Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Demolition topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Landmarks board objects to planned demolition of 217 Rose Hill Road and urges salvage of historic materials
Summary
The Southampton landmarks board voted to object to the demolition application for 217 Rose Hill Road, a 1925 house with architecturally significant interior features, while acknowledging structural reports that the owner said render the building unsalvageable; the board recommended salvage and documentation of key elements and preservation of the property’s mature tree allee.
The Town of Southampton Landmarks and Historic Districts Board on June 30 voted to object to an application to demolish the circa‑1925 house at 217 Rose Hill Road while recognizing that recent engineering reports conclude the structure is severely compromised.
Attorney Martha Riker, representing the owner, submitted an engineering report by Maresca Engineering concluding the dwelling is structurally unsound because of extensive water damage, failing mortar and foundation issues, and interior brick and roof tie-rod failures. Architect Dean Lou of Peter Poner Architects, joining by Zoom, told the board the engineering photos show tie rods and other measures apparently holding the roof and framing together and said the combination of roof, wall and foundation defects make rehabilitation impractical: “our biggest concern is the roof…there are photos of these tie rods … the whole building is trying to pull away,” Lou said.
Susan Sherry Clark, who compiled historical research and led a site visit, told the board the house has an assessor AYB of 1925 and was featured in a 1932 Architectural Record; it was attributed in archival material to architects Frank Goodwilly and William Edgar Moran and retains substantial original interior woodwork, mantels and built‑ins. Clark said the building “would meet one or more” town landmark criteria based on distinguishing architectural characteristics and noted the property’s five‑plus acres and the avenue of mature trees that frame the approach.
After extended discussion — in which several members said the house appears to have suffered long‑term neglect yet also acknowledged the engineering evidence — the board agreed to register a formal objection to the demolition and to recommend salvage and reuse of historically significant materials where feasible, and to urge preservation of the entry allee of trees. The board’s objection is advisory: the property is not town‑designated as a landmark, and the board’s position does not itself block a demolition permit.
The board asked staff to draft a written response that will (a) register the board’s objection to the loss of the historic structure, (b) note the owner’s engineering evidence and the house’s poor condition, (c) recommend salvage of interior features (mantels, hardware, lighting fixtures, and other distinctive fabric) for donation to historical societies or reuse, and (d) request retention of the mature tree allee. Susan Sherry Clark will prepare and circulate the letter for board review next week.
Board members voted to approve the objection-and-salvage response by motion; as recorded in the transcript the motion carried without roll‑call tally. The board noted that even with an objection the demolition may proceed under town procedures if the property owner meets permitting requirements.
