Preservation group criticizes the demolition of Brewster House

Preservation Long Island, a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving Long Island’s cultural heritage, says the city of Southampton must prepare a full environmental impact statement before demolishing the Brewster House in Flanders.

City council approved the acquisition and demolition of the historic structure last month for the preservation of water quality, using money from the Community Preservation Fund. The acquisition was paid for with CPF money allocated to water quality projects, but its demolition will be financed from the CPF general fund.

The building has been a point of contention for years and has been neglected since it was badly damaged by a fire in 1987. Its owners considered converting it into a hotel in 2016, but abandoned the project due to the apparent opposition from neighbors.

During a discussion of the demolition at a city council meeting, officials argued that the building could be a safety concern. The Flanders, Riverside, Northampton Community Association accepted the town’s decision, although they expressed disappointment that the building – which has been part of the community since 1880 – could not be saved.

Sarah Kautz, director of preservation at Preservation Long Island, argued that because the house is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, its demolition “should be considered an adverse effect” under the State New York’s Environmental Quality Review Act, which would require the preparation of a full environmental impact statement.

SEQRA’s definition of “environment” includes “the physical conditions that will be affected by a proposed action, including… objects of historical or aesthetic significance”. Criteria for determining whether an action can have a significant impact on the environment include “alteration in the character or quality of important… aesthetic resources”, according to the SEQR manual.

“The demolition of a cultural property like the Brewster House (eligible for the National Register) does not meet accepted standards for historic preservation,” Ms Kautz wrote in an email.

She added that the property “also appears to be very sensitive for potential archaeological material, although professional archaeological study is needed” to determine this conclusively. She further challenged the use of CPF funds for demolition on the grounds that the house is a cultural resource.

“Using CPF money to demolish a building eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places appears to go against the spirit (and perhaps the letter) of the CPF program,” said his email.

Ms Kautz also referred to a December 2016 city council meeting in which Southampton withdrew a resolution to ‘remove unsafe and unsafe conditions’ on the property after an engineer found the building to be structurally sound and not posed no threat to the community. The city’s chief building inspector – who presented the report – expressed some disappointment, as he had visited the site that summer and found it “probably one of the worst” buildings he had ever seen. had seen.

A report by the city’s chief building inspector, Michael Benincasa, submitted in June 2016, also said the house was safe from collapse, but described “a wood-frame building (before) severely deteriorated which has been secured in several locations throughout the first two floors “and highlighted” other hazards which are of real concern “including the risk of fire and subsequent dangers faced by first responders , homeless people seeking shelter and “haunted house syndrome attracting adventurous children”.

“The problem for me is not whether the building is ready to collapse, but rather whether the building can be rehabilitated into a functional structure,” Benincasa wrote. “I think it has deteriorated so badly that it has passed its useful life and should therefore be scrapped.”

The house had also been stabilized by its previous owners earlier that year, according to a May 2016 report provided by the city.

Ms Kautz emailed her arguments to Southampton supervisor Jay Schneiderman, but as of Monday afternoon she had had no response.

Mr. Schneiderman said he was not sure Preservation Long Island was right. He doesn’t believe the city needs to do an environmental review and he said CPF funds can be used for demolition. He added that it is “unfortunate” that the house has fallen into disrepair, but it is a “dangerous structure” which is “beyond the point of restoration”.

City law allows the demolition of existing buildings via CPF funds for the sake of land preservation, but also states that land acquired by the city “must remain preserved in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement or other instrument. which in the same way preserves the community character ”.

Mr. Schneiderman argued that there are much older structures in the community and he is not sure why there is a sudden interest in Brewster House. He said he had received many complaints that the house was a plague on the community.

“We have been talking about this for many years now – we have come to a point where we have finally come to an agreement,” he said, adding that the city had held public hearings on the demolition project. “A structure like that could be a million dollar project. I do not think this is the proper use of taxpayer funds.

The supervisor said that after the restoration, the city would also have to pay to maintain it – something that is not covered by CPF funds, according to Mr. Schneiderman. “Who will foot the bill and for what purpose?” ” He asked.

New York Assembly member Fred Thiele, who drafted the legislation establishing the Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund Act, said it was ultimately a local decision to designate a property as the point of benchmark, determine the appropriate CPF category for a land preservation project and comply with SEQRA.

“In this case, the decision to consider this as a water quality improvement project and not as a historic preservation project is strictly a local decision dependent on specific facts,” Thiele said in an e -mail. “I think the city needs to explain what in its analysis (including SEQRA) favored the acquisition of the property as a water quality project rather than a historical preservation.”

According to Thiele, the Brewster House should be officially recognized as a historic monument by some level of government and included by the city “for this purpose as part of the CPF project plan.”

Although the Brewster House is eligible for Historic Landmark status, it has not been officially designated on the Historic Register. Mr Thiele also highlighted a segment of the State Towns Act establishing that CPF funds can be used for “the restoration of acquired real estate to its natural state, including the demolition of existing buildings and structures” .

Regarding SEQRA, he said: “At a minimum, an environmental assessment should be carried out to determine whether or not a full environmental impact assessment would be required. A finding by the city that the action can have a significant negative environmental impact would trigger a [environmental impact statement]. ”

Ms Kautz said Preservation Long Island plans to gather information and speak with local preservation partners, community members and stakeholders to advocate “for a more sensitive approach to this particular property and to the CPF in general “.

She outlined a list of goals the organization plans to advocate for, including allocating tax revenue from the CPF to hire a historic preservation planner or other qualified professional to help with decision-making, planning and the management of the CPF; appoint citizens with expertise in historic preservation or public history to sit on the CPF Advisory Board; open all meetings of this council to the public; and push the city to seek advice on preservation planning from experts in the Office of Technical Preservation Services of the State Historic Preservation Office. Mr Schneiderman said CPF meetings are confidential to protect the city’s ability to negotiate properties.

“There is little or no effort to integrate historic resources into other CPF program areas, although the entire East End landscape is historic,” Ms. Kautz said. “Agricultural fields, wetlands, parks and open spaces, etc. all have a history (some date back hundreds or even thousands of years). “

She added that the section on ‘historic resources’ vision and planning in the Southampton Town 2021 CPF project plan, which dates back to March 1999, may be out of date, as’ conservation practices have changed significantly since 1999. “.

“While the” lists ” [outlined in the section] have been updated more recently, I don’t know how useful they are in terms of planning and decision making, ”she said.

Vince Taldone, president of Flanders, Riverside, Northampton Community Association, said he would be interested in speaking with Preservation Long Island to see if they can “stop” the demolition and find something to do with the building. .

“I can make a call… myself to see if I can better understand what it is,” he said. “If that only slows them down, it doesn’t really help me.

He added that his “biggest hope” for the building had been for the city’s housing authority to buy the site, but apparently the repairs would have cost too much money.

“It was a guesthouse – why couldn’t it be a group home for a number of people who need a supervised living situation where there are lots of rooms and someone? does one take care of them? ” he said.

Southampton has yet to set a date for the demolition of Brewster House. Mr Schneiderman said the city may also consider placing a historical marker at the site.