1. "Maplecroft Property to be Changed"
Posted by Stefani on Apr-10th-03 at 10:58 AM

It has come to my attention from several different directions that Mr. Robert J. Dube, the owner of Maplecroft, has filed an application with the Planning Board of Fall River to construct a single family house east of 306 French Street (in the driveway area).

The Planning Board is meeting next week on April 17 at 7PM and Mr. Dube's application will be discussed and decided at that time. Mr. Dube is being represented at the meeting by the firm of Levin and Levin, attorneys.

The clerk of the Planning Department informed me that anyone who wishes to oppose this application can write the Planning Board and voice their concerns, objections, etc. The letters must be received in advance of the meeting, however, for them to be placed in consideration.

Here is the address:
Fall River Planning Department
ATTN:  James K. Hartnett
Planning Board
1 Government Center
Fall River, MA 02722

I would be interested in the goings on of this meeting. If anyone of you live in Fall River and could attend this meeting, I would love to hear from you and have you report your observations here on the day after. If any of you can do this, please email me and let me know. I think it would also make an interesting topic in the Lizzie Borden Newzletter.

Good grief!  I certainly hope somebody from the FRHS plans to lodge a complaint; however, I don't believe Maplecroft has historic landmark status, so I doubt if it will do any good.  Unfortunately, I wonder how much good it would do for any outsider (including most of those who post here) to voice a complaint.  Most of us don't visit Fall River frequently (if at all), so what Mr. Dube does with his private property would probably not be considered a concern of ours.  I hope his neighbors raise their voices loud and clear though.  What would be useful would be for somebody in Fall River to get signatures on a petition and present it.
It sounds as if Mr. Dube has changed his plans about selling the property.  Certainly building another house cheek-by-jowl with Maplecroft would lower its value considerably.  This is the rough equivalent of having a printshop joined onto 92 Second Street.  That of course is a fait accompli.

I don't know quite what to think with this, as Edisto stated, it is Mr. Dube's property and with approval he may do as he sees fit.  I was thinking historically that Maplecroft did seem to be crowded in by other homes, didn't Lizzie have one or two buildings knocked down to broaden her property?  Also, if the plot of land that Maplecroft sits on is divied up, won't the cost of the house go down to something a little more affordable.  The views we have seen of Maplecroft from that side shot may be no more in the near future.  Can we get some current photos before this might happen?  Sort of preservation photos. 

Here is an article on the sale of the house. It is still for sale. As of the day before yesterday. It says Mr. Dube bought the house in 1980 for $60,000. Quite an increase in value!

http://www.heraldnews.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=7639611&BRD=1710&PAG=461&dept_id=99784&rfi=8

Maplecroft, as much as it may mean to us (and I was lucky enough to be able to take the tour a few years ago when it was being offered), is not an offical recognized landmark, and I have to say, regrettably, I don't think there's anything we can do about the proposed new construction.

On the other hand, if Dube can make some money from the new building maybe he'd be less interested in selling the manse to someone who might simply tear out the original wallpaper and those mantlepieces and throw them in a dumpster.

(Message last edited Apr-10th-03  12:08 PM.)

What in the world does he need another house for? If
he needs rental money he could have made a small fortune
if he would have went the B&B route & hired a caretaker &
not had to stay in the house all day with guests if he
didn't want to. And what about all the pictures of the
original interior he could have sold -- even just as
postcards. He has a house that could actually earn its
own living. Lizzie Borden gets a lot of tourists that
would have no interest in Fall River otherwise, that
alone should make it worth protecting.

A quick note ~

The newspaper article stated that Mr. Dube owned the house since 1980 and then went on to say that he owned it for 33 years. That would be 23 years. Good grief.

Also, I seem to remember, a number of years back, there was talk of tearing down Durfee High School. It may have been to build the new high school, but that part is just guesswork. There was a group of people who got together and had the old building declared a national landmark and so now the building is protected. Thank God!!!!!!!!!!! It would have been absolutely criminal to tear down that amazing structure. Anyhow, maybe those same folks are still around and will take Maplecroft under their wing.

I've seen some amazing transformations of some of the old buildings and some outright criminal demolitions. Let's keep our fingers crossed that whatever happens, the integrity of Maplecroft is preserved.

I've always disliked that printing office being attached to the old Borden house but I would dislike even more if the house had been torn down in order for the printing office to be there.  So I would rather have Maplecroft be there close to another house than not be there at all.  I suppose the buyers of Maplecroft would have to be made aware that another house would be built that close, something about fairness in disclosure?

One major difference is that the high school was probably a publicly-owned building, and taxpayers had some say-so about what happened to it.  Like it or not, Maplecroft belongs to Mr. Dube.  This is just another reason why that house really should be owned by a public trust or some entity such as the FRHS.  Frankly, I think the asking price is 'way out of line.  Mr. Dube supposedly bought the house in 1980 for $60,000.  (Wow!  What a buy!)  If that's true, I'm comparing it with my current residence.  We bought our house in a top-notch Washington DC suburb in 1980 for double what Mr. Dube supposedly paid.  An estimate of its current worth is triple to quadruple what we paid in 1980.  We live in a popular and growing part of the country.  Unfortunately, Fall River is in the "rust belt," which has suffered for decades from the decline of manufacturing and the subsequent flight of its middle and upper-middle class.  I hardly think property in that area has appreciated faster than property in my area.  Maplecroft's value will be further depressed if another house is built on the site. I'm sure any potential buyer would become aware of the plans to build another residence on the same lot, because it's obviously been widely publicized.
I have an acquaintance who operates a B&B in a Victorian house in  Annapolis, MD.  She is hardly rolling in money!  In fact, she doesn't even make a living at it.  Even though books and postcards of Maplecroft's interior might sell like hotcakes to those of us who post here, we're a fairly limited band.  It's sad that Mr. Dube doesn't have more respect for Maplecorft's history, but I'm sure he has his own agenda.  

i wonder if mr. dube realizes the lizzie borden profit potential of the house.

Hello my dearest family of Bordenites...I must first apologize for such an absence, I have not turned my back...I have had to devote considerable time to my studies.  This semester like the last has seen me with a "full-time" course load...namely three classes.  Two of which require mucho reading and analysis so my computer time is limited to doing the third course which is done entirely online.

But a new day has dawned and for a brief bit of time I am relaxing between mid-terms and finals.  More importantly I have, this day, received an urgent email from Steph regarding Maplecroft.  Below you will find a copy of the letter I have mailed to the powers that be in Fall River protesting the application of one Mr. Robert Dube. 

I trust you are all well and well behaved I have sorely missed all of you and the writings which I shall resume very soon, promise.  As time permits I must catch up on postings for I am sure there have been hundreds posted since my last message.  I am working as diligently as I can on the Symposium for 2005 we must keep moving forward. 

I spoke to Mrs. Sally McGinn (owner of the B & B) by phone today and she is pleased to hear that a Symposium is in the making.  She did not sadly enough offer any discount or group rate for the B & B.  Her philosophy is appropriate however; she knows that she can fill the rooms during that period August 3-5 with little trouble.  She did suggest that if anyone desires to stay at the B & B during that period you book the room now.  Her phone number is: 508-644-5357 she will be happy to book you.  Her cancellation policy is strict so give her a call.

I am still working on securing Bristol Community College for hosting as well as various other establishments.  I promise to have more on this soon as well as publishing the matter in the LBQ.  I shall write more when time permits please view the letter that I mailed today which is copied below.  We ALL need to write and protest, there is power in numbers, Maplecroft is too much a part of our lives to have the site desecrated. Levin & Levin are Mr. Dube's lawyers. 

PS: I have truly missed being on the inner circle these past months but I run out of time at the end of my day.  Know this: I miss you all very much and always think of each of you everyday. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Thursday, April 10, 2003


Fall River Planning Department
Planning Board
1 Government Center
Fall River, Massachusetts 02722
Attn: Mr. James K. Hartnett

Dear Mr. Hartnett,

I am writing this letter to your office in opposition to the proposal of Mr. Robert J. Dube present owner of a certain parcel of land and buildings located at Number 306 French Street in the City of Fall River.  Said property being more commonly known to Fall River and its inhabitants as Maplecroft.

The foundation of my opposition is that issuance of a variance to Mr. Dube for the purpose of construction of a single family dwelling adjacent to the primary structure known, as Maplecroft would seriously deteriorate the historical value of such dwelling.

You are, I am quite sure, familiar with the history of Maplecroft and one of its more infamous former owner/occupants namely the late Miss Lizzie Andrew Borden.  There are in our present society a growing number of persons who have long been engaged in the history of both Fall River and Miss Borden.  As one member of that segment of society who is passionately devoted to the preservation of historical landmarks I beg your indulgence and ask that the Planning Board deny Mr. Dube his application.

As a former City Councilman here in Attleborough I know from personal experience the need for expansion of a cities tax-base but not at the expense of losing such a valuable historical site.  I cannot conceive that construction of single family dwelling on this site will do little more than desecrate the memory of those who have owned and lived in Maplecroft.

Again I reiterate that I am submitting this letter as a formal protest to Mr. Dube’s application and if at all possible I shall personally attend the Board’s meeting on Thursday next at 7:00 o’clock in the evening where, if permitted I shall speak against this proposal.

Very Sincerely,



Robert W. Cook
66 Quintin Avenue
Attleborough, Massachusetts 02703
508-399-7568

cc: Levin and Levin
      P. O. Box 2566
      Fall River, Massachusetts 02722
      508-678-2824


BC

Does anyone know if Fall River has some sort of Preservation Society that would dictate what (if anything) could be built next to Maplecroft? Some cities have very stringent guidelines as to what style the new building can be, to be in keeping with the neighborhood, as well as what materials can be used, etc.  I would imagine that the zoning ordinances up on "the hill" would be pretty tough as well. Also, here could be some difficulty in subdividing the property, if Mr. Dube wants to sell one parcel and keep the other. In Saratoga Springs, the purchaser of a downtown building is having terrible difficulty with subdividing two adjoining buildings, owned by the same person, even though originally they were owned and built by two different people. It's holding up the sale, in fact.
We'll just have to keep our fingers crossed!

The 1st thing that struck me is I hope those plans don't include demolishing the coach house.  That would be awful, esp as it had that personal gas pump, etc.  Those type of buildings in general are under threat, because so many have been renovated, demolished or otherwise deprived of their original charms.

Oh!  I'd love to buy Maplecroft if I had the means.  That's like a dream.  I'd want to do all I could to preserve/restore the history.  I really don't understand why an owner would want to alter an historical property that way.

Good for you, Bob C!  Not much I can do from up here in Canada I'm afraid, but I applaud you!

(Message last edited Apr-10th-03  10:22 PM.)

Thanks BobcookBobcook for attending the meeting.
I think Stef's urgent notice was to inquire as to that attendence only and to report back, as far as I know she is not taking sides in the matter, merely reporting.  She has not voiced a private opinion for or against the issue.
Having someone dependable nearby who can attend and give us info is a great thing!  Thanks!

As to the property, I believe there is already a split of it.  I may be wrong but I thought it was already 2 parcels.  The building would be near the driveway close to the neighbor's property.

There once was an Office Of Historic Preservation in Fall River.  It existed long enough to have some areas established as "Historic Districts."  Maplecroft is in an Historic District.  This house is not asigned as a "National Historic Site."  The Office did a service to Fall River and is no more.

I think I have that right.  The actual wording on a copy of the certificate is being forewarded to me.

Apparently the lot of land in question equals 17,860 sq. ft.
There's a question as to whether that is one lot or the whole
area of Maplecroft land.

As to this issue being widely publisized, it is only just the last couple of days there have been four letters written, and a couple of e-mails and this revelation here.  Soon there will be more publicity, but this is a scoop, here.

(Message last edited Apr-11th-03  1:04 AM.)

I daresay he probably realizes its profit potential, inasmuch as he once planned to maintain Maplecroft as a B&B.  I've thought that a nice picture book of the interior would sell well to Lizzie buffs and maybe a few others, but I understand the house isn't furnished in Victorian style, much less in Lizzie's own style (other than the few remnants of her decorating that remain).  It would probably be necessary to dress it up, at least temporarily, to take photographs.  That kind of thing is often done with "decorator show houses" and such.  I know many antique dealers who would probably love to have the exposure and could come up with items that would fit into such a scheme.  However, that type of effort takes a lot of time and money to carry out.  Even the FRHS's own establishment is open for limited hours, especially out of season, so it may be realistic to realize that not everyone is interested in Lizzie Borden.  In fact, some people (as Hiram Harrington was wont to say) may be repelled by her.

Kat got that right. I am merely reporting the facts, mam. I was letting everyone know that this was a time sensitve matter---meaning this is happening now. What each of you think or feel about it is up to you. I wanted you to know, however, as members of this forum, that a change was being proposed. Since it affects Lizzie studies, in a tangential way. I was really hoping Mike Dube would pop in and have his say. If you are out there Mike, we welcome your thoughts on the matter!

I did find out that the Maplecroft is actually two lots. Lizzie bought both and there once was a house on the second lot, a two family house, which she had moved to another location to have the space open up. I thought to myself wow, Lizzie was into preservation back then. But then I was told it probably had more to do with a New England sense of thrift---why destroy a perfectly good house when it can move to another location and still be used and lived in. The house that was moved still stands.

I was contacted by Mr. Michael Brimbau who lives on the east side of Maplecroft, and thus the neighbor who would be most affected by the new building. He is quite upset about it and has given me permission to share his thoughts here.

He has written a few letters, one to the Planning Board, one to the Mayor, and another to the Fall River Herald News. The paper is interested in doing a story on the possible building of a single family house on the lot east of Maplecroft. The same reporter who did the other article linked above is working on it now. Something should appear in print shortly. It is through Brimbau's efforts that this information is being publicized.

For a city with lots of interesting history, it is indeed a shock that there is not an historic district. In Orlando, a not so old city, we have several designated historic districts and owners are not allowed to tear anything down. They may renovate, they may move a house, but they may not do anthing else. It has beautified a few sections of downtown, increased property values, created a new interest in the downtown area, brought in tons of monied yuppies to buy and renovate, and generally produced a great place to live, albeit expensive. A friend of mine wanted to sell a town home there (he was moving to DC) and the house sold in 1 minute. Really! One minute after the sign went up a person came up to him and bought it. With cash. A success story related to the fact the area was an historic district, and thus a place people wanted to live.

But I digress. I am interested in the goings on of the meeting next Thursday, if for no other reason than it is news. Lizzie news. And there isn't much of that going on these days. I would like to know how the request is received by the Board and what they have to say specifically about it. What the general feel of the community is to Mr. Dube's application. I find that sort of thing fascinating. So if anyone can attend, please do post your observations here.

Welcome back, bobcook!  --And "good on you" for sending the letter.  At least you are from the correct neck of the woods.  I for one would be happy to furnish my name as another who protests the proposed alteration of the Maplecroft grounds, if it would be appropriate.  I'm Annette Weeks Baker of Falls Church, VA, and I'm a member in good standing of the Victorian Society in America.  Maybe others would like to do the same?

They've done similar things with some of the neighborhoods in New Bedford, MA. They've restored and protected some of the old buildings there and have done a wonderful job.

I think $750,000 for Maplecroft is extreme. I live in Seattle, where housing prices are some of the highest in the country, and I'm a bit stunned at his asking price. He could sell it for half that and still make an amazing profit.

As a none-resident, I would not write an objection. This building has NO historical significance. Geo Washington didn't sleep there.

More important, if the sale of a lot allows the Maplecroft building to exist, all the better. Many large mansions in local towns were torn down for parking lots, modern buildings, etc. Would you want a burger joint in its place?
A big corporation has the money to change local zoning laws.

"If dreams were gold, beggars would ride in coaches."
There have been many, many destructions of old historic buildings in many states. Common practice through much of the 19th and early 20th century. Leaving aside termites and fire. Ever read of those "old" buildings in NY that collapsed "suddenly"?

Remember the destruction of OJ Simpson's Rockingham house? To be rebuilt? Was that any more important than Maplecroft?

If only those old walls could talk!

That was nothing -- what about letting them tear down
Sharon Tate's 10050 Cielo Drive? It seems like if a
place is world famous it should be protected from people's
decorating whims. Even if it is infamous.

I think the owner does realize many things about Maplecroft.

No one has yet inquired WHY Mr. Dube wants to build the house so close to it. The hearing hasn't even been held. 

DubiousMike has posted here and was welcomed sincerely hoping he would post to help us understand what was going on with the house and to learn what he wanted to tell us of his own and his families experience with the house. 

Everyone has their own opinion about this issue but how can DubiousMike be encouraged to come back and tell us more and even perhaps what his father's plans are about the house when some posters, not you haulover, are squeaking so about all this and tearing into Mr. Dube.  

As one of the ones who was "squeaking" about Mr. Dube's
plans, I'd say that it is a good thing a lot of people do
"squeak" -- historic preservation isn't exactly a trival
issue. No, George Washington did not sleep there but so many
places are worth preserving anyway -- history is history,
good or bad -- thinking that people are just being silly
about wanting to preserve things is what causes housing
developments & shopping malls to be built on battlefields
and burial grounds.

And my guess is Mike will be back to the forum when he has
the time -- I'm sure the squeaking wont discourage him.

Bravo Bob Cook!!!   A big THANKS for that letter. 

Bad enough that Fall River let that gorgeous old City Hall slip away.

I'm reminded that Disney wanted to build a fake civil war battlefield in the midst of the actual battlefields.  Thank God the good citizens rallied and put an end to that nonsense.

I recognize that it is Mr. Dube's property and he can do with it as the law will allow.  I just hope that some sort of accomodation can be reached so that both sides can be satisfied.

I forgot about the City Hall! Pooh. Then they built the new one that sat over the freeway! I hated driving under that thing! Then some mondo truck smashed into one of the supports and engineers from all over the world came to examine the damage. And we still had to drive under it! A classic example of a bad idea becoming a worse reality.

I am a member of the Civil War Preservation Trust.  Their goal is to raise funds to purchase properties related to the Civil War--usually lesser known battlefield sites that are seriously threatened by commercial development.  This organization does not heistate to seek the support (financial and verbal) from concerned individuals who do not live in or near the threatened areas.  In fact, in March, CWPT succeeded in halting the plans of a major commercial developer who wanted to build condominiums in the Chancellorsville, Virginia area.  This was a major battle site and the arrogance of the developers actually convinced locals that they should destroy historic land adjacent to the battlefield in order to build these homes.  It was local AND outside influence which preserved the site from their development plans.

Maybe it would be a very good idea for all who are concerned with preserving the sanctity of a historic home such as Maplecroft to write to that Fall River address.  Sometimes, people cannot see the forest through the trees.  Fall River and its leaders may not fully grasp the legacy they have with Lizzie's story whether they aspire to a more glorious history or not.  Lizzie's story is Fall River's historical bread and butter and if civic leaders hear that from the people who would visit and spend money in their community, then maybe they will listen and appropriately respond.

I am assuming the owner would need a zoning variance to build another residence on the property.  (Maybe I shouldn't assume.)  In all of the communities where I've lived, a sign is posted on the property, stating that a variance has been requested.  The sign gives info on when the matter will be heard, so that people who want to voice objections will have a chance to do so.  Is that not the case in Fall River?  -- Or does anyone know?

That was a very good post, Jim.
It shows the spirit behind the intention.

Edisto, Stef said the land was already 2 parcels so no variance is needed.  Only approval for the plans of a house.
She didn't even contact the zoning board, but the Planning Board

(Message last edited Apr-12th-03  12:09 AM.)

Well, apparently there is some sort of a problem with the specs. According to what I have heard, the size of the parcel and the dimensions of the proposed single family house don't jive. Mr. Dube only asked for permission to build. His application, as far as I know, does not include a variance. This may mean he has to ammend his application.

The story on the controversy is due out today or tomorrow. I will check the online version to see when it appears and post the link here. It should be interesting!

Rebello, page 57 lists this entry:

"J. Giza; Patricia, A Guide Book to Fall River's National Register Properties, City of Fall River, MA: 1984.

Listed: Andrew J. Borden Building., 230 Second Street, 306 French Street, Maplecroft, and Oak Grove Cemetery in Fall River."

I'm not quite sure as to what this actually means. 

Fall River, like many other municipalities and counties, may have rebuilt their city hall (or county office building). Just about any building put up before the 1960s will NOT have air conditioning, or modern insulation. There are very few buildings from the 18th or early 19th century standing. Its just how history and time operate.

Even the White House was rebuilt in the late 1940s (remember?). So please don't weep for renewal and rebuilding, that's just the way it goes. IMO
...
Those with different feelings are allowed to express them. But the town rulers will count votes and money before your wishes.
Did anyone stop Andy from tearing down those buildings when he put up the "AJ Borden Building"? What about the Farrington/Churchill or Kelley homes?

(Message last edited Apr-12th-03  11:06 AM.)

Who's weeping? Simply commenting.

That so few pre-1900 buildings are standing is even MORE reason to try to save the ones that have value.  Urban renewal does not have to mean the destruction of a city's history.

IMO, the Fall River city hall was well worth saving.

Well said, Harry.

Not many people would disagree that community and individual efforts such as writing letters, showing up to speak at meetings and giving monetary support toward historic preservation have often succeeded in securing many valulable buildings, etc. for future generations.

If you think that by pouncing on Mr. Dube personally without even knowing exactly what is in his application or his reasons will do much for ensuring the historic preservation of Maplecroft and it's property then rock on, but to my mind that attitude only helps to antagonize the situation.

As I was reading your post, Harry, the mailman came and brought me the spec.s for 306 French Street to be included in the
Register.
The first page reads:

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
MASSACHUSETTS HISTORICAL COMMISSION
               MAPLECROFT

             306 FRENCH STREET
              is included in the
NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
                 as part of the
HIGHLANDS HISTORIC DISTRICT

"The National Register, established under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is the official list of the Nation's cultural resources worthy of preservation."

--Note my edit.  I have put the phrasing in order.  All that's left is 2 pages with some description of the house, lot and cursory history.


(Message last edited Apr-12th-03  2:05 PM.)