HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/20/2010 Hearing TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
HISTORIC LANE~WARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION
APRIL 20, 2010
ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT TASCA: This is tape number one of the
April 20, 2010, public hearing of the historic Landmark
Preservation Committee on the Ramone application.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
welcome to the hearing on the application for a certificate of
appropriateness for Julien and Claudia Ramone and their house at
130 Village Lane in Orient.
First of all, let me introduce the commissioners who are
here on the dais with us. We are members of the Southold Town,
appointed members of the Southold Town Landmarks Preservation
Commission. On my left is Jaime Garretson, Ron Rossi, Mel Phaff.
On my right, Larry Jungblut, Barbara Schnitzler, and down at the
far end, Doug Constant. And Leslie is our legislative
assistant.
Let me read the notice of the hearing. Notice is hereby
given pursuant to section 170-7 of the to~rn law Landmarks
Preservation code of the town of Southold. The following public
hearing will be held by the Southold Town Landmarks Preservation
Co~nission at the town hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New
York, on Tuesday, April 20, 2010, 4:00 PM. Julien and Claudia
Ramone request for a certificate of appropriateness under
section 170-9 dated November 19, 2009, concerning the proposed
demolition to a registered landmark building at 130 Village
Lane, orient; Suffolk County tax map number 1000-18-5-6. The
Landmarks Preservation Commission will hear all persons or their
representatives desired to be heard at the hearing and/or
desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of
the heazing. The hearing will not start earlier than stated
above. Files are available for review during regular business
hours. If you have questions, please don't hesitate to contact
Leslie Tasca in the Assessor's Office, (631)765-1937. And this
was dated March 16, 2010.
Let me just give you a little background of the Landmarks
Preservation Commission and the code under which we operate.
The code was granted by the Southold Town Board in 19, actually
November 16, 2004. The current Landmark Commission was formed
in January, 2005, under the Local Preservation Law. The
Lan~arks Preservation Corm~ission is responsible for the
following issues in reference to a particular landmark when
considering an application for a certificate of appropriateness.
One, the demolition, move or removal of a landmark; two, the
alteration of a landmark facade or new construction in a
historic district; three, adaptive reuse. That's permitting the
use of the landmark for new uses allowed under Town Code, the
building code and the town zoning code.
I think you people in Orient are especially aware that
within the Town of Southold there exists landmarks of special
historic significance which by reason of their history,
antiquity, uniqueness, architecture and/or character, contribute
to a strong sense of identity within their co~nunity, and
provide tangible linkages to the town's historic, architectural
and historic heritages.
The Town of Southold believes it's important to afford
proper recognition to these historic landmarks and to protect
them from incompatible alteration or demolitions and maintain
them for the continuing recognition, use and enjoyment of
current and future residents and visitors to the town.
By the enactment of this chapter of the Town Code, the
landmarks preservation chapter, it's the town's intention to
meet these objectives and those set forth by the town in its
comprehensive planning documents.
Let me just review the hearing procedure. In all cases
where a certificate of appropriateness is required by the
Historic Preservation Commission, an applicant shall provide the
Historic Preservation Commission with the following information
on the prescribed form. And I'm not going to go through all the
details but it's all the information that we need in order to
consider the application. The Historic Preservation Commission
shall hold a public hearing within 60 days after receipt of an
application completed in accordance with this section. At the
hearing all interested persons shall be provided the opportunity
to present their views. Notice of the public hearing shall be
published at least once in a newspape/ of general circulation in
the town, and so on and so forth. At the hearing the Historic
Preservation Com~ission may take testimony and entertain the
submission of written evidence from any person.
Let me review in this instance the criteria for approval of
demolition which the Ramone's are asking for for their house at
130 Village Lane. In passing upon an application for
certificate of appropriateness of demolition, the Historic
Preservation Commission decision shall consider whether, one,
the landmark is of such architectural or historic interest that
its demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the
public interest. Two, retention of the landmark in its current
form or location is important to the town's history or
character. The landmark is of such old and unusual or uncommon
design, texture and material that it could not be reproduced, or
be reproduced only with great difficulty. Four, retention of
the landmark would help preserve and protect an historic
district or area of historic interest in the town and; five,
retention of the landmark will promote the general welfare by
maintaining and increasing real estate values and encourage
interest in American and local history and architecture. If the
Historic Preservation Commission determines that an application
for certificate of appropriateness of demolition shall be
denied, the applicant may apply for relief on the grounds that
the determination results in a hardship in accordance with the
procedures in paragraph 170-10.
Let me just review those. And when we are done, I'll ask
the commissioners to give us a little more background and detail
on these particular criteria.
Hardship criteria for approval of demolition, removal or
alteration of historic landmarks. If the Historic Preservation
Commission denies an application for the demolition, removal or
alteration of a landmark designated as historic, the applicant
may request approval from the town board on the grounds that the
prohibition on such demolition or removal will subject the
applicant to undo hardship.
In evaluating whether such prohibition will subject the
applicant to undo hardship, the town board shall consider the
following criteria: Whether the owner is capable of earning a
reasonable return on investments without demolition; whether the
landmark can be altered, restored renovated or adapted for any
other use pursuant to certificate of appropriateness under this
chapter, either by the owner or a subsequent purchaser, would
enable a reasonable return. Three, whether removal or
alteration is necessary or appropriate to preserve the landmark.
Four, whether the claimed hardship has been self created by
waste, neglect or failure to maintain the landmark and; the
public interest in preserving the landmark and its relation to
the historic character of the community and town. Nothing
herein shall be construed to prevent the demolition, removal or
alteration of any structure which has been determined by
resolution of the town board of the Town of Southold to be
dangerous or unsafe. And appeals: Any person aggrieved by a
decision of the Historic Preservation Commission relating to an
application under this chapter may, within 30 days of the
decision, file a written application with the town board for
review of the decision. Reviews shall be conducted based on the
same records that were before the co~aission and using the
criteria set forth in this chapter.
Let me also just review the time line that is set forth in
the Landmarks Preservation Code so people understand the length
of time that it will take for a final decision to be made.
Within one week of the application, the building inspector sends
a notice of disapproval. And this application was received on
6
the town Building Department on January 13, 2010. We hold a
publio hearing within 60 days, act on the application within 60
days of the close of the hearing, and the applicant is sent a
certificate of appropriateness or denial within seven days of
that determination. Written appeal of the oo~isslon's de~ision
by applicant to the town board within 30 days of the
commission's determination. And there is no time limit on the
town board's time for deciding on its appeal.
Now, before we move ahead with presentations, would any
commissioners like to comment, and then we'll move ahead.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Actually, because there are menf~ers of the
public here, I would just like to add a little bit of
information about our co~m~±ssion that Jim touched on, but. Just
for the record, there are seven of us. We are all volunteers
and among us we have 39 years of experience sitting on landmarks
¢ormmissions~ Three of the members that you see before you
aotually helped draft the legislation that is in the Town Code
today. In the last few years we have ,eviewed 11 C of A
applications and we have granted all eleven C of A,
applications, the bulk of them in Orient.
Our law is not unique. The Town Code in section l?0-4-E section
nine stipulates that approval o~ disapproval of applications for
C of A for demolition and alteration is within our purview. Our
law uses the secretary of interior standards, whioh are national
guidelines that all landmarks commissions use all over the
country. So our law is not unique. In fact our law is not as
rigorous as many laws that are in force in other parts of the
country. And the other thing you all should know is that every
co~nissioner here lives in a landmark house. So we hold
ourselves to the same rules that we are going to be reviewing
each case that comes before us on. So I just wanted to add
those comments.
COP~{ISSIONER GRATRWOHL: Thank you, Barbara. Anyone else?
(No response).
Now I would like to ask the Ramone's to make their presentation
roi the demolition of the house at 130 Village Lane.
MS. RAMONE: For everyone's interest, I just want to have an
understanding on timeframe for the meeting. I didn't have any
guidelines of said timing.
COP~{ISSIONER GRATRWOHL: For this meeting?
MS. P~AMONE:there are me~ers of the public that might want to
speak.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: We want -- everybody will have an
opportunity to speak. We'll be here as long as we want to be
here.
MS. RAMONE: I didn't know if you wanted to be here until 4:30
COMMISSIONER GP~THWOHL: No, no, we are not employees. We are
MS. RAMONE: My name is Claudia Ramone and my husband Julien is
distributing the presentation that I'll be giving today as
copies to the members and a few copies I'll circulate for the
public record and the public.
So basically, as Mr. Chairman had started, we've been here
before, but in the interest of everyone who is joining us today
and the commissioners who have been absent in the past, just to
kind of recap where we are today and how we got here.
Just introducing myself and my husband, the objectives of
the project; an overview of the milestones from 2007 to 2010 and
where we are today; discussion of the historical context and the
structural issues and concerns of the property; an overview of
our proposed plans; some information about the community support
that we have.
So as you mentioned, the objectives for today are to
discuss our application for approval of the design plans that we
have presented as well as the removal of the existing structure
prior to construction.
Meet the owners: Julien and Claudia King Ramone. I grew up
on Ming Street, which is actually named for my family.
My great-great-grandfather was Calvin King. He built several
properties along King Street, along with their son Orlando Star
King. My great-grandfather Henry Ming was a renowned amateur
photographer in the late 1800s. His work is often featured in
promotional materials, publications and gallery showings by the
Oyster Pond Historical Society. My great grandparents on my
grandmother' side, the Hummel's, actually owned and ran the
Hummel House across from the yacht club from the 1890s to the
early 1900s. So like a few of you on the board I also have long
standing ties here on the North Fork.
The objects for our project are to relocate to 130 Village
Lane as our primary residence. We would like to raise our two
small children in the community where I grew up close to our
family. We would like to transform 130 Village Lane from an
eyesore into a suitable and safe home that would fit in with the
character of the village. In sum, I have to say it, we are not
out of t~wn yahoos trying to build a McMansion on Village Lane
es our weekend home.
Some of the milestones from 2007 to 2010, just again a
£eoap of the three-year project we started in engaging landmark
throughout the whole process. Back in May, 2007 we notified the
commission of our intention to add a second story to the home.
We hired Gordon Price, a residential designer, based on feedback
from a number of commissioners that his designs were highly
respected and fit well into Orient's character. From November
2007 to January, 2008, we developed working plans with Gordan
Price. Mr. Price liaised directly with the cormmission's
secretary on code and other landmark requirements fez the design
development. In February of 2008 we met with the cor~nission
seoreta,y and provided a complete set of working plans for the
project. In March we contracted for an updated property survey
including the setbacks of neighboring properties at the request
of the Building Department. Spring of '09 we met with the
commission to review the working plans. We were essentially
given your verbal approval and you~ blessing to proceed with
design and were given a recommendation for Mark Schwartz,
currently our architect.
Commissioners, you acknowledged that the project would
result in significant increases in property values for 130
Village Lane and neighboring homes. June, 2009, we met with the
commission secretary again and the plans e×aminer. We submitted
additional copies of draft plans along with the property survey
and setbacks. July 21, 2009, we met with the commission and
introduced Mark Schwartz our architect and reviewed the plans.
The minutes from that meeting note Ramone residence, Orient,
discuss their plans to increase the size of their present
dwelling on Village Lane basically okay but need further
information on drawings. To this point we had no feedback from
you that it couldn't happen, that a second story would not be
possible and that the design didn't fit with the character of
the village.
From July through September we developed plans to spec and
code with Mark Schwartz, a lot of interior design at that point.
Septe~r~er, Mark met directly with the coi~nission. The meeting
minutes state Mark Schwartz showed some changes made to the
Ramona residence and noted some co~nents by landmark. He'll
discuss these co~ents with the owner before proceeding further.
Also it was noted ZBA action was required for the project.
Comments from landmark and changes implemented were to break up
the massing of the south facing rear wall of the house facing
the Constant property. We took this into account and added
lower level pergola for esthetics even though this portion of
the home is not front facing on Village Lane or part of the
landmark portion of the home.
October through November, Mark continued to liaise with the
commission and received ongoing feedback and implemented design
changes that included facade detailing, trim size, window
placement, size, shingle size and placement. November, landmark
was provided with a complete set of revised plans along with the
copies of materials that had been sent to the ZBA for variance
applications. Hard copies were provided for the record. We
also sold our primary residence so we could invest the equity
from that home into 130 Village Lane. We are now currently
renting.
January 29, we met with landmark. We had implemented
]0
changes, removed decorative panels from above the front porch.
Pretty much esthetic changes at this point. Again, no major
design changes. Landmark requested a streetscape of Village
Lane showing the proposed construction and neighboring
properties. On March 16 we had our public hearing. The
commission, you would not render a decision on the proposed
design based on the proposed removal of the existing structure.
We provided you with a copy of the home inspection report that
we had from 2007. We also provided a west facing streetscape of
Village Lane from 130 Village Lane down to the Orient Country
Store.
On April, 2006, the commission petitioned town board to
fund an inspection and engineers report and here we are today on
April 20 for the public hearing on demolition and proposed plans
for construction.
Now, just to talk about the historical context of the
property. A nu~foer of Orientors probably have a copy of
Historic Orient Village published by the Oyster Pond Historic
Society. It's a walking tour of a number of the landmark
buildings in the village. For 130 Village Lane, a structure is
noted on the 1858 Chase map at 130 Village Lane, but nothing has
come to light as to who built it or when. No historically
relevant or significant details of the structure are noted. It
is unlikely that the structure we view today is as it was in
1858 due to the extensive exterior changes on the home including
the addition of the front porch, the bay window and the
fantastic asbestos siding.
March 17, per your request we provided written response to
179, the criteria for approval of demolition or removal of the
historic landmark. Mr. Commissioner, you went further earlier
in the presentation, but again, to reiterate, our belief is the
landmark is not as such architectural or historical interest
that it's demolition or removal would be to the detriment of the
public interest. Retention in its current former location is
not important to the town's history or character. The landmark
is not of such old, amd unusual or uncommon design, texture and
material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only
with great difficulty. Retention of the lan~l~ark would not help
preserve and protect the historic place or area or historic
interest in the town. Retention of the landmark will not
promote the general welfare by maintaining and increasing real
estate values and encourage interest in American and local
history and architecture.
Moving on to structural issues and other concerns: The
property is currently referred to, commissioners and neighbors,
as lack luster and non-descript and an eyesore. Structural
issues and defects noted in our 2007 homeowners inspection
report do cite several major cracks in the foundation as a
structural concern and indicate ongoing settlement. I've
provided, again, a copy of this report. We did provide it at
the last public hearing. Again, this is noted from the
inspection conducted in 2007. This contradicts the findings of
the recent engineer's report paid for by Southold Town. The
foundation is also bowing, also noted from the inspection
conducted in 2007, which also contradicts findings of the recent
engineer's report paid for by Southold Town. I also just want
to note that no repairs on the foundation have been carried out
13
since 2007, so I'm a little bit confused as to how the engineer
has not seen these problems himself. There is also asbestos and
lead-based paint throughout the home; the front deck support
posts are rotten; the exterior finish over the entire structure
is failing; siding is damaged and deteriorated; soffit and
fascia boards are damaged, deteriorated and rotting; Yankee
gutters are failing; the roof is damaged and leaking; electric
service is in need of complete upgrade. There is currently no
ground on the system and the wires are frayed and deteriorated.
The wate~ supply pipes need upgrading. There is no insulation
in the attic or the crawl space. The crawl space ventilation is
substandard and there is no vapor barrier. The interior walls
are not insulated. There is substandard floor beam support with
locust posts. General nuisances that we live when we stay there
or have had tenants there include seasonal bug infestation that
occurs throughout the year; humidity and odor, traces of mold,
subpar electrical system that frequently results in shortages.
All the windows and doors need to be replaced to eliminate draft
and improve energy efficiency. To note issues and defects noted
in the April 8 engineer's report prepared by Mr. Fischetti. Any
discussions of renovations to this structure should consider
excavating a basement under the home. The height from the attic
floor to the top of the rafters is 6/9", not high enough for
habitable space without reframing the roof. If a second floor
habitable space is contemplated, the roof structure would have
to be removed to provide proper ceiling height. With the
additional loading of a second floor, an architect or engineer
would need to evaluate the existing foundation and certify its
14
adequacy . I was actually surprised to read that comment
because that's why I understand Mr. Fischetti had been
contracted. The existing structure is too small to be used, as
a homeowner said, the fireplace and chimney are not in working
order. As a matter of public record, Mr. Fischetti did never
consult or speak with us at any time, though he mentioned in the
report that he did.
An overview of our proposed plans: The plans were jointly
developed with landmark. We engaged landmark throughout the
design development stage and we were given verbal encouragement
throughout the process. A lot of minor and some significant
changes have been implemented based on suggestions and feedback
from lan~]ark. We have already exceeded our design development
budget in order to accommodate the request of landmark's design
changes and requested renderings and streetscapes.
In order to preserve the essence of the original structure,
the purpose of the plan was to integrate key recognizable
features of the e×isting structure as well as other landmark
properties in Orient and Southold Town. The front porch, the
bay window, the foreground floor windows on the front facade
remain and are present in the design.
Minor changes to the existing floor footprint: The
footprint for the ground floor is enlarged by a total of
75-square feet, and this is done through an extension of the
existing bay window and an extension of the existing back porch
that will become living space. The current footprint of the
ground floor is one 1,014 square feet. The proposed footprint
is 1,083 square feet. We integrated the second floor addition
with the use of eyebrow windows, which are colmmon in other homes
in the community dating from this period.
Support from the community. Proposed plans for the removal
and replacement of the existing structure have been disclosed to
our neighbors and residents in Orient. We have several pages of
signatures, I believe that exceeds 50 to 53 at this point. On a
letter of support from the residents, many of them on Village
Lane. Other residence are here in person to speak their own in
support of today.
Southold Town wants to improve tax revenues and property
values of its homes and wants to see its young people return to
raise their children here to be part of the co~nunity. What
town wouldn't. We are requesting the commission to remove and
replace the existing structure with the proposed plans on the
grounds that the 179 criteria for approval of demolition are on
that, and that the proposed construction would represent a
significant improvement to the property, neighboring properties
and the community.
Public interest and support: The co~nission's own
philosophical goals to integrate necessary and desirable changes
that are signs of a neighborhood's continuing vitality and the
key features of the existing structure as it is today.
The cost of preserving the existing structure: In order to
make the recommended upgrades and repairs to the foundation are
prohibitive for this project. Without the right to maximize the
liveable space in our home, including a full basement and full
second story, the investment required to restore the property
will not be made. We'll be forced to leave the home vacant or
leased to an economically suitable tenant.
Some of the documents that we have provided, in addition,
again, are the homeowner's inspection report. We've got, again,
a copy of the letter that dates from the 17th of March in
response to the 179, copies of the support letters and
signatures, excerpts from the meeting minutes and we have photos
of our inspiration homes, which we'll show everybody. Some of
them might be yours. Thank you.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: You're welcome.
(INAUDIBLE).
COMMISSIONER GP~THWOHL: Just for the record, let me read the
letter -- I see. This is a letter from one of your supporters.
It's not a letter from you; is that right?
MS. RAMONE: Correct.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I'll just read it. Petition of support
for 130 Village Lane. We the undersigned call on the Southold
Town Lan~narks Preservation Coimmission to approve the proposed
construction at 130 Village Lane with the understanding that the
existing structure will be removed in order to facilitate
reconstruction. And there are four pages -- five pages of
names. And the letter reads: To the Landmarks Preservation
Commission; re, proposed construction and enhancement of 130
Village Lane. Julien Ramone and Claudia King Rs]none.
The renderings of the construction and enhancement of 130
Village Lane by Julien and Claudia Ramone are certainly
evocative of late 18th and 19th century architecture. I can not
imagine a more welcoming gateway to Orient than the charming
home proposed by the Ramone's. Julien and Claudia will be
living in Orient year-round which speaks to an investment of not
only financial but cultural and civic resources as well. The
]6
17
dedication and thought that has gone into the enhancement of 130
Village Lane over the last two years is a barometer of their
commitment. I urge you to expedite approval of this compelling
project, which by any reasonable standard would appear to be
long overdue.
With kindest regards, Burke E. Libert, 1420 King Street,
Orient, New York.
Are you making additional comments?
MS. RAMONE: May I? I just wanted to say what that is.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Pardon me?
MS. RAMONE: I just wanted to say what I put up on the tripod.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Okay.
MS. RAMONE: We just enlarged the perspective view of the
proposed design along with the streetscape so anyone who has not
seen it can. And our architect Mark Schwartz will present,
again, the designs and some other details.
COMMISSIONER GRATRWOHL: Go ahead, Mark. Introduce yourself, if
you will, for the record.
MR. SCHWARTZ: Mark Schwartz, architect. I have several photos
and drawings that you have not seen. Some are of the
foundation, the condition of the foundation.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I co~mT~end whoever took the picture for
the tulips.
MR. SC~IWARTZ: It was this morning. And the building inspection
that describes the two structures side-by-side. This structure
you have not seen. The intent was really to, from the exterior,
which I believe is a major concern, the stone foundation has
been patched with mortar. You can't see the stone foundation at
all. I was in the house this morning with my level. The floor
is not level. The center where the fireplace is, is the highest
point. It slopes out one or two inches just about in all
directions. The existing walls are not plumb. That's not to say
they are falling down. We are not claiming that the structure
is falling down but it needs considerable work. The section
that is in front of you shows that we are proposing to go from
the 7'2" finished floor heads on the first floor to an eight
foot on the first floor. There will be new floor joists and we
are adding approximately an additional four feet on the second
floor walls with a similar roof pitch design. As Claudia
mentioned, the front facades, which we'll be saving as much as
possible the windows, the porch, the bay window. So reflective
of what is there now. The point of this is that when you have a
structure in such a condition and you are trying to renovate it
to a certain degree, there comes a point it doesn't make sense
to reuse what is there, in my mind, and in the Ramone's mind.
And a new structure, saving the old and covering it with new
shingles is not really going to look the same as altering --
alternating will not look the same as new, by the time it's
completed, if that makes sense.
The extent of an alteration, if we are able to add to the
first floor, new floor joists, extend the second floor, new
roof. If we reuse the existing materials and patch it and then
finish the facade it's going to look the same as new except new
is proper and plumb and level and up to code. So there is a
significant difference there, in my mind.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: We hear you. Okay.
MR. SCHWARTZ: That's all I have to say.
CO~MISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Thank you. Now, with those of you who
are here, please stand or come to the microphone and make your
comments, pro, con or whichever, we are very anxious to hear all
sides of the debate.
MS. RAMONE: One thing. I'm not sure procedurally. I have some
questions to ask about the presentation. Is that later or?
COP~4ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: That's later.
MS. WACHSBERGER: Thanks. I'm Freddie Wachsberger, as you know. For
many years I was president of the Oyster Pond Historical
Society. I'm here to speak in favor of the application of the
Ramone's. I have spent a lot of time thinking about historic
preservation, back when we were talking about CLG and
everything, and I have always thought of Village Lane as an
organic and living street. Streetscape. There are houses of
the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. And the 20th century houses
have been designed in such a way that they integrate very
sympathetically with what is there so that one has an experience
of a unified streetscape but a living one. It's not a museum.
It's a living place. I think this house will fit in very well
with the existing houses. But more, I think it presents a
specific problem, this house, because as it stands, it is of
course interesting, as an example, historically, of the
diversity of Village Lane, that has always existed. But by the
same token, it becomes a house which is not sympathetic to the
needs of a 21st century family.
So it seems to me that there is only one logical
alternative among the three that I could think of here. And
that is to allow the Ramone's to proceed with their re-building,
because anybody who would consider buying the house, I think
would be very unwilling to buy it knowing there were severe
restrictions on what they could do with it. Which suggests to
unpleasant alternatives. One is to sell it to somebody, whose
name I won't mention, but who is capable, notwithstanding the
laws of tearing it down in the middle of the night and then
applying for a coffee house now that he has parking space. The
other alternative is that it is a house, if it doesn't find a
buyer or inhabitant can be abandoned and simply decay. Because
it's not a museum. We are not endowed to keep the house in its
historic condition as an example of Orient's history. So it
seems to be frankly a no brainer that this should simply be
granted. Thanks.
COP~4ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Thank you. Anyone else? Yes.
MR. MILLIS: My name is Walter Millis. I live on Village Lane in
Orient. I would not normally approve of tearing down landmark
structures, but this particular landalark structure is, it's
ugly, to be quite honest. I don't know what anyone would ever
want with it in the first place. But it's ugly. It's of no use
to anybody. And I would say, yes, let's go ahead, rip it down
and put up something that is more in keeping with the street.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Anyone else? Jeri?
MS. WOODHOUSE: I'm Jeri Woodhouse. I actually disagree it's a
no brainer. I think it's a really complex issue and I think
there is a lot of other points that need to be considered in
making a decision. I myself live in the historic district. I
moved to Orient because I wanted to llve in an historic
district. I've owned three parcels in the district. Prior to
that I lived in another community with historic houses. I'm not
2O
2]
an architect but I have worked with builders who have helped me
to preserve or maintain what I could of the houses in which I
lived.
The first house I bought in Orient, when we walked into the
house, the basement was in a sorry state. You could not really
stand up in it. The walls were not in great shape. The beams
were all rotten and we had to spend a lot of money to have the
house jacked up and put structures to hold it up. We re-did the
walls we needed to and we cemented the floor so that we could do
renovations ultimately to the house that we felt were very much
in keeping with the original style of the house. Yes, we added
on to it but we kept as much of the architectural integrity to
design the house as we could.
The second house that I had, that house, is still, I don't
own it any longer but again, in that house, the whole back of
the house was rotten, the floor was collapsing and we had to
bring in a local builder who looked at it. We considered
demolishing it but we really didn't want to do that to the
house. And he was able to dig a new foundation underneath the
house. In the back part of the house that was rotten he
actually built the floor from the bottom up again to repair the
floor, and at least make it structurally sound. I don't own
that house. It's not been renovated, but I did have an
experience that speaks to some of the economics of these houses
and that is when I put this house on the market to sell, this
unheated, unrenovated house~ many people who looked at it were
not afraid of it. They came because they thought it did have
some historic value. There was a bidding war on the house and
it sold within 30 days. So I think there are people who are
looking for houses in the historic district and they could do
some work on that. I'm not saying this is the house but I'm
saying I think there are opportunities for people interested in
historic preservation to look at a house like this.
But I want to talk about three specific things. I want to
talk about the historic district in general, this particular
house and then something I call about the rhetoric that has gone
a little awry over this particular project that distresses me a
little bit. I think it's not, I'm not looking at it so much as
an individual house right now but as an historic district that
records a cultural and historic heritage and defines our sense
of place. So we are not, I'm not looking so much at a
particular house but what is this district that we all live in
and what does it represent. And in it there are houses that are
certainly grand houses that are worthy of preservation and there
are also some modest houses. I would not say this house is
ugly. I think it's a small, modest house that does have a value
in that it talks to some of the history of the town in that it's
a very modest cottage, probably owned by working people, and
it's not atypical from some of the other cottages that you see
up and down the street.
There is a lot of similarities between it and some of its
neighbors. Some of which have very successfully gone on to keep
the front facade of the house and renovate and keep most of the
mass of the building to the back, which is something I would
always like to see happen if it's at all possible.
Every major planning department -- goal -- in this town,
every planning document, speaks to the goal of maximizing
23
preservation and the retention of unique and historic resources
of the town. ~ld I support those goals. The loss of one house
here, another house there, an old barn, a building, a vista, it
erodes the historic and cultural qualities that define our town.
It's not necessarily the house itself has an intrinsic
architectural value or style but it does have something to say
about the culture and the history and how that town has
developed.
I don't think demolition is usually the right answer, the
best answer, because once something is gone, it's gone forever,
and it's just one more way that we chip away at our history and
our heritage. My experience is that we just can't replace one
house with another and think that realistically we are keeping
our historic integrity. It's just not possible. We are
replacing one house with another and we have to evaluate what
that actually means.
As I mentioned before, I think this house is modest. It's
not a ship captain's house. It's similar to other houses. It's
not grand, but it is part of the context and the fiber of our
main street. It's what we see when we turn into the corner of
the village. It's a structure within the context and I think we
need to consider does it have a value in terms of the whole, in
terms of where we live. The proposed design, it's a nice
design. I personally don't understand what the, clearly, what
the relationship of it is to what there is right now. It's like
some of the other houses that are in the town, in different
places. It's very similar to many of the houses we see in
Greenport or in some of the other developments on Long Island.
I actually have a family member owns a house very much like this
in Greenport. There are several houses next to it. They are
very close together and all you really see is the front of the
house. You don't see the facade. You don't see anything else.
It's more like, I would not a row house, but more like a series
of homes that have their own cultural identity, which
Are very similar, and have always been there also since the
1800s.
The fact that this is the entrance to our village, I don't
think that's insignificant. Even though it's not on a corner
per se, when you turn the corner on the right-hand side, that's
what you see. And in many ways you almost have two fronts. You
have the front that faces the main street and you have the front
that you see when you turn on Village Lane. And I don't know if
you have any other streetscapes that show that but there is
nothing there that shows me what it is I would see when I turn
around. The only thing I can gain from looking at the drawing
is that it's a very large mass on the north side that right now
you would not see because of the pine tree there. But if that
pine tree left, you would see a very large structure with no
break in the roof line and no additions on that side to break
that up. And I don't know if that's anything that people have
considered or not.
There are other houses that have been added on and keep the
resemblance to the original front. I think about the Smith
house or the Webb house down the block. Even the Militis house.
It doesn't mean the houses have not changed and they have not
added things to it, but there is something about them that is
recognizable to the structures that were there 50 years ago or
24
80 years ago or 90 years ago, from the photographs they have
been able to determine. Again, I'm not an architect but I would
wonder if there is any way that you all, and the people who are
building the house and designing the house and are looking at
the house, ever considered if there was some way you could
somehow retain the first five feet of the house, that look of
the first five feet, and that pitched roof and extend that, and
maybe put dormers, but keep something that has the architectural
integrity of what is at least recognizable on the main street.
And I think the other thing is to look at -- what I look at
this perspective, and I'm not really great at translating what
is going to be there from the plans, I'm struck by the fact the
front of this house is really about three feet off of that main
sidewalk that is right there. And I don't know what that is
going to look like in terms of the mass or how it's going to
llne up with the house that is next to and the house next to
that. So those are just some issues that I think are worth
considering. I mean it's not at all for me or I think any of my
neighbors about wanting a family to not be able to live in the
house or to find a reasonable solution so they can live there
with their families. I think we are in a village that welcomes
people, welcomes families and wants everybody to live there and
value Orient as the historic village it is, whether we've lived
there for two years or 20 years or 200 years.
And I'm sympathetic to the process and how convoluted it
might seem. I myself went to a planning board experience before
I ever was on the planning board that took me three years for
something I thought was a very simple, straightforward
26
application, but every time I made a little change, I didn't
think about the fact the people reviewing it had to go back and
review it as if it was a brand new application over and over
again. And so while I fretted and fumed for three years, it was
only after I was out of the process that I could begin to
understand and now probably be grateful for the fact that a lot
of people took a lot of time to go over my application very,
very carefully and to make it the best application it could
possibly be.
But I'm a little troubled by what I have seen and heard of
the escalating rhetoric in the town and even in the newspaper.
I call it rhetoric that has gone awry. I~m dismayed sometimes
by the lack of clarity the process has for applicants and I'm a
little bit concerned sometimes when applicants feel that the
process has not been articulated clearly enough for them or that
there is a process by which ever~oody who needs to be concerned
can look at one property together. By that I mean, in this
case, it's not a planning board involved, but there is a zoning
board involved, there is historic preservation involved. There
is an architect involved. And no matter what you do, every
change you make involves all those three groups of people. I
don't know what happens when you tear down and demolish a house
in terms of a house where there are already significant issues
with zoning. If you can build exactly on that same spot or what
you have to do in terms of setbacks, I don't know if all the
applicants know that. But I know that the zoning board knows
it, the historic preservation people know it, and yet somehow if
people can get together in one spot and look at an application
through the same lens and have a civil conversation, it might
27
make people feel a little better ~bout the prooess and might
move it along more smoothly. I mean it takes time and patience
and an awful lot of respect not only for the house but for each
other in whatever group one is in, when you go through a process
llke this, where you are looking at a major decision in one of
the only two federally recognized historic districts in our
town. And this has significance way beyond just our little
village of Orient but the whole east end as well.
It's like, the way I look at it, I might want to change the
front of my house because I see somebody else's house that I
like very much and I think it's really pretty. But I can't
take, Jamie, I can't take your house and tear my house down and
rebuild a replica of your house in my location and expect that
that has anything to do with history or historic. It's just a
new design in an old place, replacing something that has always
been there. And that somewhat troubles me. It's as if we went
down to Williamsburg where we have a lot of brick houses and
say, you know what, I have an empty lot here, I don't like this
brick house and I'm going to bring in my glass house that has
solar power and put it in there and expect that the integrity of
that whole con%munity is goes going to exist. It might be a
beautiful, wonde/ful house, but it's not going to be in the
context in which the community evolved over time.
I know that there are some people, I feel like I'm probably
the only person who will be here raising questions and not
saying yes I'm 100% in support of it. I think there might be
some other people like me who might have some questions and they
are not comfortable coming here. Some of them said to me they
would not be comfortable coming here. I think the process by
which this discussion has led to petitions and phone calls and
visits and whatever has made a lot of people uncomfortable. And
I think that there has got to be a better way in which we can
have a dialogue about these things and still live together and
go home and talk to our neighbors in a very respeotfully way.
I just want to share two things. One of them was a neighbor
of mine who has lived in the community for a long time who said
to me the other day, you know, I can remenlber sitting on the
bench in front of the historical society and watching the house
get torn down diagonally across the street, and I cried. I
cried thinking that that house was being destroyed like that.
And I can also think of the neighbor who said on to me you can't
go there and speak about this house because Ed is our plu~er
and we all love Ed and we don't want to make Ed unhappy. And I
want to say Ed is my plumber also, and I have worked with him on
many projects, and I think he is one of the most honorable men
that I have met, and I feel very comfortable that I could say to
him that I might not agree with you but I have reasons why and I
want to be public about them and still know that we can continue
to work together and live together in our community. And I
think in the end, I might have my only personal opinions, but
that's not what this decision rests on. And it's more than just
one house, however. I think it's all of our houses and effects
all of us, as we go through and listen to you and hear about the
various things that need to be part of our conversation about
houses in general and preservation on the east end. Thank you.
CO~ISSIONER GRAT~WOHL: Thank you, very much, Jeri. Are there
any other co~m~ents?
29
(FREDDIE WASCHSBERGER): If I can speak.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Please do. Remember, as Jeri just said,
we are all interested in the same goal, in preserving the
ambiance of Orient in particular and Southold Town in general.
And you have been a leader in that area and we respect your
views. So carry on.
(FREDDIE WASCHSBERGER): I want to compliment Jeri. I think she
just raised the rhetoric considerably from where it was, because
we are not talking about glass houses. I mean my feeling has
always been that these, as you know, I'm in favor of historic
preservation, but I have always felt that it has to be addressed
in an individual way. This house, as I said, is a very modest
house. Historically, it's interesting because it shows that
Village Lane was always diverse. But at the same time, Village
Lane is an example of things that have changed over time. I
think that to remove a totally undistinguished house, which is
very hard to adapt to contemporary living, and replace it with a
sympathetic house, which is not different from a couple of the
other houses that have been built in the last few decades, is
actually within the historic character of Village Lane. That's
all I want to say.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Thank you. If there are no more
co~nents, we will move on. And now I'm going to ask our fellow
col~issioners, because we have given this a lot of thought over
the last several months. We have our concerns. We are pro, we
are con. So I'm going to open it up to my fellow commissioners
to ask questions of the Ramone's, make comments of their own.
Let me just say, initiating it though, that our general goal is
30
to maintain the historical significance, ambiance, integrity, of
the area. And as you know, you are a very i]T~ortant part of the
historic fabric of Southold Town.
vision, to help you maintain that.
have some other comments?
And it is our goal, our
So Barbara, do you have, you
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Yes, I just wanted to go over some of the
project milestones that you cite here. Recap a three-year
project. You have the first one being May 16, 2007. I know I
did come out to your house and do a site visit. It was either
Mother's Day or Father's Day, I remember, coming to your house
on a Sunday, in the Spring. And at that time we discussed
adding to the back of your house. And you had a lot of other
questions about windows that we might require you to buy, things
like that. But the additions we talked about were to the back
of the house. I think it was very early, you probably had not
gotten very far in your planning at that point. Then we didn't
hear from you for a long time. And I think that the next time
that we actually got anything before us was a year later. So I
think that the first time we reviewed any plans with you was in
the Spring -- actually, that was 2007? This is very hard to --
yes, this says 2007. I think in the -- 2008, we didn't do
anything. Until, I think the first time we got drawings was
2009. I'm not sure if that's right or not. But according to
this, that's the first time you say that you met with the
co~aission, and I know we have records, too, but I think there
are big gaps when you were not engaged with us at all. So here
it appears this has been a three-year process. In fact it was
pretty sporadic on both, you know, on your part, I think you had
a few little hiatuses here and there, and we actually didn't
3]
start considering stuff until considerably later.
MS. RAMONE: May I respond before you move on to the next point?
MEMBER $CHNITZLER: Okay.
MS. RAMONE: With all due respect, this did begin in May of
2007, and it's not referring to your site visit. Actually, it's
referring to E-mail correspondence with your secretary at the
time. So this process did begin in 2007. He did work with
Gordon Price extensively. And we have record of that.
So I consider that the conu~ission is engaged, if your
representative, your secretary is involved in liaising.
consider the commission to be engaged. Copies of documents were
provided on multiple occasions. I don't think that you were
present at any of the meetings until probably 2009.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: That's not true.
MS. RAMONE: But there were a nurser of meetings and other
correspondence since 2007 when we engaged with Gordon Price.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Well, any meetings that you had with Damon
would have not been substantive in terms of design decisions or
anything like that.
MS. RAMONE: But I would consider it we were engaged with the
con~ission as he was your representative. So we were engaged
and documents were provided with him to pass to you for record.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: So you were engaging with the building
department but not specifically with us in terms of the design.
MS. RAMONE: Damon Rallis was presented to us as the secretary
of Landmarks Preservation Commission and not as a representative
of the Building Department.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Okay. In Septerdoer of 2009, you have here
32
comments from, at the bottom of page eight, co~ents from LPC
and changes implemented were to break up the mass of the south
facing rear wall. You were not at this meeting but we did have
this discussion with Mark. The other thing we discussed at that
point was the scale of the front of the house. And we asked for
a streetscape at that time. That is not on here.
MS. RAMONE: The streetscape was requested in January.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Again, it was requested several times. We
did ask for streetscape because, in an historic district context
it's very important. So we are unable to judge the massing of
the house unless we see what is next to it.
MS. RAMONE: You have seen a streetscape, I'm assuming, at this
point.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Yes.
MS. RAMONE: Okay, the streetscape was requested to us directly
in January, and we provided it.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Okay, but I'm just saying, you have here
co~ents, so I'm just adding what the other comments were at
that time. We had concerns is what I'm saying. And then I
don't think, I don't see noted here when you changed your
application from an application for an alteration to an
application for demolition.
MS. RAHONE: That would be following the March 16 public hearing
when it's noted that you would not vote on the approval of the
design based on the request for removal of the existing
structure.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Right. So that's when we knew there would be
a new hearing. In January, I think we, again, I'm not sure that
I'm reconstructing this properly, so correct me if I'm wrong,
33
but we requested the streetscape -- were you at that meeting in
January?
MS. RAMONE: Yes.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: In January, okay. And then I believe we were
going to have another meeting. Then we skipped a month and had
a meeting in March. You were away, I guess in February, correct
MS. PJ~MONE: Correct.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: Okay. That's all.
COMMISSIONER GP~ATHWOHL: Larry?
MEMBER JUNGBLUT: (INAUDIBLE). Several of the items. We did ask
for streetscapes earlier. We were presented with individual
photos of different houses. And this was prior to January. And
you were there in January, is when you heard the words
streetscape. I think before we had spoken to Mark about it.
And from the beginning, Barbara did go out to your house. She
had come back as a buddy just to indicate some of her
discussions, and then there was a long period of time where we
heard nothing. Gordon did stop by. He showed us some very
basic sketches, which we said we would consider and look at.
And then when Mark came on board, things were changed
considerably from what the original intent was.
MS. RAMONE: May I add a comment?
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Yes.
MS. RAMONE: I believe -- is it Ms. Woodhouse? Is that your last
name? I would like to co~end her for bringing up a wonderful
point, and I think is coming out now, is the lack of clarity in
communication across all agencies involved in this process.
From the very beginning, items have gone missing, things that
were supposedly provided to you for file for record are missing,
not found. And I think this is an exa~le of that, the comments
that are being made right now.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Let me make one comment, though, Ms.
Ramone. We have bent over backwards to expedite, it may not
appear so, but, for instance, we could have waited 60 days from
the day that we received your application to have this hearing.
It's less than two weeks. We have yet, perhaps not moved as
fast as some would, or you would particularly would like, or
even we would like. But we do have certain milestones that we
have to meet so that we can move on to the next. And I point
out that we, again, all have other jobs, we are not always able
to meet, perhaps, as frequently as we would like. But I think
all things considered, your situation, your application, has
moved through the system more quiokly than perhaps many of the
others have. So you may think we are an adversary, and we are
certainly not. We are very much advocates for what you are
doing. However it's a Town Code that we have to follow, and we
are doing that.
So I hope you will not feel that we are a stumbling block.
We certainly are not.
I'll move away from that because one of the things I want
to clarify, because you made the point again today, that you
were concerned that Mr. Fischetti, our engineer, mentioned in
his report that he had talked to you. I called him today. He
said, well, he was sorry if that was incorreot. He evidently
talked to your father who called you on the eellphone while he
was there. And your father asked questions and passed along
information to Fischetti about what he was doing. Well, you are
shaking your head no.
MS. RAMONE: I'll say no. If it needs to be on the microphone,
then I'm saying no. So did he speak directly to me. No.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: And he now admits that he has not.
MS. RAMONE: Then as a matter of record, it's corrected.
COP~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: But it's noted he was getting direction
from you through your father
MS. RAMONE: That's incorrect. I also, again, to go back to
Ms. Woodhouse's point about communication. I'm not sure about
what point the commission decided that an engineer's report was
appropriate but it was nothing you ever asked us for, nothing
you asked us to provide.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: We didn't have to. Our code gives us the
right to hire consultants.
MS. RAMONE: Correct. But I also never received notification
that that was your intention, and I actually did get a phone
call from my father because the house was wide open and Mr.
Fischetti was in the house. And it was -- nothing was provided
in writing. I didn't receive just a courtesy phone call, hey,
this is going on. He leaves directly with Mark, our architect,
who let him know where the key was, but from the standpoint of,
again, respect, courtesy, coi~lunication --
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I understand. But let me tell you, we
look at Mark as your representative. So the fact that Mark told
him where the key was, covered, as far as I'm concerned, covered
MS. P~MONE: I understand. But I'm speaking from a personal
level.
36
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I understand. Communications can also
be improved. And I agree with you on that. Now, let me point
out you added why we got a separate --
MS. RAMONE: Can I ask you please not point at me.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I'm sorry.
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: He does that to all of us.
MS. RAMONE: I understand that. It's not comfortable.
COMMISSIONER G~RT~WOHL: That's too bad. Your professional
engineer's report was very inadequate. It was on a computer.
There were a number of items, and the things that he mentioned
in that report are things that are so co~mtlon, and I'm assuming
you have never lived in a landmark house or old house before.
MS. PJ~MONE: Excuse me, but I grew up on 355 Village Lane and my
grandparents, great grandparents built the houses across the
street.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I'm glad that you did. But most of the
items that were pointed out in that engineer's report were
anything but substantive. You know, there is a rough wire here,
the gutter leaks, the floor is uneven. Those of us, and all of
us, as I said earlier, have lived in and restored our own
landmark houses. Those are the types of things, you go in, you
usually put in all new electrical service, all new plumbing, all
new heating. Ail those types of things that he covered, were
very matter of fact and minor, in our review. So we felt that
we wanted an engineer's report that met our requirements.
MS. RAMONE: I actually read the engineer's report and it
consisted of, I think three pages, not counting the cover sheet.
I don't know. And it did not go into detail compared to the 27
page inspection that we had done -- and I'm just going to
3?
finish.
CO~MISSIONER GRATHWOHL: We obviously are disagreeing on that and
I'll cut that part of the conversation short.
MS. RAMONE: And the goal of the engineer's report that I
understood was to actually show about the foundation because the
inspection report highlighted bowing and cracks in the
foundation, which the engineer report that was done, you know,
two weeks ago, says there is nothing wrong with the foundation.
So I'm using that as a reference document to say, okay, you have
this. But three-pages say the foundation is fine. We had an
inspection done three odd years ago and he was there for six
hours, spent a day on the house, and these are the things he
found. And I'm not understanding why the engineer didn't find
them. Then also in the report says if he we consider adding a
second story, an engineer should come in and evaluate the
foundation. So I didn't really understand why he was there.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: I'm not going no get into debate with
you on that. Ron, you had a comment?
MEMBER ROSSI: Yes, I do. I would like to bring this discussion
around to why we are here. Okay, we talked about everything
else except the fact that you are applying for a demolition.
This building contributes to the Orient national district. Our
policy and procedure manual under design principals, states that
our policy will not allow the demolition of a landmark building
unless no other alternative exists. The secretary of interior
standards advises us to repair when possible.
The Town of Southold retained Mr. Fischetti to do an
engineer's inspection. His suatmary report basically says: It's
my opinion that the existing main, single story structure is
sound and in good condition and can be reasonably repaired to
become part of a properly designed addition to keep the
character of the Village Lane neighborhood. The existing
building code of New York State under section historic building,
allows great latitude in preserving historic buildings,
especially when there is no change in use, such as in this case.
Now, in the event that you are allowed to destroy this building,
you are going to build a new building which would need a
completely new foundation. You need to p~t in plumbing, heating
air-conditioning. The whole package. It's corm]on in Southold
Town to rehabilitate old buildings. Ms. Woodhouse spoke to
that. She's had three of them. I have done this twice.
Okay, now, you can gut a building, raise it up, put a
foundation, under it and use that part of the building as the
transition to a newer structure. No one says that you can't
change a building. We accept the fact you can change it. In
fact your neighborhood speaks to that. It's been changed
through the years constantly. And change is something that is
expected. However, the law that we have requires us, as long as
the building is somewhat sound, which it is, to have this
building be retained and whenever possible, not knock it down.
Okay?
So now, that's where this discussion has to go. All of
what everyone else said an you said is fine. That's for another
hearing. That's for when you decide what you want to do.
MS. RAMONE: I understood this hearing is for both.
MR. ROSSI: No, it's not for both.
MS. RAMONE: Then I think, again, we have a co~unication problem
39
MEMBER ROSSI: We do. This hearing is noticed as a demolition
hearing.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: It has to be -- legal tells us it has to
be two issues. And before we decide on a new building, we have
to approve or disapprove demolition of the old building.
MS. RAMONE: May I ask the town lawyer to provide comment as to
what was said at the last public hearing with regard to being
able to vote on demolition as well as design? Are you willing
ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY ANDALORO: Jennifer Andaloro, Assistant Town
Attorney. You are aware that any advice the ZBA receives is
privileged. However I did mention et the last hearing that the
threshold issue here is whether or not you are going to approve
a demolition. If the answer to that question is ~o, there is no
reason to look at the design of the building because how can you
approve the design if you are not approving the demolition. I
mean that's the proposal before you, is for a demolition and a
design. If you are not going to approve the demolition, you are
not going forward to build the proposed designed building. So
that's the advice that I had given you. So yes, I agree, that
the threshold issue here, first and foremost, is the demolition.
I also told you that you could accept testimony on the design in
the event that you determine to permit a demolition. So we can
go forward and take testimony on the design aspects of this, if
you so choose. But you don't have to.
CO~MISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Thank you.
MS. RAMONE: Thank you.
4O
MEMBER GARRETSON: I'm Jamie Garretson, I live in Orient. I
would just like to make co~ent of something that threw me off
as related to this. I want to compliment, I think the Ramone's
and their architect, both the architect and designer, worked
very hard to come up with a plan that fit, close to, fit the
original footprint. So when it came up in the last meeting that
this was going from some retention of the existing foundation,
the existing house, some, I know it's maybe only in words, but
the least it was something of the original house there, to a
complete tear down, really took me a little bit by surprise. I
mean, you worked so hard to work within that footprint and then
boom, you decided that you, for whatever reason, I don't know
where that came from, you decided to go to a complete tear down.
I'm an architect so I don't totally agree with all these reports
saying the foundation can't be saved or it can't be adjusted,
can't be fixed. I have an old house. I fixed the foundation. I
had the same engineer do the report. It's satisfactory now. So
that is really what threw me by surprise.
Now, this house, the original house, even if you were to
tear it down, does have value, as Freddi pointed out. It's a
representation of the diversity of the town. I mean, you had
the middle of the town where you have the wealthiest people, you
have the commercial part of the town down by the water. But
this was right next to a muddy thoroughfare which you could not
even get across the causeway. This was sort of the edge of
town. So it did represent something. Not to say it shouldn't
change, like Freddie said, not to say it shouldn't evolve. But it
does have a part of the past. So to the words "complete tear
down" is jarring to me. Really jarring.
4]
MEMBER SCHNITZLER: I would like to also say that if we allow
this demolition, we set a precedent. How many demolitions can
an historic district sustain before it's not no longer an
historic district. I think other homeowners in Orient have a
reasonable expectation of continuity and I think that the
Landmarks Preservation Commission has a statutory responsibility
to be stewards of the district.
The proposed house will be brand new. You could build it
anywhere in America. And that is just the point. This is not
anywhere in America. This is a national historic distrio~ in
Orient. Add to the house, enlarge it. It can be done. Retain
it's character-defining features. That's what our job, we are
charged with advocating for that.
MEMBER JUNGBLUT: I would like to just read a couple of excerpts
from the secretary of the interior standards. The historic
character of a property shall be retained and preserved. The
removal historic material or alteration of features and spaces
that characterizes a property shall be avoided. And secondly,
another statement here, each property shall be recognized as a
physical record of its time, place and use. Changes that create
a false sense of historical development, such as adding
conjectural features or architectural elements from other
buildings shall not be undertaken.
CO~ISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Are there any other comments by the
commissioners?
(No response).
Anymore from the public or from Ms. Ramone?
(No response).
42
Based on that I think we will close the hearing, leave it open
for 14 days for additional comments from the public and from you
folks, if you have anything more to add. Then we'll vote first
on your request to demolish, and depending on that vote, we will
either stop the process or, if we agree, then we can move on and
discuss in more detail the design.
I think you presented all the aspects of the design that we
really need to know, because as you I'm sure are aware, we are
only concerned with those facades that are visible from a public
right-of-way, and we have heard good input from the public, we
do obviously have concerns. And Jennifer, let me ask if you
have any other comment or suggestions as far as
ASST. TOWN ATTORNEY ANDALORO: (Inaudible}.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Thank you.
MS. RAMONE: Thank you, for your time.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: You're very welcome. Thank you, again.
Is there a motion to close the hearing.
MEMBER ROSSI: Motion.
MEMBER JUNGBLUT: Second.
COMMISSIONER GRATHWOHL: Ail in favor?
(ALL AYES}.
Thank you, very much. We'll be in touch with the Ramone's in no
more than 60 days. In writing.
Leslie A. Tasca
Administrative Assistant
Historic Landmarks Preservation Commission