HUDSON VALLEY

Cultural Resource Consultants, Ltd.

PO Box 264, Salt Point, NY 12578

914-456-3698

P a g e | 1

September 14, 2021

Chairwoman Loretta Taylor

and Members of the Town Planning Board

Town of Cortlandt

1 Heady Street

Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567

Re: Palisades Fuel

2056-2060 E. Main Street

Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County

Dear Chairwoman Taylor and Members of the Planning Board:

Hudson Valley Cultural Resource Consultants (“HVCRC”), submits this letter in response to the comments

issued at the August 31, 2021 Public Hearing, regarding the Palisades Fuel project (the “Project”) at 2056-2060

E. Main Street (“Project Parcel”). Among other things, this letter discusses: (i) the availability of staff to be

present at the public meeting, (ii) the research process for the Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity

Assessment, completed in July of 2021, (iii) the probability of a burial ground on the property, and use of

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR), and (iv) the condition of the interior of the structure at 2056 East Main

Street (“Brick Structure”).

MEETING AVAILABILITY AND ATTENDANCE

We acknowledge the Board’s request to have a member of HVCRC staff attend the public and Project related

meetings. Unfortunately, HVCRC currently has six (6) projects before various Town Boards. Currently one is

meeting the first Tuesday of every month, and these meetings have been ongoing for several months. This

created the conflict that prevented HVCRC staff from attending the August 31, 2021 meeting. I am the member

of HVCRC staff who carries the Historic Preservation credentials and due to other ongoing meetings, I am not

available to attend the October 5

2021 meeting. I would be pleased to schedule a time to meet with the Board

to answer any questions and clarify any points as needed, but as stated I have a current commitment on Tuesday

the 5

of October 2021.

While, another staff member from HVCRC could be present, Ms. Gilleland currently holds the 36CFR 61

qualifications as an Archaeologist. She would be able to respond to the Board’s questions as they pertain to

identifying cemeteries and the use of GPR, but would not be able to address matters pertaining to the building

and historic preservation.

PHASE 1A LITERATURE REVIEW AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS REPORT

The Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Analysis Report (Phase 1A Report) completed in July of 2021

complies with the current New York State Standards.

In that regard there are standard sections that are

included in the report. However, the research for this project was expanded to include deed research

and

extra effort was exerted to identify resources that would have relevant information as it pertains to the Brick

Structure. As outlined in the report, the deeds currently housed at the Westchester County Records Office were

P a g e | 2

reviewed, local historical repositories

and online forums

along with the published histories of Westchester

County were reviewed to gather information as it pertains to the brick structure and the Project Parcel.

LOCATION OF A BURIAL GROUND ON THE PROJECT PARCEL

The Board members have raised a concern about the presence of a burial ground within the boundaries of the

Project Parcel. No record of a burial ground within the Project Parcel, or adjacent to its boundaries was

encountered during the expanded research completed for the Phase 1A report. The historic landowner maps

do not identify a cemetery within the vicinity of the Project Parcel.

Nor did a review of County Cemetery

records suggest that burial ground was located within or adjacent to the Project Parcel.

Should the Board be

willing to furnish HVCRC with the source of the information indicating that a burial ground is located within

the Project Parcel, I would be willing to complete further research on this topic.

Prior to the mid-nineteenth century large rural cemeteries were uncommon. The trend at the time was for the

deceased to be buried in a family or church plot. These family plots were located in a variety of environments

and in different locations on family property. While burial grounds do occasionally occur near houses, they are

strategically placed to avoid contamination of the wells, both for livestock and human occupants.

As a result

of the potential for contamination, burial grounds were commonly located further away from the wells and

structures that were regularly inhabited.

Did the expert do more than walking the site?

A surface reconnaissance of the property was completed. Most historic burial grounds tend to lack headstone

markers, either they have eroded or rotted, are unidentifiable as they consist of unmarked natural stones, or

have been moved or relocated.

When natural stones are used, they are flat pieces that are arranged as

headstones and footstones, or put upright in the ground as headstones.

Another indicator of a burial ground

is grave subsidence. Grave subsidence is caused by the natural settling of soils after burial, and decay and

collapse of the coffin. These deep linear depressions are identifiable on the ground surface. None of these

indicators of a burial ground were noted within the Project Parcel.

The surface reconnaissance revealed that there are large boulders located within the area disturbed by the

construction of the Bear Mountain Parkway, and in the slopes that ascend to the properties fronting along

Floral Road. The existing nature of the ground surface, sloped with eroding bedrock and boulders, makes this

an unlikely location for a burial ground.

In addition, there has been significant prior disturbance within the Project Parcel, as a result of previous

activities by the occupants of the Brick Structure. The landscape to the north of the building has been cut and

graded. Currently there is sharp change in elevation between the hill side and the level patio on the northwestern

side of the building. This sharp change in elevation also exists on the northeastern side of the building. To the

west of the current parking area, cutting and filling from the construction of the Bear Mountain Parkway has

altered the landscape.

Was ground penetrating radar used?

Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) is a remote sensing technique that can be used as non-invasive method for

examining subsurface cultural features. The results of the GPR survey depends on a variety of factors, including

surface conditions, soil type, moisture content, and the particular targets that are being investigated. Natural

features, such as rodent burrows, boulders and tree roots can create clutter within the results.

GPR surveying requires a precise grid overlying the known or suspected location of a burial ground. As no

evidence of a burial ground was identified in the historical records, there was no reason to proceed with a GPR

P a g e | 3

investigation. GPR surveys can be an unreliable method as tree roots, rocks, shallow bedrock, fill soils and the

overall moisture composition can interfere with the antenna’s ability to receive a pulse, and the pulse reflected

to the receiver will vary and is likely to create subsurface anomalies that may be mistaken for buried cultural

material. In addition, the antenna needs to be in close contact with the ground surface. GPR pulses cannot

penetrate bedrock. The shallow depth of bedrock with produce reflections that will prevent the identification

of historic features. Furthermore, rock on the ground will prevent the antenna from making sufficient contact

with the ground surface to send a pulse for the receiver to read.

Without a reference of the cemetery, or information pertaining to its location, a GPR study is not optimal. In

addition the surface conditions within the parcel make it unlikely that a conclusive result would be the outcome

of such a study.

Were there any test bores done?

A test trench was completed on the western side of the building on September 13, 2021. The careful monitoring

of mechanically excavated trenches is a common practice to determine if a burial ground is present.

The

location was chosen as it represented a level area that would have been the most likely location of a community

burial ground. The soil profile identified consisted of 2.5’-3’ of fill soils (top soil mixed with asphalt, asphalt

dust and gravel) overlying glacially sterile soil (C horizon). The existing soil profile indicates that at one time

the original top soil was removed, and the area was leveled and graded with soils brought in from another area.

Bedrock was reached at 6’ below grade in this location. Photographs of this test trench are included as Exhibit

B. Test pits completed elsewhere within the Project Parcel by the Applicant’s Environmental Consultant

indicate that the depth to bedrock is roughly 2’-4’ below grade. This shallow depth of bedrock, mixed with the

numerous boulders makes this an unlikely location for a burial ground.

CONDITION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE BRICK STRUCTURE

The interior of the building has been examined. Photographs of the interior are included in Exhibit A.

Did the historical expert go into the school house?

The interior of the house was assessed. Based on the continuous changes to the building all that remains from

its original construction is the brick shell and exterior roof material. Only one 19

century window was noted,

and it is unclear if it is original to the building. The dormers on the second floor, as well as the apartment, are

later 20

century additions. The additions to the northwestern corner, and north wall, and the kitchen and entry

addition on the southern elevation are also 20

century additions.

The original coal stove has been removed, along with any interior features that may have existed in the 19

century when the building was first constructed. Mid to late 20

century dividing walls and bathrooms have

been added to the interior of the first level of the Brick Structure. The flooring material is no longer original

to the building, and numerous iterations of ceilings were noted. The most recent being a drop ceiling that

houses HVAC components, and hides mid twentieth century ceiling tiles, over ship-lap style boards.

Interior walls are constructed with sheet rock. In the northern addition, the interior finish materials have

significantly deteriorated, and the wall boards have collapsed away from the roof and brick wall. The southern

addition consists of the former restaurant kitchen, and entry way and is a late 20

century addition. The second

floor has been fully altered in the mid to late 20

century to function as an apartment. This renovation included

the addition of two dormers on the western side of the building. The southernmost dormer is no longer sealed

against the elements, and significant water damage has caused deterioration of the interior. There is notable

bowing in the exterior of the roof on the southern side of this dormer. The northernmost dormer is the location

P a g e | 4

of the apartment’s kitchen. This area has also experienced significant water damage, as the northern wall is

bowing inward, and does not appear to be structurally sound.

The foundation of the Brick Structure has been constructed of mortared brick which has been parged over

with a layer of cement. Currently there is more than two feet of water within the basement of the structure.

The basement features cast iron supports, on which the floor joists rest. These supports are covered with rust.

The numerous pipes and mechanical components in the basement also exhibit deterioration and corrosion.

The floorboards were black with rot and contained substantial amounts of mold and fungus.

With the exception of the brick walls of the building there does not appear to be any historical elements

associated with the building's historic use and intent. Steam radiators were added in the late 19th and early 20th

century. The windows were also replaced at various times throughout the past few centuries, with only one 19

century window noted.

Historic preservation is about not only the structure, but also its function and its history.

This historic

intention was irreversibly abandoned by change in the use of the building in the 20th century. The historic

intention and function of the building was as a school house. Overall the historic intent and function of the

building has been lost. The structure no longer retains the integrity of its original purpose.

Thank you sincerely for your thoughtful consideration to this matter, and if you require any further information

to facilitate your review of the Project, please do not hesitate to ask.

Sincerely,

Beth Selig

President, Hudson Valley Cultural Resource Consultants (HVCRC)

P a g e | 5

Standards for Cultural Resource Investigations and the Curation of Archeological Collections published by the New York

Archeological Council (NYAC) and recommended for use by New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic

Preservation (OPRHP).

Deed Research is recommended only for Phase 2 Investigation Level Reports. See note 1.

Peekskill Local History Collection, the Colin T. Naylor, Jr. Archives and & Peekskill Museum at Herrick House.

Abandoned Peekskill Facebook Group, Newspapers.com, Heritage Quest Census data, Ancestry.com.

Phase 1A Literature Review and Sensitivity Assessment. Palisades Fuel. Town of Cortlandt, Westchester County, New

York. July 2021. Figures 5-9.

Patrick Raftery. 2009, Westchester County Cemetery Index. Westchester County Archives.

Jessie Lee Faber. 2003, Early American Gravestones. American Antiquarian Society.

J. Wilson Poucher, and Helen Wilkinson Reynolds, 1939. Nineteen Thousand Inscriptions. Collection of the Dutchess County

Historical Society, Volume II. Poughkeepsie, NY. Ross W Jamieson, 1995 “Material Culture and Social Death: African

American Burial Practices.” Historical Archeology. Vol. 29 (4):39-58.

Ross W Jamieson, 1995, “Material Culture and Social Death: African American Burial Practices.” Historical Archeology.

Vol. 29 (4):39-58.

Lorenzo H., V. Perez-Garcia, A. Novo, J. Armesto, 2010, Forestry Applications of Ground Penetrating Radar in Forest Systems.

19(1)-1-15.

Guidelines for the use of Archaeological Monitoring as an Alternative to Other Field Techniques NYAC adopted

4/26/02

Theodore Prudon, Preservation of Modern Architecture, (New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 2008):161.

P a g e | 6

List of Exhibits:

Exhibit A: Interior Photos of the Brick Structure

Exhibit B: Photographs of the Test Trench

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 2

1. Interior-

view to the

east of the

northeastern

corner of the

Brick

Structure.

Window

dates to 19

century.

2. View to the

south of

the interior

of the brick

structure.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 3

3. View to the

north of

the interior

of the brick

structure.

Interior

walls and

drop

ceiling are

modern

additions.

4. View to the

west of the

northweste

rn portion.

Steam

radiators

are later

additions.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 4

5. View to the

northeast of

the northern

addition.

The interior

of this space

deteriorating.

6. View to the

south toward

the kitchen

addition on

the southern

side of the

building.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 5

7. View to the

north from

the

southwestern

corner of the

brick

structure.

8. View to the

west of the

northern

addition.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 6

9. View to the

north of the

northern

addition.

Lumber

indicates a

mid-late 20

century

construction

date.

10. The interior

of the

northern

addition has

completely

deteriorated.

View to the

southeast.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 7

11. Bathroom

in the

interior of

the brick

structure.

View to the

west.

12. Stairs

leading to

the second

floor. View

to the

south.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 8

13. Bathroom

on second

floor. View

to the

southwest.

14. View to the

southwest of

southern

window.

Window is a

modern vinyl

replacement.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 9

15. View to the

west of the

northern

dormer and

addition on

second

floor.

Shiplap to

the right in

photos is

collapsing

inward.

16. View to the

southwest

of the

southern

dormer.

Note the

significant

water

damage.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 10

17. The

original

stove and

piping have

been

removed.

18. Drop

Ceilings

cover earlier

iterations of

ceiling

materials and

house HVAC

components.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 11

19. Second

bathroom

in interior

of brick

structure.

20. Pipes and

mechanicals

are located

in the

basement

of the

structure.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 12

21. Foundation

constructed

of brick

and parged

with

cement.

22. Substantial

amounts of

water were

noted in

the

basement.

EXHIBIT A: INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS | 13

23. The water

infiltration

has caused

the pipes

and floor

joists to

deteriorate.

24. A

significant

amount of

rot, mold

and fungus

were noted

in the floor

joists.

EXHIBIT B: TEST TRENCH PHOTOGRAPHS | 14

EXHIBIT B: TEST TRENCH PHOTOS

EXHIBIT B: TEST TRENCH PHOTOGRAPHS | 15

1. The test

trench

identified

fill

consisting

of soil,

asphalt,

gravel and

asphalt

dust.

2. The fill

material is

located on

top of

glacial

subsoil.

EXHIBIT B: TEST TRENCH PHOTOGRAPHS | 16

3. Bedrock was

encountered

at a depth of

6’ below

grade.

4. The test

trench was

15’ in

length, on

the western

side of the

brick

structure.