APPENDIX G-2 OPRHP HISTORIC BUILDINGS REVIEW & ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS - Silver Path Estates Subdivision Application Incorporated Village of ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Silver Path Estates Subdivision Application
Incorporated Village of Muttontown
Draft EIS
APPENDIX G-2
OPRHP HISTORIC BUILDINGS REVIEW &
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
ANDREW M. CUOMO ROSE HARVEY
Governor Commissioner
September 03, 2015
Mr. Scott Robin
Nelson, Pope & Voorhis
572 Walt Whitman Road
Melville, NY 11747
Re: DEC
Easton, LLC Subdivision
1868 Muttontown Road, Muttontown, NY
15PR01279
Dear Mr. Robin:
Thank you for requesting the comments of the Division for Historic Preservation of the Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP). We have reviewed the provided
documents in accordance with the New York State Historic Preservation Act of 1980 (Section
14.09 of the New York Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law). These comments
are those of the Division for Historic Preservation and relate only to Historic/Cultural resources.
They do not include potential environmental impacts to New York State Parkland that may be
involved in or near your project. Such impacts must be considered as part of the environmental
review of the project pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (New York
Environmental Conservation Law Article 8) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part
617).
We have reviewed the proposed Easton Subdivision. We note that the Evelyn Marshall Field
Suarez Estate (Easton) is eligible for listing on the State and National Registers of Historic
Places. A Resource Evaluation is attached for your use. It is important to note that the entire
estate is eligible despite the loss of the original main house. The remaining property retains an
extraordinary array of buildings of high architectural integrity. Additionally, the carefully
designed landscape including stone gutters is highly significant. The overall landscape and
array of buildings reflect the lifestyle of an early-20th century Long Island country estate.
The submitted proposed project includes the demolition of all buildings (and landscape) on the
site. Demolition of historic buildings and landscapes is, by definition, an Adverse Impact to
historic resources. This is a finding that triggers an exploration of all prudent and feasible
alternatives that might avoid or minimize the adverse project impacts. If no alternatives are
identified to alleviate the adverse impacts, we would enter into a formal Letter of Resolution
(LOR) which would identify proper mitigation measures that may minimize harm and be
incorporated into the work.
At this point, we must move forward with a through exploration of alternatives. We would
appreciate the requested information be provided via our Cultural Resource Information
Division for Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 189, Waterford, New York 12188-0189 • (518) 237-8643 • www.nysparks.com
System (CRIS) at www.nysparks.com/shpo/online-tools/ Once on the CRIS site, you can log in as a guest and choose "submit" at the very top menu. Next choose "submit new information for an existing project". You will need this project number and your e-mail address. If you have any questions, I can be reached at (518) 268-2181. Sincerely, Beth A. Cumming Senior Historic Site Restoration Coordinator e-mail: beth.cumming@parks.ny.gov via e-mail only enc: Resource Evaluation
Silver Path Estates Subdivision
1868 Muttontown Road
Muttontown, NY
Alternatives Analysis
15PR01279
July 28, 2016
A. INTRODUCTION
Beijing Silver Path Investment (U.S.) LLC (the “applicant”) proposes to redevelop the former
Evelyn Marshall Field Suarez Estate, known as Easton, in the Village of Muttontown, Nassau
County, NY. As part of the proposed project, the applicant is seeking a New York State
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit from the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC). As determined by the New York State Office of
Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP) in a letter of September 3, 2015, the
Easton Estate is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. As the project
proposed to demolish the existing estate buildings on the project site and subdivide the property
for the construction of new residences, OPRHP has determined that the proposed project would
have an Adverse Impact pursuant to Section 14.09 of the New York State Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law, and requested that all prudent and feasible alternatives be explored to
avoid or minimize the Adverse Impact.
This document provides additional information regarding the history of the estate, conditions of
the buildings, and alterations that have occurred to the estate that affect both its integrity and
feasibility of incorporation of the built and landscape features of the site. The applicant has
evaluated the potential for retaining and reusing the buildings on the former Easton estate as part
of the subdivision proposed on the site. This analysis, presented below in greater detail,
concludes that it is only feasible to retain one of the estate buildings as part of the proposed
subdivision.
B. HISTORY OF THE SITE AND SIGNIFICANCE CONSIDERATIONS
The 98.8 acre Easton Estate is located on the north side of Muttontown Road at 1871
Muttontown Road in the Village of Muttontown, Nassau County, NY (see Figures 1a – 1c). It is
composed of nine estate buildings designed by Chicago architect David Adler with interiors by
his sister Frances Elkins for Evelyn Marshal Field, and with the estate grounds designed by
Innocenti and Webel. Although the main house was demolished in 1953 and replaced by a new
structure in 1989, OPRHP maintains in its Resource Evaluation for the Easton Estate (September
1, 2015) that the Easton Estate meets National Register criterion C. Though not stated in the
Resource Evaluation, a playhouse that was original to the design of the estate was removed
sometime shortly after the second owner of the property, Bruce Hall, acquired the property in
1951. Some alterations to the estate buildings are cited in the Resource Evaluation. However,
additional alterations that occurred in the 1950s through the early part of the 21st century to
upgrade or convert buildings to residential use have impacted the original designs of those
buildings. Modifications have also been made to the original landscape design. A description of
the estate features, including buildings and landscape, physical condition and alterations, is
provided below.
1
1. THE BUILDINGS: HISTORY AND ALTERATIONS1
THE “CONSERVATORY”
The “conservatory” is an unfinished shell of a building constructed in 1989 atop the ground floor
of the original mansion that was demolished in 1953 (see Figure 2). As indicated in the
Resource Evaluation and as noted by the property manager, it is likely the term “conservatory”
was applied so as to avoid taxes on a “residence.”
This structure was built above the ground floor of the original mansion, which was occupied as a
functional part of the estate. The ground floor formerly served as the service portion of the main
house, with accommodations for servants, a servants hall and sitting room, and other accessory
uses including a store room, the kitchen, as well as the boiler room. Access to the first floor of
the house was via a centrally located staircase towards the west end of the building (see Figure
3). The ground floor has been fully gutted, with no partition walls or fixtures remaining. The
staircase has also been removed. New concrete columns have been built to support the
unfinished floor of the “conservatory (see Figure 4). The building was damaged during
Hurricane Sandy (2012).
The structure above the ground floor is an open, unbuilt space built of cinderblocks (see Figure
5, photo 5). The floor is unfinished with moss and mold growing. The roof is in poor condition,
due to Hurricane Sandy, and leaks. Original features of the main house include the curved stairs
and landing on the exterior north (formerly primary) façade, the stone patio with the bases of the
former columns that supported the house’s original grand pediment on the south elevation and
the enclosed sun porch on the east façade of the conservatory structure (see Figure 2 and
Figure 5, photo 6). A spiral staircase that led from an opening on the north façade of the
enclosed porch to the forecourt has been removed.
The original mansion served as the anchor of the estate, to which the Winter (east) Cottage and
Laundry (west) Cottage were connected via curved arcaded walkways. The house was of brick
with a mansard roof with dormers, and a large Dorico portico was located on the south façade
(see Figures 6-8). The present “conservatory,” though of brick as was the main house, is of a
different design.
The interior of the main house was richly appointed and designed, with an arcaded front hall that
contained a floor of black teakwood inlaid with bands of steel; stone fireplaces; tiled and parquet
floors, molded plaster moldings; rich wall treatments including 18th century Chinese wallpaper
and decorative plaster relief motifs (including palm trees); and carved wood paneling. The
removal of the main house left the Winter and Laundry Cottages as separate buildings.
Following the demolition of the main house, the west façade of the ground floor of the main
house was altered through the removal of three original windows and insertion of a vehicular
entrance.
Removal of the main house and replacement with a 1989 structure has substantially affected the
design intent of the original main house and its dependencies (Winter and Laundry Cottages)
and has impacted the integrity of the original estate design.
11
Information regarding the history of the estate was provided by the property manager, through a
site visit, and review of historic materials at the estate.
2
WINTER COTTAGE
The Winter Cottage, the east dependency, served as a winter cottage or guest cottage for the
Marshall Suarez family, and contains approximately 2,964 square feet of living space (see
Figure 9, photo 7). It was to be used at times when the main house was closed, e.g. on
weekends. The cottage has an exterior sun dial on its south façade (see Figure 9, photo 8). An
enclosed garden extending south from the winter cottage has an ornamental pool (see Figure 10,
photo 9). As originally designed and built, the cottage was organized on the first floor with a
servant’s bedroom and sitting room on the east side of the cottage and east of a secondary
(servants) staircase, with a kitchen and pantry, bathroom, library and living room/dining room
west of the stairs (see Figure 11). A hallway at the west end of the cottage, which contains a
whimsical mural depicting the main house of the estate (described as canvas above dado in a
property sale brochure in 19511 and as American Primitive mural in a late 1930s House and
Garden article on the property) and a tiled floor, provided access from the primary entrance on
the west (forecourt) façade of the Winter Cottage (see Figure 12, photo 11).The second floor
was organized with four bedrooms and three bathrooms, including a servant’s bedroom and
bathroom. The rooms are small with slanted ceilings that follow the slope of the gable roof (see
Figure 10, photo 10). The main staircase is located at the west end of the house off the hallway
(see Figure 12, photo 12). While the upstairs plan appears largely unchanged including some
built-in dressing tables and desks beneath the dormer windows, the first floor was modified in
the 1950s as follows:
The servant’s bedroom and sitting room—two separate rooms and a closet—have been
removed with a modern kitchen constructed in these former spaces (see Figure 13,
photo 13). The kitchen has modern wood flooring, and the window frames have been
modified.
The original kitchen and pantry were removed and this space altered for use as a public
room. In this room, a portion of parquet flooring salvaged from the main house prior to
its demolition was installed (see Figure 13, photo 14).
A large bowed window was installed in the location of a window that was originally in
the pantry (now a public room-possibly a dining room), along with the parquet flooring
described above (see Figure 13, photo 14). The original pantry had built in shelves and
cabinets.
In addition, other alterations include:
One of the guest bedrooms on the second floor of the cottage was described and pictured
in the 1930s House and Garden article as having walls hung with canvas that had
stenciling of vegetative motifs in shades of green. This wall treatment is no longer
extant.
The roof was originally of slate tiles; the roof has been replaced with cedar shingles.
Lamps affixed to the primary (west) façade of the Winter Cottage on either side of the
main entrance do not appear in historic photographs, and are later additions.
1
Circa 1951 Previews Listing (No. 41532) for sale of Easton Estate
3
Historical photographs, including from the 1930s House and Garden article and a June
19, 1979 Building Structure Inventory Form, show that the Winter Cottage originally
had two dark holly bushes on either side of the main (west) façade entrance. These have
been removed. Younger holly bushes are presently located at the ends of the building
along this façade; these replaced original evergreen trees in these locations (see Figure 6
and Figure 9, photo 7).
LAUNDRY COTTAGE
The east façade of the Laundry Cottage is of a similar design as the west façade of the Winter
Cottage, and faces the Winter Cottage across the grassy forecourt. This cottage was designed to
house laundry facilities and additional servant’s accommodations, and contains approximately
2,612 square feet of living space. According to a 1951 property sale brochure, the first floor
contained a large laundry with four tubs and gas dryers, as well as three servant’s bedrooms and
a bath. The second floor contained four servant’s bedrooms and a shower. The second floor
rooms, like those in the Winter Cottage are small with sloped ceilings.
During the late 1960s, this cottage was converted to a residence with three bedrooms and two
baths. Alterations undertaken to convert the building include:
Removal of partition walls on the first floor to create a large open plan living/dining
room and a kitchen (see Figure 14, photo 16)
Installation of a portion of parquet flooring salvaged from the main house prior to its
demolition in the area of the living/dining room (see Figure 14, photo 16).
Possible construction of the flight of stairs from the first floor to the landing where there
is a secondary entrance. The second floor was accessed from this secondary entrance.
Reportedly this was to segregate the male and female servants (reportedly men upstairs
and women downstairs).
Creation of an additional large bathroom on the second floor in what used to be a
servant’s bedroom. This bathroom has a salvaged bathroom vanity from the main house
master bath and a light fixture above it also salvaged from the main house (see Figure
15, photo 17).
The master upstairs bedroom has a steel and silvered glass fireplace surround salvaged
from the dining room of the main house. It appears that the central green section of the
fireplace surround is a replacement material as historic photographs depict the central
section as one piece of steel and silvered glass (see Figure 15, photo 18).
POOL HOUSE, POOL AND TENNIS COURT
The Pool House, pool, and tennis court were designed as part of the “Sports Group” of the estate
southwest of the main house (see Figure 16). This included the pool house flanked to the
northeast by the pool and to the southwest by a tennis court. A number of paths were depicted
around the tennis court, these appear to have become overgrown.
4
The Pool House is a one-story building with an 847 sf footprint with a basement (for pool
equipment) that has been modified from its original design (see Figure 17). This building was
originally designed with a central open pavilion with enclosed men’s and women’s changing
rooms on either side (see Figure 16). The central pavilion was subsequently enclosed with wood
siding, with the windows and doors in this section of the building on the east and west elevations
reportedly salvaged from the main house prior to its demolition (see Figure 17). It is unclear if
this alteration was made prior to or as part of the conversion of the building as an office for the
current owner (Bruce Hall) in the 1960s. The men’s changing rooms area was modified as part
of the conversion to a private office space to include a desk and shelving (see Figure 18). The
women’s dressing rooms remain largely intact with a narrow corridor from which small
changing rooms are accessed (see Figure 18).
The building is in poor condition due to deferred maintenance. The building is not habitable as a
permanent residence. It is very small, has no formal heat or insulation, and includes one large
central large space and very small partitioned areas (office rooms, changing rooms) that would
have to be substantially modified.
The pool is still extant with the diving board removed, and currently enclosed by a modern
chain- link fence. The tennis court retains most of its chain-link surround fencing but has
otherwise been overtaken by vegetation (see Figure 17).
PLAY HOUSE (DEMOLISHED)
The playhouse was located south of the pool and is shown as a one-story frame building with a
porch fronting along the principal façade in a 1951 property sale brochure for the property (see
Figures 16 and 19). The playhouse was surrounded by a decorative fence with an arched arbor.
The playhouse was accessed by a path that led from the pool via a path. This structure has been
demolished, and was reportedly taken down by the second property owner, Bruce Hall, shortly
after acquisition of the property.
GARAGE/CHAUFFER APARTMENT
A garage designed with second floor living accommodations is located directly west of the main
house and oriented north-south. The garage has a footprint of 2,069 sf. It is clad in shingles with
a central open bay flanked by enclosed garage bays, and capped by a cupola with a clock (see
Figure 20). As noted in the Resource Evaluation, the garages doors on the west elevation appear
to be modern replacements.
The garage was designed with the north side of the building for use by the mechanic (see Figure
21, photo 27). This includes the first floor space with a mechanics pit, with the second floor
above on this side of the building designed to contain a bedroom and bathroom for the mechanic.
The first floor on the south side of the building was used to garage vehicles, with the second
floor above containing a two bedroom apartment for the chauffer and family. In a circa 1951
property sale brochure for the property, the second floor of the garage was described as having
six rooms and a bath.
The first floor on the south side of the building and the upstairs were converted to a residence
and used by Bruce Hall’s son and his family (see Figure 21, photo 28). The second floor of the
structure combined the mechanics and chauffer living spaces into one three bedroom 2 ½ bath
5
rental. According to the property manager, this space has been fully renovated and upgraded. It
is currently occupied as a rental.
GREENHOUSE COTTAGE
The Greenhouse Cottage is located towards the south end of the estate property towards
Muttontown Road (see Figures 22 and 23). Together with a garage built in 1980 and adjoining
pump house (described below), this group of buildings has an approximately 4,146 sf footprint.
The original greenhouse was designed with a central brick section with a gabled roof with
flanking greenhouse sections that had glazed roofs and walls set on low brick walls (see Figure
24). The windows in the central brick section included pointed arched as are the doorways to the
former greenhouse sections on the south façade of the building. This building was substantially
altered in 1970 when it was converted to a residence. It currently contains two bedrooms, two
bathrooms, and with a kitchen, living room, and dining room. Alterations to convert the building
to a residence have included:
Installation of roofing (cedar shingles) on the full roof of the west greenhouse section
and most of the east greenhouse section.
Sealing of the west greenhouse walls with siding and installation of new doors and
windows; the west façade retains a portion of the greenhouse wall as a large window.
Sealing of much of the east greenhouse walls with siding and installation of new doors
and windows; a section at the east end of the greenhouse has been retained as a sunroom
space.
Construction of a two-bay brick garage circa 1980 at the west end of the greenhouse
building, abutting the former pump house/garage structure (described below) to the
north (see Figure 22, photo 29 and Figure 26, Photos 33-35).
Conversion of the east greenhouse into a kitchen.
Conversion of the central brick section into a living room and dining room. The living
room contains a stone fireplace mantle salvaged from the library of the main house prior
to demolition. The dining room includes a portion of parquet flooring salvaged from the
main house prior to demolition.
The west greenhouse has been converted for use as two bedrooms and two baths; a
corridor extends along the south side of this section of the building. The master bedroom
is located at the west end of the building with the large greenhouse window.
A large bowed window is on the north façade of the central brick section (see Figure 23,
photo 32). Similar in appearance to the bowed window in the location of the former
pantry at the Winter Cottage, it is assumed that like the window at the Winter Cottage,
this window is not original and is a later addition dating to the conversion of the
buildings as rentals. It is likely another doorway, matching the one on the south façade,
was in this location.
6
In addition, utility plans from the 1930s depict a walkway extending from what was likely a door
(now the bowed window) on the north façade of the building leading to the remains of a formal
flower garden (see Figure 25). The garden is depicted on utility drawings as having four
sections separated by paths. The walkway leading from the greenhouse has been removed. A
flagstone patio has been built adjacent to the east greenhouse to the north (see Figure 23).
THE PUMP HOUSE/GARAGE
The pump house/garage building is a 1 ½ story cinderblock gabled roof building (see Figure
26). The building has two round arched vehicular openings on its north façade; one of the
openings retains what appear to be original wood doors that are in poor condition. There is also
an entrance and two windows on this façade. A bull’s eye window divided into four lights is on
the west façade of the building at the gable. A similar opening on the east façade has been
sealed. The south and west facades contain two windows at ground level. The building has
further been altered through its attachment with the one-story brick garage built in 1980, which
obscures a portion of its south façade.
CARETAKER’S (POND OR GARDENER’S) COTTAGE
The Caretaker’s Cottage has a 688 sf footprint and contains approximately 1,376 square feet of
living space. It is located north of the Greenhouse Cottage (see Figure 27). It is also referred to
as the Pond Cottage, due to the location of a pond formerly to the east of the cottage in land that
was sold by the Hall family to Nassau County for the Muttontown Preserve in 2009 (the pond
has been filled in). It is a 1 ½ story brick cottage that contains a dining room, living room with a
simple brick fireplace and wood mantle, and kitchen on the ground floor, with two bedrooms
and a bathroom on the second floor (see Figures 28 and 29) The rooms are small, with the
upstairs rooms having slanted ceilings that follow the slope of the roof and dormer windows.
The front porch on the west façade has been partially enclosed/screened since its original
construction. This façade is clad in stucco. To the rear (east) of the cottage there is brick patio
with a low stone retaining wall pierced by a set of stone steps that lead up to the land behind the
patio. A site/utilities plan from the 1930s (as shown on Figure 25) depicts a pathway leading
from the stone stairs at the east of the brick patio at the rear of the cottage to the formal flower
garden (discussed above regarding the Greenhouse Cottage).
BARN
The barn, depicted on the 1930s site/utility plan of the estate as truck and tractor storage, is
located west of the driveway and southwest of the pool house (see Figures 30 and 31). This 847
square foot building is a wood frame board and batten structure of 1 ½ stories. The barn retains a
large opening at ground level with paired wood doors with a hayloft and pulley above on the
south façade. The building has been vacant for over two decades (since 1993) and is in poor
condition due to deferred maintenance and a water pipe break that occurred; windows are broken
and the back wall is structurally unsound. In addition to its deteriorated condition, the building is
not habitable as a permanent residence, as it has no insulation or formal heating.
This structure was converted to use as a temporary residence in 1980, reportedly for use by a
gardener in lieu of pay. The conversion resulted in a number of significant alterations to the
building:
7 Insertion of new windows, including two double-hung windows on the east façade, and
a small window as well as a much large bowed window on the west façade. There is also
a double hung window on the north façade.
Insertion of new doorways on the east and west facades. It appears that wood sections
were added with pointed arch openings with doors inserted in these areas. The doors
look of similar dimensions to pointed-arch openings located within the greenhouse
cottage at the north and south ends of the original central brick section of that building,
which no longer have doors. It is possible that the doors are from these locations, as the
doors were perhaps not needed within the interior of the greenhouse cottage, and were
moved to the barn when it was converted to a residence.
The interior of the barn received new flooring, wall and ceiling surfaces (now in poor
condition). A double set of interior doors set within a partition wall with shelving
separate most of the residential space from the south end of the building that has the
barn doors, possibly for heat retention/wintering purposes.
The chimney and fireplace are not original. The structure’s original use was a barn and
to house farm machinery. The Greek Revival fireplace mantel and frame for a mirror
above were salvaged from the main house prior to demolition. At the time of the
building’s conversion in 1980, it is surmised that the fireplace and chimney were built
and the salvaged items installed in the building.
2. THE LANDSCAPE: HISTORY AND ALTERATIONS
As described above, the landscape architectural firm of Innocenti & Webel designed the grounds
of the estate. Two prominent spaces were associated with the original design of the estate and
relating to the main house: the forecourt, or northern approach to the main house, and the garden
(south) front of the main house.
The forecourt was designed as a U-shaped grassy court encircled by a gravel driveway. One of
its most prominent features were six large American Elms placed symmetrically on the east and
west sides of the court (see Figure 32). The forecourt is bounded by a low brick wall capped by
a picket fence. On the garden (south) front of the house, the landscape was designed with large
linden trees, also brought to the site as mature trees, which included two large trees flanking the
Doric portico (see Figure 8). As described by Gary Hilderbrand in Making a Landscape of
Continuity: The Practice of Innocenti & Webel (1997) the large and mature and were acquired
from older properties and nurseries, and were designed to give the 1930s era property “an
authority of age, the evocation of traditions, and the appearance of maturity.”1 Paul J.
Matteyunas reports in North Shore Long Island Country House: 1890-1950 (2007) that the trees
were moved in the middle of the night from Amityville, requiring disconnecting telephone and
electrical wires. None of the American Elm trees at the forecourt are extant and the two Linden
trees, as well as possibly others, on the garden front are also no longer extant.
Brick walls were designed to extend east and west from the main house, separating the south
garden of the main house from the service areas at the rear of the Laundry Cottage, and to
1
Making a Landscape of Continuity: The Practice of Innocenti & Webel, Gary Hilderbrand,
Princeton Architectural Press/Harvard Graduate School of Design, 1997, p. 48.
8separate the main house south garden from the Winter Cottage garden. The west brick wall
terminates at a small two-story brick structure with a hipped shingle roof (see Figure 33, photo
48). The ground floor reportedly served as a tool storage area, with the second floor used as a
ping pong room. The tool room/ping pong building was substantially damaged during
Superstorm Sandy when a tree fell into it from the east. The roof and east façade were heavily
damaged.
The east brick wall forms the southern boundary of the Winter Cottage’s garden, one of two
other decorative gardens designed on the estate (see Figure 10, photo 9). The Winter Cottage
garden is an enclosed garden to the south of the Winter Cottage, bounded to the east by a picket
fence, to the south by the aforementioned brick wall that separates this garden from the south
garden of the main house, to the west by the former main house sunroom and exterior wall of the
curved arcaded passageway that connected the Winter Cottage to the main house, and to north
by the Winter Cottage itself. A small quatrefoil shaped pool is centrally located in the garden.
Another garden, potentially a flower garden, was located east of the Caretaker’s/Pond Cottage.
This garden was divided into four sections by pathways with a centrally located decorative well
(see Figure 25). Curved hedges framed the south side of the garden, north of the greenhouse,
with hedges also bordering the perimeter of the garden on its other sides, including to the rear of
the Caretaker’s/Pond cottage. While approximately the one-half of the southern curved hedge
row appears to remain, the other portion appears to no longer be extant and overtaken by trees.
The central decorative well feature is still extant, and the locations of the paths, though grown in,
are discernable in aerial photography (https://www.bing.com/).
The estate was also designed with a formally laid out vegetable garden divided into rectangular
parcels divided by paths, which was located northwest of the greenhouse on the east side of the
entrance driveway (see Figure 25). Driveways led from the main drive to the vegetable garden
and stepped paths led from the greenhouse to the garden. The location of this former garden is
now a flat grassy area with the access roads and the paths within its original footprint and
leading to it removed (see Figure 33, photos 49 and 50).
Other landscape features, including the estate driveway and stone drainage gutters, and hedges
around the pool remain. Many mature trees were toppled during Superstorm Sandy, including a
tree that fell on the toolshed/ping pong table building, as described above.
3. RECENT HISTORY AND SALE OF THE PROPERTY
Following the death of Bruce Hall, the second owner of the property, in 1996, the Hall family
sought ways to generate revenue at the property to offset the cost of maintenance and the
property taxes levied on the at the time approximately 119 acre property with its nine buildings.
This included renting certain buildings, selling of a portion of the property, and subdividing the
property.
The renovation and rental of certain of the buildings, including the Winter Cottage, Laundry
Cottage, Greenhouse Cottage, Chauffer’s apartment, and the Pond Cottage, some of which had
been previously utilized as rentals by Bruce Hall, commenced circa 2000. Additional
renovations were made to these buildings to make them rentable, including upgrading of
kitchens. A full renovation of the chauffer’s apartment was undertaken circa 2005, which
included the removal and relocation of partition walls. The Chauffer’s Apartment, the only
9building that presently produces rental income, has been rented at $3,000/month. The
Greenhouse Cottage was rented at $3,200/month and the Pond Cottage was rented at
$3,700/month. The Winter Cottage at some point was rented for over $4,000/month.
In addition, the previous owners attempted to generate revenue by trying to subdivide the
property over an approximately 10 year period, which included an initial cluster subdivision
proposed in 2005 that would have allowed for two of the estate buildings to be retained, the
Winter Cottage and the Laundry Cottage, with the other buildings to be demolished. At the time,
the property consisted of approximately 119 acres with the subdivision proposal to create 32
lots. A residential cluster development, or open space development, allows for the grouping of
residential properties on a development site in order to use the extra land as open space,
recreation or agriculture. At the time and at present, the Village of Muttontown does not have a
provision to allow clustering in its code. To allow for a cluster plan, the Board of Trustees of the
Incorporated Village of Muttontown (“Board of Trustees”) would have had to give the Planning
Board the authority to cluster a subdivision under New York State Law. However, the Board of
Trustees did not grant the authority to the Planning Board to grant a cluster, and no action could
be taken by the Planning Board. The cluster subdivision would have resulted in some undersize
(less than three acre) lots. Zoning in 2005 and at present allows for single-family homes on a
minimum of three-acre lots.
In 2009 to generate income, the Hall family sold 18.3 acres on the east side of the property
bordering the Muttontown Preserve to Nassau County. The sale increased the size of the
Muttontown Preserve, and reduced the over 100 acre estate property to its current 98.8 acres.
The property that was sold included a pond, which had given the Caretaker’s Cottage its other
name, the “Pond” Cottage.
In May 2010, the Board of Trustees adopted a temporary moratorium (Local Law 1 of 2010) on
the consideration or approval of subdivision applications, purportedly enacted to give the Village
Board time to revise and update its Comprehensive Master Plan, adopted in 1969, so as to
protect and preserve the Village’s open spaces and rural character. Set to expire in 180 days
(with three possible three-month extensions), the moratorium was extended in July 2011 (Low
Law 2 of 2011), with a similar expiry timeline (180 days and three possible 3-month extensions).
In October 2011, Easton LLC (the Hall family-held limited liability company that owned the
Easton property) brought action to lift the moratorium, which was preventing them from
subdividing the property, citing the devaluation of the property as potential purchasers would be
in doubt as to how the property might be zoned and redeveloped, and alleging violation of their
due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. On April
20, 2012, the Village Board of Trustees adopted a resolution terminating the moratorium
effective immediately, and Easton LLC’s complaint was dismissed.
In 2012, Hurricane Sandy hit and created substantial damage to the property, with many mature
trees felled and with a tree falling and damaging the tool shed/ping pong building located to the
southwest of the Laundry Cottage. Costs to fully repair damage, including removing felled trees,
repairing roofs and damage sustained to the tool shed/ping pong building were prohibitive, and,
therefore, only limited clearing of debris and downed trees was undertaken at a much smaller
cost, leaving much of the fallen trees and damage in the wooded areas, “conservatory” roof, and
tool shed/ping pong building as is.
10As a result of the limited financial return from renting vs the costs to maintain the property and
pay property taxes, failure to obtain approval for the initial cluster subdivision and the high costs
of trying to gain approval for a subdivision, and the damage caused by Hurricane Sandy, the
former owners by the end of 2012 began to try to sell the property through a number of different
brokers. Though there were prospective buyers who visited the property, none of the prospective
buyers were interested in purchasing the property to retain it for private residential use, with the
potentially interested buyers consisting of developers whose interest in the property lay in its
subdivision potential. In January 2015, the property was purchased by the applicant at a cost of
$20 million for the purpose of subdivision. The property did not have historic standing at that
time, and was subsequently determined National-Register eligible by OPRHP through their
review of the applicant’s proposed subdivision on September 3, 2015.
C. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
As the property has been determined National Register eligible, the applicant has considered
several options to avoid and minimize impacts on the historic property. These include 1) keeping
the property intact, including retaining all the buildings and landscape features on the site and
adaptively reusing the buildings; and 2) considering a subdivision that would retain all or most
of the buildings and landscape features on the property. A third option, a subdivision approval
that would allow for the subdivision of the property that would include the demolition of the
buildings on the site except for one structure that may feasibly retained, has also been
considered. As described in greater detail below, the following analysis concludes that it is not
feasible to retain and reuse the estate buildings and landscape features except for one building
and associated landscaping elements, as described in third alternative.
ALTERNATIVE 1: RETAIN PROPERTY INTACT FOR ADAPTIVE REUSE
As described above, two of the estate buildings, the pool house and the barn, are in poor
condition, are not insulated or have formal heating systems, and have very small floor area. They
do not lend themselves to reuse as permanent residences. The pump house is also a small
building not built for residential purposes that is also not conducive for residential use. The
“conservatory,” a structure that is only a shell and never meant for residential use and that was
damaged by Hurricane Sandy, would require a substantial financial investment to rebuild it for
residential use if it were to remain on the property.
Currently, only two buildings are occupied, with functioning utilities, on the property. These are
the chauffer’s apartment, occupied as a rental with a monthly rent of $3,000/month and the
Greenhouse Cottage, which is periodically used by the current owners of the property (the
applicant) when they are in the area. Annual property taxes are $357,000, with an additional
approximately $60,000 in annual maintenance costs, including salary for the property manager;
this salary is currently based on only two buildings being occupied and limited maintenance and
repairs to the other non-occupied buildings. Maintenance costs would be assumed to increase for
any additionally occupied buildings, to include costs to bring the buildings into a rentable
condition, make repairs and perform general maintenance, and for a salary increase to the
property manager.
The current property owner has explored the feasibility of continuing to rent the buildings on the
site. However, the limited rental income that could be generated for the small buildings in
today’s rental market would not begin to cover the approximately $417,000 annual property tax
11and maintenance fees. Assuming a $3,000 monthly rental income for the chauffer’s apartment,
and $4,000/month for each of the Winter, Laundry, Pond, and Greenhouse Cottages, an annual
rental income of $228,000 could be achieved. This amount would only offset slightly more than
half of the annual property taxes and maintenance fees, and does not take into account the
additional cost of upgrades and repairs that would be needed to rent the buildings today—
including work that would be required at the Winter Cottage, Laundry Cottage, and Pond
Cottage which have been closed and uninhabited for a number of years, in addition to the
increase in maintenance costs for additional occupied buildings and corresponding increase in
salary for the property manager. The limited income that could be achieved through the rental
the Winter Cottage, Laundry Cottage, Greenhouse Cottage, Chauffer’s apartment and Pond
Cottage would not justify rental as a permanent use for the property as it would not cover the
property expenses. In addition, any rental of the Winter Cottage and Laundry Cottage would
require a permanent solution with respect to the “Conservatory” to which the wing walls are
attached, a vacant structure that would either need to be rebuilt as an occupiable space, or
demolished, as well as the pool house and barn, which are in poor condition. This work would
incur substantial additional expenses. The potential rental income, assuming that renters could
be found for the buildings, would not begin to offset the annual property expenses, nor justify
the $20 million paid by the current owners for the property.
As the property is zoned for residential use only, its adaptive reuse for other purposes would not
be permitted by the Village of Muttontown without approval. In addition, its reuse potential for
other uses is low. As demonstrated during the sale of the property, interested buyers for a
property of this size were interested in it as an investment for residential redevelopment. The
removal of the original mansion, and subsequent replacement with a shell of a structure, the
“conservatory”, that is an unfinished building with moss and mold growing in it that was
additionally damaged by Hurricane Sandy, has contributed to the lack of viability of the property
to be purchased for private residential use.
ALTERNATIVE 2: SUBDIVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR RETENTION OF ALL OR MOST OF
THE BUILDINGS ON THE SITE
The potential for subdividing the property and retaining the former estate buildings has also been
considered. As described above, such an approach was previously pursued by the Hall family,
where the proposed 2005 cluster subdivision would have retained the Winter Cottage and
Laundry Cottage.
Subsequent to the failure to gain approval of that subdivision, and as a result of the 2010 and
2011 subdivision moratoriums, the Village of Muttontown enacted much more stringent zoning
that governs subdivisions and limits the development potential of the property.
Current zoning in the Village of Muttontown allows for single-family homes on a minimum of
three-acre lots. However, the recent zoning amendments enacted by the Village require
additional area deductions from yield, resulting in minimum lot sizes which in most cases
exceed the three-acre minimum lot size. The zoning constraints include:
A 50 foot buffer is required around the perimeter of the property, the area of which is
deducted from the lot yield. Development must be set back 50 feet from the lot lines, or
the perimeter buffer of the subdivision.
12 No development is permitted in wetland areas and within a 100 foot buffer around the
wetlands. The wetland area and adjacent 100 foot buffer is deducted from lot yield.
zoning is highly restrictive with respect to prohibiting development on steep slopes and
slopes of 15% and greater are deducted from lot yield.
a subdivision requires an access road that allows dual fire truck access as the property
only has access to one existing roadway, Muttontown Road. The subdivision roadway
must be 70 feet wide, which must include two 22-foot-wide travel lanes, a six-foot-wide
median, and ten-foot-wide shoulders.
Retention of the existing buildings, coupled with the constraints of the existing zoning
regulations that require a minimum of three acres per lot, certain setbacks, buffers, and
prohibition of development on steep slopes and wetland areas/wetland buffer area, would
severely restrict the number of lots that could be created. Even if other estate buildings that are
not feasible to adaptively reuse for permanent residences, e.g. the pool house, barn, and pump
house were additionally removed, the subdivision would have to work around the existing
remaining buildings and in conformance with zoning. This would eliminate the potential of
creating efficiencies in laying out the subdivision, and would result in a low number of
developable lots. In addition, the existing driveway would have to be substantially altered or
replaced in its entirety at the required 70-foot-wide dimension to create access to the subdivided
lots on the property.
In addition, those lots that would contain the estate buildings that could potentially be used as
residences—the Winter Cottage, Laundry Cottage, Greenhouse Cottage, Garage/Chauffer’s
Apartment, and Pond Cottage would not be marketable at the cost at which the lots with newly
constructed residences would value (approximately $6 million) in Muttontown. Muttontown is a
very expensive area with large homes. Properties in the Village of Muttontown typically include
turn of the century estates to more recently constructed mansions on three- to five-acre parcels
with properties averaging for sale at 3.6 to 6.3 million. A search of properties for sale in
Muttontown on a typical day (April 4, 2016 was surveyed) included over 40 properties, almost
exclusively single family homes (and with a few developable lots for sale). The square footage
of the houses for sale typically ranged from 4,000 sf to 6,900 sf, with a number of properties
with much larger square footages (e.g. 8,000-12,000 sf). Only one house was for sale with under
4,000 sf, a home with 3,826 sf.
As has been described above, the buildings on the site, with the exception of the “conservatory”
(6,152 sf) and the combined Greenhouse Cottage/garage/pump house (4,146 sf), are
substantially smaller than most houses in Muttontown (it should be noted that the livable space
in the Greenhouse Cottage is in fact less when the garage and pump house are removed to
calculate the livable space square footage). In addition, the Garage/Chauffer’s Apartment would
have to be altered from its current configuration as two separate first floor garage spaces with an
upstairs apartment to be suitable as a marketable living space. The Winter, Laundry, and Pond
Cottages, with approximately 1,376-2,964 sf of living space, are substantially smaller than most
houses in Muttontown, with small rooms and second floor living spaces typically having sloping
ceilings. Even if they were to be marketed as separate parcels after the property is subdivided,
their marketability in Muttontown is questionable.
13The loss of developable lots, inclusion of lots that include buildings of questionable market
value and of a market value substantially less than could be achieved with new construction,
would pose a serious economic hardship to the current owner.
ALTERNATIVE 3: SUBDIVISION THAT INCLUDES RETENTION OF ONE BUILDING
After careful planning, it has been determined that a subdivision of the property to create 20 lots
could be effectuated in conformance with existing zoning and associated Village of Muttontown
subdivision requirements (see Figure 34). To maximize efficiencies, a road in conformance with
all zoning requirements could be built through the property, generally bisecting it. The design of
the road takes into account undevelopable areas of the property, including wetlands to the west
of the road on the lot that would front on Muttontown Road, a variety of steep slopes, and buffer
and required setback areas that reduce the size of any developable lot area. The proposed
location of the roadway maximizes efficiencies by in effect creating a “double loaded” lot
configuration, with the one roadway providing access to all the lots. Due to the restrictions
imposed with respect to developable area, the area of at least two developable lots has already
been lost.
There is very little flexibility in the placement of the roadway and lot configuration. Figure 34
shows the total acreage of each lot, with the corresponding developable portion of the lot barely
achieving three acres to conform with zoning. The hatched area at the perimeter of the lots
reflects a required 50-foot vegetative buffer, while the dotted lines that follow the perimeter of
each lot in the interior depict the required 50-foot setbacks for each lot. Contour lines depict the
topography, including light grey and dark shaded areas that illustrate the locations of steep
slopes. The existing topography and zoning requirements combined allow for very little
flexibility in moving the proposed lot lines without losing a developable lot.
As shown on Figure 34, the placement of the conforming subdivision road requires the removal
of the pool house, as well as the pool and remnants of the tennis court. The Winter Cottage and
non-contributing “conservatory” are also in the footprint of the proposed roadway. The barn, a
portion of the Greenhouse Cottage, and a portion of the Laundry Cottage fall within the required
50-foot setbacks for the lots in which they would be located. Even if the Laundry Cottage were
not located in a required setback area, the structure would be located towards the front of the
proposed lot, impeding the locating of a new residential structure on the lot.
The Garage/Chauffer’s Apartment, located at the northwest of the property, poses a considerable
problem in terms of providing a driveway to the subdivision road without interfering with the
layout of the lots to the east that front on the subdivision road. In addition, the northwest corner
of the property, the lowest lying area, represents the most practical location to construct the
required stormwater recharge areas of 487,800 cubic feet and 212,600 cubic feet. Placing the
recharge basins in this location alleviates the need to construct numerous leaching pools, which
would then need to be placed throughout the subdivision (the equivalent volume would require
in excess of 100 leaching pools with a typical installation cost of $4,000- $5,000 per leaching
pool), eliminating additional developable lot area.
After careful consideration, it has been determined that it would be feasible to retain the Pond
Cottage as an accessory structure on proposed Lot 18 for a number of reasons:
14 It has a small footprint/square footage and lends itself for reuse as an accessory
structure, such as a pool house. Its location towards the rear of the lot, where such
structures would typically be located, is conducive to this reuse.
The building is not located within any required setback or buffer areas and its retention
would not require a variance from the Village of Muttontown.
The building is the most intact building on the site. While it does not include any
individually significant architectural features, including salvaged elements from the
Main House such as fireplace mantles, it retains its original floor plan and architectural
finishes more so than the other cottages which have been altered since their original
construction, including the Winter Cottage, Laundry Cottage, and especially the
Greenhouse Cottage.
Retaining the Pond Cottage allows for the retention of significant landscaping elements
associated with it, including the brick terrace and stone stairs behind the cottage, and the
remnants of the formal flower garden.
Secondary access to the Pond Cottage can be provided via the existing driveway from
Muttontown Road, which preserves the original access to the cottage and estate and
allows for physical retention of the most visible portion of the original driveway from
Muttontown Road, including its stone drainage gutters, and landscaping that borders it,
including hedges along the west side of the driveway leading to the Pond Cottage.
It should be noted that retention of the Pond Cottage as a permitted accessory dwelling (as
opposed to an accessory structure) on the lot with a new primary residence would require
approval from the Village of Muttontown. While existing accessory dwellings are permitted in
the zoning district in which the subject property is located, it is unclear if under the subdivision
the building would still be considered “existing.” Utilizing the Pond Cottage as an accessory
dwelling would allow it to be occupied by domestic employees and their immediate families,
with also the possibility of rental.1
D. CONCLUSION
As described above, it is not feasible to retain all or most of the buildings on the property either
with or without a subdivision. The property consists of almost 100 acres with a number of small
accessory estate buildings, where the main house has been demolished and replaced by an un-
occupiable shell of a structure. Annual property expenditures far exceed rental income that could
be derived, a number of the buildings are in poor condition, and during the sale of the property
by the Hall family, it was evidenced that prospective buyers consisted of developers, not buyers
interested in purchasing the property for reuse intact.
1
The Village Code states that an accessory dwelling may be rented or occupied by persons other
than domestic employees provided that the lot on which the accessory dwelling is located has at
least two acres of area allocable to each dwelling on the lot. However, it is unclear if the two
acres relates to total acreage, or net acreage, e.g. after deductions for buffers, wetlands, steep
slopes, etc. The lot on which the Pond Cottage would be located (Lot 18) has a total of 6. 88
acres, with a net (developable) acreage of 3.46 acres.
15Due to the characteristics of the estate buildings, their condition, zoning requirements that
restrict developable area, market conditions in Muttontown, and investment the current owner
made to purchase the property, it is not feasible to retain the buildings on the site as part of a
subdivision. The applicant has determined that it is feasible to retain the Pond Cottage, its
associated gardens, and estate driveway from Muttontown Road as the retention of the building
and associated landscape elements are situated in a manner that they may be logically
incorporated into the subdivision, and their retention provides a substantive preservation
component. As has been described above, while it appears that the Pond Cottage may be retained
as an accessory structure on the development lot on which it is located (e.g. used as a pool
house), further discussions with, and additional approval by, the Village of Muttontown would
be required to determine whether the Pond Cottage could be retained as an accessory dwelling,
to be occupied by domestic staff or additionally for rental purposes.
In conclusion, there is no prudent and feasible alternative to the demolition of the former Easton
Estate buildings on the property with the exception of the Pond Cottage, its associated flower
garden remnant, and estate driveway from Muttontown Road. Subject to Village approval, the
Pond Cottage would be used as an accessory dwelling. Otherwise, it would be retained as an
accessory structure under the Village Code, which would limit its use to a non-residential
purpose, e.g. a pool house. The applicant will work with SHPO to develop measures to partially
mitigate the Adverse Impact, which would be set forth in a Letter of Resolution (LOR).
167/6/2016
0 0.5 MILES
Project Site
Project Location
SILVER PATH ESTATES SUBDIVISION Figure 1a7.14.16 LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
AU
KAMIMIAN 03 IRREV.TRUST, MANDA
SS
NA
OF
TY
GATE
UN
A
25
E.
RT
S. 6' CHAIN LINK
CO
N. Y. FENCE
E
PIK
RN
TU
S84°04'35"E
OF
D AVENUE
EA
ST LOCUST
MP
724.57'
GATE
HE
Y
H
RT
NO
RL
AVENUE
ME
U
LOCUST
SA
N
R
AS
FO
OF NASSAU
N
ROAD
W E
OR
PRESERVE"
OF
ANDS
W
TY
CH
LAND OF THE COUNTY
S
NO
NORWI
"MUTTONTOWN
WETL
N
OU
ND
C
LA
T
O - EAS
OF
LY
JERICH
ER
SERENITE
BR
OO
RM
LANE
KV
N ILL
E
ROAD
S84°26'30"E, 11.47'
- JE
WN
FO
RI ONTO
CH MUTT ROAD
W
OWN
O MUTTONT
HOLLO
T
COUR
HI
GH
OR
W
AY
WOOD
W
NO
LAND OF THE COUNTY
"MUTTONTOWN OF NASSAU
PRESERVE"
ND
LA
W E
"
S6
ESERVE
5°4
9'3
6' CH
0"E
AIN
LINK
OWN PR
LOCATION MAP
FE
NC
E 544
.69
S ANDS SCALE 1" = 3000' '
TONT
D
WETL
ROA
- "MUT
TE
GA
N
O
M 'S
G
NE .2 AT
O D0
H
ST UN E
NASSAU
FO
WIC
NOR
S54°05'30"W
UNTY OF
16.44'
1122.62'
TAS
THE CO
O - E
LAND OF
ICH
SERENITE
JER
N05°36'21"E
'
74
LANE
6.
ROAD
43
WN
ONTO
MUTT
W
LLOW
0"
ROAD
T
'0
OWN
MUTTONT
COUR
00
D HO
3°
S4
WOO
STONE
MON
FOUND
S11°23'00"W 52.20'
LAND OF THE COUN
"MUTTONTOWN TY OF NASSAU S63°00'00"E 20.05'
PRESERVE"
STONE MON
STONE MON FOUND
FOUND
S42°37'30"E 86.62'
LA CO
ND UN
ON
NO TY
M ND
E OU
ON F
W OF
ST
O N
STONE MON
R AS
FOUND
FO S
0.2' W
'
RM AU
57
S83°22'36"E
ER
2.
6'
C
29
LY
632.89'
HA
IN
O
LIN
F
KEY MAP
K
FE
NC
SCALE 1" = 800'
E
"E
ON D
'42
M N
E U
ON FO
ST
57
1°
N4
Garage/Chauffer
ON D
M N
.74 E
E OU
ON F
155 0'58"
ST
Apartment
'
6'
5°5
752.2
ST
ON
N2
EM
FO ON
UN
D
CE
5' FEN
'
.51
9'20"E
358
N14°3
Laundry Cottage
E
NC
FE
LINK
9"E
AIN
6' CH
0'4
5°5
Winter Cottage
N2
AU
ASS
S74°5
N
155.27'31"E
OF
STON
FOUN E MON 8'
TY
152.7 "E
0.2' S D
'
.03
UN
S84°51'36"E
1'58
8'
CO
326.26'
336
Conservatory
N15°1
S75°3 STONE MON
FOUND
9'4
261.6 4"E
ST
O
9'
FO NE
UN MO
D N
N
STON
WATER FOUN E MON
FALL 0.2' W D
1' W
8"E
24'5
W E
5°
N2
Pool S
House
7'
455.4
E
NC
TE
GA
FE
LINK
AIN
ST
LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
6' CH
ONE
M
SAFE HAVEN LLC FO ON
UN
D
MO
N FO
UN
D 0.4' D
UN E
N FO
MO
8886
W
0.2'
1'58"E
No.
GAT
E
CASE
N14°2
LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
CHARLES PECK
Barn
-
STONE MON
1961
FOUND
N00°27'31"W
Caretaker’s /
202.59'
7,
Pond Cottage
ST
APRIL
O
1'
FO NE
U
UN MO
SSA
D 0. N
6.1
2' E
NA
40
OF
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
FILED:
OF EXISTING SANITARY
TY
SYSTEM
E
UN
S
NC
HE
RC
FE
CO
PO
LINK
N3
AIN
-
STONE MON
6' CH
LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF FOUND
5°
8'
Pump
ESTATES
0.2' W
PATRICE MARTUCCI
59
5.2
'00
30
House
"W
0"W
2"E
41
.04'
ST
O
FO NE M
9'4
5'0
UN
8.0
D 0. ON
VERSAILLES
2' E
427
9°3
9°4
3'
WETLANDS DELINEATION
CE AS FLAGGED BY
N2
EN LLA NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS
S2
TR R
- LOCATED IN
Y FIELD JULY 26, 2006
AREA = 8,510 SQ.FT. GAT
CE E
Greenhouse
EN LL
'29"E
TR AR
Y
Cottage
°19
OF
LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
SANDRA BARASH LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
N20
PATRICIA MOED
00"E
MAP
GAT
N35°59'00"W 31.68' E
WETLANDS DELINEATION AS FLAGGED BY 6+00
79.77'
8'
NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS - LOCATED IN
FIELD APRIL 30, 2012
N13°5
AREA 17,166 SQ.FT.
5+00
7+
R=235.00
0 0
L=109.69
4+18.43
Δ=26°44'38"
E
APPROX.
NC
DUE NORTH, 111.49'
EXIST. WATE TION OF
4+00
K FE
4+18.43
7+46.99
LIN
STONE MON
LOCA
FOUND
4' CHAIN
0.3' W
R MAIN
N05°56'00"W, 32.06'
364.10'
LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
307.27'
HARVINDER SINGH N09°22'00"W, 23.77'
3+00
290.93'
WETLANDS DELINEATION
N14°44'00"W, 48.77'
AS FLAGGED BY
NELSON, POPE & VOORHIS
- LOCATED IN
LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
FIELD APRIL 30, 2012 PATRICIA MOED
N09°14
AREA = 9,309 SQ.FT.
N22°12'00"W, 48.66'
6' CHAIN LINK FENCE
GATE
N02°51'29"E
2+
00
S03°20'00"W
LAND NOW OR FORMERLY OF
6'
N17°37'00"W, 58.83'
CH
'22"W
152.01'
AIN
STEVEN AND LAURIE NGUYEN
LIN
K
N
FE
FOUN E MO
N
CE
CEMETERY
1+
N28°28'00"W, 37.23'
D
3' CLF
STON
00
GATE
47.5
56.83'
5'
GATE
230.68' W W W N7W0
UN MON
W
W
W W
394.29'
W 120.10' W W W
°26
W N8W2°01'2 W W W '00W"W
E
W W
0+00
D
STON
W
0"W W
W W W W W W W W W
153
N87°20
FO
277.00'
W
W W W
N86°14'20"W '00"W APPROX. LOCATIO
N OF EXIST. WATER MAIN .73' W
APPROX
. LOCATIO
N OF EXIS
120.10' 153.09' 4' FE
S83°59'00"W
T. WATER NCE
MAIN
MO
2' N
W; FO
10 UND
'N
N5
9°2
15 1'0
.08 0"W
'
SITE DATA
2ZONE: E-3 RESIDENCE
AREA OF MAP: 98.92 ACRES
WATER DISTRICT: JERICHO
FIRE DISTRICT: EAST NORWICH
POST OFFICE: SYOSSET
SCHOOL DISTRICT: EAST NORWICH
NUMBER OF LOTS: 22
N.C.T.M.: SECT. 16-BLOCK A-LOTS 1006, 1012, 1099
DENOTES EXISTING MONUMENT
DENOTES PROPOSED MONUMENT
SCALE: 1" = 100'
0 50 100 200 400
OWNER:
EASTON LLC SLOPE MAP
23663 GRASTY PLACE EASTON, LCC.
MIDDLEBURG, VIRGINIA, 20117
540-687-3151
SITUATED AT
APPLICANT: INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF MUTTONTOWN
EASTON LLC
PROJECT NO.: 04209 DATE: JUNE 06, 2012
23663 GRASTY PLACE
MIDDLEBURG, VIRGINIA, 20117 FILE No. : S 16/ BLK. A SCALE: 1" = 100' N.C.T.M. NO.:
540-687-3151 SECT. 16, BLOCK. A, LOTS 1006, 1012, 1099 SHEET 1 OF 3
DATE: REVISIONS: BY: DRAWN BY: GEO CADD: 04209PM
Existing Site Plan with Buildings
SILVER PATH ESTATES SUBDIVISION Figure 1bYou can also read
