2 Photos
East Hampton Town’s proposal to designate more than a dozen centuries-old homes as historic landmarks has met resistance from some of their owners, forcing the Town Board to pause before adopting restrictions to protect them.
At least two owners of the original 15 homes that were proposed to be designated as landmarks—and shielded legally from ever being demolished—requested that their homes be removed from the list prior to the first public hearing on the law on Thursday, November 2.
Another homeowner, John Nealon of Wainscott, told the board at the hearing that he had not realized that the proposal was essentially mandatory and not something that homeowners could opt out of once it was adopted. He asked that the board allow him time to examine the implications for his family’s 17th century home before it votes on the law.
If adopted as currently proposed, designating the remaining 13 homes on the list put together for the town by historic preservation consultant Robert Hefner, the legislation would prevent them from ever being demolished by their owners. In return, each property would be granted a rare allowance for a second residential structure to be constructed on the same lot, so that a larger, modern home could be built elsewhere on the property.
The covenants placed on the historic structures would require that they remain in their original location and that their exteriors be left unaltered in any way, though they could be renovated internally.
The rest of the property could be developed as it normally would under zoning, though the historic house would be counted toward the total square-footage of living space allowed by zoning.
Historians and town officials have said that the homes identified and proposed for the landmarks list are rare windows into the town’s history and worthy of preserving in perpetuity, and of the additional rights their owners would be granted going forward.
“We’re trying to save history and the character of our town,” Councilwoman Sylvia Overby said. “Yes, you can move buildings around, but part of what is important here is the setting. If you start moving buildings around, you lose that setting.”
Indeed, Mr. Nealon acknowledged that in the eyes of some possible future owner of his property on Wainscott Hollow Road, his family’s farmhouse—with its low ceilings and floors that slope in places with the ground beneath them—would probably be seen as a worthless impediment to the kind of modern estate that a more typical south-of-the-highway property owner has in mind these days.
“I’m very happy with my 2,000-square-foot, 320-year-old house,” Mr. Nealon said, adding in a later conversation that the law “may be the only way the house gets saved.
“The real estate is very valuable,” he continued. “But the house, to most people, the house is worthless.”
Mr. Nealon, a descendant of the Strong family, said that his property is 5 acres, so it would be eligible to be developed with the maximum size house in the town, which is 20,000 square feet. The location of the existing house, which sits generally at the center and highest spot on the land, would very likely diminish the market value of the property if it could not be moved, since a new house would have to be set to one side of the property and could be limited somewhat by setbacks.
Though he has no plans to sell in the near future, Mr. Nealon told the board that he could not yet support having his house placed on the landmarks list.
Most of the homes on the list, its drafters have said, would be in the same position as Mr. Nealon’s house and almost certainly be targeted for demolition someday by future owners whose tastes a call for larger, more modern home that the land they stand on could accommodate. By allowing a larger house to be constructed on the lot, separate from the historic structure, the board has said there would still be the opportunity for modern development, with the bonus of a second livable residence, a rare asset on residential properties.
But that rare asset, other critics said, eviscerates one of the basics of zoning.
“The problem with what you are proposing is it would do violence to the standard of one house per property,” said David Buda, a Springs resident and frequent board policy critic. “Accessory structures should not be dwellings. Anything you call an accessory structure, and allow living in it, is mind-boggling.”
Mr. Buda suggested that the carrot that could be offered with the landmark would be to allow the property to be subdivided and the larger house to be built on a legally separate property.
At last week’s public hearing, the legislation the board was reviewing applied only to 13 houses, rather than the 15 Mr. Hefner had originally recommended to the board. The two removed were 6 Wainscott Main Street and 869 Fireplace Road.
The Wainscott Main Street house was dropped from the list at Mr. Hefner’s recommendation because it was in the process of being sold. The old and new owners are both anonymous limited liability companies. The Fireplace Road house was removed, also at Mr. Hefner’s recommendation, because the owners, David and Julie Talmage, requested that they not be included.
After the hearing, the board decided to discuss the legislation further at a future work session.
Supervisor Larry Cantwell said later that while the board does not want to rob the owners of the properties of their rights without their input, he does believe that the importance of preserving the historic fabric the structures represent to the entire community is an important step for the board to ultimately take.
“Because we’re dealing with individual houses here, as compared to an entire zoning district, I think the board has to take into consideration individual reasons why someone may object,” Mr. Cantwell said. “But the board can make value judgments over the objections of a homeowner if it sees a need. So there is a judgment call in terms of the importance of some of these houses for the board to consider.”
on Nov 7, 2017