetheless, for

full feeling of the area, be included in the district.”

Dl8 ACORN HALL NJHSI-2064.2l

68 Morris Avenue (M.C.-22)

This 3-story, clapboard, Italianate house with large tower, and diverse

assemblage of porches, bay and coupled windows, dormers and brackets,

was built in 1853. It has been surmised that Ira Lindsley, one of the

architects of the Morris County Court House, may have been responsible for

its design. Both interior and exterior remain unaltered to an extraordinary

degree. The Morris County Historical Society is restoring the interior andthe gardens, and maintains its headquarters here. (NR)

Dl9 * ASSUMPTION CHURCH AND RECTORY

Maple Avenue at Madison Street

The rst task of this parish was ministering to Irish emigrants wholived in the surrounding area known as “Dublin.” The rst church was a

small frame building erected in 1848 not far from this spot. Assumption was

the mother parish of churches and missions in Morris Plains, Basking Ridge,

Mendham and Whippany.

The present brick church with stone trim was built in 1872 and 1873 by

Mahlon Parsons from designs of L.J. O’Connor. It bears a strong resemblanceto the Church of St. Matthias designed by Sir George

158



MORRISTOWN REGION D

(ASSUMPTION CHURCH AND RECTORY, continued)

Gilbert Scott, one of Victorian England’s foremost “moral Gothicists.”

The adjacent rectory, built in 1890, is decorated with typical Gothic

ornamentation. (NR)

D20 BELL BUILDING

West Park Place, corner of Bank Street

A commercial building has stood here since 1812. In 1866 the property

was sold by George King to Augustus W. Bell. The present building dates

from approximately that time. Together with the Parker Building it is

the most impressive remnant of Morristown’s late 19th-century mercantile

prosperity. Despite alterations to the rst oor facade and a plethora

of signs plastered on the upper oors, its original monumentality isunmistakable. The only comparable mansard commercial building stands on

Waverly Place in Madison.

D21 BLACHLEY PLACE

80—94 Blachley Place

These four buildings opposite the Morristown Railroad Station represent

the most unied example remaining of Morristown’s early 20th—centurycommercial architecture. Regularity of fenestration, uniformity of

scale and attention to small details (classical pilasters and consoles,

the richly textured Flemish bond facade of No. 84) combine to form an

integrated streetscape in miniature. Although none is outstanding itself,

they function together remarkably well. On that basis they merit upgrading

and preservation for continued productive use.

D22 * THE BOOK STORE

83 South Street (Rte. 24)

This is one of the few 18th-century buildings in the Morristown

District. It is an excellent example of New Jersey’s brick Federal style,

built before that style gained wide popularity. The date (1765) in thegable end is somewhat unusual for the northern part of the state. (NR)

159



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D23 CONDICT-CUTLER HOMESTEAD

21 Cutler Street

Silas Condict, freeholder, speaker of the State Assembly and member of

the Continental Congress, lived here from 1799 until 1801. The marriage of

his granddaughter Elizabeth to Joseph Cutler signaled the farm’s transfer

to Cutler ownership.

Augustus W. Cutler, son of Joseph and Elizabeth, was born here in

1827. A prominent lawyer, he was both a New Jersey Senator and a U.S.

Congressman. While serving in the state Senate he drafted the original free

school bill, and assured state control of riparian lands in the interest of

school support. He was also a civil rights advocate, and was instrumental

in creating the Department of Agriculture. From about 1880 to 1900 this

was the unofcial headquarters of the Democratic Party in New Jersey. Itwas during Augustus Cutler’s tenancy that the large front wing was added

(c.1853) which now largely obscures the simple house his father built forSilas Condict. (NR)

D24 *DR LEWIS CONDICT HOUSE NJHSI-2064.20

51 South Street

Dr. Lewis Condict (1722—1862), rst president of the Morris CountyMedical Society, president of the Medical Association lived here around

1797. Condict was also active politically. He was, at various times

sheriff, justice of the peace, state assemblyman, speaker of the State

House, and congressional representative; he often acted as the speaker pro

tern in the House of Representatives.

This 2 1/2-story clapboard building with gambrel roof is one of the

few Federal style houses remaining in the Morristown District. Its center

dormer was added later in the 19th century, the porch after 1922. It now

serves as the Morristown Women’s Club. (NR)

D25 * COLLES MANSION

25 Colles Avenue

This huge, 2 1/2—story house, built in 1837 for James Colles, displays

modied Federal and Greek Revival features. It was designed by Martin E.

Thompson, who was responsible for the Second Bank of the United States (now

the south facade of the Metropolitan Museum’s American Wing). Presentlyowned by the Kellogg Club, it is open only to members. The interior has

been extensively altered. (NR)

160



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D26 * COURTHOUSE & JAIL (SITE) NJHSI-2064.8North Park Place, on the Green

The earliest building on this spot is presumed to have been built in

1755. The weathervane which adorned the cupola bears that date, and is

now preserved in the museum of the Morristown National Historical Park.

The second building to stand here, erected c. 1770, saw the rst meetingheld in Morris County to protest the tyrannous acts of the mother country.

The Green itself, one of the few 18th- century public spaces in New

Jersey based on a New England Public green model, is still owned by the

Presbyterian Church which makes it available for Town use. (NR)

D27 * DAY BUILDING (SITE)40 W. Park Place (Rte.—24)

About 1750 a building stood here owned by one Ezekiel Cheever. It was

acquired in 1773 by Thomas Kenney and later used by the Continental Armyfor ofces and munitions storage. It is alleged that a series of militaryballs took place here in 1780, to deceive the British about the low ebb of

American morale and material.

By 1794 the building was known as O’Hara’s Tavern. In 1846 it burned

to the ground, and was replaced c. 1850 with a building which housed a

private school, an assembly room (Washington Hall), and three stores. By

1862 it was known as the Colonial Restaurant, operated by the rst ofthree generations of Days, who are credited with introducing commercially

made ice cream to Morristown. During the Civil War the names of Union Army

draftees were selected here, and Harriet Beecher Stowe delivered a public

address, presumably in Washington Hall.

Before striking out on his own to create what would eventually become a

multi-million—dollar food conglomerate, Milton Hershey worked for the Days

as a candy maker. In the 20th century, the building was acquired by Child’s

Restaurant Corporation and operated as the Townhouse on the Green. In 1968

it was demolished by Epstein’s Department Store.

D28 DICKERSON’S OR NORRIS’S TAVERN (SITE)

77 Spring Street

Late in the 18th century, the intersection of Water and Spring Streets

was a crossroads of considerable activity, and was, in fact, one of the

rst areas of Morristown to be developed. The tavern which stood here wasthe scene of Benedict Arnold’s court—martial in 1779—1780.

161



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D29 * FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH & MANSE

57 East Park Place

This congregation was organized sometime around 1738, and played a

signicant role in Morristown’s early development, when church wardens andtrustees took an important part in political as well as religious life. The

present 19th—century limestone structure, built in 1893, is a modicationof the Romanesque styles characterized by enormous curved expanses and

richly textured facades. Its architect, J. Cleveland Cady, designed the

original Metropolitan Opera House and the Museum of Natural History. Buried

in the cemetery is Gen. John Doughty, third Commander-In-Chief of the U.S.

Army. (NR)

D30 * FITZ—JOHN PORTER HOUSE NJHSI-2064.l6

1 Farragut Place

This late Victorian house is 2 1/2-stories, with gambrel roof andcorbelled—top chimneys. The exterior carved ornamentation is noteworthy.

General Porter served in the Civil War, and was later chosen to reorganize

New York City’s Department of Public Works after Boss Tweed’s removal

(which removal General Porter’s neighbor Thomas Nast helped achieve). (NR)

D3l FORD MANSION NJHSI—2064.l7; HABS—32

Morris Avenue, M.C.-22 (immediately E. of Rte. 1-287)

One of New Jersey’s nest Georgian buildings, this house was built forColonel Jacob Ford, Jr., and served as Washington’s headquarters during the

Jockey Hollow encampment of 1779—1780. Its walls are painted and scored to

resemble masonry, much like Mt. Vernon’s. The Palladian doorway and richcornice molding are especially noteworthy. Part of Morristown National

Historical Park, it is open to the public, as is the museum behind it,

which houses artifacts and a library pertinent to the period. (NHL, NR)

D32 FORT NONSENSE (SITE)Between Chestnut Street and Mt. Kemble Avenue (Rte. 202)

This vantage point is the site of earthworks constructed in 1777 at the

order of Gen. Washington for the protection of military supplies and the

observation of enemy troops movements. It is now maintained by

162



MORRISTOWN REGION D

(FORT NONSENSE (SITE) ,continued)

the National Park Service as part of the ,Morristown National Historic

Park.

D33 FRANKLIN PLACE DISTRICT

Franklin Place

Because of its short length and protected location, Franklin Place

long remained one of the most intact of Morristown’s late l9th—century

residential streets. In the last four years three of its houses were

allowed to deteriorate so badly that demolition was necessary, leaving

holes in the formerly unied streetscape. A number of the remaininghouses are Queen Anne, a late Victorian style employing asymmetry, wooden

strapwork and shingles, spindles and widely spaced windows.

Number 1 Franklin Place is a vigorous example of late Victorian

eclecticism, complete with porte cochere, tower, and a massive expanse ofstained glass on the north facade. Number 10 has a steeply pitched roof

with clipped gables, original slate cut in contrasting shapes, pierced

bargeboards and valances, and towering chimneys. The gable ends of Number

11 are decorated in typical Queen Anne fashion with shingles, strapwork and

woodcarving. Number 18 was the only house dominated by a unique bracketed

arch on the third story. Number 30 anchors the north end of the street as

Number 1 does the south. A 2—story side porch, third oor balcony—porch,lozenge-patterned gables, and leaf—cut brackets are combined to make this

one of the most imposing houses on the street.

D34 * THE GROVE

71 Macculloch Avenue

The Grove is a surviving representative of the numerous mansions which

made Morristown an exemplar of the mansard style. A New York newspaper of

1860 described the fashion, which inuenced not only Morristown, but most

of the East Coast, in these words: “A very short time ago, nobody seemed to

know that buildings had roofs... Suddenly, however, a sort of roof epidemic

seemed to seize us; and now no building, great or small, can be a building

without its French roof.”

Of particular interest is the fact the Frederick Law Olmsted created the

original landscape design. The large ginkgo tree and wisteria were brought

from Japan by Commodore Perry. Among the guests entertained here were Bret

Harte and Sam Riddle, owner of Man of War. The Grove has been owned by only

two families since its construction in 1865. (NR)

163



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D35 * MOSES HATFIELD HOUSE (SITE) HABS-69521 De Hart Street

This is another HABS casualty, a 1 1/2-story house with lean-to section,

built between 1832 and 1836. (NR)

D36 THE IRISH HOUSE

60 Madison Street

Around 1845, when this house was built, the surrounding land was

known as Dublin. Because of prejudice against Irish Catholics, they were

discouraged from buying land freely, and this neighborhood grew into

something of a ghetto. The narrow design and singular roof are reminiscent

of Irish building styles.

D37 JAMES STREET ROW11-15 James Street (M.C.-10)

These four frame houses are not the oldest on James Street, nor are they

among the most architecturally noteworthy in Morristown. Their unusual

uniformity of scale, however, combined with interesting differences

(such as a variety of roof shapes), creates a harmonious streetscape inminiature, suggestive of an urbanized mid—19—century environment. The

adjacent vacant lot contains several trees of specimen quality.

D38 * THE KEDGE


The rst owner of this brick and shingle house was Henry Miller,grandson of George Macculloch and another of the Macculloch Avenue area’s

naval ofcers. The rst section of the house was only four rooms when itwas built as a summer cottage around 1870-1880. Its wall hides an oriental

garden with lily pond and pagoda-style gazebo. (NR)

D39 KING AND VOGT BUILDING

10 Washington Street

In 1872, the National Iron Bank erected this building to house its

ofces and professional tenants. It was the rst ofce in Morristown to

have reproof vaults and central hot—air heating. Its typical row—housedesign (narrow facade, four oors, and main entrance over a high basement)is a typical urban design, but unique in Morristown.

164



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D40 LINDENWOLD

247 South Street (M.C.—1)

An impressive neo—Gothic mansion of dark stone built in 1876 for

William Skidmore, Lindenwold’s stepped Dutch gables are reminiscent of

early New Amsterdam buildings. Some of its decorative ironwork appears to

be proto—Art Nouveau in style. A subsequent owner made the estate well—

known for its horticultural displays. In 1947 it was purchased by the Peck

School. Although institutional use has preserved the original building,

its appearance has not been enhanced by modern additions which gave little

thought to architectural integration. (cf. Cecilhurst, Madison, for a

similar problem).

D41 * MACCULLOCH HALL NJHSI-2064.3; HABS-658


This Federal Mansion was built in three parts (1801—1819) by GeorgeMacculloch, who conceived and promoted the idea of the Morris Canal. The

last part to be built (western section with fanlight door) served as aboys’ academy. The interior abounds in ne woodwork, mantels and otheroriginal details. Macculloch Hall has been privately restored, and is open

to the public by appointment. (NR)

D42 MILLIONAIRE’S ROW (SITE)17 and 21 Madison Avenue (from S. St. to Normandy Pkwy.)

Around the turn—of—the century, Morristown and environs were a popular

summering place of the wealthy, where, according to one report, more

millionaires were in residence than any other single place in the UnitedStates. Many of the “smaller” estates (those not including deer herds and

polo elds) could be found along this Morristown stretch of Madison Avenue.Today they have been bulldozed for speculative ofce space and similarventures of mediocre architectural quality.

Two of the most interesting, if not most lavish, survivors are the

houses numbered 17 and 21. Both are variations of the Shingle Style, one of

the rst attempts to break away from the prevailing 19th century fondnessfor imitating European styles. Number 21 is the more modern of the two,

even though its strapwork, candle—snuffer roof and spindle—decorated

porch recall earlier revival inuences. Number 17, with its surface ofdark shingles, shows how a “skin” of natural materials became the organic

equivalent of earlier applied decoration. The impact of both houses is

heightened by their setting on a rise.

165



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D43 TIMOTHY MILLS HOUSE HBS-632

27 Mills Street

This is believed to be the oldest house in Morristown on its original

site. Timothy Mills, who built it c. 1740, was a prosperous farmer and

Overseer of the Poor, as well as one of the rst contributors to PrincetonUniversity. The Mills family also operated a tannery here - one of the most

necessary though unpleasant 18th— century industries.

The Mills house is especially valuable because so many of its

original structural features are directly accessible for study and

teaching purposes. This fact has been taken advantage of by the American

Civilization Institute of Morristown, a joint project of Fairleigh

Dickenson University and the Morristown school system. In addition to

historic and archaeological research on the site, an 18th-century barn in

the path of Route 287 was dismantled and reconstructed adjacent to the

house by Morristown High School students. The house is now in need of

restoration. (NR)

D44 MORRIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE NJHSI-2064.l3

Washington Street, between Court Street and Western Avenue

Lewis Carter and Joseph Lindsley designed this building in 1827. Built

primarily of brick, it uses wood and brownstone trim. At a time when the

Graeco—Roman revival style was becoming increasingly popular, Carter and

Lindsley used its effects sparingly, and generally for minor details (the

Ionic columns of the cupola, for example). The building’s overall effectis Federal, with some evidence of Georgian antecedents. The main facade

includes a pediment enclosing a representation of Justice, decorative

pilasters, and a wide cornice. It is generally regarded as one of the nestpublic buildings of its period in New Jersey, despite the poorly conceived

modern additions which have destroyed some of its visual impact. The

partially restored interior still houses the Morris County Courts.

D45 * MORRISTOWN LIBRARY

1 Miller Road

The main wing of this library was built in 1917, endowed by Grinnell

Willis as a privately-run institution. Its designer was Edward L. Tilton,

one of the foremost library architects of the period, who had previously

worked for McKimm, Mead and White. Together with St. Peter’s Church on

the opposite side of Miller Road, it creates a unied complex, presentingseveral variations of the Gothic Revival style. Generally in good

condition, the handsome interior is seriously overcrowded and in need of

restoration. In 1967 the library was made public under the management of

Morristown and Morris Township. (NR)

166



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D46 * THOMAS NAST HOUSE, VILLA FONTANA


Lincoln called him “my best recruiting sergeant,” for his powerful

Civil War illustrations; Boss Tweed called him a few things which aren’t

printable. He was Thomas Nast, “father of the 3merican political cartoon,”

who lived here from 1872 until 1902. Not only was he instrumental in

exposing the notorious Tweed Ring, he created the Democratic donkey and

the Republic elephant, and popularized the representation of Santa Clause

essentially as we know it today. Nast lived at Villa Fontana during some

of his most productive years, and here entertained such luminaries as Mark

Twain and Ulysses S. Grant.

The house itself is architecturally noteworthy, due to ne proportionsand the successful manner in which it combines classical motifs (pilasters,

a Paladian window) with more typically Victorian details (such as heavily

bracketed eaves and hooded dormers). The interior contains many of itsoriginal embellishments, including a replace identiable in a Nastdrawing. (NHL, NR)

D47 PARKER BUILDING

22-23 North Park Place

Like most of Morristown’s surviving 19th—century commercial buildings,

the Parker Building has seen numerous uses. In 1876 it was acquired by

John E. Parker and George Laurence. How long before that the building in

its present form was standing has not been determined. A recent renovation

has demonstrated how successfully an interesting if not unique building

can be adapted for modern use. Although the ground—oor facade has beenmodernized, alterations were executed in keeping with the style of the

upper oors, thus enabling the Green to keep a handsome and functional link

to its past.

D48 * PIERSON CARRIAGE SHOP (SITE)South Street, Route 24 (S.W. corner of Madison St.)

For a number of years prior to the Civil War the manufacture of

carriages and wagons was one of Morristown’s leading industries. Lewis

Pierson, Jr. opened a shop here in 1853. There were ve other shops in theimmediate vicinity. Because a large portion of the trade was with the South

(the nished products were shipped by train), the approach of the slaverycrisis contributed to the demise of this ourishing business. (NR)

167



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D49 * CHRISTOPHER RAYMOND PERRY RODGERS HOUSE


Built for Christopher Raymond Perry Rodgers around 1852, this clapboard

house has a gable over the front door and a verandah running the length of

the main facade. Basically a simple house, small details such as the porch

latticework repeated in a fence reect the care and taste of its builder.Rodgers was the nephew of both Oliver Hazard Perry and Commodore John

Rodgers. He served as commander of all naval forces in the Pacic (1878— 1880) and was superintendent of the Naval Academy at Annapolis. CUR)

D50 * ST. PETER’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, PARISH HOUSE AND RECTORY

South Street, Route 24 (S.W. corner at Miller Road)

Directly across from the Morristown Municipal Building (Vail Mansion)stands this Gothic Revival structure designed by the renowned rm of McKim,

Mead and White in the style of English parish churches of the 14th and 15thcenturies. The rectory, cloistered walk and parish house, together with

the church itself, create an ensemble of rare integration which harmonizes

with the Gothic library across Miller Road. In addition to its overall

architectural impact, St. Peter’s employs an intricate symbology carried

out in small details, such as the golden cock weathervanes which allude to

Peter’s betrayal of Christ, and the Weeping Beech, a symbol of mourning,

near the graveyard.

The church alone took 24 years to complete (1887-1911), employingeighteen stonemasons and several blacksmiths. The chapel contains a large

window created in 1894 by Louis C. Tiffany. The experimental technique used

was judged unsatisfactory, but proposals to remove the window were never

carried out. The parish house was designed by Bertram Goodhue better known

for his work in the Beaux Arts Classical mode. (NR)

D51 SYLVESTER RUSSEL HOUSE HABS-659

89 Western Avenue

If the HABS survey is correct in dating this small, 3-bay house with

eyebrow windows at c. 1820, it demonstrates how older forms persisted,

since there is really little to distinguish it from many 18th-century

houses. Synthetic siding applied in 1974 has not improved its appearance.

168



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D52 * SANSAY HOUSE

17 DeHart Street

Built c. 1807, this was the dancing school of Monsieur Sansay, called

New Jersey’s most famous dancing master. Lafayette was entertained here

when he toured the United States in 1825 as “the nation’s guest.” It was

later the home of Gen. Joseph Revere (cf. Revere House, Morris Twp.) from1872 until his death in 1880.

Monsieur Sansay’s ballroom has been broken up and a number of Victorian

alterations have been made. Otherwise the house has survived the pressures

of its commercial location surprisingly well.

(NR)

D53 SAYRE HOUSE NJHSI-2064.11

217 South Street (Rte.24)

The Sayre House was formerly one of the best preserved frame structuresof the Federal period in Morristown. Recent commercial alterations have

made it a textbook example of what Carl Reiss, in With Heritage So Rich,

calls “destruction by substitution.” “A house or church or public building

is acquired and completely remodeled — so much so that almost nothing is

left of the original facade. Additions are built in front or around the

original structure and it nally disappears — lost somewhere behind new

rooms and new exteriors.” (NJR)

D54 SCHUYLER-HAMILTON HOUSE NJHSI-2064.4; HABS-35

5 Olyphant Place

Dr. Jabez Campeld, a senior surgeon for the Continental Army, ownedthis house sometime before the Revolution. It was here in 1779 that

Alexander Hamilton, then attached to Gen. Washington’s staff, courted Betsy

Schuyler. Although not architecturally remarkable, its survival has made it

one of the nest local examples of upper—middle- class architecture of theperiod - falling between a modest dwelling like the Timothy Mills House and

the relative opulence of a house like the Ford Mansion.

Despite the destruction of its original masonry when it was moved from

Morris Street, it is in excellent condition. Today it is owned by the DAR

and furnished as a house museum open to the public.

169



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D55 SPEEDWELL IRON WORKS (SITE) NJHSI-2064.15Speedwell Avenue (Rte.202) at the foot of Speedwell Lake

John Johnson owned a forge here during the Revolution, and a few years

later a slitting mill was built on this site. In 1807, Stephen Vail became

a partner in the mill and had built up the Iron Works by 1814, when he

became its sole owner. The Works was primarily a foundry and machine shop,

using, but not making iron. With the help of an English designer, Vail

manufactured early steam engines. In 1818 Speedwell made and installed

most of the engine for the S.S. Savannah, the rst steamship to cross theAtlantic. Only Stephen’s bridge, the foundation of a sawmill, and one wall

of the machine shop remain today. The business was moved to New York in

1873 and the buildings burned down in 1901, just before the original dam

was dismantled. The present dam dates from the late 1930’s.

D56 THE SPEEDWELL VILLAGE NJHSI-2064.23

Speedwell Avenue (Rte.202) and Cory Road

The Village is a small part of what was Stephen Vail’s homestead. In

1829, Judge Vail acquired land on the east side of Speed— well Avenue and

nished off a mill there to rent as a cotton weaving factory. A year laterhe bought the adjoining farm from his son—in—law. Since 1968, the Speedwell

Village, a non-prot corporation, has preserved the small part of the

homestead with Vail’s house, farm buildings, and factory as well as several

historic houses moved from the center of Morristown. The site is listed

on the National Register (NR) and the Factory, where Stephen’s son AlfredVail and Samuel F.B. Morse rst demonstrated the perfected telegraph, is a

National Historic Landmark (NHL).

The following buildings are now on the site:

FORD COTTAGE (original location: 10 Howell Place, near the Jacob Ford

Mansion in what is now the right-of-way of Route 287).

Gabriel Ford Jr., grandson of Colonel Jacob Ford, Jr., probably

built this modest house in the early 1800’s. Threatened by highway

construction, it was moved to Speedwell in 1968. The Cottage retains

many original features such as wide, untapered weatherboards and

small—paned windows.

L’HOMMEDIEU-GWINNUP HOUSE (Original location: 91 Spring St.)NJHSI—2064.l8

Nathaniel L’Hommedieu owned the original, Morristown site of thishouse in 1771. John Gwinnup, a member of the Morris County

170



MORRISTOWN REGION D

(THE SPEEDWELL VILLAGE, continued)

Militia during the Revolution, was its next owner. From 1777 to 1812,

his house stood on the lot and the present house was built there

before 1840. Its noteworthy features include a basement kitchen,gambrel roof and recessed doorway. The oor plan has end chimneys anda central hail anked by four rooms. Although the house still needs

work before it can be opened, the restored kitchen now serves as a

gift shop.

MOSES ESTEY HOUSE (Original location: corner of Spring and Water

Streets) NJHSI—2064.9; HABS677

Moses Estey was a Captain in the New Jersey Militia during the

Revolutionary War. He built this house shortly after his rst one

burned down in 1786. Its oor plan resembles that of the L’HommedieuHouse and its brick-lled, frame construction is like that of theVail House. Much of the interior woodwork is original, but since the

house has not been restored, it is closed to visitors. It originallystood across from the L’Homnedieu House and both were saved from

Urban Renewal demolition when HUD moved them to Speedwell in 1969.

CARRIAGE HOUSE

Early photographs of Speedwell and a collection of wooden patterns

are displayed here. The Speedwell Iron Works was a foundry and it

cast iron in wet sand moulded from these patterns. The castings

became parts of the Savannah’s 1818 engine, early locomotives, and

the Factory’s water-wheel. Horses were once stabled in the basement

of this 1808 building.

The carriage House, the nearby granary built on stone piers, and two

or three barns once formed the Vail farmyard.

STEPHEN VAIL HOUSE

This house was built in the early 1800’s and Vail’s daughters

probably lived here during the 1820’s and 30’s. It is gradually being

restored to its 1844 appearance, when Judge Vail renovated it for

his own use. Alfred Vail, Stephen’s elder son, often had dinner here

with his sister in 1837, when he was working on the telegraph. His

brother, George Vail, became a partner in the Iron Works when Stephen

retired.

171



MORRISTOWN REGION D

(THE SPEEDWELL VILLAGE, continued)

George built the stone mansion on the opposite side of Speedwell

Avenue in 1848.

VAIL Factory NJHSI—2064.22

The Factory, nished off for cotton looms in 1829, was used inseveral ways over the years. The gristmill, which now occupies the

rst oor and the basement, is run by a 24 foot overshot wheel,built at Speedwell in the late 1840’s. In January 1838 however, the

second oor room was available for the rst public demonstration ofthe electromagnetic telegraph by Samuel Morse and Alfred Vail. An

exhibit, with instruments from the Smithsonian and Western Union

collections, shows how science, invention, and development came

together at Speedwell to perfect the telegraph. (NHL)

D57 * UNITED METHODIST CHURCH50 South Park Place

Built in 1870 of local puddingstone, this church abjures the curvilinear

mass of its Presbyterian neighbor in favor of a more vertical effect

sometimes labeled Norman Romanesque. S.D. Hatch, its architect, also

designed the Jay Gould mansion in New York City. It was especially noted

for its interior woodwork until the re which gutted it in 1972. Thefront facade with towers and some of the other remaining walls have been

incorporated into a modern reconstruction. The congregation’s decision to

rebuild has saved the Green from losing one of its most imposing buildings.

(NR)

D58 UNNAMED HOUSE NJHSI-2064.26

109 Washington Street (Rte.24)

Probably built in the second half of the 18th century, this house is

representative rather than remarkable, although its careful preservation

and appropriate landscaping make it one of the best maintained early

houses in Morristown. The addition of a modern bay window is the kind of

compromise sometimes justied if it makes the difference between adaptiveuse and possible neglect or demolition — especially in cases like this, in

which the building is not architecturally unique, and the adaptation is

sensitively handled.

172



MORRISTOWN REGION D

D59 * THEODORE VAIL MANSION

South Street (Rte.24) Opposite Miller Road

Built in 1918 as a home and private museum for Theodore Vail, the

founder of AT&T and Bell Laboratories, this granite and Vermont marble

mansion was designed by W.W. Bosworth. The bronze doors, executed in bas—

relief, depict scenes of local history, and the double stairway of self—

supporting masonry is a notable example of arch construction. Many elements

of the original landscape design remain, and deserve to be conserved and

restored as part of the total design of the building and its site. Because

it now houses municipal ofces of the town of Morristown which strain its

capacity, the building and its grounds have suffered some neglect, but none

that could not be reversed. (NR)

D60 WILLOW HALL, THE GEORGE VAIL HOUSE NJHSI-2064.l4

330 Speedwell Avenue(Rte.202)

Constructed by English masons and carpenters, Willow Hall and its

out—buildings took ve years to complete, c. 1840. It is constructedof native red puddingstone (Hibernia conglomerate) with wood trim in a

modied country Gothic style. It was built for George Vail, and providesan interesting contrast to his father’s house across the road (now part of

Speedwell Village). The present garage originally served as slave quarters.

George Vail, a partner in the Speedwell Iron Works, later entered politics

and was made U.S. Consul to Glasgow in 1861.

173



MORRIS TOWNSHIP REGION D

D61 ALNWICK HALL

Route 24 (S.E. corner of Caneld Rd.)

General Edward Meaney, director of AT&T had this orange brick Gothic

mansion built around 1910. Its design was supposedly inspired by an Irish

castle. Notable features include an octagonal oak—panelled breakfast room,

a dining room of Circassian walnut, and individual room—zoned heating, an

innovation for its time. Alnwick Hall is presently owned by St. Mark’s

Lutheran Church.

D62 JACOB FORD POWDER MILL (SITE)Immediately N, of Morristown boundary on Whippany River.

At the outset of the Revolution the American ability to produce

gunpowder and all manner of military equipment was gravely decient. OnApril 22, 1776, Jacob Ford, Jr. petitioned the New Jersey Committee of

Safety for a loan to help construct a powder mill not far from his mansion.The date of completion remains undiscovered, hut production commenced

sometime after June 10, 1776. For security reasons, the precise location of

this strategic installation was never recorded at the time.

A recent study has documented the present site as the most likely.

The property is now owned by the Morris County Park Commission and is on

Patriot’s Path.

D63 FRELINGHUYSEN MANSION AND ARBORETUM, WHIPPANY FARM

Main Entrance, East Hanover Avenue, opposite Morris County Library

This is an early and superb example of the so-called Colonial Revival

which culminated around 1920. Built in 1891 as a summer home for George G.Frelinghuysen, it exhibits a profusion of neoclassical details, including

garlanded window heads, Corinthian pilasters, pineapple nials, urns,balustrades and a Palladian window. All of these decorative elements are

skillfully executed in wood, to designs by the Boston rm of Rotch andTilden. The main entrance, an Ionic—columned porte cochere, is especially

impressive.

The mansion and grounds are inextricably hound in an example of Romantic

landscape design which delighted in the subtle manipulation of organic and

man made forms. Today the rolling lawns, specimen trees and formal rose

garden are maintained by the Morris County Park Commission, which makes its

headquarters in the mansion.

174




D64 GLYNALLEN

Caneld Road (E. side, S. of Caneld Terr.)

When Edward Meaney built his Irish castle, Alnwick Hall, men of wealth

were competing to see who could erect the most impressive house modeled

on European prototypes. Not content to live in an ordinary reproduction,

George Marshall Allen toured Europe hunting for architectural details that

appealed to him. The ideas and artifacts he collected were incorporated

into a house based on the 1481 English Manor of Compton Wyngates,

Glynallen’s profusion of gargoyles, stained glass and carved woodwork have

been preserved by its present owner, the General Drafting Company.

D65 JOSEPH GUERIN FARMHOUSE NJHSI-2062.6

Old Mendham Road (at S.W. corner of Reed Rd.)

Although this house was built late in the 18th century (about 1773), its

vernacular design puts it in the tradition of pre-Revolutionary domesticarchitecture that could have been built almost any time during the century.

The ooring is cherry, pine, and oak, and much of the hardware and windowglass is original. The small wings are recent additions, but the exterior

of the main wing is remarkably unaltered. Joseph Guerin’s brother Joshua’s

house stands on Jockey Hollow Road in Harding.

D66 THE HOLT NJHSI-2062.7

Kitchell Road (W. side, N.E. of Woodland Ave.)

Several noted people have lived in this 1855 house, a 2-story frame

building with massive chimneys and deep overhanging eaves. Dr. Kitchell,

the rst owner, was New Jersey’s rst geologist. In his childhood, TheodoreRoosevelt spent several summers here. Frank Stockton, who named it The Holt

(a wooded glen) was a short story writer (“The Lady or the Tiger”) andeditor of the popular St. Nicholas Magazine.

D67 NORMANDY PARKWAY DISTRICT

Normandy Parkway

Although now interspersed with modern houses, the mansions lining

this street still make a strong collective impact, due not only to their

architecture (primarily neo-Georgian and Shingle Style) but also to their

landscaping and deep setbacks. Of particular interest is Fairacres (#17)

with its Corinthian—columned verandah

175




(NORMANDY PARKWAY DISTRICT, continued)

reached by a ight of stairs one-story high, and the stable at the cornerof Columbia Road, an individualistic dependency with lunette windows and

domed cupola.

D68 PRUDENTOWN DISTRICT

Mt. Kemble Avenue (Rte. 202)

During the late 18th and early 19th century, Mt. Kemble Avenue comprised

a self—sufcient community named after one of the rst families to settleoutside of Morristown on this stretch of road. In addition to a pottery

works, cider mill and distillery, the Prudens and Armstrongs operated

brickyards here (the Springbrook Country Club ponds were the clay pits).More than a dozen historic houses remain in the district, most in good

condition. The following list represents a selection of the most notable.

Houses in the district are marked with an asterisk.

* FOUR WINDS OR MILE POST

188 Mt. Kemble Avenue

A bakeoven can still be found in the ground oor kitchen of this early19th—century brick house, which also has interior shutters and its original

hand—hewn beams. The Canadians (or “Frenchies,” as they were called), whoworked in the nearby Pruden and Armstrong brickyards, were fed in this

kitchen.

* HART HOUSE


This stucco—covered brick house dates from the last quarter of the

18th century. It has horsehair-lled walls, wind holes at the eaves,and original glass. A brick cistern in the basement has access from the

kitchen, and may have been another of the local stations on the Underground

Railroad. The original owner was probably one of the Pruden brothers. The

house is presently in serious disrepair.

* PETER JOIS0N HOUSE NJHSI-2062.3


Probably built sometime after 1792, this 1 1/2-story frame cottage is

now shingled but may originally have been clapboard. It

176




(PRUDENTOWN DISTRICT, continued)

was built by General John Doughty, commander of the Morris Militia, to

house his slaves. In his will, probated in 1826, General Doughty freed

his slaves, and bequeathed the house to one of them, Peter, who took thesurname Johnson.

* PETER PRUDEN HOUSE


Peter Pruden is known to have moved into this house with his wife soon

after their marriage in 1782. This 2 1/2-story frame structure is built on

the hill, so that only one story is visible from the road. This is one of

the earliest of the Prudentown houses.

* UNNAMED HOUSE


A rambling clapboard and brick house (late 18th early 19th century),

the brick foundation has puddingstone corners. The third oor is a lateraddition. There is reputed to have been a tunnel running from this house to

the Hart House, next door.

* UNNAMED HOUSE


Information from deeds and wills suggest that this 1800 house was

added to in 1825. Shingles presently cover the original clapboards. Like

most of the houses in this area, construction is mortise, tenon, and peg,

with untrimmed beams. An adjacent structure, once the milkhouse for the

Prudentown community, was recently demolished.

* UNNAMED HOUSE


This late 18th- or early 19th—century house is one of the handsomest of

the Prudentown group. The older section has a facade of ush clapboards,instead of the usual overlapping variety, and the porch pillars exhibit

handmade dentil decorations. A bakeoven, hand forged hardware, pegged beams

and original glass survive.

177




D69 PUFF’S TAVERN

214 West Hanover Avenue (M.C.-50)

Undoubtedly the oldest building in the immediate area, this was an

inn or tavern before the Revolution Built on the rise of a small hill,

its outstanding features are a great stone chimney and original wide

oorboards. The exterior has fared less well; some modern additions anda recent skin of shingles have compromised its appearance. Additional

research is warranted here to investigate the early history of the tavern.

D70 REVERE HOUSE, THE WILLOWS NJHSI-2062,7

Route 24 (W. of Kahdena Rd.)

Joseph W. Revere, son of an eminent N.Y. physician, grandson of Paul

Revere, and a major in the Civil War, designed this house and supervised

its construction in 1854. The carpenter was Ashbel Bruen of Chatham.

Although Revere had no architectural training, his house is generallyconsidered one of the nest examples of frame Gothic Revival in New Jersey.Revere himself painted the murals which still decorate the principal rooms.

After 1872 when his health made supervision of a large estate onerous,

Revere moved to the Sansay House in Morristown. Thereafter The Willows was

rented - for a while to Brett Harte, who gathered material for his novel

Thankful Blossom (set in Washington Valley) while living here.

The Morris County Park Commission will eventually open this property to

the public as a house museum and working farm exhibit.

(NR)

D71 JOHN CLEVES SYMMES HOUSE (SITE) NJHSI—2062.l

Sussex Avenue (M.C.—l7) at Kahdena Road (now a residential development,“Wheatsheaf Farms”)

Thought to be the rst large clearing in the forest surrounding what wasto become Morristown, this was the site of a private mint authorized by the

New Jersey Legislature to strike horsehead pennies in 1786, prior to the

establishment of a federal mint. New Jersey Chief Justice John Symmes had

a house here before 1780. The same house was later run as a tavern. During

the 19th century, a rambling mansion stood here, added to over the years

and incorporating stylistic features of different periods. It became known

as “Wheatsheaf” in 1887, when purchased by Wall Street investment banker

Gustave Kissel.

In 1968 the mansion was demolished to make way for the present

178




(JOHN CLEVES SYMMES HOUSE, continued)

housing development. Before being bulldozed, the land was renowned for its

rolling contours, owering trees, and brook, all of which lent it another

early name, “Solitude”. Scholars agree that archaeological investigationhere is justied, not only because of the early dwelling and mint, but toinvestigate the existence of a reputed silver mine.

D72 THORNE ESTATE

812 Normandy Heights Road and 110 Columbia Road

This is one of the most successful local examples of the English

classical style, completed in 1912 for Willard V. Schoonhoven Thorne, an

engineer who standardized equipment and stock for the Southern PacicRailroad. According to architectural historian Walter C. Kidney, the

architects, Adrich and Delano “...were among the foremost designers of

white—on—red Neo—Georgian houses, clubs, and churches...”A brick—walled forecourt focuses attention on the 12—bay facade with

its double—pedimented entrance. Inside, many original features (paneling,

marble oors and replaces, custom—designed hardware) are extant. Anauditorium added by the present owners (Morristown Unitarian Fellowship)

proves that ne architecture of the past needn’t be compromised by modernalterations.

The former garage and servants’ quarters, now a residence, stands on

Columbia Road next to the Eddy carriage house. The nearby curved brick wall

once protected Mr. Thorne’s rose garden.

D73 VALLEY VIEW

45-51 Normandy Heights Road, and Columbia Road, 460’± W. of NormandyHeights Road

Completed in 1896 as a summer “cottage” for Jesse Leeds Eddy who made a

fortune in anthracite, Valley View is a commanding crescent of granite and

shingle — 20 rooms anchored by a central great hall. Although the interior

is cast in a mold of classical elegance, the relatively asymmetrical plan

and elevations reect the proto-modernism of the Shingle Style at its mostinnovative. This is particularly evident when Valley View is compared to

a house like its neighbor the Thorne mansion, an exponent of the European

inspired revival architecture typical of Morristown’s Age of Opulence.

Interior features include rosewood, mahogany and oak paneling, a domed

music room, and a pneumatic pipe communication system. Devoted

179




(VALLEY VIEW, continued)

care has left this monument of transitional architecture virtually

unaltered.

Below the house on Columbia Road stands a 2—story brick carriage house.Although the second oor, once servants quarters, has been altered, theground oor still suggests its former use. In 1911 when carriages were

supplanted by automobiles (the Eddy’s owned seven), the building wasenlarged. It too is in excellent condition.

WASHINGTON VALLEY DISTRICT

The center of this area is described by the rough juncture of Washington

Valley Road, Schoolhouse Lane, Gaston Road, and Whitehead Road.

The pleasant aspect of this valley attracted settlers by the middle

of the 18th century. Many of its early farmhouses have been altered and

enlarged, but still impart a collective impression of rural life at thattime. As well as farming, the Valley supported a number of agriculturally—

related industries. Tanneries, mills, and limekilns were built, as well as

a large number of applejack distilleries which produced the famous “Jersey

Lightning.” The following buildings, marked with an * are a few of the many

which give Washington Valley its unique identity.

D74 * WASHINGTON VALLEY SCHOOLHOUSE NJHSI-3230.l

Washington Valley Road and Schoolhouse Lane

For more than one hundred years this simple building has served as a

focal point for community affairs, providing an unbroken link between the

civic and educational aspirations of two centuries.

Although similar to thousands of schoolhouses built throughout the

United States during the second half of the 19th century, the Gothic

inuenced cupola is executed with unusual skill. Comparison with theMadison Masonic Temple of 1825 demonstrates the basic similarity of much

19th—century American public architecture.

D75 * JACOB SMITH HOUSE

Washington Valley Road (1/4 mile E. of Whippany River)

Tax records indicate that this property was farmed by 1794. The original

house, a 2—room cottage, was built c. 1800 and was incorporated into the

larger house seen today, built c. 1835. The Smiths were weavers as well as

farmers.

180




D76 * JOHN SMITH OR 1812 HOUSE

Washington Valley Road (at N.E. corner of Gaston Rd.)

In an area of frame dwellings, this brick house is conspicuous. It was

built c. 1812 when the young republic had recovered sufciently from thehardships of the Revolution to indulge a taste for architecture that went

beyond necessities. This, in part accounts for the spacious rooms, nemantels and slate roof, all of which contrast markedly with the smaller

frame section built about twenty years before.

About 1855 the house and land came into the possession of John H.

Smith, who gained a reputation as the area’s rst scientic farmer when

he discovered that lime increased his wheat yield. The house was owned by

Smiths until 1959. It has been carefully preserved, contains a remarkable

number of original features, and has been little altered by modern

improvements. (NJR)

D77 * SAMUEL ALWARD PLANTATION

Schoolhouse Lane (N. side, at Mendham boundary)

Morristown Presbyterian Church records show that Samuel Alward “renewed

covenant” in 1764. This house was not built until sometime around 1783.

Originally it consisted of no more than four or ve small rooms. A Dutchdoor with iron hardware may be original, and some interior doors have rare

keyed wooden arches.

D78 * JACOB ARNOLD HOUSE

Washington Valley Road (N. side, 300±’ W. of Gaston Rd.)

In 1747, Stephen Arnold of Whippany conveyed to his son Samuel 125 acresof land in Washington Valley. Stephen married Phoebe, sister of Col. Jacob

Ford. Their son Jacob had this house built around 1789. The Arnolds remained

the largest landowners and most prominent citizens of the Valley for over

one hundred years. The same Jacob Arnold owned the famous Arnold’s Tavern on

the Morristown Green, where Washington and his ofcers frequently met.

D79 * THE DISTILLERY LOTT (sic), ENOCH ROFF HOUSESchoolhouse Lane (300±’ from intersection with Washington Valley Rd.)

The site of the present house, constructed c. 1827 by Enoch Roff, was

originally part of Jacob Arnold’s property. The remains of one of the

Val1eys nineteen applejack distilleries lie on the east bank of this land,near the dwelling. A 2—story distillery was built into the bank so that

apples could be poured in at the top and the nished product hauled away atthe bottom.

181




D80 * JOHN MORRIS HOUSE

Washington Valley Road (1/2 mile S.W. of Schoolhouse Lane)

This house, built in the last quarter of the 18th century, was

originally a saltbox. The original section has a door to the left.

Renovations have been extensive. John Morris, the rst owner, was a farmerrenowned locally for the products of his distillery.

182



183



ROCKAWAY REGION E

El ESTILLE HOUSE

560 West Main Street (M.C.-44)

A 1762 tombstone for Mary Estille indicates that the family was an early

one in this area. A one—room dwelling stood here late in the 18th or early

in the 19th century, and was incorporated into the later house.

The prominent Federal doorway suggests that the house had attained

substantial size by the rst quarter of the 19th century. The center gableand full porch were a favorite Victorian means of modernizing an older

structure. Examples of alterations like this can be found throughout Morris

County, and produce a good-looking, utilitarian hybrid.

E2 FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF ROCKAWAY

Church Street, M.C.-20 (N. side) at Academy Street

Known as the cockpit of the Revolution, this church furnished

leadership, a meeting place and a public forum for patriots in NortheasternMorris County during the war for independence. Organized in 1758, it is

also the mother church of various local presbyterian congregations.

The present brick structure was built in 1832. Although similar to

Parsippany’s Presbyterian Church, it has suffered some changes, notably

alterations of windows. The cemetery’s oldest gravestone is dated

1762, although older graves exist with no headstones. Among the many

Revolutionary soldiers buried here is Gen. William Winds. Buried near

Gen. Winds in the cemetery’s only other raised grave is Jane Ford of the

Morristown Fords.

E3 DR. JOHN JACKSON HOUSE, THE PILL DISPENSARY NJHSI-2660.3

4 West Main Street (M.C.-44)

This was the home and ofce of Rockaway’s rst two physicians, Dr. JohnDarby Jackson, and his son, Dr. John Walter Jackson. The smaller wing with

gambrel roof is mid-l8th century. Notable interior details include hand

carved woodwork and a curving banister which rises to the third oor.

E4 JOSEPH JACKSON HOUSE NJHSI-2660.4

82 East Main Street (M.C.-44)

Built c. 1829 by Col. Joseph Jackson for his son, Stephen II, this is

one of the best examples of post—colonial rural neo—classic—

184



ROCKAWAY REGION E

(JOSEPH JACKSON HOUSE, continued)

ism in Central Morris County. The small wing contains kitchen and dairy

room. The high basement contributes to the vertical appearance, and

necessitates the ight of stairs to the main door, a feature popular inlater urban townhouses.

Col. Jackson was an ofcer in the War of 1812. He owned vast acreage in

Rockaway, including several iron forges and a rolling mill for which he was

dubbed the “Iron King.” In addition to serving as justice of the peace,

he was appointed judge in the court of common pleas, and was prominent in

Presbyterian Church affairs. The house is remarkably intact, especially the

attic. It now serves as the borough’s public library. (NR)

E5 STEPHEN JACKSON HOUSE AND OUTBUILDING NJHSI-2660.7; HABS-507

East Main Street M.C.—44, (N. side) at Franklin Avenue

The earliest part of this house was in existence in 1778, when it waspurchased by Stephen Jackson, a member of Washington’s personal guard.

Early in the 19th century, a large wing was added, including a columned

portico. What is now the rear facade has a Greek Revival porch. A partially

dismantled eldstone outbuilding was a smokehouse (now being restored).

E6 METHODIST CHURCH OF ROCKAWAY

Church Street (M.C. -20), (N. side) at Mt. Hope Road

The Methodist Church in Rockaway was incorporated in 1833. The present

frame building, constructed c. 1870, occupies the site of its predecessor.

It is notable for its unusual plan, incorporating two symmetrical 1-story

wings which form a forecourt. The domed belfry is a larger variant of the

belfry of the Mt. Hope Methodist Church, suggesting a common builder.

185



ROCKAWAY TOWNSHIP REGION E

E7 FORD FAESCH MANOR HOUSE

Mt. Hope Road, N.E. side (2,200±’ S. of Picatinny Arsenal entrance)

This was the home of Swiss—born John Jacob Faesch, foremost iron—master of the Revolution, who supplied the Continental Army with cannon

and ordnance from the surrounding Mt. Hope Mine Tract. It was built in

1770 under the direction of Col. Jacob Ford, Jr. Although considerably

less sophisticated than the Ford Mansion in Morristown, its size and oorplan are similar. Three—foot thick stone walls and massive oak beams have

helped it withstand years of neglect. It is presently vacant and in need of

restoration. (NR)

E8 MOUNT HOPE METHODIST CHURCH

Mt. Hope Road, M.C. 66 (1/2 m.± N. of Mt. Hope Ave.)

Between 1852 and 1874, four churches were subsidized or directly builtby local mining companies. Munsell’s History of Morris County states that

“In 1870 the Mount Hope Mining Company erected a church at Mount Hope for

the benet of any society of Christians that might desire to worship init. The Methodist society, being much more numerous than others in that

locality, had used it regularly since its erection. . .“

Because of its relative isolation and intermittent use, the interior

has been subjected to virtually no modernization — a rare state of

affairs for Morris County churches. Due to the simplicity of the original

decoration, the interior today suggests how even earlier churches must have

appeared. This fact, coupled with the associations of the mining companies’

paternalistic “welfare systems” makes the Mt. Hope church especially worthy

of preservation.

E9 SPLIT ROCK FURNACES

Base of Split Rock Reservoir

A furnace was built here as early as 1803. Those now standing date

from 1862, but were used for only one year before new methods made them

economically obsolete. They are the last charcoal blast furnaces in Morris

County; only three more are extant in New Jersey.

(NR)

186



JEFFERSON REGION E

E10 DEMOUTH HOUSE

Green Pond Road (M.C. -48), in the Newark Watershed, just W. of RockawayTwp. boundary.

Thomas DeMouth, a Huguenot farmer who settled in Rockaway Valley in

1709, migrated to Newfoundland in 1730.His sons built the original part of

this house three years later. In 1773 his son—in-law Peter Schuyler built a

second house, and in 1820 the two were joined by new stone walls. It is one

of the earliest houses in what is now Jefferson. -

Ell PETERSBURG, TOWN AND FORGE (SITE)

Berkshire Valley Road (M.C.-52)/Dover-Milton Road Area

In addition to the Ringling association (below) this site is notablefor its early industries and settlement. The town of Petersburg, its

surrounding farmsteads and orchards, comprised the rst area to be

intensively settled in Jefferson. Iron was produced here as early as 1754,when the Petersburg Forge was operated by Robert Hunter Morris and James

Alexander. After iron production ceased to be protable, farming supportedmost local people. Gristmills, a sawmill and a plaster mill also thrived,

and in 1840 Lewis Chamberlain, descendent of one of Petersburg’s rstfamilies, opened a distillery. With few changes, this was the kind of

economy which lasted into the beginning of the 20th century. Farming was

never easy in Jefferson’s rocky soil, however, and this may have been one

reason Petersburg’s landowners were willing to sell out to Ringling.

E11 RINGLING MANOR

Berkshire Valley Road at Manor Drive

Alfred T. Ringling founder of the “Greatest Show on Earth,” began

preparing for construction of his Jefferson estate about 1900. He purchased

the entire town of Petersburg, which he then razed to make way for the

mansion, barn, carriage house, water tower and dam which still dominate the

landscape.

Ringling wanted to enjoy the calm and quiet of the country, but not in

rustic surroundings. His 3—story mansion, built of reproof steel, concreteand stone, included a solarium and billiard room; an organ room (with

Tiffany stained glass); two ballrooms; and a private theatre where newcircus acts were auditioned. Ringling’s circle of friends included artists,

writers and at least one famous diva, Geraldine Farrar, who gave the estate

a reputation for sparkling parties.

187



JEFFERSON REGION E

(RINGLING MANOR, continued)

Circus animals and their trainers were frequently quartered here. After

disembarking at the Oak Ridge train station, equipment and the smaller

animals were hauled up Berkshire Valley Road in ornate wagons drawn by hugeteams of matched grey draft horses, elephants following behind.

All of the original accessory buildings (plus an 80’ water tower), faced

with stone to match the mansion, are still standing with few alterations.

Later in the century, the estate became winter headquarters for the rst

motorized circus. Circus practices were in a difcult transition period,however, and the experiment was not a success. (NJR)

188



189



DOVER REGION F

F1 TITUS BERRY HOUSE

301 McFarlan Street

Berry lands (a deed dates back to 1782) once included hundreds of acres

from the Rockaway River to Germania Park, including most of what is now

East Dover. Titus Berry (born in this house in 1823), his son Asa, andgrandson Steven C. Berry farmed the land for three generations until 1910,

when the property was divided among Steven’s heirs.

The original part of the house was probably built c.l780. Subsequent

alterations and modernizations have removed any obvious architectural

merit, so that today it is signicant only as the home of one of Dover’s

earliest settlers.

F2 BONNEYVIEW

Bonneyview Drive, Hurd Park

Owned by Edwin J. Ross from its construction in 1876 until the turn—of—the—century, Bonneyview was designed and built by a local carpenter/builder

named Grover. About 1900 it was turned into a restaurant known as Pine

Terrace Inn. In 1926, two wings were detached and moved to South Elk Street

to serve as private dwellings.

A number of decorative features make this a good example of high—

victorian eclecticism — the columned porte—cochere, scalloped shingles,

pierced and toothed valance moldings, and the Italianate tower. Bonneyview

now serves as the home of the Dover Area Historical Society.

F3 FIRST MEMORIAL PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Blackwell Street, M.C.—44 (at N.E. corner of Prospect Street)

This church expresses the expansive socio/religious aspirations of the

turn—of—the—century, when many congregations embarked on grandiose building

programs to replace earlier modest structures. This 1899 building, in

modied Romanesque style, is somewhat similar to Morristown’s PresbyterianChurch on the Green. Both employ pale limestone instead of the dark

glazed brick or brownstone popular for Romanesque buildings a decade or

so earlier. Foliated carving, the porte cochere and coffered ceiling are

details worthy of note.

The Presbyterian Church was organized in 1835, making this congregation

Dover’s oldest. It occupied two previous buildings and played an important

social as well as religious role in the town’s early history.

190



DOVER REGION F

F4 JACKSON BUILDING

82 East Blackwell Street (M.C. -44)

The board and batten Johnson Building was built around the time of the

Civil War, and today is probably the oldest frame commercial structure in

Dover. Originally a carpenter shop, it later became a spool factory, a

warehouse and a railway express ofce. Since early in this century it hashoused a coal and fuel business.

Old photographs show that the 2-story, six-bay exterior with thick

eldstone foundation has been altered only slightly. The face of Dover haschanged radically since 1850, but the Johnson Building remains, bearing

witness to the appearance of a small urban center more than 100 years ago.

MORRIS CANAL

F5 DOVER BASIN

Parallel to Route 46, Dover Common

At this point lay the largest of the canal’s basins. Around its banks

were scattered several iron works, smithies, and a boat yard. Coal-carrying

canal boats had to negotiate ve locks when traveling through the town ofDover.

F6 ST. JOHN’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

11 South Bergen Street

In 1850, Dover Episcopalians held their rst full—time service in the

Stone Academy. Most of the parishioners were miners and mechanics, manyof British birth. By 1866, the congregation was sufciently large toplan its own building. Ground was broken that year, but the dedication

was not celebrated until 1871. The architect was Richard Upjohn, noted

for his Gothic churches. Upjohn’s brother was Rector of St. John’s when

construction began, but soon resigned as the church history recounts,

“...because of the ‘inadequacy of the compensation tendered him’ — $400

a year, without house.” St. John’s is not as individualistic as Upjohn’s

board— and-batten church for Boonton’s Episcopal congregation, but it is

representative of his smaller scale work in stone.

F7 STONE ACADEMY

25 East Dickerson Street

In 1829 Blackwell and McFarland laid out the building lot plan

191



DOVER REGION F

(STONE ACADEMY, continued)

for the town of Dover. The Stone Academy was built that same year as the

town’s rst private school (a public school was not opened until 1831). It

was used by Presbyterians and Episcopalians before their own facilities were

completed, and served as a community center and town meeting place (probably

the oldest in Dover).

Modern additions have altered the front and rear facades, and a certain

amount of deterioration has taken place; neither of these conditions

appears to be irreversible. The Academy is, however, threatened by urban

renewal.

192



MINE HILL REGION F

F8 MAHLON DICKERSON, MANSION (SITE)Caneld Road, M.C. -69 (opposite Dickerson Mine Road)

Not only was Mahlon Dickerson (1770—1853) the rst New Jersey governor

to succeed himself, he was also named Secretary of the Navy under

Presidents Jackson and Van Buren, served as a judge of the U.S. District

Court and as a U.S. Senator. In addition to his political career, his

achievements as a linguist and botanist gave him a reputation as one of

the best educated men of his day, Dicker— son’s mansion at Ferromonte

(destroyed in 1964) was the seat of an iron—mining operation on the site ofNew Jersey’s oldest major iron mine c. 1713). Both the mansion and mining

sites would benet from archaeological excavation.

193



RANDOLPH REGION F

F9 BROTHERTON HOUSE

52 Center Grove Road (M.C.-70)

The Brotherton family came to Randolph (then “Mendom”) c.1756. They were

active in the Society of Friends for more than 100 years, and were largely

responsible for maintaining the Quaker Meeting House (see entry below).The Brotherton house now standing was built in 1876. Of special interest

is the board and batten stable with cupola. The grounds, house and

outbuildings still reect their late 19th- century appearance to a largedegree.

F10 D.L. BRYANT DISTILLERY NJHSI-259l.5

Sussex Turnpike, M.C.-17 (Terminus of Ironia—Succasunna Rd.)

In the second half of the 19th century, this was known as the most

compact and complete cider mill, vinegar factory and apple distillery

in New Jersey. Two stories of stone and a third of wood surmounted astone foundation and cellar built into the hillside. A farmer would haul

his apples to the upper end of the building and unload them into self—

registering bins, from which they were conveyed to a grater and compressor.

Applejack was a local industry until 1920 (and was lamented by the Society

of Friends as early as 1799, according to their minutes). Residentialconversion has changed the distillery substantially. (NJR)

F11 MOTT-DAVENPORT GRISTMILL

Gristmill Road, S.E. side (1/4 mi. ± from Millbrook Rd.)

This is the earliest mill standing in Randolph Township, probably built

between 1796 and 1810. The frame structure stands on a stone foundationwith attached wheelhouse. The water wheel is missing, but millstones and

original gears have been incorporated inside the house for utilitarian

uses. Parts of the millrace and tailrace are evident along the stream.

Joshua Mott was another of the area’s early 19th-century Quaker settlers.

A number of other buildings on this section of Gristmill Road merit

research.

F12 MILLBROOK METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Millbrook Road, M.C.-56 CE. side, 400±’ 5. of Rte. 10)

As early as 1800, Methodists held meetings in private homes in this

area. The present building, dedicated in 1833, is the second to occupy thissite. This congregation is important as the mother church of Methodism in

the Dover area. It helped promote

194



RANDOLPH REGION F

(MILLBROOK METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, continued)

churches in Dover, Walnut Grove, and Mt. Fern. The building itself has been

so modernized and enlarged, that it is of little architectural consequence.

F13 MT. FREEDOM PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Sussex Turnpike, M.C.—17 (N.E. side at Church Rd.)

Aside from the short pilastered bell tower with quatrefoil railing, the

1823 church follows the simplest Greek Revival form - pedimented gable-end

framed with pilasters. In 1856 an eleven foot addition lengthened the rear.

No exterior changes of consequence have occurred since then.

Fl4 RANDOLPH FRIENDS MEETING HOUSE NJHSI-259l.7; HABS-l45

Quaker Church Road (N.E. corner of Quaker Avenue)

Built in 1758, when Randolph was still part of “Mendom,” the two

entrances and interior partition of this meeting house were designed to

separate men and women worshippers. In simple buildings such as this, the

Religious Society of Friends espoused women’s rights, temperance, pacismand prison reform; as early as 1776 members who refused to free their

slaves were expelled. Later this was a stop on the Underground Railroad.

The interior frame, furnishings and paneling are all original. In the

gallery the construction can easily be studied, since this area has never

been insulated or nished. It is likely that no other 18th—century Quakermeeting house in New Jersey has an interior of such integrity. This fact

makes it an invaluable resource for students of the Society of Friends, as

well as for architectural historians.

Buried in the cemetery is Hartshorn Fitz Randolph (d.l806) prominentQuaker for whom the township is named. (NR)

Fl5 WALNUT GROVE METHODIST CHURCH

Shongum Mountain Road, M.C.—50 (S. side, 1200±’ E. of Sussex Turnpike)

Just fourteen years after the dedication of the second Mill— brook

Methodist Episcopal Church, local communicants had increased sufciently towarrant the erection of this small building on land deeded by Phillip and

Ann Till. The property to the west, known as the Old Cemetery, was used as

a free burying ground from

195



RANDOLPH REGION F

(WALNUT GROVE METHODIST CHURCH, continued)

1847 to 1880. The arched wrought iron gate remains. The only feature

distinguishing this simple church from domestic architecture is its short

bell tower. Virtually no changes have been made since its construction. Itis now vacant and for sale.

F16 WASHINGTON ARMS TAVERN (SITE) HABS-196South Salem Street, M.C.-54 (S.E. corner Franklin Rd.)

This frame building dated from the second half of the 18th century

and was probably built by a member of the Jackson family. Additions and

alterations over the years had obscured but not destroyed the building’s

architectural merit. Neglect and eventually re necessitated its demolitionin September, 1974. A stone smokehouse will be moved and restored.

196



ROXBURY REGION F

F17 HENRY ALWARD HOUSE

66 South Hillside Avenue (M.C. -25)

Henry Alward was the second white man to own this farmland. The house,

built in 1832, has been carefully preserved. The staircase is a factory-

made unit - the rst such cargo to be shipped from Newark on the MorrisCanal.

F18 SAMUEL CAREY HOUSE

208 Emmans Road

The date 1771 can be found in the chimney of this rough ashlar

structure. The walls are twenty inches thick and the front room replace is

ve feet wide by three and one half feet high, carried by stone corbellingbeneath. The arched doorway, deep window embrasures and stone lintels

are reminiscent of Pennsylvania’s rural vernacular building style. The

Continental Army is alleged to have used this as a pesthouse. Its presentne condition is the result of a recent restoration. (NJR)

Fl9 CONDIT-EYLAND HOUSE

137 Eyland Avenue

An early part of this house may be as old as 1764. It was altered in

1830 and again in 1850. The narrow tower with paired arched windows, the

use of brackets, and the balustraded porch lend an Italianate aspect.

Silas Condit, the original owner, was father of the two prominent

Morristown Condicts (the “C” in Condict was added later). Subsequent ownerGeorge Eyland enhanced the grounds with a rustic arborvitae gazebo and

hedge, unfortunately no longer extant.

F20 FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND

ELIZE PLATT STODDARD MEMORIAL CHAPEL NJHSI-2695.2

99 Main Street (M.C.—l7)

A deed for this property was recorded in 1756. The rst building was

erected in 1760, although the charter is probably several years earlier.

During the Revolution, the original church served as munitions store and

hospital.

The present church, built in 1853, displays remnants of the Greek

Revival style (columns and deep pediment) but other elements, notably the

circular windows set in curved molding, pregure the

197



ROXBURY REGION F

(FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND MEMORIAL CHAPEL, continued)

high Victorian woodwork of the adjoining chapel. Built in 1887, the chapel

exhibits a wealth of distinctive carved wood detail, unfortunately somewhat

obscured by successive layers of paint. It is really not ecclesiastical instyle, but resembles the neo-Jacobean domestic architecture of the period,

with its shingled decoration and elaborate iron crestings on roof and

tower.

Behind the Church stands a tall shaft marking the grave of Mahlon

Dickerson, governor of New Jersey and Secretary of the Navy under President

Jackson.

F2l KING’S STORE

215 Main Street

For several years this was the Drakesville post ofce. Albert R. Riggs

ran a general store here from 1838 to 1875, when Theodore King took overthe business until his death in 1928. The building has been closed since

1929.

Built in 1832 to prot from the newly completed Morris Canal, this maybe the most substantial rural commercial building of its era in Morris

County. The use of quoins, and walls scored to simulate stone suggest

that the unknown architect—builder was familiar with Georgian design. The

deep cornice and porch are of a subsequent date, probably 1850. At the

foundation level, the walls are ve feet thick, diminishing to two feet at

the third oor. A beam one foot square runs the length of the building,supported on stone piers.

F22 KUNZMAN HOUSE84 Main Street (M.C.-17)

John Kunzman, head potter at the Meeker pottery works, lived here.

Because of stucco covering and two—family conversion, its Federal features

(c. 1817) are obscured, although the northwest end still shows a central

window with plain wooden tympanum, anked by two quarter circle windows.The proportions of the rooms and delicacy of the mantels and moldings

suggests a townhouse of some pretension.

F23 LIPPINCOTT HOUSE

111 Main Street (M.C.—l7)

A plain farmhouse with side hall and kitchen addition, this house was

probably built around 1840. The principal entrance on

198



ROXBURY REGION F

(LIPPINCOTT HOUSE, continued)

Main street exhibits a relatively crude attempt at a Greek Revival doorway.

Door and window trim are of the heaviest variety, used about 1855—65. The

bay window is also a later addition. Reverend Lippincott was a Presiding

Elder of the area’s Methodist Circuit.

MORRIS CANAL

F24 INCLINED PLANE NO. 3 EAST

Opposite Kings Store, Main Street

This is the lower of the two Ledgewood planes, which had only to

negotiate a rise of 4.8 feet. King’s Store, which still stands at the foot

of the plane, sold general merchandise to townspeople and canal workers.


Above Ledgewood Pond

This is the upper Ledgewood Plane, which overcame an 80—foot hill on

its way to the Summit Level at Landing. Only one other plane in Morris

County equalled that height - #7E in Boonton. In addition to its impressive

height, #2E is the most perfectly preserved inclined plane in New Jersey.

In the words of canal historian Barbara Kalata: “Where other planes have

been built upon, bulldozed, or otherwise bastardized, this one retains its

parallel rows of rail—receiving rock sleepers from the foot to the summit

and beyond - over the brow back into the bed of the canal’s upper level.

The stone lined tailrace and bypass from the summit are extant, needing

only to be cleared of brush and minimal debris to be viewable. The same is

true of the ume depression in the summit, the stone—vaulted wheelpit, the

iron-lined standpipe, the burned-out foundation of the brakeman’s house,

and the tar—pot hole, where coal res kept pitch at a temperature suitablefor tarring the 2 1/2” wire cable against rust. Even the rip—rap that lined

the canal banks at the summit is intact for several feet running, and the

towpath is level and well—dened.”


Shippenport Road, E. Side

The elevation to be overcome here was 50—feet. At the head of the plane

was a boat basin and a boat-building yard. This was the rst inclined planeon the canal’s eastern division.

199



ROXBURY REGION F

F27 BROOKLYN GUARD LOCK AND CANAL KEEPER’S HOUSE

Lake Hopatcong State Park, Landing Road (M.C.-43)

Boats passed through this lock into the Lake to load ores for

delivery to iron and zinc works in Pennsylvania and northern New Jersey.

Brooklyn settlement stood at the head of a navigable feeder which drew

Lake Hopatcong waters into the canal at Landing. From Port Morris to

Shippenport, the canal reached its highest elevation, 914 feet above sea

level.

From the eldstone canal keeper’s house, built c. 1825, tolls werecollected and the locks regulated. The property can be traced to a 1764

land grant made by the New Jersey Proprietors to Garrett Repalyea. The Lake

Hopatcong Historical Society now operates the house as a museum,

F28 INCLINED PLANE NO. 1 WEST

N. of Center Street, (M.C.-31) E. of Netcong boundary

Boats rose 58—feet on this, the rst inclined plane of the canal’swestern division.

F29 SILAS RIGGS HOUSE

217 Main Street

Built late in the 18th century, this simple house typies the untutoredfolk architecture which developed in rural areas, where necessity took

precedence over conscious design. Despite a 19th-century addition which

resulted in the present saltbox prole, it remains the least altered houseof its age on the Succasunny Plains. Members of the Riggs family were

prominent landowners, important to the political and commercial life of thecommunity. “Captain” Riggs ran three boats on the nearby Morris Canal.

To prevent its destruction, the house was moved to its present location

by the Roxbury Historical Society. Work is now underway to restore the

interior. Some rooms will be furnished for exhibition, the rest will be

used as the Society’s headquarters. (NJR)

200



WHARTON REGION F

MORRIS CANAL

F30 CANAL PRISM AND LOCK NO. 2 EAST

W. of Pine Street on Stephen’s Brook

Canal boats were lifted or dropped eight feet by this lock. Ruins of

the lock-tender’s house remain. At this point, the canal prism is fed by

Stephen’s Brook, the excess water eventually owing into the Rockaway.River, the canal’s principal feeder.

201



202



CHESTER REGION G

G1 ACADEMY HOUSE

35 E. Main Street (Rte.24)

John D. Gardner, rst schoolmaster of the “Academy on the Hill” (1801)

lived here, where he also operated the town’s rst post ofce. It isactually two houses joined together, so that it appears to be an integral

center—chimney saltbox. Some of the windows are an unusually narrow 4/4

panes. It has recently been restored for business use.

G2 CHESTER HOUSE HABS-6l

Main Street (Rte. 24) at Hillside Road

The original brick section of this generously proportioned 3-story

structure was built c. 1810, following the same simple Federal lines as

the Bottle Hill Tavern in Madison. The rst owner was Zephaniah Drake,proprietor of a line of stage coaches, who ran it as a hotel. Each of the

original twelve rooms has its own replace, some with elaborately carvedmantels.

It has been used as a hotel/restaurant from its construction to the

present, with the exception of the years 1854—1862, when it was a classical

academy. Conestoga wagons stopped here on their way West, and after the

Civil War it was a summer resort hotel. The pillared verandah is a modern

addition. (NR)

G3 COMMUNITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND CHAPEL

Main Street (Rte. 24, S.W. corner of Church St.)

Like their Congregationalist neighbors, Chester Presbyterian rst

worshipped in Roxiticus. About 1751 they built a small structure of logs,according to local tradition, which served until 1756. From then until

1825, the church was a frame building without spire, lathe or plaster.

Because its rude construction allowed winter wind to blow through, it was

sometimes called “God’s Barn.”

The building seen today was constructed in 1851. Although it lacks the

full columned porch of the Congregational Church, its classical details

are even more sophisticated. The Ionic columns of the recessed porch have

been reduced to two, with four pilasters, and a delicately scaled dentil

molding above. The short tower and doors are “battered,” a device more

characteristic of Egyptian Revival. Instead of the usual clapboards, the

main facade employs ush boards, intended to suggest the smoothness ofdressed stone.

The chapel, built in 1860, has the same pilasters and smooth facade

but is decorated with more modern Gothic details — beautifully executed

quatrefoil fanlights and circular windows. Due to careful

203



CHESTER REGION G

(COMMUNITY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH AND CHAPEL, continued)

workmanship and attention to scale, the juxtaposition of Gothic and Greek

Revival details is perfectly harmonious.

G4 CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH

Hillside Road (E. side opposite Hedges Rd.)

Before 1747, Chester families had worshipped in the Roxiticus Church. In

that year the Congregationalists of Black River erected their own meeting

house, which was called the oldest Congregational Church west of the Hudson

River.

In 1856 the present building was raised. Together with Chester’s

Presbyterian Church, it is one of the purest examples of Greek Revival

church architecture in Morris County. Despite the fully columned porch and

massive pediment, however, the doors and windows are topped with Gothic

drip molding — a reection of the late construction date. Inside, theoriginal tromp l’oeil decoration is in good condition. Probably done by an

itinerant painter, it is thought to be one of only two remaining examples

in New Jersey.

G5 ISAAC CORWIN HOUSE HABS-628

W. Main Street (Rte. 24), N.W. corner of Route 206

HABS documentation describes this as a “recognizable type of mansion

house design standardized in the last decade of the 18th century.” Today,

fake shutters, siding and a modern addition mar the exterior. Interior

renovations for present restaurant use have generally not been of a

structural nature.

The second owner was James Topping, a cabinetmaker, known for the tall

clock cases he constructed for New Jersey clock maker Joachim Hill. Topping

also built wagons, and is credited with introducing the rst spring wagonin Morris County. Topping descendants occupied the house until 1940.

G6 JOHN DRAKE HOUSE HABS-647

Main Street (Rte. 24, S. side between Collis Lane & Budd Ave.)

John Drake was a brother of Zephaniah, owner of the Chester Inn. He

had this house built for his own use sometime between 1830 and 1840. The

pedimented gable ends, window moldings and small, pillared porch suggest a

modest attempt to employ Greek Revival features. In the 1880’s it was owned

by John Van Arsdale who ran a livery stable across the road, and ran the

Chester Stage. Its present condition is excellent.

204



CHESTER REGION G

G7 DR. WILLIAM WOODHULL-HEDGES HOUSE

Hillside Road (W. side at Hedges Pd.)

Princeton-educated William Woodhull became Chester’s rst Presbyterian

minister in 1768. Known for his ery sermons, he later opened a classicalschool attended by Mahlon Dickerson, one of New Jersey’s most eminent 19th—

century governors.

Rev. Woodhull’s descendants continued his distinguished inuence inChester. His grandson, Dr. William Woodhull Hedges (Son of Dr. Joseph

Hedges) acquired this house in 1821. He probably added the large wingwith center hall at about that time. William Woodhull Hedge’s son, Smith,

carried on medical practice here and also had interests in local iron

mines.

205



CHESTER TOWNSHIP REGION G

COOPER GRISTMILL

See Millvale or Milltown District and Nathan Cooper House

G8 HENRY COOPER HOUSE

Route 24 (N. side, between Benjamin Rd. & Robinson Lane)

If the date and initials cut into the northwest facade are accurate,

this house was built by Henry Cooper, Jr. in 1807. The basement bake ovens

can still be seen, and the replace mantel- in the “best parlor” is notablefor its carved decoration. The wooden slave wing at the rear was still

evident in an 1897 photograph.

This is one of Morris County’s few remaining brick Federal houses, and

one of the few never painted. Bricks for its construction are said to have

come from the Cooper brickyard, west of Route 24, south of Cooper Lane.

G9 NATHAN COOPER MANSION

Route 24 (N. side, 1.7± miles W. of Mendham-Chester Twp. line)

Nathan Cooper was a general in the New Jersey Militia, and a prominent

farmer, mine operator and mill owner. His house, built c. 1860, is pictured

in Munsell’s History of Morris County. Now shorn of its porch, it has

gained a classical appearance, further emphasized by the pediment over the

main door (probably a later addition). Clues to its Victorian identity arethe double doors, bracketed eaves, and curved window heads with shutters

cut to t. The builder of Cooper’s Mill was General Cooper’s uncle.

G10 JAPED HAINES HOUSE

Terminus of Old Hacklebarney Road

Although local tradition claims that Washington was entertained

here, the date of construction has never accurately been determined. It

eventually became the house of the Hacklebarney Mine’s ironmaster, and thus

the center of the mining, forging and domestic life of the Black River

community. Despite its stone construction, years of abandonment have left

it in deteriorating condition.

G11 HULL-BROWN TAVERN

Pleasant Hill and Furnace Roads (N.W. corner)

The kitchen wing of this house may have been built as early as 1736,possibly on a different site. It is known that in 1760

206



CHESTER TOWNSHIP REGION G

(HULL-BROWN TAVERN, continued)

Trustum Hull moved to Black River from Piscataway to run a tavern here. By

1810, Hull’s son—in—law David Brown, Jr. was listed as innkeeper.

The front door has original hand forged hinges with leather washers,and original cupboards can be found in the kitchen. The innkeeper’s wicket

opens into the dining room, undoubtedly the former public room. The large

second oor “ballroom” is decorated with dentil molding around ceiling and

replace.

G12 MILLVALE OR MILLTOWN DISTRICT NJHSI-685.l

Hacklebarney Road at Route 24 (1/2 mile S. along Black River)

This industrial community ourished through the end of the 19th centurywhen surrounding farms created a need for mills. The foundations of a

distillery, granary and woolen mill have been located.

A large vein of iron ore runs through the district, and around thisresource sprang up the Budd Forge and the Gulick and Hacklebarney Iron

Mines. Still extant are two ice houses on the iron forge pond, and a

railroad spur. The Morris County Park Commission is restoring the Cooper

gristmill for use as a working exhibit. The mill has been named to the New

Jersey Register of Historic Places. (NJR).

207



MENDHAM REGION G

G13 EBENEZER BLACHLEY HOUSE NJHSI-1963.4

Cory Lane (N. side at Talmadge Rd.)

Dr. Blachley, one of the founders of the New Jersey Medical Society,

conducted a medical school here. The small wing may have been built in

1746, but the exterior was extensively changed when the 2 1/2—story main

section was built. Basically Federal, with ve bays and center hall,the doorway has sidelights and a semi—circular architrave. The interior

panelling is unique for local houses of this period.

G14 MAIN STREET DISTRICT

Main Street from Linden Lane to Halstead Road; Mountain Avenue from Main

Street to Wilson Street; Hilltop Road from Main Street to Talmage Road

Mendham Borough’s crossroads is one of the stops on the Route 24

historic corridor which includes Chatham, Madison, Morristown, and Chester.

Thanks to 20th-century growth that was largely residential and outside thevillage center, a large number of 18th and 19th-century buildings remain.

Most are in good condition, although the familiar renovation style which

adds picture windows and tries to turn Victorian into Colonial has been

at work here as well. Tree-lined streets and a variety of building styles

contribute to the district’s character. The following buildings (marked *)are the most important; others not specically noted add to the district’s

composite impression and are not to be excluded.

* BLACK HORSE INN NJHSI-l962.6

Main Street (Rte.24, at Mountain Ave.)

Used for many years as an inn or restaurant, this ample, 2— storybuilding with gambrel roof was originally the farmhouse of Ebenezer Byram,

one of Mendham’s founding fathers. It has been dated at approximately

1740, although its present appearance exhibits the effects of numerous

later accretions. This crossroads location on an artery busy since the

18th century has proven good for business for more than two hundred years.

The Black horse Inn has suffered little exterior damage from its modern

commercial use, although its interior has been treated to the same kind of

pseudo “Gay Nineties” decor inicted on the Bottle Hill Tavern (Widow Brown

Inn) in Madison.

208



MENDHAM REGION G

(MAIN ST. DIST., continued)

* REVEREND JOHN BYRAM HOUSE

W. Main Street (N. side), 900k’ W. of Linden Lane

John Byram was the rst minister to serve Mendham (then Roxiticus), and

this frame house (originally much smaller) was the church’s rst manse.Abigail, the Rev. Byram’s wife, was the great granddaughter of John and

Priscilla Alden.

Random fenestration and lack of exterior adornment attest to the great

age of this house - built probably in 1748 with 1760 additions. It has been

moved from its original location east of Lake Drive, and restored with

great care.

* LEBBEUS DOD HOUSE

67 West Main Street (Rte.24)

Lebbeus Dod was a noted craftsman of Mendham who plied various trades.

A few grandfather’s clocks known to have been made by him are still in the

possession of local residents. During the Revolution he kept many of the

Continental Army’s rearms in repair. His 2—story frame house has stood onMain Street since that time.

* ABNER DOUBLEDAY HOUSE (SITE)Hilltop Road (W. side) 675±’ from Main St. (Rte. 24)

A substantial 2—story frame house built in the 1880’s was the home of

Abner Doubleday, inventor of the game of baseball. Sometime prior to 1937

it was acquired by the owners of the house immediately adjacent to thenorth, and demolished because of its physical proximity to their property.

Doubleday died in Mendham in 1893.

* HILLTOP CHURCH AND CEMETERY NJHSI—1962.1; HABS-63

Hilltop Road

Hilltop congregation, organized in 1745, is one of the earliest churches

chartered in Morris County. Its cemetery holds stones from 1747. Members

have worshipped in three other buildings. The rst was a small meetinghouse razed in 1816 to make way for a larger structure. This rst buildingserved as a small pox hospital for Washington’s troops encamped at Jockey

Ho1low The cemetery holds a common grave for those who succumbed.

209



MENDHAM REGION G

(HILLTOP CHURCH ND CEMETERY, continued)

In 1860 the present building was erected. Its designer was Major Aaron

Hudson, a local architect who popularized the Greek Revival, and later

the Gothic Revival style during his long career. Hilltop Church exhibitscharacteristics of both. Because it combines important historical and

architectural values, it is especially deserving of recognition and

preservation.

* AARON D. HUDSON HOUSE NJHSI-l962; HABS-564

11 Hilltop Road

A superb example of Greek Revival architecture, the street— side facade

of this house bears a 2—story portico supported by four square columns and

nished with a pediment. Major Hudson had this house built for himselfaround 1825. Because of its associations with ancient Greek ideals, the

classical style appealed strongly to the young republic. Hudson alsodesigned Hilltop Church, St. Joseph’s Church, and the old Methodist Church

(now altered and used by the Borough as a rehouse), as well as a number ofother houses.

* PHOENIX HOUSE NJHSI-1962.4; HABS-62

Main Street (Rte. 24 at Hillton Rd.)

Behind its later portico (perhaps designed by Aaron Hudson) stands one

of the nest examples of Federal architecture in Morris County. Over theyears, the building has had many uses. In its early days, it housed a

ladies’ seminary and later a classical academy. In the mid—l9th century, it

served as an annex to the Black Horse Inn across the road. Today it servesas municipal ofces for the Borough, having been acquired and donated by

private citizens concerned with its preservation.

* ST. JOSEPH’s ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

8 West Main Street

St. Joseph’s was built in 1860, six years after the founding of a

permanent parish, which had previously been a mission of Assumption Church

in Morristown.

Like Hilltop Church, built in the same year, St. Joseph’s was designed

by Aaron Hudson, who seems to have felt that a more purely Gothic design

was appropriate for a Catholic congregation. His resultant literalismcarries the carpenter Gothic style to its

210



MENDHAM REGION G

(ST. JOSEPH’S R.C. CHURCH, continued)

logical (or illogical) extreme - complete with diminutive wooden yingbuttresses. Instead of board-and-batten siding, standard clapboards are

used here.

* ST. MARK’S EPISCOPAL CHURCH

9 East Main Street

Built in 1872, only three years after a circuit riding priest rstprovided regular services, St. Mark’s is less individualistic in its

details than is St. Joseph’s. Its steep gable, hoard—and- batten exterior,

and tiny triangular dormers put it more in the mainstream of carpenter

Gothic architecture. The exterior, with its low eaves and small windows,

leaves one unprepared for the feeling of open space created by the exposed

trussed ceiling inside. The plans for St. Mark’s were adapted from plans

by Richard Upjohn for Grace Episcopal Church in Jersey City (c.1847), nowdemolished. A large modern addition somewhat compromised the original

siting and vertical expression, although a more recent addition at the rear

has been handled sensitively.

* DAVID THOMPSON HOUSE NJHSI-l962.ST HABS-l94

56 West Main Street (Rte. 24)

One of relatively few stuccoed buildings in the Mendham area, this 2

1/2-story, four—bay “manor house” was built in the last quarter of the 18th

century. The style is essentially Federal, though not as sophisticated

as the Phoenix House. The gable roof has a boxed cornice and gable—

end returns. A smaller, probably earlier wing is attached. It has 11/2-stories, dormers, one center chimney and one interior end chimney.

Tradition attributes the construction of this house to John Carey (or

Cary), who came to Morristown to build the Presbyterian Church, and whosedaughter married David Thompson. It contains a great deal of original

woodwork, mantels, and plaster walls. The exterior remained substantially

unaltered until an eruption of dormers recently marred its roof line. (NR)

* WOLFE HOUSE HABS-623

Hilltop Road (W. side, 316’ from Rte. 24)

This house has stood here since c. 1815 when Hilltop Road was known

as Church Street. Modern commercial renovations have removed any facadeinterest.

211



MENDHAM TOWNSHIP REGION G

Gl5 BROOKSIDE DISTRICT

Intersection of Main Street and Woodland Road (all of E. Main Street, 500+’

of W. Main Street (N. side), and the Southern half of Woodland Road).

Now the center of an entirely residential municipality, Brookside was

an active industrial crossroads well into the 19th century. Sawmills,

gristmills and fulling mills took advantage of the concentrated water

power. One of the earliest, built by Jesse Smith c. 1745, was powered by

Dismal Brook. Other manufacturers produced nails, glass and furniture, and

processed wool and leather. Connet’s sawmill (c. 1842) on Woodland Road,now converted to residential use, is one of the few survivors.. It later

made peach baskets and brush blocks. At least a dozen 18th- and 19th—

century houses remain in the district, most of them sensitively restored.

Research for individual sites is now being completed.

Gl6 JACOB DRAKE HOUSE, THE CLEARINGS NJHSI-1963.5

Mendham Road (Rte 24), S. side, 500+’ E. of Pitney Road

This 1½ story frame structure has an overhanging gable roof, rare for

this area. The house has ve bays, a center hall, and exterior horizontalboard wainscoting, another unusual feature. The Greek Revival doorway

has rectangular sidelights, and the windows are 6/6 sash with louvered

shutters. Jacob Drake‘s name appears in records as early as 1742.

G17 DR. WILLIAM LEDDEL HOUSE NJHSI-1963.6

Tempe Wick Road, at Leddel’s Pond

Dr. William Leddel, pioneer physician of Mendham, lived here during

the Revolution and operated a mill near the house. During the nineteenthcentury, another mill replaced the original structure, but this too has

disappeared. The site is noted on Rochefontaine’s map of 1779-80. Dr.

Leddel married Phebe Wick, a sister of Tempe.

A gambrel roof, and the prevailing eighteenth-century plan of stair and

entrance hail, with one large and two small rooms on each oor is found

here. The basement has a kitchen replace in remarkably good condition.

212




G18 NESBITT MILL

Route 24, South side (3/8 m. ± W. of Roxiticus Rd.)

During the mid 19th century at least 10 Mendham distilleries produced

applejack. Later in the century the most prominent survivor of these

numerous local industries was the Tiger Distillery, purchased c. 1899 by

Thomas J. Laughlin. In 1908 Laughlin moved the distillery from its original

Bernardsville Road location to the Nesbitt Mill, where, according to

local sources, he continued “. . .until the Volstead enactment closed the

business.” Although untenanted for years, the 3—story stuccoed building

remains one of Morris County’s most impressive mills.

G19 PITNEY FARM

Route 24 at Pitney Road NJHSI—l963.l

This homestead was long the residence of a distinguished family of

New Jersey lawyers and jurists. Henry Cooper Pitney was a justice of NewJersey’s Supreme Court and his son Mahlon Pitney was appointed as United

States Supreme Court Associate Justice in 1912 by President Taft.

The oldest section of the house, about 1760, is a 2k—story clapboard,

with gable—end returns. The west end has paired gable—end chimneys. This

section of the house is three bays with side hail. The windows are 9/9 sash

with louvered shutters. Victorian cornice brackets have been added. Perhaps

even more important than the house is the farm itself. With its long,

tree—lined avenue and open elds, it remains one of the last vestiges ofMendham’s important agricultural past.

G20 RALSTON DISTRICT NJHSI-1963.2 & .3

Route 24 (N. side) at Roxiticus Road HABS—339 & 357

Under John Ralston’s management (1786-1817), this became one of NewJersey’s earliest small industrial complexes. The stone mill was probably

built during the Revolution. It has been altered for residential use

without appreciable damage to its 18th-century appearance. Traces of the

mill race are still visible along the west side of Roxiticus Road, starting

about 500 feet from Route 24.

213




(RALSTON DISTRICT, continued)

The gambrel—roofed manor house has paired gable-end chimneys and a

frieze below the eaves. John Ralston owned slaves, and it is probable that

they were quartered in the attic.

The general store once served as a stagecoach station. It is also the

oldest building in the United States to have housed federal mail service.

It has been restored by the Ralston Historical Association.

In addition to Ralston’s industrial/commercial signicance, the top ofRalston Hill, between Roxiticus and Ironia Roads is the site of Mendham’s

earliest meeting house and cemetery, c. 1745. (NJR)

214



215



MOUNT OLIVE REGION H

H1 BAPTIST MEETING HOUSE

Flanders—Drakestown Road (N. side at corner of Mt. Olive Rd.)

Stone from nearby mountains was carried by ox-drawn sledge for the

building of this church in 1855. The severity of the stone walls and simple

rectangular windows is relieved by a series of medallions under the eaves

and the gingerbread gable on the small porch.

This congregation’s rst minister was notorious for his Royalistsympathies. He caused a local scandal on the last Sunday in 1776 when he

offered a prayer of thanksgiving for British troops who had been victorious

earlier that week.

H2 R. C. BARTLEY COMPANY FOUNDRY

1/3 mile W. of Bartley-Chester Road (M.c.-25) below forge pond.

At least part of this industrial complex may have been established

as early as 1874, when William Bartley became the rst postmasterof Bartleyville, as it was then called. The caption of a lithograph

in Munsell’s 1882 History of Morris County describes the company as

“Manufacturers of grist and saw—mill gearing, turbines, water—wheels and

iron penstocks, steam engines,.. .corn crackers, bark mills, tire benders,

etc.”

The main building of stone construction, and the frame pattern shop

remain, as do all the major components of the water power system, which

utilizes the South Branch of the Raritan River, and includes the original

head and tail races, the ume and stone tunnels. Also extent are a 25ft.—high iron—melting cupola, a water- powered turbine, and a wooden crane

in working condition, as well as a collection of the rm’s records andpatterns.

This appears to be Morris County’s best preserved rural industrial site

of its period, notable for the diversity of its products and the high

quality of its remaining equipment. It is hoped that recognition of this

site will arouse interest in other industrial/ commercial sites heretofore

neglected.

H3 MT. OLIVE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Flanders-Drakestown Road (N. side, immediately W. of Mt. Olive Rd.)

This church appears to have the only full Greek Revival porch outside

of Chester. Built in 1853, it stands on the site of a log church built 100

years before. Behind the four Doric columns are two battered doors with dog

ear molding and dentiled, low pediments. Round arched windows are set in

rectangular frames, capped with a peculiarly attenuated version of Gothic

drip molding, and

216



MOUNT OLIVE REGION H

(MT. OLIVE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, continued)

balanced with trefoil ornaments. The church is now occupied by a local

theatre group called Pax 1xnicus.

H4 STONE MILL

Park Place, M.C.—25 CE. side, halfway between North and Main Rds.)

Mills, tanneries, mines and plaster factories once made Flanders an

active industrial crossroads. This mill is the most prominent reminder of

those days. In addition to the beauty of its stonework, it is decorated

with bracketed eaves and an Italianate lantern — unusual additions for a

utilitarian structure of this kind.

217



NETCONG REGION H

MORRIS CANAL

H5 GUARD LOCK NO. 1 WEST

Route 206 at Lake r4usconetcong

Coal—carrying canal boats entered and left Lake Musconetcong through

this guard lock. The lake itself was created as a reservoir for the

canal in 1848. The towpath was a narrow, slightly elevated strip of land

stretching from the lock across a and through the lake to the foot of

Inclined Plane No.1 West at Port Morris.

218



WASHINGTON REGION H

Washington Township is even richer in 18th- and 19th-century stone

architecture than is Montville, due to its settlement by German emigrants.

Many of the houses listed are not of great signicance individually, butcollectively they form an unusually rich picture of rural settlement

patterns.

H6 ALPOCK HOUSE

Route 24, north side at Valley Brook Road

This stone house with eyebrow windows was built c. 1750 by the rstAlpocks to settle the Valley. Original construction is intact a spring runs

through the basement.

R. C. BARTLEY COMPANY FOUNDRY

The majority of this site is located in Mt. Olive. See entry for that

municipality.

H7 FOUR BRIDGES MILL

North Four Bridges Road (N.W. of railroad on large mill pond)

Although the mill wheel is missing, this 1830 building appears to be

structurally sound. The surrounding area is now a bird sanctuary.

H8 LAURENCE HAGER HOUSE

West Mill Road (Rte. 513), North side (1/16 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Rd.— M.C.-65)

Typical of the village’s mid-l8th—century houses, this stone building

dates from c. 1748. Laurence Hager kept the old stone store early in the19th century, followed by his son Jacob Miller Hager.

H9 HANN HOUSE

Zeller Road, West side (1000’± S. of Pleasant Grove Rd.)

This is a representative example of the area’s unadorned stone

farmhouses, little changed since its construction c. 1800. The Hanns were

members of the nearby Presbyterian Church, and are buried in its cemetery.

219



WASHINGTON REGION H

H10 HUNT ESTATE

Route 24, East side (between Pleasant Grove and Flocktown Rds.)

Built early in the 19th century with later additions, the main house now

resembles an added—on Federal mansion. Stone guesthouse, barns and pond

suggest few major changes from mid—l9th—century appearance.

H11 LONG VALLEY SCHOOLHOUSE

Fairview Avenue (adjacent to Union Church ruins)

This was the area’s rst public school, built in 1832. Its style isidentical to the Valley’s stone domestic architecture. It now houses the

Township’s public library. Vent windows in the gable end are arranged in a

Palladian manner.

H12 DAVID MILLER HOUSE NJHSI-1981.l; HABS-519West Mill Road (M.C.-33) Southeast side (opposite Middle Valley Rd

Stone and stucco, with an unusually broad gambrel end, this house has

a decorative frieze, rare for stone houses in Morris County. It has been

exceptionally well preserved.

H13 NAUGHTRIGHT HOMESTEAD

Junction of Naughtright, Bartley and Coleman Roads.

The original part of the main Naughtright house was built early in

the 18th century. By the beginning of the 19th century a number of rural

industries had been established, including a distillery, a creamery, gristmill and wagon shop. The property (reduced from 1,000 to 100 acres over

the years) still includes a one—room school, closed in 1928, and a formergeneral store. It is now owned by the seventh generation of Naughtrights.

H14 JACOB W. NEIGHBOR HOUSE

West Mill Road (M.C.-33) South side (1 1/8 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Ave.)

Jacob Neighbor was a brother of Leonard. His stone house still occupies

a large parcel of land, reached by an avenue of trees and surrounded by

cultivated elds. Relatively few changes have been made since it was builtc. 1830.

220



WASHINGTON REGION H

H15 LEONARD NEIGHBOR HOUSE

West Mill Road (C.-33 (1 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Ave.)

Leonard Neighbor was the progenitor of all the Valley’s Neighbors. He

built his clapboard—over-brick house c. 1830. Original construction details

and design are evident throughout. Like the nearby Jacob Neighbor House,

this gains its distinction from a formalization of the vernacular style

rather than from any application of particular design details.

Hl6 NEITZER’S BRIDGE

Bridging the South Branch of the Raritan, center of Long Valley

Some sources suggest this 4—arched stone bridge was built by John

Peter Neitzer as early as 1747; others claim it dates from c.1811 and the

construction of the Morris—Easton Turnpike. Even the later date made it

early for a surviving bridge.

H17 NEITZER HOUSE

Fairview Avenue, West side (1/2 mi. ± N. of Laketown Rd.)

John Peter Neitzer, the Valley’s rst storekeeper, and builder of the

stone bridge, occupied this stone house in 1803. Evidence suggests that it

was built c. 1740, but the original owner has not been determined.

H18 NEITZER’S TAVERN

West Mill Road (M.C.-33) South side (2nd building W. of Fairmount Rd.)

John Peter Neitzer emigrated from Germany c. 1747 and promptlyestablished himself as one of the Valley’s leading landowners and

businessmen. People came from surrounding counties and from as far away as

Pennsylvania to trade with their enterprising countryman. The frame and

stone tavern (now a dwelling) was built c. 1750, after Neitzer’s stonestore, which stood directly across the road until it was demolished in

the 1930’s. In addition to the tavern and store, Neitzer owned a mill, a

quarry, a tannery and much land.

H19 OCTAGONAL SCHOOLHOUSE (SITE)Bartley Road M.C.-25, (N. side) opposite South Four Bridges Road

Orson Squire Fowler’s treatise on octagonal building (see Boonton)created a rash of domestic octagons in the 1850’s. This was one of the rare

examples used for public purposes, and built of stone.

221



WASHINGTON REGION H

H2O OLD FORT

Route 24, South side (1/4 mi. ± E. of Fairmount Rd.)

Philip Weise built this house c. 1774 as his home. It was alleged to

have been used as a storehouse during the Revolution. Victorian additions

made by Louis R. Schoenheit, Sgt. at Arms at the bier of Abraham Lincoln,

do not compromise its architectural interest.

H2l OLD UNION CHURCH AND CEMETERY

Fairview Avenue, West side (S. of railroad tracks)

Built c. 1747 to be shared by Dutch and German settlers, the church has

stood in ruins for many years, but may soon be stabilized. It is associated

with the Rev. Melchior Muhlenberg, known as the Father of Lutheranism

in America. The cemetery marks graves of the area’s earliest settlers

(Neitzer, Welch, Dufford); many stones are inscribed in German script.

H22 PLEAS2NT GROVE PRESBYTERIAN CEMETERY

Califon Road, East side (S. of Pleasant Grove Rd.)

The original stone church of 1806 has not survived, although the

cemetery holds early graves of the original members, among them the Hanns,

Hances, Stephens, and Honnesses.

H23 SCHOOLEY’S MOUNTAIN MINERAL SPRING RESORT DISTRICT (SITE) Intersection of Schooley’s Mt. Road and Pleasant Grove Road, North

approximately one mile

The famous mineral spring was used by Indians since ancient times for

medicinal purposes. It was known by white settlers at least as early as

1713. The precise location of the spring itself has been obscured by time

but efforts are now underway to relocate it.

During the 19th century the supposed restorative powers of the spring

and the mountain air gave rise to a number of fashion— able resort hotels

which have not survived.

H24 SCHOOLEY’s MOUNTAIN POST OFFICE

Schooley’s Mt. Road, East side (N. of Pleasant Grove Rd.)

This simple frame structure built c. 1800 has been operated

222



WASHINGTON REGION H

(SCHOOLEY’S MOUNTAIN POST OFFICE, continued)

as a general provisions store ever since, and served for many years as the

local post ofce. The combination of unchanged use and appearance is rare.

H25 SCHOOLEY’S MOUNTAIN PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH

Heath Lane, West side (500’± N. of Pleasant Grove Rd.)

This mid-l9th-century church is a Gothicized frame building of expansive

proportions with a mansard tower to the left. The large arched double doors

are set under a small porch decorated with wooden gingerbread.

H26 SPRINGTOWN HOTEL

Route 24, East side (1 mi. ± N. of Raritan River)

One of Washington Township’s large stone buildings, this served as a

hotel until recent times.

H27 STONE BARNS

West Mill Road (M.C.-33), South side (200’± W. of Fairmount Ave.)

Neither of these two stone barns has been positively dated. The rst isnoteworthy because of its large size. The smaller (probably c. 1750) is

extremely rare because of the narrow slits known as loopholes, designed to

provide light and ventilation. Similar barns were built by German pioneers

in Pennsylvania; only one has been recorded in the entire Hudson River

Valley.

H28 STONE HOTEL

Route 24, North side (1/2 mi. ± W. of Chester Township boundary)

Built about the time of the Alpock House, this stone building was a

stage coach stop on the old Washington Turnpike, much used by travelers in

the area.

H29 STONE HOUSE

West Mill Road, North side (1 1/2 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Ave.)

The recessed doorway with panelling, sidelights and transom reects

Federal inuence consonant with the 1814 construction date of the largestone wing, which also has 12/12 windows. The

223



WASHINGTON REGION H

(STONE HOUSE , continued)

small wing may be as early as 1740. The ownership of this house has not yet

been traced.

H30 TOLL HOUSE

Route 24, North side (1/4 mi. ± E. of Fairmount Rd.)

Built between 1811 and 1825, this frame building is one of few toll

houses remaining in Morris County.

H3l TUNIS TRIMMER HOUSE

West Mill Road M.C.-33 South side (1/8 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Rd.)

A mortar-over-stone dwelling built about or before 1750, the veexterior doors are a common feature of Dutch—inuenced houses. The roof

beams are mortise—and—tenoned, marked with matching Roman numerals onjoining beams. Two dormers added about 1850 are the only signicantchanges.

H32 UNNAMED HOUSE

Pleasant Grove Road, North side (w. of Heath Lane)

The rear wing of this large frame house dates from the 18th century. The

main wing, built before 1840, turns its classically— columned facade to

the road, behind a long stone wall. Of special interest is the perfectly

preserved complex of mid-l9th-century barns and stables behind the house.

H33 WASHINGTON VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH (SITE)West Mill Road (M.C.-33) South side (3/4 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Rd.)

From 1832 until it burned in 1954, the Valley’s Presbyterian Church

occupied this site, which was originally adjacent to the lands of Tunis

Trimmer.

H34 JACOB WEISE HOUSE

Route 24, South side (at Fairmount Rd.)

Jacob was the son of Philip Weise. His ownership of this house is

conjectural, but very likely. Date of construction of the earlier part hasbeen set as c. 1780. The main section dates from c.l800. The broad gambrel

roof and careful stonework give it a more sophisticated appearance than

most of the Va1leys 18th century stone houses.

224



WASHINGTON REGION H

H35 JACOB WEISE, JR. HOUSE

Route 24, West side (S. of Maple Ave.)

A mortared stone house built c. 1750, its ve—bay facade with eyebrow

windows is more commonly found on frame dwellings. Neitzer Weise lived here

in 1840.

H36 PHILIP WEISE HOUSE

Route 24, East side (immediately N. of Neitzer’s Bridge)

This was another of Philip Weise’s houses. Comparison with the Jacob

Weise house suggests a construction date early in the 19th century,

although earlier dates are also given. Its size and design attest to

Weise’s relative afuence. For some reason its stone facade is turned awayfrom the road. No changes have marred the original design.

H37 WEISE MILL

Route 24, North side (adjacent to Toll House)

Used to grind grain and saw wood, this mill was in operation by 1767,

owned by Philip Weise. It was remodeled c. 1870 and continued to be used

until 1925 or later. Its present condition is poor.

H38 WELSCH FARMHOUSE

West Mill Road M.C.-33, South side (1/2 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Rd, set back

1/4 mi. ± from road)

Because alterations were primarily in the form of additions, most of theoriginal 1775 stone house still stands, protected from road encroachment by

its ample setback. The originator of Jim Beam Whiskey started his empire

here in the 1860’s.

H39 JOHN C. WELSH HOUSE

West Mill Road M.C.-33, South side (1/8 mi. ± W. of Fairmount Rd.)

Entirely unaltered since its construction in 1875, this frame

225



WASHINGTON REGION H

(JOHN C. WELSH HOUSE, continued)

house is in many ways typical of the comfortable Victorian dwelling which

resulted from an amalgamation of various styles. It was the residence of

John C. welsh, President of the Hackettstown National Bank.

H4O WILLIT HOUSE

Route 24, E. side (immediately below Maple Aye)

E.C. Willit, a prominent local doctor, made his home in this 1870 frame

house for many years. It is representative of a number of interesting

wooden Victorian houses on this section of Route 24.

H4l ZION LUTHERAN CHURCH

Route 24, West side (immediately N. of Neitzer’s Bridge)

This church is the home of the German congregation which shared theOld Union Church with the Dutch congregation for nearly a century, before

starting its own building in 1832, the same year the Dutch built the Long

Valley Presbyterian Church. Except for a modern addition, the exterior is

unchanged. Stone churches of the mid—l9th century or earlier are rare in

Morris County.

226



227



228



APPENDIX A

MODEL FOR A MUNICIPAL LANDMARKS COMMISSION

(Originally published in conjunction with the Morris County Historical Society

in October, 1972.)

This model ordinance was prepared to encourage each of )Morris County’s

39 municipalities to create a landmarks commission as a rst step toward

preserving the County’s rich heritage. It must be stressed that this is only a

model, and that each municipality must examine its unique circumstances when

adapting these suggestions for its own use.

Although New Jersey offers no specic enabling legislation providing

for the establishment of landmark commissions, such powers are felt to be

implied. “In some instances local governments have not found express state

authorization necessary to initiate preservation programs. The earliest

efforts of char1eston, South Carolina, to accomplish historic preservation

objectives were apparently undertaken under the provisions of its general

zoning ordinance. In Santa Fe, New Mexico, the Old Historic Santa Fe District

was created without express legislative authority. The district was validated

by the Supreme Court of New Mexico in the case of Santa Fe v. Gamble-Skogmo,

Inc., in which the court found that the general statute authorizing cities to

make regulations in restrictions in accordance with a comprehensive plan to

promote the health and general welfare was sufcient to authorize the action

taken.”

This proposal was prepared after an examination of some of the more

signicant landmark commission and historic preservation ordinances now in

operation, including those from New York City, Trenton, Philadelphia, Cam—

bridge, and New Bedford, copies of which may be examined at the Morris County

Planning Board.

It is hereby declared as a matter of public policy that the protection,

enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements of special character or

special historical or aesthetic interest or value is a public necessity, and

is required in the interest of the health, safety, welfare and prosperity of

the residents of _______________________

A. Purpose.

The intent of this Landmark Commission is to:

229



1. Effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement and preservation

of such sites and structures which exhibit historical,

architectural or cultural signicance of the community’s heritage.

2. Stabilize and improve property values.

3. Strengthen the local economy.

4. Foster a sense of civic pride.

5. Promote the use of designated structures, sites and areas for the

education, welfare, and pleasure of this and future generations

of the residents of __________________, and of Morris County as a

whole.

B. Denitions.

As employed herein, the following terms shall mean and include:

1. ALTERATION. Any of the actions dened as an alteration by thebuilding code of ______________

2. APPEALS BOARD. The Board of Adjustment of ____________

3. BOARD. The Planning Board of _____________

4. CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. A certicate from the LandmarkCommission authorizing plans for alterations, construction, removal

or demolition of a landmark or an improvement on any landmark site.

5. COMMISSION. The Landmark Commission of _________________

6. EXTERIOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE. The architectural style, design,

general arrangement and components of all of the outer surfaces

of an improvement, as distinguished from the interior surfaces

enclosed by said exterior surfaces, including but not limited to,

the kind, color and texture of the building material and the type

of and style of all windows, doors, lights, signs, decorative

elements and other xtures appurtenant to such improvements

7. IMPROVEMENT. Any building, structure, place, parking facility,

fence, gate, wall, work of art or other object constituting

a physical betterment of real property, or any part of such

betterment.

8. LANDMARK. Any improvement or site which has a special character

or special historical or aesthetic interest or value as part of

the development, heritage, or cultural characteristics of — —,

Morris County, or of the state or nation as a whole, and which has

been designated as a landmark pursuant to the provisions of this

Commission.

9. OWNER. Any person or persons having such right to, title to or

interest in any improvement so as to be legally entitled upon

obtaining the required permits and approvals from the municipalagencies having jurisdiction over building construction, to perform

with respect to such property any construction, alteration,

removal, demolition or other work as to which such person seeks the

authorization or approval of the Landmark Commission, the Planning

Board, or the Board of Adjustments.

230



10. PERSON IN CHARGE. The person or persons possessed of the freehold

of an improvement or parcel of land or a lesser estate therein, a

mortgagee or vendee in possession, assignee of rents, receiver,

executor, trustee, lessee, agent or any other person directly or

indirectly in control of an improvement or parcel of land.

C. Composition.

The Landmark Commission shall be composed as follows:

1. The governing body of _____________ shall appoint to the Commission

ve regular members and three alternate members. One member shallbe chosen from two nominated by the local historical society (in

the absence of a local historical society, from two nominated

by the Morris County Historical Society); one member from twonominated by the American Institute of Architects, Newark Suburban

Chapter; one member from two nominated by the local board of

realtors. The above nominees are not required to be from among the

membership of the nominating organizations, but such is desirable.

If no nominations are made, or if they are not approved, the

governing body shall at its discretion appoint a member or members

to serve a one—year term while awaiting nominations or approval.

The remaining members shall be chosen from the community at largeat the discretion of the governing body. All members must be

residents of Morris County, and the majority of members must be

residents of ________________

2. When the Commission is rst established, one member shall beappointed for a term of one year, one shall be appointed for a

term of two years and three shall be appointed in like manner for

three years. When the Commission is rst established, one alternatemember shall be appointed in like manner for a term of one year,

one alternate member shall be appointed for a term of two years,

one alternate member for a term of three years and their successors

shall be appointed in like manner for terms of three years.

3. In the event of a vacancy during the term of a member, the

governing body shall make an appointment to ll the unexpiredportion of the term. The new appointee shall possess the same

qualications as the former member whose position he lls.

4. No member of the Commission shall serve more than two consecutive

terms.

5. Members shall serve without remuneration.

6. Questions of organization, such as ofcers, quorum, etc., shall bedetermined by the Commission itself.

D. Powers and Duties

The powers and duties of the Landmark Commission shall be described in

this section:

1. The Landmark Commission shall furnish an application for

designation of a landmark or landmark site to any person, group of

persons or association requesting such an application. In addition,

the Commission on its own motion may initiate proceedings for

designation of a landmark or a landmark site.

231



2. Notice that an application for designation is being considered

shall be given to the owner of the parcel on which the proposed

landmark is situated or which is part of the proposed landmark

site.

a. Such notice shall be served by the Landmark Commission by

certied mail, addressed to the owner or owners at his or their

last known address or addresses as the same appears in therecords of the municipal tax assessor, or if there is no name

on such records, such notice may be served by regular mail,

addressed to “owner” at the street address of the property in

question.

b. Said owner or owners shall have the right to confer with the

Landmark Commission prior to nal action by the Commission, onthe application.

c. The Commission may, in addition, hold a public hearing on the

proposed designation by giving notice as required by municipal

regulation.

3. After such investigation by the Commission as it deems necessary,

but in no case more than sixty days after the receipt of the

application, or if the proceeding is initiated by the Commission,

no more than sixty days after such initiation, the application

for designation shall be approved or disapproved. Said approval

or disapproval shall be in writing arid signed by the Chairman

of the Commission, and shall state the reasons for approval or

disapproval. The approval may limit itself to the proposed landmark

or landmark site as described in the application or may include

modications thereof and approval as so modied. The writtenapproval or disapproval shall be led with the ___________ PlanningBoard and the Landmark Commission.

4. Subject to the provisions of Subdivision 5 and 6 of this section,

any designation made by the Commission pursuant to Subdivision 3

above shall be in full force and effect at the time the writtenapproval is led in the ofce of the Planning Board and theLandmark Commission.

Within ve days after making any such designation, the Commissionshall le a copy of same with the Morris County Historical Society,and the New Jersey Ofce of Historic Sites.

5. The Commission, on its own initiative or at the request of an

aggrieved party, may modify or disapprove any such designation

within ninety days after a copy thereof is led as in Subdivision4 of this section. The Commission, in making its decision, shall

consider, among other factors, the relation of the designation to

the Master Plan of _________, the zoning ordinances, projected

public improvements, any plans for the renewal of the area

involved, and other factors affecting the general welfare of the

community.

6. If the Commission disapproves or modies the designation, itsreasons for disapproval or modication shall be put in writing. Thewritten disapproval or modication shall be led as in Subdivision4 of this section.

232



7. If the Commission disapproves or modies the designation, it shallcease to be in effect at the time the written disapproval or

modication is led as in Subdivision 4 of this section.

8. A landmark or landmark site may be amended or rescinded in the same

manner as the original designation was made. The Planning Board

shall have the same power to disapprove an amendment or rescission

of a designation as a landmark or as a landmark site as it has todisapprove an original designation as a landmark or as a landmark

site.

9. It shall be unlawful for any person in charge of a landmark or

landmark site, or other person, to construct, alter, remove, or

demolish any improvement constituting or which shall constitute

a part of such landmark or landmark site, or to cause or permit

any work which requires a permit from the municipal building

inspector to be performed upon such improvement or land, unless the

Landmark Commission, pursuant to the provisions of this Chapter,

has previously issued a Certicate of Appropriateness or a noticeto proceed authorizing such work, and it shall be unlawful for any

other person to perform such work or cause same to be performed

unless such certicate or notice has been previously issued.

Further, no application shall be approved and no permit or amended

permit for the construction, removal, demolition or alteration

of any landmark or of any improvement located or to be located

on a landmark site shall be issued by the municipal building

inspector until the Landmark Commission shall have issued either a

Certicate of Appropriateness or a Notice to Proceed pursuant tothe provisions of this chapter as an authorization for such work.

10. Any application for a Certicate of Appropriateness which requiresaction by the Planning Board must be presented to the Landmark

Commission for its written comments before the application may be

considered by the Planning Board.

Within forty-ve days from the rst meeting of the LandmarkCommission at which the application is presented for comments as

required by this section, the Landmark Commission shall forward the

application together with written comments, to the Planning Board.

After the Planning Board has acted, the Landmark Commission shall

take nal action on the application within the time limitation setforth in Section 11 below.

11.a.

Following the receipt of an application by the Landmark Commission

under Subdivision 9 above, which application respects work on

a landmark or on an improvement within a landmark site, or

new construction on a landmark site other than of a principal

improvement, the Landmark Commission shall determine whether in its

opinion the proposed work would adversely change, destroy or affectany exterior architectural feature of the improvement upon which

said work is to be done, or, if it is new construction, whether it

would lack harmony with the landmark site, and whether the proposed

work would be appropriate for and consistent with the purposes

of this chapter. If the Landmark Commission determines that the

proposed work would not adversely change, destroy or affect any

233



exterior architectural feature of the improvement upon which said

work is to be done, and that is would be in harmony with the

landmark or other existing improvements on the landmark site, and

further determines that the proposed work would be appropriate for

and consistent with the purposes of these sections, it shall grant

the Certicate of Appropriateness; otherwise, it shall deny saidcerticate.

b. Upon receipt of an application respecting construction of a

new improvement which is a principal improvement, the Landmark

Commission will determine whether such construction would

adversely affect the aesthetic quality of the site or lack

harmony with the external appearance of other improvements on

the site or on neighboring sites. Within forty-ve days from therst meeting of the Landmark Commission at which the applicationis presented for nal action, the Landmark Commission shallforward the application together with written recommendations,

to the Planning Board.

Within fteen days after receipt of the Landmark Commission’srecommendations, the Planning Board shall decide whether to

support or deny the requested Certicate of Appropriateness,and upon approval, the Landmark Commission shall so issue. If

the Planning Board does not follow the recommendations of the

Landmark Commission, it shall put the reasons for approving or

disapproving the application in writing. Said written reasons

shall be led in the ofce of the Planning Board, the LandmarkCommission, the Morris County Historical Society and the New

Jersey Ofce of Historic Sites.

12. In making their decisions, the Landmark Commission and the

Planning Board shall consider:

a. The effect of the proposed work in creating, changing,

destroying or affecting the exterior architectural features of

the improvement upon which the work is to be done; and

b. The relationship between such work and the exterior

architectural features of improvements neighboring the landmark

site; and

c. Shall consider, in addition to any other pertinent matters, the

factors of aesthetic, historical and architectural values and

signicance, architectural style, design, arrangement, texture,materials and color.

13.A Certicate of Appropriateness issued pursuant to the conditionscontained herein shall relate solely to proposed plans accompanying

the application or otherwise submitted for ofcial considerationprior to issuance of the certicate. It shall be unlawful todeviate from the said plans upon which issuance was granted unless

an amended Certicate of Appropriateness shall be applied for andissued by the Planning Board.

14. No permit for demolition of a principal improvement on a landmark

site will be issued until a Certicate of Appropriateness hasbeen granted by the Planning Board to proposed plans for new

construction on said landmark site.

234



Special attention is here directed to the question of forced

demolition due to neglect of property by its owner. Therefore, it

shall further be within the power of the Landmark Commission to

require the structural soundness and proper upkeep of all buildings

designated landmarks. To achieve these objectives, the Landmark

Commission shall have the right to le complaints against ownersor managers of landmark structures or sites when such owners or

managers violate the municipality’s health, re, or building codes.

15.In any case where the Landmark Commission or the Planning Board

has denied an application for a Certicate of Appropriateness,the applicant may appeal to the Board of Adjustment for a notice

to proceed. A Notice to Proceed will be issued by the Landmark

Commission if the applicant establishes to the satisfaction of

the Board of Adjustment that there is unnecessary hardship in the

strict application of the provisions of this section.

A Notice to Proceed may not be granted unless the applicant

provides proof that all of the following facts and conditions

exist:

a. The land or improvement in question cannot yield a reasonable

return if the proposed construction, removal, demolition oralteration is not permitted.

b. That the plight of the applicant is due to unique circumstances.

c. That the proposed alteration, construction, removal or

demolition will not alter the essential character of the area.

d. That the hardship is the result of the application of the

ordinance and is not the result of any act or omission by the

applicant.

A Notice to Proceed issued pursuant to these conditions shall

relate solely to proposed plans accompanying the application.

16.Where it appears that the owner or person in charge of an

improvement on a landmark site or a person under his direction

or any other person threatens or is about to do or is doing any

work in violation of this section, the Corporation Counsel of the

municipality shall forthwith apply to an appropriate court for an

injunction against such violation of this section. If an order of

the court enjoining or restraining such violation does not receive

immediate compliance, the Corporation Counsel shall forthwith apply

to an appropriate court to punish said violation pursuant to law.

A violation of this chapter is punishable by a ne not exceeding _________ dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding __________

days, or by both such ne and imprisonment, or by a penalty of notless than ________ dollars nor more than _________ dollars, to be

recovered by the municipality in a civil action. Every day of such

violation may be held to constitute a separate offense.

17.The Commission shall have in addition to the powers and duties of

a landmark commission the following further powers and duties,

subject to appropriation or receipt of money gifts, and may in

exercise of any of its powers or duties accept and expend such

gifts and employ clerical and technical assistants, or consultants:

235



a. To conduct a survey of buildings in the municipality for

the purpose of determining those of historic signicancearchitecturally or otherwise, and pertinent facts about them,

acting in collaboration with the Planning Board to the extent

either may from time to time be able to undertake such work, and

to maintain and from time to time revise detailed listings of

historic sites and buildings, and data about them, appropriately

classied with respect to national, state or local signicance,to period or eld of interest, or otherwise;

b. To arrange for preparation and publication of maps and brochures

and descriptive material about municipal historic sites and

buildings, arrange for convenient walks or tours, or otherwise;

c. To cooperate with and advise the Planning Board, and other

municipal agencies on needs involving historic sites and

buildings;

d. To cooperate with and increase assistance for the municipality

from the National Park Service, the National Trust for Historic

Preservation, the Morris County Historical Society and any other

agencies public and private concerned with historic sites and

buildings;

e. To advise owners of historic buildings on problems of

preservation.

f. To recommend to the municipal government from time to time as

needed appointment of advisory committees of historians and

persons experienced in architecture or other arts or in historic

restoration or preservation, to assist in manner comparable to

the National Park Service Advisory Board.

18.The Mayor, manager, or governing body of the municipality shall be

responsible for proper identication of landmarks or landmark sitesdesignated by the Commission.

19.Nothing herein contained shall be taken to contradict existingordinances of the municipality.

If any provisions of this Commission or the application thereof to

any person or circumstances is held to be invalid, the remainder

of these provisions and their application to other persons or

circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

236



APPENDIX B

MORRIS COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETIES AND COMMITTEES

Beavertown Historical Society

Main Street, Lincoln Park 07035

Boonton Historical SocietyP.O. Box 32, Boonton 07005

Canal Society of New Jersey

MacCulloch Hall, P.O. Box 737

Morristown 07960

Chatham Historical Society

c/o H.E. Kilminster, President

34 Coleman Avenue East, Chatham 07928

Chester Historical Society

c/o Irving Lovejoy, President

Catan Drive, R.D. #1, Flanders 97836

Denville Historical Society

P.O. Box 319, Denville 07834

Dover Area Historical Society

P.O. Box 1722, Dover 07801

Florham Park, Historical Society of

c/o Mrs. Vincent F. Healy, President 49 Orchard Road, Florham Park 07932

Lake Hopatcong Historical Society

P.O. Box 668, Lake Hopatcong 07850

Madison Historical Society

P. 0. Box 148, Madison 07940

Montville Township Historical Society

Taylortown Road, Montville 07045

Morris County Historical Society

P. 0. Box 170M,

68 Morris Avenue, Morristown 07960

Mt. Lakes Historical Society

c/o Mrs. L.F. Wilson

37 Howell Road, Mt. Lakes 07046

Parsippany—Troy Hills Historical Sites

Preservation Committee, do Mrs. Stanley Kaminski

19 Ser Del Drive, Parsippany 07054

Passaic Township Historical Society

c/o Miss Gwendolyn Thomas, President

1690 Long Hill Road, Millington 07946

237



Pompton Lakes Historical Society

c/o Mr. C.L. Vreeland

79 Hamburg Turnpike, Pompton Lakes 07442

Ralston Historical Association

P. 0. Box 603, Mendham 07945

Randolph Township Landmarks Commissionc/o Richard Irwin, Chairman

8 Faireld Avenue, Dover 07801

Rockaway Borough Historical Society

c/o Mrs. Ervin McElroy

107 Church Street, Rockaway 07866

Rockaway Township Historic Preservation Society

P. 0. Box 100

Hibernia 07842

Roxbury Township Historical Society

c/o Miss Harriet Meeker

35 North Hillside Avenue, Succasunna 07876

Washington Association of New Jersey

c/o Ralph H. Cutler, Jr., President

10 Park Place, Morristown 07960

Washington Township Historical Society

c/o Christian Lanner, President

358 Fairview Avenue, Wash. Twp. 07853

238



APPENDIX C

GLOSSARY OF ARCHITECTURAL TERMS

ADAM — a picturesque version of neoclassicism in architecture and furniture

design rst introduced by the English brothers Robert and James Adam c.1750

ASHLAR — hewn or squared stone, usually laid in regular courses

BALLOON FRAME - a method of light, nailed timber construction which replaced

the cumbersome 18th—century use of mortise and tenon; precursor of

modern prefabrication

BARGEBOARD - a board covering the projecting timbers of a gable, often

decorated during the second half of the 19th century

BATTERED - used to describe the face of a wall or frame of a door set at less

than a right angle; in effect, a truncated triangle

BAY - an external division of a building marked by fenestration

BAY WINDOW — a window projecting from a facade, either angled or curved

BELVEDERE - a small lookout tower on the roof of a building

BOARD AND BATTEN — vertical siding (boards), the joints of which are coveredby thin wood strips (battens)

CARPENTER GOTHIC - see: GOTHIC

CORBEL — a short projection in stone or brick used to support a course of

masonry, or simply for decoration

CORNICE — the topmost member of a classical entablature, or any horizontal

molding projecting from the top of a wall

CRENELLATION - battlements, or notched parapets at the top of a building

CUPOLA — a small structure built on top of a roof, usually ornamental and

often domed

DENTIL — one of series of projecting rectangular blocks resembling teeth, used

under a cornice or to form a molding

DUTCH (OR FLEMISH) STYLE — characterized by a bell-shaped gambrel roof withturned up eaves, the use of stone , and in urban areas, stepped gables

ENTABLATURE - the group of horizontal members resting on columns; any upper

part of a wall or story distinguished in some manner from the lower part

239



EYEBROW WINDOW - a small horizontal window used to light an upper story

FACADE - the front or principal exterior face of a building (or any of its

sides)

FANLIGHT - a semicircular window capping a doorway

FEDERAL STYLE - an architecture style in use after the Revolution until c.

1820, employing classical details, lighter and more rened than theGeorgian style

FENESTRATION - the arrangement of window (and door) openings in a building

GABLE - the triangular area of a wall formed by the slopes of a pitched roof

GAMBREL - a two-pitched gable roof, the lower pitch steeper than the upper

GEORGIAN - actually a dynastic term describing the reign of the four English

Georges from 1714 to 1830. Commonly misused as a stylistic term to

describe early 18th—century architecture employing quoins, pediments andpilasters

GOTHIC - late medieval style (13th and 14th centuries) characterized bypointed arches and vertical masses; popular in the United States

throughout the second half of the 19th century. The introduction of

handsaws and jigsaw made possible the imitation of stone tracery in

wood, which gave rise to the term “carpenter Gothic”.

GREEK REVIVAL - an architectural style based on Greek classicism which

ourished in America during the rst half of the 19th century,distinguished in its purest form by the use of pediments and columns

ITALIANATE - an architectural style popular in the Victorian era,characterized by square towers, and arched windows

LIGHTS - window panes

LUNETTE - any semicircular opening or surface, primarily decorative

MANSARD — a roof having two slopes on all sides (the upper slope nearly at,the lower steep, and sometimes curved), and thus no gable ends

MORTISE — a rectangular hole cut to receive a projecting tongue (tenon) onanother piece of timber

MUNTIN - a strip separating panes of glass in a window

PALLADIAN WINDOW — three sashes grouped together, the center one higher with a

round arch

240



PEDIMENT - originally the low—pitched gable area decorated with cornice and

other details in classical architecture; subsequently any similar form

used over a door, window or the like

PILASTER - a rectangular column projecting slightly from a wall, usually

decorative rather than structural

PORTICO - strictly dened, a porch treated classically, with pediment and widesteps

QUATREFOIL — an ornament common to Medieval decoration, composed of four leaf—

like shapes centered on a point

QUOIN — one of a series of heavy blocks used to accent the corner of a

building

ROMANESQUE - early Medieval style (10th - 12th centuries) popular in theUnited States during the 1880’s and 1890’s, characterized by heavy

stonework and round arches

SALTBOX - a house with its rear roof slope longer than its front roof slope

SIDELIGHT — one of several small panes of glass vertically anking a doorway,commonly used in Federal architecture

TENON - see: MORTISE

TRANSOM - a horizontal window with small lights, over a door

TROMP L’OEIL — from Fr., “fool the eye,” applied to painting of architectural

elements or still—life arrangements which mimics reality with unusual

delity

VICTORIAN — relating to Queen Victoria’s reign (1837—1901), characterized in2merican architecture by a Gothic-based eclecticism which later borrowed

freely from French, Italian, Moorish and Oriental motifs

WAINSCOT - the timber lining of a wall; the lower three to four feet of an

interior wall, treated differently from the remainder

241



APPENDIX D

RESOURCE BIBLIOGRAPHY

The following bibliography is designed as a reference source for those

who intend to pursue historic preservation — both documentation and physical

preservation of sites. Most entries are followed by a code designating local

availability: C = Morris County Free Library; N = Joint Free Public Library

of Morristown and Morris Township; P = Morris County Planning Board. Local

libraries will also have many of the standard references cited here, and

should be consulted.

Each of the three reference sources keeps vertical le materials, news

clippings and publications of local historical societies which are not cited

here. Both libraries also maintain genealogical sources. The Morris County

Hall of Records keeps deeds and wills dating from the eighteenth century,which are invaluable for tracing land titles.

Because no denitive history of Morris County or study of New Jersey

architecture exists, Sections II and III also contain general material

relevant by extension. Periodicals listed in Section IV are not represented by

complete runs in all collections. Check source (C, M, or P) to determine which

issues are available. Although the two periodicals of the National Trust are

of pre—eminent value, many other periodicals cited are of occasional value and

should not be ignored.

242



APPENDIX D, RESOURCE BIBLIOGRAPHY

I PRESERVATION THEORY AND PRACTICE

C,P Codman, John. Preservation of Historic Districts by Architectural

Control. Chicago, Illinois: 2xnerican Society of Planning Ofcials,

1956.Experience of Boston’s Beacon Hill Civic Association; valuable tips on

public relations and media support.

P Committee for the Preservation of Historic Courthouses. How to Save a

Courthouse. Albany: N.Y. State Bar Association, n.d.

Organization and publicity with general applicability

P Connecticut Historical Commission. Historic Conservation: Progress and

Prospects. Hartford, 1969.

Discusses problems of nancing and legislative acceptance

P Costonis, John. Space Adrift: Landmark Preservation in the Market Place.

Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1974.How to give preservation a competitive economic base through sale of air

rights, etc.

P Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission. A Report on Historic

Preservation. Philadelphia, 1969.

One of the nest regional plans covering all aspects of preservation.

P Duke University School of Law. Law and Contemporary Problems. (Issue

devoted to Historic Preservation) Durham, North Carolina (Vol. 36, No.3), 1971.Historic Preservation and environmental law; state and federal

legislation; architectural controls, etc.

P Dutchess County Planning Board. Landmarks of Dutchess County , 1683- 1867.

New York: N.Y. State Council on the Arts, 1969.

Excellent example of site survey; 45 pp. of photos and glossary.

P Goeldner, Paul. A Brief Bibliography for the Restoration of Historic

Buildings. Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1971.

C,N Greiff, Constance N., ed. Lost America. Princeton, New Jersey: Pyne

Press, 1971, 1972. 2v.

Copiously illustrated with photos; comments on social history as well as

architecture; excellent treatment of preservation principles and goals.

M Historic American Buildings Survey. Catalog of the Measured Drawings and

Photographs of the Survey in the Library of Congress. Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Ofce, 1941.

N __________________________________. Additions to the Original Catalog.

Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, 1959.

243



M __________________________________. Data Pages for Morris County

Buildings. Microlm 2 rolls.

N ___________________________________. Selected Photographs of Morris

County Buildings in Original 1941 Survey. Black and white prints,5”x 7”.

C,M Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. Presence of the Past: A History of the

Preservation movement in the United States Before Williamsburg . New

York: G.P. Putnam, 1965.

C Lunny, Robert M. Historic Preservation and Municipal Planning,

[Federation Planning Information Report] Vol. II, No.2. Mountainside,

New Jersey: New Jersey Federation of Planning Ofcials, March, 1967.Practical preservation powers at the municipal level.

P McKee, Harley J. Recording Historic Buildings. Washington, D.C.: U.S.

Government Printing Ofce, 1971.Principles and standards of Historic American Buildings Survey for

physical documentation; comprehensive and copiously illustrated.

P Miner, Ralph W. Conservation of Historic and Cultural Resources. Report

No. 244. Chicago: Planning Advisory Service, American Society of

Planning Ofcials, March, 1969. Philosophical and practical problems,surveys and inventories; zoning, commissions and other tools.

P Montague, Robert L., III, and Tony P. Wrenn. Planning for Preservation.

Chicago: American Society of Planning Ofcials, 1964. Concentrates on

legal problems and economic benets.

C Morrison, Jacob H. Historic Preservation Law . Washington, D.C.: National

Trust for Historic Preservation, 1965.

C,M,P National Trust for Historic Preservation and Colonial Williamsburg.

Historic Preservation Tomorrow: Revised Principles and Guidelines.

Washington, D.C.: National Trust, 1967.

Surveys, evaluations and registration of sites; education and training

for restoration work.

C,P National Trust of Historic Preservation. Criteria for Evaluating Historic

Sites and Buildings. Washington, D.C.: National Trust, 1969.

P _____________________________________. A Guide to Preparing Better

Press Releases. Washington, D.C.: National Trust, n.d. How to get media

attention for preservation.

C,M,P ____________________________________. Guide to State Programs.

Washington, D.C.: National Trust, 1972.

P _______________________________________. Historic Preservation and the

Tourist Industry . Washington, D.C.: National Trust, n.d. Where the

tourist dollar comes from and how to get it.

244



P _______________________________________.. Member Organizations and Their

Historic Properties. Washington, D.C.: National Trust, 1973.

Includes AIA state preservation coordinators and foreign organizations.

P _______________________________________. National Historic Preservation

Fund . Washington, D.C.: National Trust, 1974. Examples of NHPF funding

and loan projects.

C National Trust for Historic Preservation. Seven Basic Steps for

Preserving Historic Sites and Buildings. Washington, D.C.: National

Trust, 1969.

C,P New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. New Jersey

Environmental Times (Special Historic Sites Edition). Trenton, New

Jersey (Vol. 6, No 2), 1974. Programs and projects of Historic SitesSection, DEP

C,M,P New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Historic Sites

Section. NJHSI. Survey forms for Morris County sites, arranged by

municipality, research from local sources.

P New York State Board for Historic Preservation. Historic Resources

Survey Manual. Albany, 1972. Physical survey procedures, adaptive use,

integrity of historic resources.

P Pyke, John S., Jr. Landmark Preservation. New York: Citizens Union

Research Foundation, Inc., 1969.

How Landmarks Preservation Commission of N.Y.C. operates and general

survey of preservation goals; broad applicability.

C Roth, Frederick L., Jr. Guide to Historic Preservation, Historical

Agencies and Museum Practices: A Selective Bibliography . Coopers- town,

N.Y.: New York State Historical Association, 1970.

P Stephen, George, and Robert B. Rettig. Revitalizing Older Houses in

Charlestown. Boston: Boston Redevelopment Authority, 1973. Concise

treatment of how to renovate historic houses without destroying

architectural character; useful line drawings.

P Sykes, Meredith, and Ann Falkner. Canadian Inventory of Historic

Buildings. (Training manual and inventory record form) . Ottawa:National Historic Sites Service, 1971. Field recording techniques and

physical details explained + architectural glossary.

P Turnbull, H. Rutherford. “Aesthetic Zoning and Property Values,” Wake

Forest Law Review . March, 1971 230-253.

Legal justications for aesthetic as opposed to purely economic zoning;illustrative cases.

C,M U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. National Register

of Historic Places. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Ofce, 1972.

245



P ______________________________ . National Parks and Landmarks. Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Ofce, 1970. Historical and natural areasadministrated by National Parks listed by state and category with

outstanding characteristics.

P . _______________________________________. National Park Service Programs.

(Pamphlets describing: The Historic American Buildings Survey, 1970;

The National Historic Landmarks Program, 1970; National Park Service

Archeological Program, 1969;

The National Register of Historic Places, 1971) Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Ofce.

C,M United States Conference of Mayors, Albert Rains, Chairman. With Heritage

So Rich. New York: Random House, 1966.

Brilliant examination of all aspects of preservation by distinguished

authorities; photos.

P Wall, Louis Samuel. The Feasibility of Tax Credits as Incentives for

Historic Preservation. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic

Preservation, 1971. Inadequacies of present tax system and suggestions

for reform: special attention to Puerto Rico’s Old San Juan District.

C, P White, Harry E. , Jr. A Discussion of Historic Districts Legislation.

Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic Preservation, 1963.

C,P Wolfe, Albert B. Conservation of Historical Buildings and Areas - Legal

Techniques. Proceedings of Section of Real Property, Probate and

Trust Law, American Bar Association. Chicago: American Bar Center,

1963. Architectural review standards; state, federal and local action

enforcement problems.

II HISTORY OF MORRIS COUNTY

C,M Bailey, Rosalie Fellows. Pre-Revolutionary Dutch Houses and Families

in Northern New Jersey and Southern New York. New York: Morrow, 1936.

A genealogical and architectural survey with numerous Morris County

references.

C,M Barber, John W. Historical Collections of the State of New Jersey . New

York: S. Tuttle, 1844.

C,M Bartenstein, Fred and Isabel. New Jersey Brigade Encampment Near

Morristown, Winter of 1779-80. Mendham, New Jersey: The Authors, 1967.

C,M ___________, _____________. New Jersey’s Revolutionary Powder Mill.

Mendham, New Jersey: The Authors, 1973. Location and Signicance of Col.Jacob Ford’s powder mill; These and the following studies by Fowler and

Howell are excellent models for thorough local research.

C,M Beers, Frederick W. Atlas of Morris County, New Jersey from Actual

246



Surveys. New York: Beers, Ellis, and Soule, 1868. Many buildings noted,

as well as political boundaries, roads, etc.

C,M Boyer, Charles Shemer. Early Forges and Furnaces in New Jersey .

Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1931.

C,M Burr, Nelson R. Narrative and Descriptive Bibliography of New Jersey .

Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1964. References for both

historic sites and preservation.

C,M Cobbett, Frederick B. Newspaper articles written by F.B. Cobbett for the

Morristown Daily Record , 1943-1954.

3 scrapbooks

C,M Cazenove, Theophile. Cazenove’s Journal, 1794: A Record of the Journey

of Theophile Cazenove Through New Jersey and Pennsylvania. Hanover,

Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania History Press, 1922. includes valuable post—

Revolutionary views of Morris County.

C, Chastellux, Marquis de. Travels in North America in the Years 1780—82.

New York: White, Gallager and White, 1827, Arnold’s Tavern mentioned, p.

75.

C,M Cunningham, John T. Railroading in New Jersey . Newark: Associated

Railroads of New Jersey, 1951. Railroads as a social and economic force;

station illustrations

C,M __________, ______. This is New Jersey . New Brunswick: Rutgers

University Press, 1953. Chapter on Morris County; some material

presented as current has already gained its own historical perspective.

C,M Drago, Harry Sinclair. Canal Days in America. New York: Clarkson N.

Potter, Inc., 1972. Includes Morris Canal

C,M Federal Writer’s Project. New Jersey: A Guide. New York: Viking Press,

1939. Part of a highly acclaimed series, its Morris County section is

interesting though brief.

C,M,P Fowler, Alex D. Cornelius T. Doremus House, Montville, New Jersey .

Boonton, New Jersey: The Author, 1974. This and the following two

research reports include genealogies, title searches and local history.

C,M,P ______, . Some Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Houses of Montville,

New Jersey . Boonton, New Jersey: The Author, 1974.

C,M ______, . Two Stiles Houses in Morris Plains, New Jersey . Boonton, New

Jersey: The Author, 1954.

C,P Gaver, Mary Virginia, and Gerald Garant Hodges. A Selected New Jersey

Bibliography . New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1968.

Brief references, soley historical rather than preservation materials.

247



C,M Gordon, Thomas F. Gazeteer of the State of New Jersey . Trenton: Daniel

Fenton, 1834.

C,M History of Morris County, New Jersey . New York: Lewis Historical

Publishing Co., 1914. 2v.

The logical progression from Munsell and less apocryphal; photo— graphs

C,M History of Morris County, New Jersey, 1739-1882. New York: W.W. Munsell

and Co., 1882. Valuable perspective for its time though not always

reliable; engravings.

M Hoffman, Henry Brown. Newspaper articles from the Jerseyman and Banner ,

copied by Hoffman, covering 1850—1910. Microlm:10 reels. Indexed.

C,M Hoffman, Robert V. Revolutionary Scene in New Jersey . New York: American

Historical Co., Inc., 1942.

C,N Honeyman, Abraham Van Doren, ed. Northwestern New Jersey, a History of

Somerset, Morris, Hunterdon, Warren, and Sussex Counties. New York:

Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1927. 4v.

C,M Hoskins, Barbara, Caroline Foster, Dorothea Roberts and Gladys Foster.

Washington Valley...Morris County, New Jersey . Ann Arbor, Michigan:

Edwards Brothers, Inc., 1960.

History, families and houses of the historic community.

C,M Howell, Hazel W. The Jacob Ford, Jr./John Jacob Faesch Manor House

at Mt. Hope: A Research Report. Rockaway Township: Rockaway Township

Preservation Society, Inc., 1973.

C,M Kaschewski, Marjorie. The Quiet Millionaires. Morristown, New Jersey:

Morris County’s Daily Record, 1970. The families, fortunes and estates

of Morristown’s Gilded Age.

C,M Lee, James. Morris Canal: A Photographic History . York, Pennsylvania:

Canal Press, Inc., 1973.

M Morris County Freeholders, Board of Chosen. Transcripts of Minutes,

1786—1823. 3v. Indexed.

C,M Niemcewicz, Julian Ursyn. Under Their Vine and Fig Tree. Elizabeth, New

Jersey: Grassmann Publishing Co., 1965. Autobiographical account of

travels through America 1797-1799 and 1805.

C,M Pepper, Adeline. Tours of Historic New Jersey . Princeton, New Jersey:

D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1965. Pierson, Aldous H. Clippings fromMorristown Daily Record concerning history of Morristown and environs,

1930—1943. 4 scrapbooks. Indexed.

C,M,P Raser, Edward J. Morris County Burial Grounds Inventory . Mendham, New

Jersey: The Author, 1975. A descriptive catalogue of all known burial

248



grounds in Morris County, noting size, condition, and history.

C,M Rice, Howard C. Jr., and Ann S.K. Brown, ed. and trans. American

Campaigns of Rochambeau’s Army: 1780-1783. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1972. 2v. Itineraries, maps and views,

including Morris County

C,M Robinson, Robinson’s Atlas of Morris County, New Jersey . 1887. Useful

in determining relative age of buildings, used in comparison with Beers

Atlas, etc.

C,M Snyder, John P. The Story of New Jersey Civil Boundaries, 1606-1968.

Trenton: Bureau of Geography and Topography, 1969.

C,M Society of Colonial Wars. Historic Roadsides in New Jersey . Plaineld,New Jersey: W.L. Glenney, 1928.

C,M Surdam, Charles Edward. Beautiful Homes of Morris County and Northern

New Jersey . Morristown, New Jersey: The Jerseyman Press, Pierson and

Surdam, n.d.

Early 20th century photos document subsequent demolitions and

alterations.

M Tuttle, Joseph F. Annals of Morris County . n.d. Includes Revolutionary

and Centennial material and “Tales of Old Randolph”

C,M ______, . The (Early) History of Morris County . Newark: Daily

Advertiser, 1870. (N.J. Historical Proceedings, 1870. Second Series,

Vol. 2:15).

C,M Van Hoesen, Walter Hamilton. Crafts and Craftsman of New Jersey .

Madison, New Jersey: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1973.

C,M Weiss, Harry B. Early Fulling Mills of New Jersey . Trenton, New Jersey:New Jersey Agricultural Society, 1957.

C,M _____,________. Early Grist and Flouring Mills of New Jersey . Trenton,

New Jersey: New Jersey Agricultural Society, 1956.

C,M _____,________ . Early Sawmills of New Jersey . Trenton, New Jersey: New

Jersey Agricultural Society, 1968.

C,M _____,________ . Early Tanning and Currying in New Jersey . Trenton, New

Jersey: New Jersey Agricultural Society, 1959.

C,M _____,________ Early Woolen Industry of New Jersey . Trenton, New Jersey:

New Jersey Agricultural Society, 1958.

C,M _____,________ Forgotten Mills of Early New Jersey . Trenton, New Jersey:

New Jersey Agricultural Society, 1958.

C,M _____,________ History of Applejack or Apple Brandy in New Jersey

249



from Colonial Times to the Present. Trenton, New Jersey: New Jersey

Agricultural Society, 1954.

C,M Whitehead, John. The Passaic Valley, New Jersey, In Three Centuries.

N.Y. - N.J. Genealogical Co., 1901. 2v.

C Works Progress Administration, Historical Records Survey. Archives and

Historical Sketch, Morris County . Morristown, N.J.: Board of Chosen

Freeholders, 1937.

III ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY

C,M American Heritage. Historic Houses of America Open to the Public. New

York: American Heritage Publishing Company, 1971

C,M Andrews, Wayne. Architecture, Ambition and Americans: A Social History

of American Architecture. New York: MacMillan, 1964.

C,M ______, _____. Architecture in America: A Photographic History From The

Colonial Period to the Present. New York: Atheneum, 1960.Bailey, Rosalie

Fellows, see Section II

C Brown, Leonard E. Ford Mansion Furnishing Plan. Washington, D.C.: Ofce

of History and Historic Architecture, Eastern Service Center, 1971.

C,M Carpenter, Ralph E. Fifty Best Historic Houses, Colonial and Federal,

Now Furnished and Open to the Public. New York: Dutton, 1957. Includes

Ford Mansion.

C,M Condit, Carl W. American Building: Materials and Techniques From the

First Colonial Settlements to the Present. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press, 1968.

C,M Cowley, James S. Historic New Jersey in Pictures. Princeton, New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1939.

Livingston-Benedict house included.

C,M DeLagerberg, Lars. New Jersey Architecture, Colonial and Federal.

Springeld, Mass.: W. Whittum, 1956. Brief text, photos c. 1910 ofcomparative value; 9 pp. on Morris County.

C,M Devlin, Harry. To Grandfather’s House We Go. New York: Parent’s Magazine

Press, 1967. Introduction to American architectural styles with

paintings by author; primarily for young readers but useful for all

ages.

C,M Eberlein, Harold Donaldson. “Morris County Court House, Morristown,

New Jersey,” Architectural Record , (September, 1927) , 233—244.Architectural analysis of original building and additions, detail

drawings.

C,N Frary, I.T. Early American Doorways. Richmond, Virginia: Garrett and

250



Massie, 1937. Ford Mansion included.

C,MM Gowans, Alan. Architecture in New Jersey, A Record of American

Civilization. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand, 1964. Best study

to date, although cursory; mentions Mead Hall, Madison.

C,M ______, __________. Images of American Taste: Four Centuries of

Architecture and Furniture as Cultural Expression. Philadelphia:

Lippincott, 1964. Greiff, Constance. see Section I

C,M Groff, Sibyl M. New Jersey’s Historic Homes. South Brunswick, New

Jersey: A.S. Barnes, 1971.

C Harris, John. Illustrated Glossary of Architecture, 850-1830. London:

Faber, 1966. English perspective somewhat limits usefulness.

C Hitchcock, Henry Russell. Architecture: Nineteenth and Twentieth

Centuries. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1963. Broad view, relates American

to European movements.

C,M Howells, John N. Lost Examples of Colonial Architecture. New York:Dover, 1963. Destroyed and denatured buildings; useful in judging what

harms a building.

C,M Ives, Mable Lorenz. Washington’s Morristown Headquarters. Upper

Montclair, New Jersey: Lucy Fortune, 1932.

C Maas, John. Gingerbread Age, A View of Victorian America. New York;

Rinehart and Co., 1957. Good treatment of a still neglected area.

C,M Mills, Wegmer Jay. Historic Houses of New Jersey . New York: Lippincott,

1930.

C Levin, Phyllis Lee. Great Historic Houses of America. New York: CowardMcCann, 1970.

C,M Pickering, Ernest. Homes of America. New York: Bramhall House, 1951.

Ford Mansion discussed.

C Pierson, William, H., Jr. American Buildings and Their Architects: The

Colonial and Neo-Classical Styles. New York: Doubleday, 1970. Scholarly

survey with photos.

C,M Rose, Harold Wickliffe. Colonial Houses of Worship in America Built in

the English Colonies Before the Republic, 1607-1789, and Still Standing.

New York: Hastings House, 1964. Randolph Friends Meeting House included.

C,M “Schuyler—Hamilton House.” Morris County’s Daily Record . (October 26,

1965) 4.

Surdani, Charles Edward. see Section II

251



C,M Torres—Reyers, Ricardo. Wick House: Morristown National Historical Park.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Ofce of History and Historic Architecture,Eastern Service Center, 1971.

C,M ____________, ___________. Wick House Furnishing Study: Morristown

National Historical Park. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Ofce of History andHistoric Architecture, Eastern Service Center,1971.

C Whiffen, Marcus. American Architecture Since 1780: A Guide to Styles.

Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1969.

C,M William, Henry Lionel. Guide to Old American Houses, 1700-1900. New

York: A.S. Barnes, 1962.

IV PERIODICALS

A. General

* American Association for State and Local History. History News.

Nashville, Tenn. Monthly periodical containing technical notes for

preservation and restoration.

M American Institute of Architects. Journal. Washington, D.C. Monthly

periodical

N American Society of Civil Engineers. Civil Engineering . New York.

Monthly periodical

C,P American Society of Landscape Architects. Landscape Architecture.

Washington, D.C. Quarterly journal; excellent design features often

relevant to preservation.

P American Society of Planning Ofcials. ASPO Newsletter . Chicago,

I11. Monthly newsletter.

C,M Antiques, New York

Monthly journal.

C,M Archaeological Institute of America. American Journal of Archaeology .

New York

Quarterly journal for the professional

C,M _________________________________ Archaeology , New York. Quarterly

journal, non—technical

P Design and Environment. New York.Quarterly journal relating planning, architecture, design, etc.

P National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Ofcials. Journal

of Housing . Washington, D.C. 11 issues annually, treating urban

homesteading and other preservation related topics.

252



M,P National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States. Historic

Preservation. Washington, D.C. Quarterly journal devoted to historic

preservation.

M,P ________________________________________________Preservation News.

Washington, D.C.

Monthly newspaper

C,M Smithsonian Institution. The Smithsonian Journal of History . Washington,

D.C.

Quarterly Journal

* Society of Preservation of New England .Antiquities. Olde Time New

England . Boston

Quarterly journal containing many articles concerned with preservation.

* Society of Architectural Historians. Journal. Philadelphia, Pa.

Quarterly journal

B. Historical Newspapers

N Jerseyman

1849—1920 (not inclusive)

N Democratic Banner

1849—1914 (not inclusive)

N Morris Republican

1875—1877

N Morris County Chronicle

1898—1914

N Iron Era (Dover)1881—1907

M Morristown Daily Record (later Morris County’s Daily Record )1900—Present

M Morristown Topics

1920—1927

N New Jersey Journal

1779—1783

*Newark Public Library

M New Jersey Freeman

1844—1850

M Palladium of Liberty

1810—1827

253



FOOTNOTES

1. John Maynard, “Black Urban Culture,” Historic Preservation, January—

March (1973), 30.

2. John L. Frisbee III, “Historic Preservation and the Tourist Industry,”

National Trust for Historic Preservation information pamphlet (1971),unpaged.

3. Paul Goldberger, “Energy Crisis May Doom Era of Glass Towers,” The New

York Towers, December 6, 1973, 10.

4. Mark Latus, “Preservation and the Energy Crisis,” Historic Preservation,

April—June (1973), 10.

5. Ibid.

6. Terry Morton, “Fuel Shortages In Our Town,” Preservation News, December

(1973), 4.

7. Grady Clay, “Townscape and Landscape. The Coming Battleground,” Historic

Preservation, January-March (1972), 43.

8. Andrew L. Johnson, “Aspirations for the Brandywine;” Historic

Preservation, January - Marck (1972), 6.

9. Grady Clay, 43.

10. Walter M. Whitehill, With Heritage So Rich, (New York, 1966), 55.

11. Documentation for the examples cited can be found under these titles in

the following issues of Presentation News:

1. “New Life for Old Buildings,” April 1973, (centerfold supplement).

2. “From City Hall to Restaurant,” ibid.

3. “Cape May Hotel to be Restored,” February, 1973, 6.

4. “Preservationists, Developer to Build Shopping Center,” July,

1973, 1—2.

5. “From Industrial to Residential Use,” June, 1973, 2.

12. David N. Poinsett, “What is Historic Preservation,” New Jersey

Historical Commission Newsletter , April (1973), 3.

13. Robert Weinberg, “Pitfalls and Plausibilities of Landmarks

Preservation,” AIA Journal, July (1965), 57.

14. Walter N. Whitehill, 55.

15. Russel E. Train, “Federal ofcials Discuss Preservation,” Preservation

News, May (1973), 1.

254



16. William J. Murtagh, “Financing Landmark Preservation, AIA Journal, March

1966 (unpaged reprint distributed by the National Trust for Historic

Preservation).

17. National Trust for Historic Preservation, National Historic Preservation

Fund Annual Report, 1973. 3.

18. Oscar S. Gray, “The Response of Federal Legislation to Historic

Morris County Master Plan: Historic Preservation Element

Documents

Transcript of Morris County Master Plan: Historic Preservation Element