Prospect of Demolition on Prospect Avenue in Sag Harbor

By Douglas Feiden

Michael Brosnan plans to build his “dream house” on the site of a little cottage he owns at 37 Prospect Avenue. It’s the place where he says he wants to raise his 12-year-old twins, Liam and Grace, and live with his wife Joan for the rest of his life.

But first, he’s got to demolish the humble, one-and-one-half story frame dwelling that sits on the property. And since the structure has been designated a contributing resource in the Sag Harbor historic district, that’s easier said than done.

A builder-contractor and Franklin Avenue resident for the past eight years, Mr. Brosnan made an impassioned plea to the Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review at a public hearing on Thursday, December 8 to permit his demolition plans to go forward.

“I want to live in a carcinogen-free home,” he said. “I’m a recent cancer survivor, a year and a half out of treatment, and there are unsafe materials in that house that would not be used today.”

Even as he seeks ARB approval to tear down the property, Mr. Brosnan is using it as a home base for Here@Home, a charity he founded with Liam, a seventh-grader at Pierson Middle School, to provide winter clothing, help with groceries and grants for home heating oil to needy local families.

The new village code makes it very tough, though not impossible, to raze a contributing property in the historic district, spelling out narrow conditions for approval, and effectively putting the burden on the homeowner to prove why an exception should be made.

Mr. Brosnan, in his third appearance before the ARB, sought to do just that, retaining a three-man professional team — architectural historian Steven Bedford, consulting engineer Drew Bennett and real estate attorney Alex Kriegsman — to make presentations and submit studies supporting the proposed demolition of the 1,050-square-foot home. In its place, he’d erect a 2,500-square-foot house with swimming pool and garage.

“Most of the exterior has been replaced by unsympathetic materials, like vinyl windows, aluminum storm windows, and the porch is constructed entirely of a synthetic vinyl material,” Mr. Bedford told the board. “With the exception of the shingles, there is no material that would have been available in the late 1930s or early 1940s.”

If an applicant was to appear today before a state review board to seek historic designation of a house like 37 Prospect, Mr. Bedford argued, “They would say, ‘Who are you kidding?’”

Architectural historian and ARB consultant Zach Studenroth cited the home’s nomination as a contributing structure in the historic district, and he quoted verbatim its three-line description — a “simple cottage” with three bays, shingle-wall cladding, molded door and window trim, front porch, non-contributing modern shed and small side addition at the rear.

The house was built between 1920 and 1940, according to 1994 documentation submitted to the National Register of Historic Places — and the period for significance for the district in which it sits extends from 1767 to 1942, meaning properties built after that latter date are deemed “non-contributing.”

But Mr. Bedford pointed out that no building is shown on the lot in the last local Sanborn Insurance map, a bible for realtors and preservationists, which dates to 1937. Along with other evidence, that suggests the property may “post-date, or come very close to post-dating, the nomination’s period of historical significance,” he said.

Besides its basic shape, Mr. Bedford added, “It has lost any integrity relative to its age, and everything we’re looking at post-dates the late 1930s or the 1940s.” He concluded that the house has “lost integrity of design, workmanship, setting and materials.”

Mr. Brosnan obtained and submitted to the ARB letters of support from 12 neighbors, including Erin Stewart, of 53 Franklin Avenue, who said the house was “always an eyesore in the community,” and Gayle and Frederick Pickering, of 14 Prospect Avenue, who called it a “small bungalow with little historic interest” that was worthy of demolition.

“Every single neighbor supports my petition,” Mr. Brosnan said.

Mr. Studenroth, however, countered that “preserving houses in Sag Harbor is not a popularity contest,” adding, “It’s not about polling the members of your community to determine how many people want to see something demolished or not.”

As a builder, Mr. Brosnan said he could “speak chapter and verse” about the steep cost of restoring and renovating the home, saying, “It’s not pretty, and it’s not going to work.”

The village code provides a “clear path to declaring economic hardship” if an applicant wishes to do so, Mr. Studenroth noted, adding it was premature to discuss costs now since the issue at hand was a presentation on the building’s integrity.

When it was his turn to speak again, Mr. Brosnan pivoted, pointed to Mr. Bedford, Mr. Bennett and Mr. Kriegsman, and said, “In terms of going down the road of economic hardship, here’s my economic hardship: Hiring these three guys! You know how much more it’s costing me to come back in with that kind of expert advise? I don’t have that, I’m not that guy.”

In an emotional presentation, he said, “I am passionate about this property, and this is where I would like to live for the rest of my life.

“And let me tell you, I’m not a high roller, I’m not a mogul,” he added. “I put my two kids in the school district. I’ve got roots in this community. I run a charity in this community. I’ve done a lot of work in this community. And I’m here to stay.”

ARB Chairman Anthony Brandt stepped in to wrap up the discussion: “Here’s the situation,” he said. “The law says specifically, there shall be no demolition in the historic district. And then it sets out conditions for approving a possible demolition.”

To meet those conditions, the applicant submitted engineering and architectural reports, and Mr. Brandt said the board needed to digest those filings, noting it had 60 days to come to a decision, though it might not take that long.

“This is a very big deal for us to approve a demolition like this,” he said. “We’re not supposed to do that. So we came and looked, and we found that it’s not a beautiful house by any means, we understand that.”

And Mr. Brandt added, “This is not something that, if left to myself, I would consider a major issue for the village. But it is a major issue in the village: It’s a house that is listed, and we are responsible for that.”

The ARB voted to table the application and close the public hearing. It will review the issue further before making a final decision.