Controversy over historical marker in Allentown in Buffalo

The monument was erected in 1932 on the grounds of the ivy-covered Church of the Ascension, located at 16 Linwood Ave. at North Street, by the Buffalo Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution, also known as DAR. On May 10, Peter Johnson, DAR’s handyman, removed the weathered marker along with the wooden post to which it was attached.

This happened while the new owner of the 1872 Gothic Revival church, John Daly, was in a downtown office closing on the sandstone property Medina purchased with his sister Melissa Littlefield for $450 000 $.

Daly learned about it because Johnson posted photos of the removal on Buffalo Rehab and Reuse’s Facebook page, writing, “I was instructed to remove it by 3 p.m. today,” a half hour after it began planned closure.

These messages angered Daly, leading him to file a police report accusing DAR of taking something that did not belong to them.

“I’m very troubled that someone on social media is bragging about how they stole it and that they had a certain amount of time to steal it,” said Daly, managing partner of the engineering firm and architecture Trautman Associates. “It is worrying that this person was not apprehended and the property was not recovered. This was a truly sneaky theft.”

Betsy Boundy, who initiated the removal of the marker as a board member of the Katherine Pratt Horton Buffalo chapter of the DAR, said it was owned by the organization and the Episcopalian diocese, which was selling the church , had given permission to take it. The nonprofit organization, which owns the historic Henry Birge House, also known as the DAR House, a Georgian Revival rowhouse at 477 Delaware Ave., wants to move the marker to Little Tony Park Sisti in front of the church.

“Our Daughters of the American Revolution ordered the marker. It’s our marker and we’re taking possession of it,” Boundy said of the group that claims descendants of supporters of the American Revolution in the late 18th century.

But Jennifer Hurley, an attorney representing Daly’s lender, said a search of the property’s title report revealed no deed restrictions or sales exclusions on file for the property, showing that DAR owned of the marker, giving the group no legal rights to it.

“There was nothing in the contract excluding the monument from sale, and nothing in the property report indicated that there was an exception that the Daughters of the American Revolution could reclaim the monument if the church was sold to another buyer,” Hurley said.

The sign in the middle of the controversy reads “GUIDE BOARD ROAD” on the first line, followed by “Directing Pioneers Coming from The East to Black Rock Ferry. Erected by Buffalo Chapter National Society Daughters of the American Revolution, 1932.”

“If you look at the marker, it says ‘erected by DAR,’ not ‘property of DAR,’” Daly said. “It never belonged to them. There is not a shred of evidence that it is DAR property.”

Gwen Howard, chairwoman of the Buffalo Preservation Board, said neither the DAR nor anyone else can remove a historic landmark without going through the proper channels.

“The monument is part of a historic site and the site cannot be altered without approval from the Preservation Board,” Howard said.

Daly hopes to apply for historic tax credits at the state and federal level when the church is redeveloped, and the marker helps demonstrate the historic value of the property. Although a mixed-use development at the former church is a possibility, “we’re in the planning stages, nothing is off the table or ruled out. We intend to do historic preservation, and the history local is very important to us.

If Daly appreciates the historic significance of the sign and wants to keep it on his property, why did DAR feel the need to remove it?

Boundy said the DAR learned of the building’s sale by accident, when it called the diocese to clean up the terminal.

Limit called for the marker to be removed over fears the church, which closed in 2015, would be turned into residential housing and the grass where the marker stood would become a parking lot.

“There’s no parking on North,” she said. “If you build housing in this complex, where are people going to park?”

Boundy never told Daly about his intentions before removing the marker.

“The diocese wouldn’t tell us who the buyer was,” she said.

Louise Kreiner, president of DAR who asked Johnson to remove the marker at Boundy’s request, was told the marker was not wanted.

“I think the new owners were going to get rid of it,” she said.

Johnson said on the Facebook thread that “the lawn that this marker was on is going to become a parking lot and the church is going to be turned into apartments.” One commenter thanked Johnson for “preserving the marker that the new owner doesn’t care about.”

Johnson did not respond to phone messages left by The News. In another case, Hurley accused him of fraudulent billing practices in a state Supreme Court lawsuit. Johnson’s counterclaim for defamation was dismissed, and a second claim for a bounty is still pending, according to court documents.

Boundy contacted Fillmore Council Member Mitch Nowakowski, whose district includes Allentown, to see if she could get his help in moving the marker to the nearby park.

Nowakowski told The News that Boundy told him that “the new developers basically told them to get rid of it.”

All this makes Daly furious.

“They never contacted me and I’m very contactable,” he said. “It’s also very concerning to hear accusations about what we’re planning to do. There will be no parking where that sign is. It’s not even possible to park there. “

Although Daly never gave the diocese permission for DAR to remove the marker, it turns out her lawyer did — but under false pretenses, she said.

“I haven’t heard anything about the sign,” Daly’s attorney Kristina Ramos emailed Donna Hartnett, the diocese’s attorney, on May 9, after a second inquiry the day before the closing. . “You can ask the owner to delete it.”

Ramos said Hartnett told her the sign belonged to DAR and she had no reason to question it. That was before, she said, that she learned the sign was part of the property Daly purchased.

“The church’s attorney misrepresented who owned the sign, likely as a result of third-party claims,” Ramos said. “But at the end of the day, the sign belongs to Mr. Daly.”

Ramos said she plans to contact Hartnett.

“Ultimately, we would like to see the sign put back up because it will be preserved as part of the historic value of the building,” she said.

John Ramos, Kristina’s husband and a partner at the Ramos & Ramos firm, believes the situation can be resolved in a way that eases DAR’s fears.

“I hope this will turn into a comedy of misunderstandings and that it will eventually be resolved amicably,” he said.

Diocese spokeswoman Rebecca Wilson said the diocese followed what DAR presented to the attorney.

“I think everyone in the diocese acted with the best of intentions,” Wilson said.

Nowakowski said he was ready and willing to help facilitate a resolution, but the whole episode left a bitter taste in Daly, who is inclined to let law enforcement handle it.

“I have heard so many lies from such a simple story and I believe (my lawyer) was misled,” Daly said. “This could have been handled in a very cordial and friendly manner. It’s very sad.”