1 Photo
By Douglas Feiden
The dialogue was explosive, the tensions palpable, and the antagonists unyielding. The accusations flew fast and furiously, and the room was charged with anger, mistrust, frustration and incomprehension. Confrontation was the order of the day.
Sound like a psychological thriller at the Sag Harbor Cinema or an edgy drama at the Bay Street Theater? Actually, the scene was the Municipal Building during the meeting of the Sag Harbor Historic Preservation and Architectural Review Board on Thursday, July 28.
At issue was a fiercely debated proposal to expand the 162-year-old, two-story, three-bay frame residence at 136 Jermain Avenue in the historic district, which the board considers a small-scale Sag Harbor charmer that seamlessly meshes with the character and historical integrity of the village.
Homeowner Julian Ellison has been seeking to add on to the home with a new east wing, west wing and rear addition, retaining the 1,606-square-foot original 1854 house, demolishing a 589-square-foot non-historic addition in the rear and swelling the overall size from 2,195 square feet to 2,720 square feet.
“It’s not the absolute size that bothers us,” said ARB Chairman Anthony Brandt. “The real question is the relationship between the old house and the new house, and I think this board has felt from the beginning that that relationship was out of scale in the sense that the new seems to dominate the old.”
[caption id="attachment_54137" align="alignright" width="406"]
An application to expand this 1854 "half-house" at 136 Jermain Avenue in the historic district was denied after a confrontational debate before the Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review on July 28. Douglas Feiden photo[/caption]
While the proposed size is permitted by current zoning, it is also subject to ARB approval, and that was the nub of the dispute: The board’s mandate to preserve a historic house from alterations its members believed would make it too big, too broad and too bulky had collided with the property rights of a homeowner determined to redevelop and expand his holdings.
“I purchased this house and I thought, ‘Here’s an opportunity to restore a house so that a family could grow up in this house, so that children could grow up in this house,’” Mr. Ellison said.
After 40 minutes of acrimony, insults and sharp and testy exchanges that pitted the newly empowered ARB against an assertive architect, attorney and property owner, the board voted by a 4-to-1 margin to deny the application. It was the fourth hearing the panel had held on the home.
The fireworks began when Mr. Ellison’s lawyer, Alex Kriegsman, asked ARB member Christopher Leonard to recuse himself from the proceedings, citing a remark he made at a prior ARB meeting on June 23 about architect Anne Sherry’s family, in which he said, “I have known the Sherry women for many years.”
Mr. Kriegsman said these were “inappropriate comments about the architect, about the fact that she was a woman and the women in her family,” and that his client’s application “should be considered solely on the merits.”
Mr. Leonard said his remarks had been mischaracterized and that his comment was that he’d known the “Sherry family for a long time,” and that the family, with the exception of the architect’s father, “consisted of only women.” He added, “I find it troubling how you could characterize that as a sexist comment.”
The remark about the “Sherry women was completely irrelevant to the substance of the application,” the attorney insisted. But Mr. Leonard declined to recuse himself, saying his comment “doesn't color my ability to judge the application.”
That was just the beginning: At one point, Mr. Ellison acidly noted the “absence of an architect on the Architectural Review Board.”
At another point, when Mr. Leonard attempted to respond to a question from Mr. Kriegsman, the lawyer cut him off, saying, “I wasn’t asking you, Mr. Leonard, I know you’re not going to approve anything on this project.”
“No, no, that’s not true,” Mr. Leonard protested. “Yes, it is true,” Ms. Sherry shot back.
In arguing against the proposal, Mr. Leonard called it a case of the “tail wagging the dog,” meaning that the historic house would be “overwhelmed” by the new additions.
“It’s listed as a ‘half-house’ in our description in the survey of the historic district, and it’s somehow gotten to be a lot more than a ‘whole house,’” he said. “And I’m curious why someone who wanted a large house would purchase a half-house.”
Later, in another exchange, Mr. Leonard began, “We seem to be belaboring this, and nobody gets the point…”
Mr. Ellison interrupted: “The point being that you don’t want it,” he said.
Again, Mr. Leonard started a sentence, “For the reason that…”
This time, it was Mr. Kriegsman who interrupted, asking, “What reason is that, because the architect’s a woman? Is that your reason?”
“I don’t think this is helpful,” Mr. Leonard said. “I think we should just vote.”
Later, project architect Anne Sherry accused the ARB of stripping away the property owner’s rights, saying, “I am having my zoning rights taken away by this board because I’m not allowed to build a house of this size.”
In his riposte, Mr. Brandt posed and answered a pair of questions: “What is the maximum square footage? It’s 2,800 square feet. And you consider that a right? Well, in a way, it is, because it’s written into the zoning code.
“But we also are written into the zoning code and we’re supposed to be here preserving and protecting the historic character and nature of this village, and we can only do that house-by-house and application-by-application.”
To which Ms. Sherry snapped, “Please do not act like I don't understand this and I’m not trying to do the same thing. It’s really sad, and it’s costing tens of thousands of dollars you’re adding on here.”
Finally, the ARB voted to nix Mr. Ellison’s application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, which he would have needed to obtain building permits for the additions. ARB member John Chris Connor, who said the add-ons, while big, “respect the historic house,” was the only member of the five-member panel to vote in favor of the application.
gavinmenu on Aug 3, 2016