Parking, the structural integrity of the historic buildings and the impact to both residents and visitors to Jim Thorpe are a few concerns some borough businesses are raising over Carbon County’s proposed three-story office building and parking garage on Susquehanna Street.

Voicing concerns were Mary Shorten, caretaker, and Heather Cassidy, senior warden of St. Mark’s Episcopal Church; Josh Crownover, owner of the new restaurant MYST. that will be opening later this year in the former Blue Mountain Sports and Wear on Susquehanna Street; Diane and Chris Prokop, owners of The Times House bed-and-breakfast; Michael Rivkin of the Parsonage; and Margaret White, owner of Stone Row Pub and Eatery.

The upcoming office project proposes chipping away approximately 40 feet of the mountain face where St. Mark’s is located.

The mountain

“My concerns are the church and the parking,” Shorten said. The church utilizes the small county parking lot on Susquehanna Street on Sundays for its congregation.

She said that through discussions with the commissioners, blasting the mountain away has at least been taken off the table, “but they don’t feel as strongly as I do.”

The church’s concern is the effects that removing that much of the mountain, which serves as the building’s foundation, will have on the building down the road, as well as the priceless historical pieces, such as the large stained glass Tiffany windows, which cannot be replaced if damaged.

Rivkin said because of this effect, not only on the church, but the surrounding businesses like the Times House and MYST., one of the goals of the business owners is to have the commissioners complete an independent structural study, which the county has offered to do through the architect.

“That has not left great confidence,” Rivkin said because it wouldn’t be a truly independent study. “We’re asking the county to do that.”

He said the business owners have also reached out to the National Historical Preservation Watchlist Committee about the matter.

Diane Prokop, whose bed-and-breakfast sits right behind St. Mark’s on Race Street shares much of the same concerns because the mountain travels directly behind her business.

“We don’t have Tiffany windows and we’re not here quite as long as the church (the building was constructed in 1870), but that mountain, if you look down and see the piece of the mountain that continues right next to our building and behind our building, how would that affect our building?” she asked.

Chris Prokop said, “The age of the buildings and the historic nature and their uniqueness can’t be replaced. Buildings like these are constructed using lime mortar. This mortar becomes very fragile as it ages. The vibration of excavation and construction so close could cause the mortar bond to fail, causing loss of the integrity of the structure.”

“We see what is happening on Mansion House Hill already,” Diane Prokop added. She said cuts away from the mountain have caused the integrity of the rock to deteriorate over the years and cause rock slides.

“The foundation of our business and the church is the mountain,” Crownover said. “If they’re doing demolition to that, it could shift the foundation of our building or the church building. There are priceless buildings in a 100-yard radius of where they are doing this project. A lot could be in jeopardy.”

“One of the challenges with the damage that occurs is that you don’t see it right away,” Rivkin said. “The mortar that holds up the stone in these buildings could be damaged but not visible for years and two, three, four years down the road, bricks shift or come loose and it’s directly from what is happening now.”

Diane Prokop added that walls are already beginning to show deterioration so chipping away at the mountain may speed up the damage already.

The parking

Crownover, whose business will be next to the new office building, is concerned that the project is hurting his business before it even opens.

“Our biggest concern is removing the street parking directly in front of our business and the lot that will no longer be available,” he said. “That’s a lot of foot traffic that won’t be going in front of our business anymore. Most of the business in Jim Thorpe is walking. It’s a huge deal.”

He added that during construction, the project would affect the traffic flow on Susquehanna Street as well during times that businesses depend most on visitors.

“That could deter people from coming to Jim Thorpe,” Crownover said. “We don’t want to open our restaurant and not do as well as we predicted because of the construction.”

The group said that removing the current small parking lot on Susquehanna Street to put in a secured parking garage that only benefits county employees and not the public, will put a strain on their businesses, both with the people they serve and their employees who must now find parking, which depending on the time of year, is already at a premium.

White said her objection is because the building will not benefit the town in any way.

“The county employees are getting all the benefits while my staff, who work really hard in this town to make this a great place, are being challenged,” she said. “There isn’t much free parking.”

“This is a proposed $16 million project using taxpayers dollars and it is not benefiting any of us,” Shorten said.

Other options

The group feels that the building shouldn’t be built at the proposed site because of these reasons, adding that there are other viable options available for the building location.

These include in the small county parking lot next to the Old Mauch Chunk Train Station; at the end of the county lot near the Route 903 bridge; or Packerton Yards.

“Put the whole building in the county parking lot,” Rivkin said. “It may not be what they like, but that’s what the residents like.”

Cassidy said that a parking garage was proposed years ago at the end of the county parking lot near the Route 903 bridge, a project the business owners supported, but according to the commissioners, discussions about this possibility occurred in the mid-90s, under a previous board.

“No one is saying we don’t want a new building in town. We’re the county seat, but we just think there are options,” Rivkin said.

“These are valid concerns and they aren’t taking it into account,” Shorten said. “The ultimate goal is they find another location, but if it does happen here, I want it done as safely as possible.”