This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

History Lost: 1378 Carll's Straight Path

Seaman-Erickson Farm, which used to be located at 1378 Carll's Straight Path, was one of very few surviving homes in the Dix Hills area from the nineteenth century.

The story of the Seaman-Erickson Farm, which used to be located at 1378 Carll's Straight Path, is similar to the one that took place at .  It was one of very few surviving homes in the Dix Hills area from the nineteenth century, and the battle for it began with a subdivision, ended with a demolition, and raised a question of historic designation in between.

When it was nominated for the National Register in the early 1980s, the Seaman Farm complex was located on a 16-acre plot located along Carll's Straight Path, one of the oldest roads in the area. The farm complex included the early nineteenth-century farm house, one early nineteenth-century barn, one early twentieth-century barn, one early twentieth-century corncrib, three early twentieth-century sheds, and a well structure. 

The main dwelling on the Seaman Farm complex was a one- and one-half story, shingled dwelling with a saltbox profile. The five-bay center-hall facade had a simple entrance flanked by pilasters and sidelights in a heavily molded surround with a gable roof entrance porch on square columns.

Find out what's happening in Half Hollow Hillswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Located directly to the east of the house was a two- and one-half story barn and long, T-shaped corncrib built in the early twentieth century. The three-bay clapboard barn had a central cross gable vertical plank doors, and eight-over-two and two-over-two double-hung sash.  The one-story, T-shaped corncrib was elevated on wooden posts and had vertical board siding, a gable roof, and four-pane windows.

A very large early nineteenth-century barn was located east of the corncrib; the oldest of all the outbuildings, that barn was composed of two, vertical-board-sided gable roof barns joined together. A two- and one-half story board and batten barn dating from the early twentieth century was located to the south of the dwelling. Positioned to the rear of the barn were two early twentieth-century one-story sheds with shed roofs, shingle and clapboard sheathing, and multi-pane windows. A large natural pond was located south of the residence. An early twentieth-century one-story, gable-roofed shed existed along the western shore of the pond. A stone well was prominently positioned in the middle of the farm support-building complex. 

Find out what's happening in Half Hollow Hillswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

The nomination form concludes that the Seaman Farm was architecturally and historically significant as one of a few then-surviving relatively unaltered collections of nineteenth-century agricultural buildings in the town of Huntington.  Built circa 1805, the main dwelling was a representative example of late settlement period architecture in the town and was the only example of its type in the Dix Hills section of Huntington.

The Seaman Farm complex was further distinguished by its relatively large extant landholdings and its distinguished collection of nineteenth- and early twentieth-century farm support buildings, which illustrated the property's continued agricultural use into the early twentieth century. All of the outbuildings were representative, intact examples of their type and were rare survivors in the extensively developed town of Huntington. With its historic rural setting intact, the Seaman Farm was considered very important locally for its depiction of Huntington's agricultural tradition.

The Huntington Planning Board passed a resolution on February 6, 1985, allowing for the conditional subdivision of the 16-acre Seaman Farm complex.  First, the farm complex remained on a 4.6-acre lot, which retained all the existing historic buildings.  Second, the Planning Board imposed a restriction limiting further subdivision of the remaining 4.6-acre parcel.  The exact wording was: "Lot #9 shall not be subdivided in the future in any way so as to separate the grouping of historic buildings existing thereon."  At the same time that this was occurring, the property had already been nominated for the National Register of Historic Places, and was waiting for approval.

This became a consideration in 1992 when a second subdivision application was filed.  In consideration of the 1985 ruling regarding the first subdivision, two 1-acre lots were created, and a third 2.6-acre lot, which contained all the historic structures.  This concerned the Planning Board because although the property was on the National Register of Historic Places, it was not on the Town of Huntington list of historic places, and therefore was not technically protected from demolition. 

In response, "the Planning Board would initiate a recommendation to nominate the property for designation as an historic landmark site…" as stated in an interoffice memo dated November 12, 1992 from the Planning Board to the Huntington Historic Preservation Commission.  The letter goes on to say that "members of the Planning Board Staff met with… the applicant… and his attorney.  It is the applicant's contention that the structures on the site are not worthy of consideration in being classified as historic and that the attempt to impose greater regulation through the nomination of the property is unacceptable."  In the hopes of resolving the situation the Historic Preservation Commission was invited to inspect the property with the promise that a written report of the findings would be produced following the inspection. 

The owner submitted information to dispute the 1805 date of construction.  Included in this packet was: a copy of the owner's grandfather's deed (he purchased the house on April 1, 1898 from the Riverhead Savings Bank); a copy of his grandfather's map of the property from when he purchased it; and a copy of information contained in the book Deer Park-Wyandanch History by Verne Dyson. 

The copy of the letter written by the owner and enclosed in the packet states: "I do not give my consent to list this property as historic but I will give the barn to the Historical Society if they wish to move it."  (There is no suggestion that the Huntington Historical Society was ever contacted in regard to this offer, and later correspondence indicates that the owner did not understand the difference between the Huntington Historical Society--a private, not-for-profit organization--and the Huntington Historic Preservation Commission--a branch of the Town of Huntington government.)

Four members of the Huntington Historic Preservation Commission, with two members of the Town of Huntington Planning Board, visited the site of the Seaman Farm Complex on December 5, 1992.  Their findings were not written up in a memorandum until March 8, 1993.  In the meantime, the Historic Preservation Commission voted at their meeting on February 1, 1993 to recommend that the Town Board designate the site as a landmark. 

In response, a letter was written by the owner in which he states that at the time the house was placed on the National Register in 1985, "my aunt… who owned the place at the time had no interest in this, and was not informed of the consequences and never gave her consent.  She was also not included in any discussions."  He goes to state that the National Register designation was "gained through the use of fraudulent information so should be declared null and void." 

In the remainder of the letter he states that he has every intention of having his home removed from the State and National Registers of Historic Places, and then he reiterates his claims that "my grandfather built all the buildings after he purchased the land in 1898.  A period of time of about 20 years 1898-1918.  The one building that still remains from when my grandfather came there in 1898 is the old barn.  He had to do an extensive renovation of this building and the only parts that remain from the old building are parts of the frame and floor beams badly rotted and riddled with the powder post beetle… I will give the parts I have described to the Huntington Historical Society if they will remove them from my land." 

In this letter he again, incorrectly, attributes all actions taken by the Huntington Historic Preservation Commission to the Huntington Historical Society. 

The Historic Preservation Commission wrote a ten-page report on their findings in a memorandum dated March 8, 1993, just two weeks after the above letter was written.   They identify the property as lying on a 4.6-acre plot fronting on Carll's Straight Path.  The house was located in the center of the property with the farm outbuildings, including a workshop, corn crib, a barn, an older barn, a smaller barn, two chicken coops, a well, and a pond to its rear. 

The farm was surrounded by modern houses due to the recent subdivision of the land (the 1985 subdivision that placed the restrictions on the land). The report describes the house and outbuildings much the same way that the National Register nomination form did, but it also points out the more modern changes made. 

For example, "all of the original windows have been replaced, the vast majority with Victorian four- pane (two-over-two) windows which date from the second half of the nineteenth century."   The report goes on to point out that "a second lean-to, set at the grade level, extends across the back of the original lean-to, giving the house a square footprint.  This is a rare feature."  Most importantly, the Commission confirmed the construction date as being 1780-1805, thus refuting one of the owner's claims.

The owner was dealt a second blow on March 18, 1993 when he received a letter from the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation that contained information on the appeals process for removing a building from the National Register.  The letter states, however: "In my opinion, the materials you have sent thus far will not be adequate to have the property de-listed.  First your aunt… who owned the property at the time of the National Register listing, was informed both of the intent to list and the resulting listing.  As she did not object to listing, the property was listed on the National Register of Historic Places on September 26, 1985.  Second, the documentation you sent only tells us that the property was owned by Timorthy Carll until his death in 1826 and by Timothy Griffing after 1894.  Even if the property was never owned by the Seaman family, it was nominated to the National Register for its architectural and historical significance….  As for the date of the construction of the house, the c. 1805 date that we identified was based on knowledge of local architectural trends and characteristics.  You indicated that the house burned to the ground in 1898 and the present house was built in 1905, but your claim will have be substantiated through a thorough examination of the design of and construction methods found in the house."  As evident from the Preservation Commission's report, their site visit confirmed the earlier date of construction.

Then on April 28, 1993 the subdivision applied for in 1992 received conditional approval.  The conditions of the approval were in regard to the historic buildings on the property.  First, "Lot #3 shall not be subdivided in the future in any way to separate the grouping of historic buildings thereon." Second: "All buildings on Lot #3 shall remain unless they are determined to be structurally unsound and unsafe by the Town building inspector."  It seemed that the owner would get its subdivision and the Commission would get its designation.

But then on September 23, 1993, a demolition permit was applied for all of the structures excluding the house.  This was followed by a September 29, 1993 letter from the owner's attorney to the Planning Board in which he states he "recently submitted a copy of a proposed restrictive covenant eliminating the word 'historic' from the prohibition against further subdivision on Lot #3…."  He explains that he feels that "prohibiting the subdivision of Lot #3 in any way to separate the group of buildings existing thereon is adequate to satisfy the Planning Board requirements without any reference to and historic designation of the building."  

In response to these two actions, the Huntington Historic Preservation Commission voted to recommend the Seaman Farm for designation as a historic landmark.  This recommendation, like their first one made in February, expired because the Town Board did not schedule a public hearing on the matter within the prescribed time limit. 

Unable to secure its protection with designation as a local landmark, the house was left virtually abandoned.  In a memo dated December 14, 1994 from the Historic Preservation Commission to the Planning Board, the building's fate was decided after a follow-up inspection of the property on December 4, 1994. 

"Since 1992, the property has remained abandoned and is now almost completely covered with second-growth vegetation.  The dwelling house is now a victim of active vandalism and deterioration.  The two large bank barns and corn crib are now collapsed,  The workshop and wagon shed show evidence of buckling; and the two poultry sheds are now open to the weather and significantly deteriorated.  Only a few short years ago, this entire farm complex was still standing in serviceable condition.  Due to the present condition of the existing structures and the context of the surrounding neighborhood, it is the opinion of the Commission that none of the farm buildings are viable candidates for preservation any longer.  Therefore, the Commission will concur with the removal of accessory buildings… It is also our opinion that the dwelling house is still basically sound, but now requires a substantial amount of repairs in order to qualify for a Certificate of Occupancy… The Commission feels that the only way the house can be saved is if a sympathetic party with sufficient funds comes forward in the near future…if there is no likely possibility for the house to be preserved on its original site, [then] the applicant shall enter into an agreement that the removal of the house or the salvage of historic materials for purposes of preservation shall be implemented…." 

Given this report, the rest is obvious: the original demolition permit was amended to include demolition of the house and a permit was granted on January 26, 1995.

The Preservation Commission's final report concludes with the most meaningful of sentences: "This is a classic example of demolition by neglect."  On June 17, 2003 it was added to the Town Code that "No owner, occupier or person with an interest in a historic landmark, or in any open space, place or structure within a historic district shall permit the same to fall into a serious state of disrepair so as to result in the deterioration of any exterior or scenic feature…" (Town Code 198-40.6) 

Perhaps the loss of 1378 Carll's Straight Path played a role in having the law amended.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?