Committee Deadlocked on Application for Duck Pond Home Demolition
The Committee on Historic Preservation met on February 15 to again ponder the fate of the iconic house at 1 Duck Pond Road. At their last meeting on January 18, committee members asked for more time to review materials supplied by lawyers and architects representing David and Sherrie Matusz who are interested in buying the property and replacing it with a new home.
They are awaiting the decision of the committee on whether or not the house can be taken down before completing their purchase.
The Board members in attendance changed from the January 18 meeting to the February meeting. An architect on the Committee, Bana Choura-Loughran attended the January meeting and defended the house, arguing that it was an example of shingle style architecture and the work of Frank Ackerman who was a renowned architect of the period. At the February meeting it was announced that she was asked to recues herself from discussions about 1 Duck Pond Road and that comments from the 1/18 session should not be considered. No reason was given for her recusal.
On February 18, Linda Blair Doesher and Marjorie Ann Meiman were in attendance and they had not heard the discussion at the previous meeting about the style of the home and whether or not it was the work of an architect of significance.
The Matusz’s brought architect and historian John Milnes Baker who refuted the idea that the house was a significant example of an important building style or period and also argued that it was not unique. Their architect, Paul Benowitz countered the claim that Frank Ackerman had designed an addition to the home and argued that Ackerman had simply drafted plans of the existing structure.
However, Committee Chair Lucas Meyer had consulted Victor D’Ortona, an architect who serves on the committee but was not present. D’Ortona said the home was indeed an example of a shingle style home, but said it was not meritorious of preservation. Meyers also consulted another architect who reviewed the documents and concluded that Ackerman had designed an addition to the home.
The committee discussed their views and Linda Blair Doescher said, “We should consider protecting the Village’s special character and charm.” She added, “Alone, we are the guardian of these houses.” Marjorie Ann Meiman agreed, saying, “This house seems to be a transitional house demonstrative of the transition in styles. It may not be the best example of the period, but I haven’t seen anything quite like it.”
Board members Michael Braun and Robert Scheibe found nothing in the current preservation code to justify the preservation of the house.
When a vote was called, Braun and Scheibe favored the application for demolition; Committee chair Lucas Meyer and Linda Blair Doescher voted to deny it and Marjorie Ann Meiman abstained. Given that the members of the committee were deadlocked, Scheibe advised that the application should be turned over to the Village attorney.
It is interesting to note that if Ms. Choura-Loughran had not been asked to recues herself, one can assume the application would have been denied. Since her vote was pivotal, the facts concerning her recusal should be explained.
So for now, the house stands cold and empty with its fate in the hands of Village Attorney Wayne Esannason.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Kat Baron, May 18, 2011
-
- +0
-
-
written by Cathy 914, February 17, 2011
-
- -1
-
-
written by Bill Bee, February 17, 2011
Respect the property rights of the owners and let them do with their home as they see fit. The property is turning into an eye sore, has been vacant for to long and to restore it you would be taking on a money pit.
If you busy bodies want to save the property then be the highest bidder and do with it as you please! Stop forcing you beliefs on others.
-
- -2
-
-
written by Sally Weingarten, February 17, 2011
Can’t believe anyone would even give a moment’s thought to tearing it down. Once gone, never recovered.
-
- +4
-
-
written by Disappointed in Jeff Blatt, February 17, 2011
-
- +3
-
-
written by Observer, February 17, 2011
This all seems very prejudiced to me against the current contract to sell the house, based on the absurd fact that the house is nice to look at from the front...this is a private matter between two parties...has Scarsdale become socialist?!?!
-
- -3
-
-
