Two Proposed Gas Lanterns In Sag Harbor Raise Questions Of Their Historical Appropriateness

Two applications before the Sag Harbor Village Board of Historic Preservation and Architectural Review heard on December 10 asked for permission to install gas lanterns, garnering a history lesson on gas service in Sag Harbor and raising questions about why so many village houses have this feature.

Zachary Studenroth, the board’s historic preservation consultant, explained that gas lanterns are not a traditional feature of Sag Harbor. Rather, they likely showed up in the 1980s.

“We have two gas lanterns on the agenda tonight,” he said. “I don’t think we should have any gas lanterns. So that’s my historical perspective.”

At 47 Howard Street, a homeowner seeks to replace two electric lanterns that flank the front door with a single gas lantern. And over at 258 Main Street, owner Robert Russell seeks to add a gas lantern at the front entry gate to the historic brick 1840s L’Hommedieu House. Architect Anthony Vermandois is representing both applicants. “I kind of naively thought that was the appropriate thing to do,” he said of the lanterns, after hearing objections.

Mr. Studenroth said that Sag Harbor got a gasification plant in the 1850s, which was quite early for a city to have gas piped in. But, he explained, that was for street lights in commercial areas. It was not for residential lanterns.

“It’s an urban lighting sophistication that really has no place in our village aesthetically,” he said. “So, when you get a new house being designed with this sort of pretentious detailing, you know, you can understand it. But they really have no place being applied to historical buildings. It’s just not compatible.”

Mr. Studenroth noted that the proposed Howard Street gas lantern will appear large because it is on an elaborate mount.

“The name on the catalog cut was French Quarter, which suggests something down Louisiana way,” he said. “These lanterns are utterly inappropriate for Sag Harbor.”

The board members were mixed on gas lanterns.

Vice Chairperson Bethany Deyermond said she is OK with gas lanterns, but suggested something not so grand. Chairman Dean Gomolka had a problem with the proposed bracket, but said he doesn’t care if it is gas or electric.

“There plenty of gas lamps on Glover Street,” board member Val Florio said, “and it looks a little bit like the enchanted village when you see these little glowing lamps. But I don’t take issue — I don’t find it in any way offensive.”

Board member Judith Long agreed with Mr. Studenroth that gas lanterns do not belong in the village, but when 258 Main Street came up, she said it’s the one exception.

“Even though I just said I didn’t like gas lamps in Sag Harbor, this is the one house in Sag Harbor that I think a gas lamp might be appropriate on … because it looks like a row house in a city. And from what I have heard, the guy who had built it originally thought that Sag Harbor was going to be the next Philadelphia and that the whole street would be brick row houses. And he built that one, and then it didn’t happen.”

“If you let one gas lantern out of the gate, you’re going to have similar applications,” Mr. Studenroth warned.

Ms. Long said she is willing to stamp them out — just not this one.

The L’Hommedieu House application was tabled for more information on proposed chimneys and the brick and mortar that will be used. Mr. Vermandois said the house has two chimneys in disrepair and there is evidence the house once had four chimneys. The homeowner would like to rebuild all four using brick that matches the house.

The Howard Street application was also tabled.

Board members heard the third pitch in as many meetings for an addition to 32 Glover Street, a 1930s one-story bungalow in the historic district, and were still not satisfied with what they saw.

In November, they dismissed an initial pitch to demolish the house, determining that it is a contributing structure to the historic district. At that same meeting, they objected to an alternative plan to attach the existing house to a Greek Revival style structure, finding that style to be incompatible with the existing bungalow.

The second iteration of the expansion plan turned the Greek Revival structure 90 degrees and made the connector between both structures as tall as the bungalow.

The latest plan endeavored to have the addition match the style of the bungalow more closely, as board members requested. It also lowered the height of the connector and used dormers in the addition to reduce the size of the roof when looking from the street.

Upon viewing the latest plan, Ms. Long said the addition needs to look more cottage-y, like the original structure.

Mr. Studenroth objected to the two street-facing windows in the bungalow’s attic being replaced with one six-over-six window with shutters.

“This is a very modest building — it’s a one-story house,” he said. “There aren’t that many defining architectural characteristics about it. Certainly, that pair of [two-over-one] sashes on that attic story are apparently original.”

He added that the proposed new addition has been scaled back and is going in the right direction, but said it still has “a very distinctive Greek Revival vibe.”

He also suggested saving a south-facing dormer on the bungalow, which he said appears to be original.

Ms. Long pointed out that though the original bungalow is supposed to remain the predominant portion of the structure after any addition, the gap in the fence and the pathway lead to a door on the addition instead.

The application was adjourned until December 17 for further revisions.

Mr. Florio, who is the architect behind the project, recused himself from the discussion.

Mr. Studenroth determined that the house that stands at 37 Glover Street is not the historically significant house that once stood there. He said it was mistakenly included in a 1994 survey of homes that contribute to the village’s historic district.

Board members, several of whom visited the house a year ago, unanimously approved the demolition of the house there now. Plans for a replacement house have yet to be submitted.

WLNG owner Sandra Foschi came before the board for approval for a new door that has already been installed on the station’s building at WLNG.

The mahogany Dutch door should have had approval beforehand, but Ms. Foschi said she was not aware of that. The door was installed after flood waters got under the old one, which was a traditional door with a large glass panel with muntins.

Mr. Studenroth said the building is not a contributing structure, and the board approved the door unanimously.