Before & After 9, 10 and 11

Here are some new 'Before & After' images of changes around town for you. I am refraining from making any comments about whether or not these are improvements or tragedies and will defer to you all to have your own opinions, without my influence.

Today's 9th 'Before & After' is at 260 Hill Street. Above is a photo of the front of the house taken in March of 2011. It is a common house type from the 1920s-30s that occur all over the village, but which are quickly disappearing. Some have been renovated and added onto instead of being demolished, so the type won't completely disappear altogether, which is good.

Below is the new house at 260 Hill Street. It is not quite finished, but I thought I'd snap a quick photo before the hedges go in along the front!  I haven't included any context, which I believe one should always take into consideration when opining about whether any work of architecture is a success. I will try to find the time to add photos of the houses on each side in the next day or so.

Today's 10th 'Before & After' is 200 Little Plains Road. Below is an image of the home taken in April of 2011. The house to the immediate south (right) was its virtual twin, and others in the vicinity share a lot of similarities.

Below is a photo of 200 Little Plains Road taken this past February. Again, it's not quite finished, but the overall form is complete enough, in my opinion, to determine whether or not this is an improvement.





Finally, today's 11th 'Before & After' is at 31 Huntting Street. Below is a photograph of the street view taken in August of 2010. This is the same type of house as the first (9th) example above, at 260 Hill Street except its front porch has not been enclosed. My old neighbor, who moved away to Florida awhile ago, used to live in a very similar house, before it was torn down and replaced. (Hmm, I see that doing a 'Look-Alikes' about this house type might be interesting one of these days!)

The photo below is 31 Huntting Street under renovation, and nearly complete except for landscaping, taken in January of this year. It's hard to tell it's the same house, isn't it?

The house's hierarchy is confusing - it's as if the front twin gables are fighting with the larger side gable for superiority. The attic level shed dormer is too high, and the three-over-one light cuts are interesting, but two-over-one would have been more traditional and contextually appropriate. It's nice that they chose to renovate though, instead of demolish.

I guess I couldn't resist inserting a bit of my own opinion in there somewhere! Ha! Oh well.

Stay tuned for the next post, about the thrilling discovery of an old surviving village schoolhouse on Halsey Street!

"Madame Armande" and the Portable Building Scheme

For many years I have been intrigued with the home and barn at 32 Armande Street. Recently I set out to look into the property’s past, and ultimately learned so much more than the history behind its buildings.

The house (above) faces east, toward nearby Halsey Street, because at the time, Armande Street was not a road. What eventually became Armande Street started out as a short driveway off of Halsey Street as a means to access this home’s property. Built about 1910 for Mr. and Mrs. Julian Kleisler, it is a two-and-a-half story residence with two internal symmetrically placed chimneys and a three-bay wide front porch with a flat roof. It has double-hung windows throughout with two-over-two divided lights, many of which have been replaced. It rests on a brick foundation and is clad with cedar shingle siding and an asphalt roof. A small central front-facing cross gable decorates the eastern elevation and is embellished with a single double-hung window. 

Five feet away from the south side of the rear elevation sits the barn (above), which I learned from the last owner (Colleen M. Laski, 1927-2010), was once a summer kitchen.  It is one-and-a-half story in height and is attached to the house by a bracketed shed canopy over the home’s back door. It is clad with vertical cedar planks with a scalloped detail on the gable ends at the roof’s plate height. This was a decorative way to address the fact that there were not boards long enough to clad the whole east and west sides of the building without a seam somewhere and intersects the mid-point of the two-over-two double-hung window on the second story perfectly.

The house seems earlier to me than 1910 but I can’t say why – just a hunch. In fact, it reminds me a lot of #90 Meetinghouse Lane (above) which I believe was built slightly earlier, circa 1900. Perhaps the house at 32 Armande was moved to its present location, and maybe the barn was too. In the early 1800s agricultural publications advised farmers to attach their “back houses” to their homes for convenience. The summer kitchen removed the hot cooking function out of the house for the warmer months but also accommodated such uses as laundry functions and candle-making. The upstairs would have been used as summer bedrooms for children, staff, or general storage.  But after further research, I’m not sure this was always and only a summer kitchen either. Additionally, there is another barn almost exactly like it at 57 Walnut Street (below, which is now under renovation; note the interesting blue paint color revealed when a later layer of siding was removed.).

The Kleislers were French, arriving in the United States in 1881 and 1890 respectively. Mrs. Kleisler’s first name was Armande – and now we know how Armande Street got its name.  “Madame Armande,” as she was locally known, was a noted dressmaker and milliner and had a thriving business in Southampton Village before retiring just before the turn of the century. Between 1894 and 1902 she had her own building (below) erected on the west side Main Street, called the “Kleisler block.” This building still survives and is two-and-a-half stories in height with arched windows on the third story and pedimented windows on the second. When the inventory of historic structures was performed in the late 1970s, it was considered “an important and unique Shingle-style commercial building.” The building is now known as the Cameron building, at #83-87, after a later owner. In fact, in 1902 Mr. Cameron owned a building immediately to the north, and later built another out of brick to the south. In case you are wondering, this Cameron family is not related to the Camerons which owned the cottage at 436 Gin Lane.

Despite owning their home on Armande Street and their commercial building on Main Street, the Kleislers lived on Hill Street, in another home that still survives today, at #200 (below). It is in wonderful condition and is a rambling two-story Shingle-style home with some beautiful twelve-over-one double-hung windows, a porte-cochere, and an octagonal tower which must catch great sunlight from the south and east.

Sometimes when I set out to learn more about a particular piece of property, the history behind it is disappointing and the architecture outshines the lives that occupied the structure(s). But other times, the history turns out to be utterly fascinating, at least to me, and this has certainly been the case, prompted by 32 Armande Street. 

The really interesting part was in reading the following article, originally published in the Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Dec. 18, 1900. “End of Southampton’s Anti-Saloon Warfare: Temperance Folks Win and Boniface Hawkins Surrenders His License: Portable House Scheme Fails: Villagers Say That Nine Raines Law Hotels Are Quite Enough for Southampton – Want No More.” (Special to the Eagle)

Southampton, L.I., December 18; “There is great rejoicing here among the temperance folks over the victory in securing the surrender of the license granted last week to A. B. Hawkins, whose attempt to open a Raines law hotel bar in the Kleisler Block, on Main street, has been the sole topic for the past ten days.

About three years ago, Hawkins came to Southampton. A year ago he opened a boarding house on the second and third floors of the Kleisler Block, known as the Atlantic Hotel, and it was his intention, so he told the Eagle representative last night, to open a café and restaurant in connection therewith in the ground floor in the store formerly used by Mrs. Julius Kleisler as a millinery and dressmaking establishment. The fact that Hawkins wanted to increase the number of places where spirituous liquors would b dispensed, aroused the indignation of the good Southampton folks and, although Hawkins tried to pacify them with the tale that he did not intend in keep open on Sunday, he failed to gain support to his scheme.

Two years ago the electors of the town voted that only drug stores and hotels could be licensed, with the result that Southampton became noted as a semi-temperance town, though with a record of nine so called hotels holding licenses under what now appears in the Southampton folks the most peculiar instrument on New York’s statue books, and which came in for a large share of criticism last night, during the tour of the Eagle reporter among the residents.

When Hawkins endeavored to secure the necessary consents of two-thirds of the owners of property occupied exclusively as places of residence, he met with sharp rebuffs. His business neighbors, Ormiston C. Gardner, W. F. Howell, Mrs. R. W. Enoch, Garrett Pullis, S. W. Barteau, Alexander Cameron and others, although anxious to oppose the opening of a saloon adjoining them, were powerless. It was claimed they were not within the pale of the law because, although their residences were within the 200 feet limit, the fact that their business places formed part of their buildings placed them outside of the section of the law specifying “owners of property occupied exclusively as residences.”

However, undaunted, the opposing forces led by Mr. Gardner, secured the aid of the four Misses Sayre, Edgar Sayre and Josiah Foster, who own on the opposite side of the street, and W. E. Ellsworth, who owns on the same side of the street as Hawkins. The Kleisler building is owned by Mrs. Kleisler, whose dressmaking and millinery establishment has been liberally patronized by both the local residents and summer cottagers, to the latter she being known as Madame Armande, the sign in front of the now empty store being the only evidence of Madame Armande’s former regime. Having accumulated a snug fortune in the making of hats and clothes for the summer girl Mrs. Kleisler, or Madame Armande, built the present block bearing her name, and has retired from business to live on the income from her investment. Not wishing to have the store remain unoccupied and with the desire to accommodate her good tenant, Mr. Hawkins, she readily gave her consent to Mr. Hawkins’ scheme.

Having failed to get the consent of a single neighbor or property owner within the prescribed limit, Hawkins hit upon the novel idea to erect portable houses and thus thwart his enemies’ plans. A week ago last Saturday the villagers were astounded to see arrive on the regular freight the frames of four portable buildings, which it was said last night, came from Corona, Long Island. The first building was put in position at the rear of the Kleisler block and completed by Monday night, and by Wednesday noon the remaining three buildings were finished, but none of which have yet been occupied. The buildings are about 9 feet wide, 15 feet long and about 10 feet high with slanting roofs, and now present the appearance of a row of sea shore bath houses, a sight that is familiar in every Brooklynite who has visited along the south shore water front. The arrival of the portable buildings and their Aladdin-like construction was a seven days wonder to the Long Islanders.

Not to be outdone, however, the opposition forces were called to a council of war by Mr. Gardner, the outcome of which was the placing of a small house on skids, which was moved in the rear of Alexander Cameron’s block to the north of the Kleisler block, and facing Nugent place. This was one card better against Mr. Hawkins, the Opposition House, as it has since been termed, being sat in place before Hawkins had completed the erection of his portables, and as one of the villages said last night: “Why, if it was necessary, we would have put up a hundred sheds or ‘portable houses’ if you call them such.” There is plenty of room at the rear of the Cameron block, the Gardner block and others along Main Street for a small army of buildings, and the indications are that the villages would have won out at the game of “portable houses.”

Lawyer Howell, it was suggested, might move his office to the rear of the Cameron block, and Mrs. Enoch, one of Mrs. Kleisler’s trade rivals, had a laundry building ready to move to any spot desired, and it was suggested that an auxiliary of one of the local churches could be established across the street on the Bridgehampton road, and hundreds of plans for similar “mushroom” growths were quickly developed.

An Eagle reporter was informed last night by one of the local ministers that the four portable buildings used by Hawkins had seen similar service in the establishment of twenty saloons in different parts of the State. “The plan,” said the clergyman, “is to put up these boxes and put in tenants for a short time, to offset any opposition by the local people and after the affair has blown over and the license secured, to remove the buildings to another section.”

Tuesday, while the portables were in course of erection, Hawkins made application to County Treasurer John Sherry for a hotel license. It is said that false statements were made to secure the certificate from the county Treasurer but which were not known to Mr. Sherry who issued the certificate. When Mr. Garner and his followers heard that Hawkins had his certificate they employed Lawyers W. F. Howell and Harri M. Howell to take up the case. Hawkins was given until Saturday last to surrender the certificate with the proviso to abide the consequences in case he refused, and said Mr. Gardner, “It would have gone hard with him if he had not complied and surrendered the certificate.”

Mr. Hawkins, when seen by an Eagle reporter last night said, “Yes, it is true I have surrendered my license, but although I have given up the present fight the end is not yet; we’ll meet them another way.” He hinted at charges of his mail having been intercepted and his letters opened, and that by the opening of his mail his intention to open the saloon became known some time ago. He said the leader of the opposition was not sincere in the fight against him on temperance grounds, Hawkins alleging that Mr. Gardner was afraid the proposed restaurant would injure the coffee and cake section of Gardner’s bakery.

Continuing, Mr. Hawkins said: “My intention was to open a café and restaurant, which is just what Southampton needs, and the town has treated me very mean in the matter. I had fitted up the store in fine style, and expected to give the town something to be proud of. No, I will make no further attempt to secure a hotel license. I don’t think I will starve yet. I have twenty-eight rooms in the building, and plenty of boarders. I have been a resident here three years, but in order to succeed here you have got to be a native. The natives have not got the ambition to make a start in the line I proposed. Natives are running hotels in town to-day and doing as they please and sell what they like, without interference, and it is not fair. I did not propose to conduct a dive, as some would make believe.”

Ormiston C. Gardner, the leader of the opposition, was also interviewed by the Eagle reporter. Mr. Gardner said: “We were not fighting Mr. Hawkins. Personally, he is all right; his family and mine are quite intimate. It was the saloon feature we were opposed to. Had not Mr. Hawkins given up his certificate we would have made it a test case, even if only to find out what constitutes a dwelling house under the terms of the Raines law. I think my house, even if the front lower part is occupied as my place of business, is as good as any house in the village, and why a bath house should have preference over my house I cannot understand.”

The Hawkins episode has given impetus to the anti-saloon campaign just started here. A meeting was held at the residence of Captain Hunting, on main street, last night and the Southampton Anti-Saloon League was formed. Its object is the fight for no license at the coming spring elections. Mrs. Ella Bennett, who is prominent in the Suffolk County Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the pastors of the local churches were present at the meeting. The officers elected to carry on the work of the league were: W. F. Halsey, president; L. E. Terry, D. E. Ellsworth and W. H. Pierson, vice presidents; W. D. Van Brunt, secretary and treasurer, Mrs. Bennett and Mrs. George R. Howell were appointed a press committee. S. E. Ellsworth, who was elected second vice president of the league, was one of the leaders in the opposition to the Hawkins proposed saloon.

That there is a concerted movement to abolish saloons in this village is evident from the fact that the prime object of the recently formed Southampton Real estate Association, composed of some of the wealthy summer residents, is to drive out the saloon run by John Henry Hildreth, at the foot of Job’s lane and Monument square. For the past fifteen years Hildreth has been located at this one spot, and his friends say he cannot be driven away. Hildreth’s place is near the aristocratic colony, and those colonists want the objectionable saloon removed. Accordingly, the association, which filed its certificate with the Secretary of State last week and is capitalized at $5,000, has purchased some land nearby and is seeking more in the vicinity in order to gain the desired majority to prevent the reissuance of Hildreth’s license. It is said that the association raised $3,500 among the wealthy New Yorkers and sent circulars to the local people to subscribe the balance of $1,500, which was quickly taken. Among the directors of the Realty Association are former Collector of the Port of New York, W. F. Kilbreth, Salem H. Wales, Frederic Betts and Samuel L. Parish.

It is claimed that the low lands in the vicinity of Hildreth’s place are marshy and malarial, and that it is desired to fill in the land to prevent the disease germs spreading, but the ostensible object, as told by a local resident, is to make at least one less saloon in the village.” 

I don’t know about you, but I found that article very interesting for several reasons: for the comments regarding being a ‘native,’ for the general insight into the temperance movement here in Southampton Village, and for Mrs. Kleisler’s involvement – albeit potentially unintentionally – in the hilarious ‘portable building’ scheme. And it’s the portable buildings (along with the photo in the old article) that lead me to really be curious about the barns at 32 Armande and 57 Walnut. They fit the description. Were they originally intended as saloons? Maybe.

Now comes the part when I sound like a 'broken record.' These accessory structures, especially if they've been modified in the least and not referred to on the 1979 inventory forms, are very easy to be permitted to be demolished, and yet they contribute as much to the narrative of this village as the homes and commercial buildings. The accessory structures that survive today are incredibly unique and rare. I applaud everyone who has held on to them and values them!

Memory Lane, circa 1888

I'm going to take a brief pause from building histories and current events to share another old newspaper article. I stumbled upon this one doing research a few weeks ago and found it interesting for several reasons: for its enchanting description of Southampton village, for its description of Dr. T. G. Thomas' house as ugly, for its mentioning of there being only three Fair Lea cottages then, and others. Here it is, practically in its entirety, sprinkled throughout with some related photos. Enjoy.

“How breathable the atmosphere!” Tired, hot and dusty, after a long ride through flat and uninteresting scenery, how delightful to stand on the little station at Southampton and inhale a good long breath of the delightful air. Right from Old Ocean himself it comes laden with the fragrance of the new mown hay – leaving a taste of salt upon the lips, sweet to the nostrils, grateful to the lungs. Again with Christopher North, I exclaim: -- “How breathable the atmosphere” – “Dies Borealis.”

            One of the numerous conveyances in waiting drive one through the pretty, drowsy little village, with the stores either side of the irregular sreet and the dwellings straggling off in every direction, and one would think from the number of roads and by-ways that every house has its highway and each highway its own names for. At each corner hangs a gibbeted sign with a legend, as “North Sea Road, opened 1712;” “Job’s Lane, opened 1663;” “Windmill Lane, opened 1659;” “Shinnecock Road, opened 1650,” all bearing testimony to the antiquity of the town and conservativeness of the inhabitants who cling fondly to the old names.

            Southampton boasts two liberty poles and a charming old windmill (above), which stands at the junction of the street bearing its name and the old Shinnecock road, with sails spread and flapping its ancient arms disdainfully and amazedly at the strange houses and strange doings all around about it, wondering what has become of the familiar faces and the hands that built it, unmindful that they are resting peacefully in the old cemetery on the North Sea road, with moss-grown tombstones from which Time’s slow but cruel finger has erased all record and inscription.

            Passing through the village proper, beyond the Presbyterian church, adorned this summer with a new town clock, we come to the summer colony, clustered thickly around a pretty little sheet of water, once humbly designated the “Town Pond” but now bearing, with the dignity of a bantam, the high sounding title of Lake Agawam (below).

            Here we find a tiny city – a toy Newport – beautifully situated on either bank of the little lake, with the beach within easy walking distance, the ocean is full view, the sound of the breakers distinctly to be heard, not only by the people living right on the sand, but by those even at the remoter end of the pond.

            The whole gamut is run, from hideousness and bareness and glare to beauty and restfulness and shade, this last exemplified by Mrs. Frederick Betts’ gabeled vine-embowered house, Mr. Barney’s granite cottage, Salem H. Wales’ large and straggling but thoroughly picturesque home, J. Hampden Robb’s expensive dwelling, the Schieffelin cottages, the McKeevers, the Schermerhorns, the Kilbreths, the Moerans, the Murdocks, the Bacons and others too numerous to mention.

            Dr. T. Gaillard Thomas’ square, ugly, but very comfortable house (above), is most delightfully situated on an elevation immediately on the beach, and overlooks on one side the ocean and on the other the pretty lake, dotted all over with tiny sails, where the youth with aquatic tastes can indulge them to his heart’s content, his pleasures unalloyed by the terrors of squalls and sea-sickness, and at no greater risk than perhaps a sudden duckling in the tepid water.

            Dr. Thomas’ house marks the centre of what are called the beach cottages which stretch away on either side, and are delightful residences for those devoted enough to the sea to stand its roarings so very near. To the east are the three cottages called Fair Lea, one occupied by Professor Boyesen, of Columbus College, and still prettier is Mr. William Douglass’ large house and stables, just finished and now occupied by the family.

            Westward is the Episcopal church, St. Andrews-by-the-Sea, (above) formerly the life saving station, and now enlarged and altered and improved by the addition of some memorial windows, a musical bell and an eloquent preacher, for Southampton this year has the Rev. Dr. Rainsford to minister to her spiritual needs. Indeed both spiritually and physically we are well tended, for the D. D.s are represented by Mr. Wilson and Dr. Rainsford and the M. D.s by Drs. Thomas, Markoe, Delafield and Porter.

            Indeed it is a childrens’ paradise. To see the myriads of rosy-cheeked, bright eyed babies frolicking on the beach, playing in the sand, tucking up their little petticoats and toying barefooted with the chilly waves, running shrilly screaming and laughing back to their nurses, rocking in the great life boat always in readiness in case of need, making tunnels and burying each other in the clean, dry sand, makes one wish more regretfully than ever that Time is so relentless and will not turn backward to let us once again enjoy the blissful, simple pleasures of a child.

            But in my enthusiasm for the dainty mites of humanity I wander from a far more important subject, the far-famed Meadow Club (above). To tell the truth the old sight on Dr. Thomas’ grounds was far more convenient and accessible. They are now in larger and doubtless better quarters, but are so fenced in by barbed wire and red tape that, except to the initiated, they are not of much account. Even as a picturesque feature of the landscape they have lost most of their charm, for to see the players is next to impossible from the roadway, a fact that is thoroughly agreeable to the members, who pride themselves on their exclusiveness. Most of the “Pond” people are enthusiastic players, and the annual championship games are just over.

            The drives are … innumerable and branch out in every direction along the well built turnpike to Bridgehampton and Sag Harbor, through the woods by many and devious paths to North Sea and Rose’s Grove, over the hills to the Shinnecock Inn, a quaint little hostelry, delightfully situated on a bluff directly over the water.

            During the afternoon one meets enough swell equipages to remind one of Newport. Mrs. Willie Douglass with her well matched team of calico ponies, driving a spider-phaeton; Mrs. Louis Murdock, in a towering dog cart; young de Garmendia, driving tandem; Miss May Brady, pretty as a picture in her natty habit, accompanied now by her white-haired father, but oftener by her “cavalier servante,” young Stevens, a representative of the Hoboken family, whose devotion is tireless, and who is said to have secured – but, avant! This is what the dickie birds say, and too trivial to get noted.

            Southampton is essentially a place for open air sports. Except on very rainy days it is delightful to be out of doors, for the sandy soil precludes mud, and the atmosphere has always that saltiness that robs even dampness of its terrors, and it is rarely uncomfortable warm. In the morning pretty women galore adorn the beach, though the “Pond” people never appear before noon, just about the time the boarders are being packed into stages and driven back to a hustling match, more politely termed dinner.

Sad News for 95 Layton Avenue

Not such a happy St. Patrick’s Day for this house. The Irish Fannings have decided to amend their approval to renovate their house at 95 Layton Avenue and, at the next ARB meeting on Monday, March 26^th, will ask to tear it down instead. I’m guessing they plan to proceed with their original designs and replicate it (proposed drawings pictured below), but it’s tragic nonetheless. Another authentic piece of architecture lost, and another that may have been protected had the historic district boundaries been expanded awhile back – an endeavor that was supposed to occur over the last several years but which seems to have been abandoned.

In case you missed the previous blog post about this house and its twin, immediately to the west, 95 Layton Avenue is a lovely Queen Anne Style home built in 1888-9 by and for Harry Clancey. It is two-stories tall with a primary front-facing gable and a shallow side cross-gable. Its double-hung windows are symmetrically arranged and it has eaves which turn out slightly at their ends. It has an entry porch which wraps around its front and west side, a centered chimney, and a bay window on the west side. It is clad in cedar shingles which have different patterns for the first, second, and attic levels, a typical Queen Anne feature.

Layton Avenue was laid out about 1895 and was named for a beloved local Methodist minister, Rev. W. A. Layton. Before the turn of the century this “North End” community experienced a building boom and was mentioned in the local papers as “taking the lead in new buildings.”

I assume the owners have changed their minds being convinced that the house is in “too poor condition” to be renovated. I suspected it was going to be stripped-down to a frightening extent anyway. With all due respect, I know rehabilitation is expensive, but it is more environmentally friendly. Did you know that restoring a window is half as expensive as new windows? Easy for me to say when it’s not my wallet, but for every expert that says a structure can’t be saved, I could provide one that says the opposite. I really wish the expansion of the historic district boundaries would become more important to village officials; this replication trend is unsettling.

"Renovation" (Demolition)

Last December, the Town of Southampton amended their building codes to include several new definitions related to renovation. These include actually defining the words definition, renovation, restoration, rehabilitation, and so on. This was a much needed change and now provides real clarity to all construction projects, because as we have seen, "renovation" can be fatal to a historic structure.
Here in Southampton Village, we should also encourage the adoption of these definitions. I know I have spoken about it before, but now the Village can see that the problem of dismantling a building down to one wall is widespread, and others have now actually done something about it.

Here are several examples of historic buildings that have been renovated to such an extent that they can now no longer be considered as contributing resources and which pictorially demonstrate the need for these definitions in the village:

98 Lewis Street, Southampton Village, Before Renovation

98 Lewis Street, Southampton Village, During Renovation

67 Layton Avenue, Southampton Village, Before Renovation

67 Layton Avenue, Southampton Village, During Renovation

475 Flying Point Road Before Renovation

475 Flying Point Road, Water Mill, During Renovation

Here are the specific definitions adopted by Southampton Town:

DEMOLITION- to dismantle, raze or remove of all or part of an existing improvement or structure at once or in stages, including deconstruction as defined herein. 

Demolition by Neglect-the consistent failure to maintain a structure that causes, or is a substantial contributing factor of, the deterioration of building materials to such an extent that the structure is no longer safe or restoration is no longer feasible, and ultimately leads to the need for physical demolition. 

DECONSTRUCTION-the disassembly of all or part of an improvement or structure for the purpose of reusing its components and building materials.

Historic Property- a district, site, building, structure or object significant in American history, architecture, engineering, archeology or culture at the national, State, or local level.

Integrity- the authenticity of a property's historic identity, evidenced by the survival of physical characteristics that existed during the property's historic or prehistoric period.

Preservation- the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment; however, the limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a preservation project.

Reconstruction- the act or process of depicting, by means of new construction, the form, features, and detailing of a non-surviving site, landscape, building, structure, or object for the purpose of replicating its appearance at a specific period of time and in its historic location.

Rehabilitation- the act or process of making possible a compatible use through repair, alterations, and additions while preserving those portions or features which convey its historical, cultural, or architectural values.

RELOCATION-the act of moving a building or structure from one location to another location either on the same parcel or to a different parcel.

RENOVATION- any change, addition or modification in construction or occupancy or structural repair or change in primary function to an existing structure that affects or could affect the usability of the building or facility or part thereof. Renovations include, but are not limited to, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic restoration, changes or rearrangement of the structural parts or elements, and changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions.

Restoration (HISTORIC)- the act or process of accurately depicting the form, features, and character of a property as it appeared at a particular period of time by means of the removal of features from other periods in its history and reconstruction of missing features from the restoration period. The limited and sensitive upgrading of mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems and other code-required work to make properties functional is appropriate within a restoration project.

SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE- Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred.

SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT- any repair, renovation, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition or improvement of a building or structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the improvement or repair is started. If the structure has sustained substantial damage, any repairs are considered substantial improvement regardless of the actual repair work performed. The term does not, however, include either:

1. Any project for improvement of a building required to correct existing health, sanitary or safety code violations identified by the code enforcement official and that are the minimum necessary to assure safe living conditions.

2. Any alteration of a historic structure provided that the proposed alteration will not preclude the structure's potential or continued historic designation, as determined by the Landmarks and Historic Districts Board.

Some of you might be wondering, why is the replacement of original architecture with similar new architecture a problem? Because Southampton did not become popular as a town filled with copy-cat buildings. The slow disintegration of historic structures and the constant watering down of authentic historic architecture diffuses our village and town of the character which makes it so valuable and so beloved. And besides, "there's nothing greener than an existing building."

The way I see it, just as a project is considered new construction when it is improved by more than 50%, it should be considered a demolition when 50 or more percent is removed.  Let's encourage our village trustees to adopt these definitions in order to prevent continued losses of historic buildings under the guise of "renovation."