News from the Front

Posted October 12, 2026.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PLAINFIELD, N.J. — Save the Queen City, the Plainfield historic-preservation nonprofit, has relaunched its website at savethequeencity.org. The new site is built to help residents follow decisions about the city’s historic places while those decisions can still be influenced.

The site includes:

• The watchlist — landmarks under active threat, including Netherwood Station, the Dudley House at 930 Putnam Avenue and Abbott Manor, each with its designation status and owner.
• News and explainers — what the City Council, Planning Board and Historic Preservation Commission are considering, and how redevelopment designations work.
• Documents — the resolutions, plans and records behind each case.
• Get involved — who represents each ward, how to speak at a meeting, and ways to volunteer or donate.

The relaunch comes as several historic properties are before the city at once. On October 13 the City Council will introduce the ordinance adopting the Dudley House redevelopment plan and will consider Resolution R 371-26, a renewed redevelopment study of the Netherwood Station property.

About Save the Queen City. Save the Queen City is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit dedicated to preserving Plainfield’s historic architecture and neighborhoods through advocacy, education and public engagement. It also presents the Holiday House Tour.

Media contact: contact@savethequeencity.org

###

Posted October 10, 2026.

An “area in need of redevelopment” designation under New Jersey’s Local Redevelopment and Housing Law opens the way to a redevelopment plan that replaces ordinary zoning. In Plainfield it can also end Historic Preservation Commission review: the city’s preservation ordinance exempts any project under a redevelopment agreement (Municipal Code § 17:10-4(A)). STQC has followed these designations because they are how historic places lose their protection without anyone voting to remove it.

City Hall and the Salvation Army. In 2024 the city asked the Planning Board to study City Hall and the neighboring Salvation Army properties for designation. At the October 17, 2024 hearing on the City Hall study, our attorney cross-examined the city’s planner, and a licensed planner retained by STQC testified that the statutory standards were not met. The Board continued the hearing to December 5, 2024; it never resumed, and the Salvation Army study was never presented. In 2025 the city took another route, adding the City Hall parking lot to the TODD South redevelopment plan (Ordinance MC 2025-14) and naming a redeveloper (Resolution R 226-25). STQC sued; in January 2026 the court dismissed the case as premature, without prejudice, preserving STQC’s right to challenge any tax abatement for the project.

The block north of City Hall. The city also named the block on the north side of City Hall, where Queen City Roasters is, to be proposed for designation, along with the Salvation Army property. STQC alerted some of the owners. Those studies were never presented to the Planning Board.

St. Bernard’s. A building and an adjacent parking lot belonging to the Archdiocese of Newark and St. Bernard’s were designated. STQC has tracked it since 2024 and alerted St. Bernard’s. The designation has not been acted on.

Also on the record. STQC filed a formal objection to Resolution R380-24, and pushed back when the city floated designating the entire Urban Enterprise Zone. In 2026 the city designated the Dudley House at 930 Putnam Avenue, a designation STQC is challenging in Superior Court, and the Council considered a study of Netherwood Station.

The notice rule. The law requires the clerk to mail notice of the Planning Board hearing, at least ten days ahead, to the last owner of each parcel under study. The same subsection then says: “Failure to mail any such notice shall not invalidate the investigation or determination thereon” (N.J.S.A. 40A:12A-6(b)(3)). An owner can be left uninformed and the designation still stands. That is why STQC tells owners directly when their property is named, and why we watch every Council and Planning Board agenda.

The legal limit. In Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro (2007), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that the state constitution allows redevelopment only of blighted areas, and that property merely not put to its optimal use does not qualify.

If your property, or one you care about, appears on a redevelopment resolution, write to us at contact@savethequeencity.org.

Posted October 10, 2026.

Update, October 14, 2026. On October 13 the City Council passed R 371-26, 4-3, with Councilmembers Briggs-Jones, Wyatt and Sessoms opposed. The Planning Board will now investigate Block 401, Lot 2 (1023-39 South Avenue). We will post the hearing date when it is set.

What happened in September. On September 14, 2026, the City Council voted 3-3 on Resolution R 333-26, which would have directed the Planning Board to investigate whether two NJ Transit properties at Netherwood Station qualify as a non-condemnation “area in need of redevelopment.” The two parcels were Block 401, Lot 2 (1023–39 South Avenue, the station building and its lot) and Block 402, Lot 6 (1020–1110 North Avenue, the north-side commuter lot). Council members Wyatt, Sessomes and Briggs-Jones voted no; Council President Cherry and Council members Graham and Hockaday voted yes. With one seat vacant, a resolution needed four votes, and it failed.

At the meeting, the city’s Director of Economic Development described an NJ Transit concept: a parking deck with housing above it on the North Avenue side, and commercial use of the station building, preferably a restaurant, on the South Avenue side. Asked how the station’s historic character would be protected, she said adaptive reuse would require preserving the exterior. No developer or construction plan was before the Council.

What is on the agenda now. The October 13 agenda carries Resolution R 371-26, which asks the Planning Board to investigate Block 401, Lot 2 (1023–39 South Avenue) alone — the parcel that holds the station building itself. If the Council passes it, the Planning Board holds a hearing on the study, and only after that can the Council declare the property in need of redevelopment.

Why it matters. The Netherwood Railroad Station was listed on the New Jersey Register of Historic Places on March 17, 1984 and on the National Register on June 22, 1984 (Thematic Nomination of Operating Passenger Railroad Stations, ref. 84002830). The State Historic Preservation Office confirmed on October 22 that the listing covers the station building only, not the commuter lots. The nomination describes the station as a fine example of the Richardsonian Romanesque and Queen Anne styles adapted to a late-nineteenth-century station, unusual for being built of Roman brick. It takes its name from the Netherwood section of Plainfield, which the longtime Central Railroad of New Jersey president John Taylor Johnston named after his nearby mansion; Johnston commuted to New York from this station.

This is not the first threat. In 1962 the railroad proposed closing both the Netherwood and Plainfield stations and building one new station between them; the City of Plainfield opposed the plan and it was never carried out, as the National Register nomination records, citing the Courier-News.

A redevelopment designation rests on a legal finding that the property is blighted. Under Gallenthin Realty v. Borough of Paulsboro (N.J. 2007), property that is merely not put to its most productive use does not qualify. A well-used commuter lot and a listed landmark that its owner has let decline are a stewardship problem, and the remedy is for the owner to maintain the building. If federal transit funding or approvals are involved in any project, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act also requires review of the effect on a National Register property.

What you can do. Come to the City Council on October 13 and speak on R 371-26, and tell us what you know about the station’s condition at contact@savethequeencity.org. The Netherwood file.

Posted October 2, 2026.

At the Planning Board’s October 1 hearing on the 930–932 Putnam Avenue Redevelopment Plan, STQC members pointed out that the plan contradicts itself. Its land-use section is written for veteran apartment housing (pages 10 and 17), while its introduction and design standards describe a municipal emergency-services facility, down to front-yard parking reserved for ambulances (pages 6, 14, 15 and 19). Members also reminded the Board that STQC’s challenge to the property’s redevelopment designation is pending in Superior Court.

According to members who attended, the Board voted to recommend the plan to the City Council with corrections, which have not yet been published. The Council passed the adopting ordinance, MC 2026-36, on first reading on October 13, 4-2 with one abstention. The second reading and public hearing is Monday, November 9, 2026 at 7 p.m., 325 Watchung Avenue. What the plan allows.

Posted September 30, 2026. A factual summary of the plan as presented to the Planning Board; it is not legal advice.

Update, October 28, 2026. The city has set the second reading and public hearing on MC 2026-36 for Monday, November 9, 2026 at 7:00 p.m., Municipal Court Council Chambers, 325 Watchung Avenue. Anyone may speak at the hearing.

Update, October 14, 2026. On October 13 the City Council passed MC 2026-36 on first reading, 4-2 with one abstention (Briggs-Jones and Wyatt opposed; Sessoms abstained). Before the vote the city’s corporation counsel said the pending lawsuit does not stop the Council from proceeding, because no injunction has been sought. The second reading, which carries the public hearing, comes at a later meeting; the city has not yet posted the date.

Update, October 10, 2026. The plan is on the October 13 City Council agenda as ordinance MC 2026-36, for introduction on first reading. Adoption needs a second reading, which carries the public hearing.

Update, October 2, 2026. According to STQC members who attended, the Planning Board voted on October 1 to recommend the plan to the City Council, with corrections that have not yet been published. Under New Jersey’s redevelopment law the plan takes effect only if the Council adopts it by ordinance, which takes two readings at separate meetings, with a public hearing at the second. The next Council meeting is Tuesday, October 13, 2026, at 7:00 p.m.; we will post here when the plan appears on a Council agenda.

The Planning Board meeting. Thursday, October 1, 2026, 7:00 p.m., City Hall, 515 Watchung Avenue. The plan is listed on the agenda under “Redevelopment Plan(s).” The city says all agenda documents can be inspected at the Division of Planning, City Hall, Room 202, 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

What it covers. One city-owned lot: Block 642, Lot 5, 930–932 Putnam Avenue, at the corner of Richmond Street in the 2nd Ward, about 0.22 acres. The City Council directed the Planning Board to designate it a non-condemnation area in need of redevelopment and to prepare this plan by Resolution R 274-26 on June 15, 2026. The plan was prepared by Steven Martini, PP, AICP.

What it would allow. One principal use: veteran apartment housing. Permitted accessory uses are administrative offices, multi-purpose space, a fitness room for residents, electric-vehicle charging, outdoor amenity space such as gardens and patios, and surface parking.

How big. Up to 3 stories and 40 feet, with rooftop equipment allowed up to 10 more feet. Up to 75 dwelling units per acre, which works out to roughly 16 units on a lot this size. Building coverage up to 60%, impervious coverage up to 80%, at least 20% open space. Minimum apartment sizes are 500 square feet for a studio, 750 for one bedroom and 1,000 for two. Parking is one space per unit, kept 5 feet from property lines and encouraged in the rear or side yard, using the existing Richmond Street driveway.

The existing house. The plan permits demolition: if demolition is proposed, a demolition plan must be filed with the site plan. Preserving or reusing the existing building is “encouraged to the greatest extent possible,” but it is not required. New construction is to “reflect and complement” the Putnam-Watchung Historic District, additions are to be consistent with the original structure, and matching materials such as brick are encouraged.

What it replaces. Once adopted, the plan’s standards supersede the city’s Land Use Ordinance for this lot. Today the lot is zoned R-PW2, a residential historic zone that allows single- and two-family homes, community residences, bed-and-breakfasts and guest houses. The plan places site plan review with the Planning Board and does not mention Historic Preservation Commission review. The Planning Board may grant some deviations and design waivers, but not changes to the permitted use or density, or added height of more than 10 feet or 10%.

Who would build it. Only a redeveloper designated by the city that has signed a redevelopment agreement may build. Under state redevelopment law, which the plan cites, the city may lease or convey the property without public bidding.

Other facts in the plan. The lot is in a FEMA AO flood zone, and the redeveloper must meet FEMA requirements. The building is not on the State or National Register; the plan notes it is a contributing property on the city’s 2017 All Historic Properties List and that it was most recently the Dudley House, a group residence for veterans.

Where things stand. STQC’s lawsuit challenging the redevelopment designation (UNN-L-003581-26) is pending. See our lawsuit coverage and track the property on the Watchlist.

Sources: City of Plainfield, 930–932 Putnam Avenue Redevelopment Plan, presented to the Planning Board October 1, 2026; City of Plainfield Planning Board meeting agenda, October 1, 2026.

Save the Queen City has filed suit in New Jersey Superior Court, Union County (Docket No. UNN-L-003581-26), challenging the City of Plainfield’s designation of the historic Dudley House at 930 Putnam Avenue as an “area in need of redevelopment” (Resolution 274-26).

The Dudley House is a contributing historic building inside a designated historic district, and it housed veterans in transitional housing until February 2026. An independent licensed planner retained by STQC concluded that the property does not meet the legal criteria for a redevelopment designation. The complaint alleges that the Planning Board declined to accept his written report into evidence before voting, and that the City Council later approved the designation without reviewing the hearing record.

STQC is not opposed to responsible redevelopment. This suit asks the court to invalidate Resolution 274-26 and require a lawful, fair, and transparent process before public, historic property is placed into redevelopment.

The city has been served and the case is proceeding. The complaint is a public document — follow the case on Documents and track the property on the Watchlist.

Save the Queen City has formally challenged the City Hall redevelopment study before the Plainfield Planning Board. At the hearing, STQC's attorney cross-examined the city's planner, and a licensed planner retained by STQC testified that the study does not meet the statutory standards for designating an “area in need of redevelopment.” The Planning Board granted a continuance.

Update, October 10, 2026. This release has been corrected. The Planning Board hearing was continued to December 5, 2024 and never resumed, and the Salvation Army study was never presented. In 2025 the city instead added the City Hall parking lot to the TODD South redevelopment plan (Ordinance MC 2025-14) and named a redeveloper (Resolution R 226-25). STQC sued in July 2025; in January 2026 the court dismissed that case as premature, without prejudice, preserving STQC’s right to challenge any tax abatement (PILOT) for the project. An earlier version of this release said a court had denied a motion to dismiss; that March 2023 ruling was in STQC’s separate challenge to Ordinance MC 2022-35, which the court later dismissed.

Follow the hearings on Documents.

The Dudley House at 930 Putnam Avenue is owned by the City of Plainfield and sits within a designated historic district. It is headed to redevelopment without review by the Historic Preservation Commission.

STQC's position is simple: a city that requires historic review of its residents cannot exempt itself from the same review. We call on the city to bring the Dudley House before the HPC before any further redevelopment step is taken.

Track this property on the Watchlist.

Update: STQC has since filed suit challenging the designation — see the press release above.

How does a protected building lose its protection without anyone voting to remove it? In three steps.

1. A rule change. Municipal code amendments recommended by the administration narrow what triggers historic review.

2. A redevelopment designation. Declaring an “area in need of redevelopment” shifts control away from preservation review and into the redevelopment process.

3. An exemption. City-owned properties proceed without Historic Preservation Commission review at all.

Protection for historic places ultimately rests with the local municipality — which is why citizen involvement is the whole ballgame.