Should this house be saved?
Here’s what the Committee for Historic Preservation had to say about 53 Graham Road.
The front view of 53 Graham Road.
BY DEBORAH SKOLNIK
At Tuesday evening’s meeting of the Committee for Historic Preservation, just one property was on the docket, 53 Graham Road. Owners Mary Liu & David Wang put forth their petition to demolish the house and have a modular home delivered and constructed on site. A representative from the modular home company was present as well.
"I think the house was built like around 1930 or 1931,” Mary Liu stated. “The house is in very bad shape right now—even the roof shingles have problems.” Committee Chair Kevin Reed noted that the application did not name the house’s architect, which is typically taken into consideration when judging whether or not a home has a historic aspect to it. “We asked the previous owners, but they had no idea [who the architect was], Liu replied. Reed then informed Liu that the building department maintains searchable records.
Committee’s research exceeds owners’
Committee member Jonathan Lerner shared that the Committee had done some research of its own just an hour prior to the meeting, and found the architect’s name, but nothing of particular note about him. Reed then asked if the Committee felt comfortable deciding that the architect did not qualify as a master. “The only issue I have that warrants a little discussion is the house itself,” Lerner said. “If you look at some of the detailing, in the nooks and crannies, there happens to be a lot of interesting details. While it’s not truly remarkable, it just is interesting.”
The rear view of the house.
The Committee noted that the home has had only three occupants, the most notable of whom was a village trustee. “Normally, you get a feeling if a house is worth preserving or it isn’t,” said Reed. “I would love to hear what other people have to say about it.”
Committee member Jack Miller shared his thoughts. “It's a fine home [but] it’s lost some of its charm because it hasn't been maintained super well,” he said. Nevertheless, he noted, it had attracted a slew of interested bidders. “I know that when the realtor marketed it that they had 70 showings, 104 sets of open house visitors, 57 offers, and it was on the market for five days,” he noted. Addressing Liu and Wang, he said, “It’s great that you guys were either the highest bidders or the best bidders, but it's sad that someone couldn’t buy the home to fix it up or live in it.”
“Houses that could have been saved are torn down”
Miller then addressed the Committee as well as the homeowners. “We come here month after month and it’s the same—houses that could have been saved, or maybe should have been saved, are torn down. And this is a highly visible site that you turn off from Mamaroneck Road…When you plop down a modular home, it’s going to be 40 feet high, and need to be built to every build line of the lot. So immediately, you are setting a tone of the neighborhood that is, um changing in character, changing and demographic, changing in the feel. And so you [Reed] ask for comments and how we're feeling, that's how I feel.”
View of the home’s right hand side.
Committee member Lauren Bender echoed Miller’s sentiment. “It’s not really our purview here, but knowing that a gigantic modular home is going to be going there just does not sit well with me,” she said. She shared her opinion that the house is not in as poor repair its owners made it out to be. In addition, Bender expressed regret that the Committee had not had more time to research the architect. “We were not really able to find anything [on the architect], but that doesn’t mean there’s nothing out there,” she said. Committee member Sheri Geer echoed the sentiment. “I'd love the opportunity to keep looking, because I usually put in a little more time,” she said.
“It’s just ruining the neighborhood”
Members of the public were then invited to comment. After one resident posed a brief question, the occupant of 244 Mamaroneck Road approached the Committee. “There are four properties that border the property that we own, and two of them have been been acquired and torn down…it’s just ruining the neighborhood,” he said. “Although we're a half a block away from this particular building, I think it’s just time to stop all these huge buildings going up…they’re built right up to the line. There's 10 feet and then it goes up to 40 feet, and there’s no land, it’s just all building.”
Reed stated that the Committee has no jurisdiction over the matter, and advised the resident to share his concerns with the Board of Architectural Review as well as the village trustees.
Left side view.
Last to speak was the representative from the modular home company. “If this architect had done a lot in the town, if he had any historic significance at all, I don't think you'd have to dig deep into your bowels of the Internet to find it,” he said.
More time needed
Reed responded that it is a process matter, and then made a motion to declare that the house does not meet any of the established criteria for preservation. When he asked for someone to second the motion, however, there was silence. Committee member Lerner shared a bit more information discovered on the architect, adding, “I would hate to get to next month, after we allow this to go through, to discover there is some history.”
Reed said he was open to a motion to adjourn and allow more time for research. Miller replied, “I also think it sets a good precedent for future applications. The should be more thoughtfully and carefully assembled, as in the past couple of months, we’ve gotten these really ‘There’s nothing [about a notable architect or previous resident in the records.]’”
Following a vote, the Committee voted to adjourn the meeting. Reed told the applicants that their petition will be heard again next month.
VERDICT: ADJOURNED UNTIL NEXT MONTH