A Plea for their History

By Brad Barth

After arguments at an Oyster Bay Town Hall hearing on Tuesday November 18 to designate three Woodbury properties as landmarks, it became apparent that the town's pending decision will rest upon finding the balance between a property owner's rights, and a community's obligation to maintain its history.

Significant new details concerning the battle over the Smith-Gibson House, Old Methodist church and the church's graveyard emerged during the four-hour-plus hearing. These included the discovery of American Indian artifacts, more visible representation of the parties opposing preservation and an admission from Smith-Gibson House homeowner Alfred Votypka that he intentionally had the property altered since the town's Landmarks Preservation Commission recommended its landmarking to the town board - an act town specifications advise against.

Like the hearing before the Landmarks Commission last August, dozens of community members attended the 10 a.m. meeting, displaying solidarity through applause. They were hoping to convince the seven town trustees to make this only the second time the town has approved a site for landmarking against wishes of an owner, whose fear is often that his land will lose property value because of the restrictions placed on how buildings on the property can be changed.

Smith-Gibson House

"There are few homes that can claim to such illustrious history," said Hunting Hills Civic Association President Bonnie Eisler, referring to the Smith-Gibson house, an estate built in the 19th century in which renowned architect Robert W. Gibson lived for 15 years.

Residents argued that, aside from its historic connections to Gibson, the house has aesthetic value, as was testified by Jon Collins, Landmark Committee trustee, who viewed the residence and surrounding structures from up close. Collins stated to the board that charm not only exuded from the Italian Renaissance-styled home, but also from the farm's other elements, such as its greenhouse, barn and pond. Collins reaffirmed that despite a few modern touches such as asbestos roof shingles, the house was a worthy specimen of its era.

Eisler and other residents also stressed the importance of the discovery of several archeological findings of Native American origin on Votypka's property, as was suspected because Jericho Turnpike lies on what was once an Indian trail. However, it is uncertain what the significance of the recoveries are.

Civic association members, Collins and other supporters of preservation of the house also sharply chastised Votypka for replacing his original front door and removing other ornamental structures after the Landmark Commission's positive recommendation for landmark status.

President of the Society for Preservation of Long Island Antiquities Joel C. Snodgrass lambasted Votypka's actions as "irresponsible" and a way of "punishing the home because the homeowner doesn't get to do what he wants to with it." Votypka is looking to zone the property for S-2 senior housing. Eisler called his actions "an attempt to, piece by piece, take away the significance of the home."

Votypka, at times adamant and boldly accusatory, took the podium after a long sequence of community residents whom he believed were trying to thwart his attempts to develop.

He, as well as attorney Michael McCarthy first aimed to shoot down the notion that the house had either historic value or an Italian Renaissance look.

"Gibson, a name so famous that if you asked 100 people off the street who he was, nobody would know it," he sarcastically quipped. Votypka, pointing out that he has lived on the property for four decades, and also stressing that Gibson was not involved in construction on the house, remarked, "If any name should be attached to this house, it should be called the Votypka house."

Votypka, who said he was more prepared than at his last hearing, demonstrated that with the presence of a trio of experts - architectural, archeological and botanical - to quash some of the residents' arguments.

His architect pointed out numerous glitches in style, such as a pitched roof, which were not classified as Italian Renaissance characteristics, and listed changes to the house made under Votypka over the past 40 years, such as removal of the porch and changes to the house's rear. The botanist reported that no trees or shrubbery on the property were more than 70 years old. The archaeologist opined that archeological findings were inconsequential.

However, Eisler retorted later, "You should remember that Dr. Votypka paid for these experts," suggesting that the objectivity of the experts were possibly compromised. She also argued that the experts recommending landmarking could not be questioned because they came from the state, town and outside organizations like SPLIA, which charged no fees.

But Votypka had harsh words concerning one of these experts, Collins, as he threw out a bizarre accusation. "It was not my intention to show him [Collins] the place, nor was it any of his business or concern," he said. "He just showed up, and drove my wife crazy until she was almost ready to call the police."

Supervisor Lewis Yevoli objected to some of Votypka's motives. "You purchase five acres and you live there for 40 years and enjoy it...Now you want to sell it and subdivide it. I don't quite understand that. You want to make a maximum profit...Why not give somebody else a chance at enjoying the house?"

In response, Votypka asserted that he recognized the potential profit of that land when he bought it, and it was his intention all along to eventually rezone the land. "It just took much longer than I expected," he said.

Votypka admitted that he had altered the house recently, explaining he removed the ornaments because of terrible rot and replaced his front door because of a draft.

Yevoli challenged that the timing was "curious," to which Votypka retorted that he feared if the town did declare his property a landmark, he would never get to fix problems that have long stood with the house. He didn't think he needed a building permit, he said.

The doctor then questioned the curious timing of the Hunting Hills Civic Association, asking why the organization never sought landmark status of his property until he applied for a rezoning application. "I would stake my life the entire reason behind this is to stop this action [to develop]."

Yevoli, however, did not see the community's intentions as entirely selfish. "The people have a right to preserve what precious little heritage we have left," said the supervisor.

Old Methodist Church, Graveyard

Though Bishop for the Reorganized Church of the Latter Day Saints Dale Hunsicker addressed the board to oppose the church's landmark status, he extended a cooperative hand to the community that likely brought some relief to residents concerned that the church would either be demolished or used inappropriately.

Hunsicker did not deny the appeals of the church. "We appreciate the historicity and the aesthetics of the building. We've enjoyed it ourselves." His main concerns are monetary ones, explaining that "The possibility of landmark designation has hurt our ability to sell the church."

The Church of Latter Day Saints wishes to sell the church, which dates back to the Civil War era, and its grounds, where Walt Whitman's mother is buried, because the property has gone unused, and demographics in the religion are very minimal in the area.

However, as Michael K. Hill, attorney for the Hunting Hills Civic Association, reminded the town board earlier, decline in property value or inability to sell resulting from landmark designation was not an issue up for consideration. "The law provides that what should be taken into account is if these properties are of historic and aesthetic value. Bear in mind that if economic issues are raised [by the opposition] there is a time and a place to deal with them."

Nevertheless, Hunsicker insisted that it was too important an issue to ignore. He said that only one church, and a few businesses expressed fleeting interest in the property.

When asked by the council what were the church's possible plans for the site, Hunsicker replied that the only feasible possibility so far was a restaurant.

"You really believe that would be appropriate?" asked Yevoli, taken back. "I'm surprised that that would even be considered."

Though Hunsicker agreed that a religious use would be most ideal, he insisted that the Church could not afford to keep the church, and potential buyers were getting scared off.

"We would like to use it in a manner that would be appreciated by the community," he said.

Resident Robin Pearl explained why the church is considered so valuable to the community. "I'd like to believe that in Woodbury we can have a landmark for our childrenÉand even have a chance to sit inside in the quiet, look out the window and see what our ancestors saw."