Southampton Village ARB Landmarking Plan Has Twists and Turns

The owner of a Walnut Street property sought permission from the Southampton Village Board of Architectural Review and Historic Preservation to demolish the existing house there and was turned down in a 3-1 vote in February. The owner’s attorney has petitioned the State Supreme Court to not only overturn the board’s decision, but also to set aside portions of the village’s landmarking law as “impermissibly vague” and unconstitutional.

Then on Monday night this week, the board, reluctantly, rescinded its intent to pursue landmarking the house, making the court proceeding largely moot — but not alleviating the attorney’s concerns about the village’s landmarking law.

In February, the question to the members of the board, commonly referred to as the ARB, was whether they would seek to landmark 54 Walnut Street or not. Because the house is outside of a historic district, the building inspector could issue a demolition permit if the board did not pursue landmarking. Ultimately, a divided board majority favored the landmarking route.

Local attorney John Bennett represents the property owner, who is identified in the petition only as Walnut Street Partners I LLC. In his court filing, Bennett called the ARB “out-of-control” and pointed to two past State Supreme Court rulings in which he said the court “castigated” the ARB for “bowing to public pressure and not following its own standards and rules.”

“We beg the Court to rectify this absolutely reckless and arbitrary, capricious and illegal behavior,” Bennett wrote.

The most recent decision he cited was handed down in March and concerned 88 Meadow Lane, a home by architect Norman Jaffe and owned by Orest Bliss. In that case, in which Bennett represented Bliss, the court ordered the ARB to issue Bliss a certificate of appropriateness so he could proceed to demolish the house. The ARB is appealing the decision.

Bennett wrote to the court that the ARB, “stating no cogent or legally accepted reason, blocked the demolition of a totally unremarkable and insignificant house.” He continued that the house “meets none of the ambiguous criteria for landmarking in the Village of Southampton” and that the board’s chairman and attorney also recognized that to be the case.

Chairman Mark McIntire said during the board’s February 13 meeting that from a legal standpoint, because the house is not in the historic district, the board does not have a strong case to deny the demolition request, though he added from a “moral standpoint” he finds the demolition sad.

“The standard that we’re up against, I don’t think this rises to that standard, as upsetting as that is,” McIntire said.

The ARB’s attorney, Alice Cooley, reminded the board during the meeting that the demolition request had come before the ARB to determine whether the “features of this house rise to the level where we would landmark the structure.” If not, the building inspector could fulfill the owner’s request for a demolition permit.

“We really need to closely examine the criteria here,” Cooley advised the board. “There have been a lot of findings on this record. The applicant has a strong record here.”

McIntire said, “The stance that we have to actually landmark the house is relatively weak.”

The board majority did not see it that way.

Member Jeffrey Brodlieb said it was a “Solomonic decision,” as the board is asked for permission to demolish a house that has some character and cultural value, as stipulated in the village code, but also has issues with its structural viability and it’s questionable whether it can be attributed to a noted architect or builder. He said he’s not inclined to see a house “that typifies a village house” destroyed.

“There are opportunities to preserve some of this house — not all of it,” Brodlieb said. “The front facade is surely interesting, and that’s what people see.”

John Gregory and Jayne Clare both said they agree with Brodlieb.

It is the very type of house “that exemplifies our village neighborhoods,” Clare said. “The facade is charming … and I do think that it could be possibly saved in some respects.”

The fifth board seat is vacant.

The ARB’s historic consultant, Sally Spanburgh, wrote of the Walnut Street house that it retains a majority of its original form and aesthetic though suffers from “some insensitive work, such as window replacements/relocations, deck additions, and exterior finish substitutions but nothing irreversible.”

Spanburgh wrote that the Havens family, active in real estate in Southampton Village in the late 1800s and early 1900s, built the house and that it was probably originally a boarding house. Its distinguishing architectural characteristics include Queen Anne style, a cross-gabled roof, an asymmetrical porch with turned posts and decorative brackets, wood cladding, corner boards and moldings, a brick foundation and two-over-two double-hung windows, according to Spanburgh.

But Bennett retorted that Spanburgh’s comments on the house’s origins were “based on speculation” and proven false by the owner and the owner’s experts. It was never a boarding house, is not Queen Anne style and was not designed, built or lived in by either of the Havens family members she had associated with the house, he wrote to the court.

The ARB voted unanimously on February 27 to schedule a public hearing on landmarking 54 Walnut Street. After initially being postponed due to a canceled meeting, the hearing was on the agenda for Monday night. However, rather than holding a hearing, the board reversed course.

McIntire shared findings by historic consultant Zach Studenroth, who the ARB asked for a second opinion. He said Studenroth questioned whether the house would stand up to landmark status.

The house is not exceptional for its architectural style or detailing and “does not meet the criteria for individual landmark designations prescribed by village code,” Studenroth wrote in his report.

Gregory said another line from the report was one of the major considerations for him: “The house would contribute to the overall ambiance and streetscape of a neighborhood included in the historic district, but the building itself does not possess individual merit for designation as a historic landmark.”

Gregory bemoaned what he called the wholesale destruction of old homes in the Village of Southampton and said a strategy is at work to pick off, one by one, historic homes that fall outside of a designated historic district.

“Over the course of time, you have nothing left that constitutes the fabric of a historic district. That’s my biggest issue,” he said.

“We have certain areas in the village that are currently not currently designated as historic districts in which historic houses live,” McIntire said. “I think that’s another discussion for another time between the board and with the trustees.”

McIntire moved to rescind the intent to pursue landmarking, Gregory seconded the motion, and it passed unanimously, 4-0.

“Hurry up and get more historic districts,” Clare remarked.