The following report and historical assessment was originally prepared for the National Trust for Historical Preservation. The Inn at Box Farm, formerly called the Helier House, was acquired by the National Trust in July 1994 under the terms of the will of Mrs. Henry Helier, its owner.

The three primary goals of this report were to aid the National Trust in the following areas through research: to provide background information for appropriate preservation easements; to provide future owners of the property with an accurate historical resource describing the history and significance of the property, and lastly, to augment the records of local and regional historical societies and libraries which may have an interest in the house and its occupants.

Introduction
The rarity and age of this building type, a late seventeenth century Colonial farmhouse - warranted a systematic study and evaluation of the entire structure. A comprehensive understanding of the different construction campaigns was necessary as well as a review of recent additions and rehabilitations, the last of which was abandoned within the last few years after the structural framing was enclosed on the ground floor. To arrive at a definitive series of recommendations, a thorough inspection was made of the entire structure, focusing on the earliest portion of the house, which has been assumed to date from the late 1600's. As no previous information or reports have ever been compiled for this property, and specific archival information about this property is very limited, much of the research has focused on comparative analysis of this building type with others of the same age, construction and appearance found in this region. This methodical compilation of information about this building type has been essential to understanding the construction sequence of the different additions which have been superimposed, one over the other, as the house has been renovated several times in this century. Deeds and wills have also provided some clues as to the most likely periods when the house would have been renovated, as have historic property maps of the area which locate the house during the different centuries as the area developed.

Although the primary area of interest is the architectural significance of the property, the present interior furnishings have provided important information about the rural land use within the immediate vicinity of the house and confirmation about the owners in this century. The hunting and horse prints which remain in the house are reminders of the Helier family interest in fox hunting and horse shows. Two significant photographs of the house taken in 1906 and 1932, which are part of the furnishings inventory, record not only the configuration of the house at the turn of the century, but the Master of the Fox Hounds assembling the pack in front of the house. This gentleman on horseback has been identified as Richard Newton, known locally as "Dickie", who was Master of the Suffolk Hunt Club. His identification became the key to unfolding the ownership of the property and will no doubt serve to establish one of the occupants as important socially in Suffolk County. Professional services were limited to an architectural assessment of the building focusing on the architectural history and remaining significant original historical features and components. No structural or load-bearing study and analysis was performed, nor was any mechanical, electrical and plumbing surveyor analysis provided to determine condition and capacity of any existing systems and their remaining life cycle. Additionally, no study has been made of the landscape, nor was any land use study or survey made of the property. The site data has been limited to the use and reproduction of available tax maps. The information contained in this report is intended to highlight and stress important historical information about the house and previous owners. As a result, no attempt has been made to identify corrective repair and restoration options and any improvements associated with safe and legal operation and use of the house as a private residence or other approved occupancy. No attempt has been made to inventory or appraise furnishings and fixtures which remain in the house at the date this report was prepared. Costs associated with the repair and any environmental issues pertaining to the presence of potentially hazardous building products and materials (including their safe removal) are also not part of this research project.

The work performed in preparation of this report has involved the following tasks: Research compilation and Historical Comparative Historical Analysis, Site Inspection and Condition Survey, and lastly, Evaluation. No sampling or probing of the structure was undertaken. Therefore, the description of building components and their conditions are based solely on visual inspection. Inspection of the portions of the roofs and eastern elevation were limited as access from the adjacent property and ladder access to the roofs were not possible. Observation of these areas was limited to the use of binoculars for the roof covering and eaves, and views through the adjacent perimeter fencing. The schematic plans provided with this report are for information and reference only and are not to be considered as suitable for construction.

This report gratefully acknowledges the participation of Robert Keene, Historian to the Town of Southampton; Dorothy King, Assistant Director and Librarian, The Pennypacker Collection, Southampton Free Library; Veronica Briggs, Librarian. Lynda Ireland, Realtor, J.R. Siwicki, Jr., Real Estate; and the Surrogates Court Records office in Riverhead. Representatives from the National Trust who provided considerable assistance and editorial review include: Susan Gutchess, Director, Gifts of Heritage Program and George Siekkinen, Senior Architect.




Southampton
Southampton, settled in June 1640 by a small group of colonists from Connecticut, was the first English settlement in New York State. The land on Long Island was purchased from the Indians by John Winthrop, Governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony and named in honor of Henry Wrothesley, Earl of Southampton, Treasurer of the Virginia Company. The Dutch had already claimed Manhattan and Western Long Island and between the two settlements were Native American Tribes belonging to the Mohegan Nation. In the Southampton area were Shinnecock, Weeckatuck, and the Noyak tribes. Their lands were ultimately purchased by the English and leased back to them in 1703, in an area referred to now as Shinnecock Hills, the site of the present day Shinnecock Hills Golf Club. The settlement, which comprised eight square miles, prospered as a result of rich farm land, plenty of natural fresh water ponds and ample forests. First settlers were provided with approximately 50 acre lots allocated as:

"3 acres for a house lot
12 acres for cultivating
34 acres for grazing lands plus shares in common woodlands"

The settlement spread east and north, beginning with the construction of Edward Howell's Watermill (south of the present structure in present day Water Mill). The road to the mill was along the two mile Mill Path which opened in 1644. It continued eastward to other new settlements: Hay Ground, Mecox, Sagaponack, Wainscott, and Maidstone (East Hampton) and is known today as the Montauk Highway (Route 27 East).7
The Southampton Colony remained under British Law for all but two years when the boundary between the Dutch and English Territories came into question. Prompted by an aggressive move from the Duke of York's fleet, which demanded the surrender of Governor Peter Stuyvestant of New Amsterdam, King Charles II of England decided to modify the extent of their territorial boundary. He achieved this by altering the English southern boundary, which in effect virtually gave up the lands previously owned by the British Crown on the Eastern portion of Long Island to the Dutch as a result of inadequate administration and representation. The confusion over the English and Dutch jurisdictions caused the Southampton settlement and others on the Eastern Shores to test their independencee and resist Dutch rule. The Dutch succeeded in establishing their governance of this region for only two years, 1672~1674, but were eventually supplanted by the English who were welcomed by their former settlers, as they had never sworn allegiance to the Dutch. The region was to remain under British Law until the American Revolution in 1776.

The region's industries -- farming, milling, poultry and especially fishing - continued to thrive and the seashore and ports were known worldwide for their whaling activities. Sag Harbor, lying between the towns of Southampton and Easthampton, became an international seaport town. It was the site of America's first Custom House, built c.1788. 8. Success of the port towns continued through the early Nineteenth Century until new industries and businesses began to turn attention away from whaling and the sea to the quick profits coveted from mining. The primary competition for the whaling industry, which needed strong and ambitious men, was the California Gold Rush. Additionally, the discovery of oil in Pennsylvania at the turn of the Nineteenth Century reduced the demand for whale oil and the whaling industry rapidly declined.

In 1870, the railroad had reached Bridgehampton. With it came a new wealth and population which turned the area into a popular summer cottage colony. By the end of the century the region was becoming well known as a summer resort, a legacy the region has been able to maintain, owing to it's popularity with succeeding generations of contemporary celebrities and entrepreneurs who vacation and maintain large estates there. Farming and rural pursuits faded slowly over time as those houses closer to beaches and the towns were converted to rooming and boarding houses to serve the summer resort and holiday visitors. In 1891, McKim Meade & White designed the private Shinnecock Hills Golf Club, confirmation that the summer colony had an important social and wealthy community. Other well known establishments which became landmarks in their own right include the Canoe Place Inn, which was famous for it's guest cottages, parties and dances. Guests included Governor Al Smith, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Helen Hayes, Albert Einstein, and Cary Grant among others. The new sophistication and tastes also saw the introduction of civic and cultural architecture in the region, among them the Parrish Art Museum, which opened in 1898, founded by Samuel L. Parrish, and designed by Grosvenor Atterbury.

Watermill
The Hamlet of Water Mill was established by the construction of the Edward Howell's grist mill. This area quickly became an important agricultural crossroad as farmers living on the outskirts of the Southampton Settlement brought their wheat to the mill for processing. Water Mill is bisected today by the Montauk Highway. The Main Street and village green stand opposite each other and the windmill, which has been repaired and rehabilitated over the years, remains as a reminder of the pioneer industries.

Mecox and Hay Ground
The Hamlets of Mecox and Hay Ground are more difficult to comprehend as places with a recognizable identity today. The former developed from settlements to the east of Mill Pond and Mecox Bay; the latter from settlements around Hay Ground Bay. The site of the Helier House was most likely originally addressed as being in Hay Ground. Both Mecox and Hay Ground had their own churches and cemeteries, indicating that there was a sizeable population at one time to support them. Only the cemeteries remain today. These hamlets were unable to sustain a separate identity, most likely as a result of the continued growth of both Southampton and East Hampton which gave them considerable competition. Maps, compiled in 1924 by William Halsey in his book Sketches from Local History, illustrate the growth and changes of the Mecox area between 1750 and 1900. For each map the Helier House site or structure has been located.





Presently, the property is called 'The Inn at Box Farm. It is a one and a quarter acre parcel located at the corner of Mecox Road and Route 27 East, also known as Montauk Highway. The site slopes from the highway to a pond which is located to the south of the property. The house is located within five feet of the east property line and set back from the road approximately fifty feet. The southwestern portion of the site is overgrown with bushes and brambles and is not visible from Mecox Road. The immediate area around the house is planted with lawn, with the exception of the entrance drive accessed from the highway, which forms a parking area and turn around. The house is the only structure on the site (see Appendix III, Existing Condition Photographs). The property boundary along Montauk Highway is defined by a white picket fence, similar to one which existed in 1932 (see ill. 3). A pedestrian gate leads to the front door which is marked by a small sign post which reads "Box Farm, 1690". (See appendix III). A double gate closes off the entrance to the driveway. The other property boundary to the east is distinguished by a split rail fence and shrubbery. This forms a separation from the neighbor's property, as the Helier house sits within five feet of this fence. The other site boundaries are obscured by dense shrubbery and overgrown brambles and weeds. A few large trees remain dotted throughout the property, the more picturesque specimens fronting Montauk Highway.

Historical Prototype & Construction Methods
Although the Helier House appears from the exterior as one uniform structure, the house was built over generations. Contemporary efforts to unify the different construction campaigns have been achieved by removing older wood sash windows and replacing them with aluminium windows of uniform size appearance. The wood shingle cladding has also been replaced to conceal any anomalies or differentiation between the additions. To understand the chronology of the house, knowledge of the structural framing and clues from the foundations would normally confirm how the house expanded over the generations and where the additions were linked together. Unfortunately, much of the ground floor framing has been replaced and foundation walls have been substantially rebuilt or repaired obscuring original construction. Additionally, inspection of the interior rooms, the type of architectural woodwork used to frame and trim door openings, door hardware, as well as their placement alongside one another, suggested a logical sequence of construction. This was confirmed by relating the physical information documented at the site to previous studies and scholarly works about similar house types in New England, principally Connecticut farm houses. The house type derives from early English and Dutch traditional construction methods brought to this country by the early English and Dutch traditional construction methods brought to this country by the early settlers of the Massachusetts and Connecticut colonies. While the Southampton settlement was predominantly influenced by English building methods and customs, as a trading post to other colonies and Europe there may have been practical influences which guided the specific construction methods of this house. The difference between the two generic influences, the English and the Dutch, originate in the structural framing of the house. The typical English framing system would have a secondary supporting beam, a summer beam, crossing the primary living space running perpendicular to the fire place and parallel to the front wall of the house. The Dutch house framing system does not normally have this feature. The framing system on both floor levels of the Helier house, with the exception of later unfinished additions, is enclosed and concealed by gypsum wallboard finishes to the ceilings and in the attic with batt fiberglass insulation. It is neither possible to state which construction method was used, nor to accurately state the date of construction, attributed to 1690, which would confirm the actual European prototype.

The plans of the early houses were modest, usually of one story consisting of a single room with a large chimney at one end. The typical structure, relying on the abundant forests, was built entirely of wood, with foundations and chimneys of brick. Oak was the predominant framing material, with white pine used for clapboards and finish carpentry, as well as hand split roof and wall shingles. The houses were designed with efficiency and simplicity. Architectural ornamentation was most often reserved to the front entrance doors and parlors. The buildings were known to have been painted, the most frequently used color being white, including the masonry or brick chimneys. No information has come to light to substanciate that this was the case at the Helier House, as none of the original or earlier siding survives in a visible location. There may be remnants of cladding concealed by later additions in the attic gables and underneath the present shingles. Any future repairs to the exterior should be mindful that the original material may exist, and removals should be undertaken carefully by skilled carpenters so as to disturb any hidden features as little as possible.

At the Helier House, the first room or building most likely on the site was the Rear Parlor, originally the kitchen for the house. Several scholars of this period describe a one room house as the 'fire room' because the chimney covered an entire wall of the structure. It is also the only part of the house which would have had a full cellar, if the cellar is indeed part of the original building. The nomenclature assigned by Isham and Brown to this plan type is a variation of the Connecticut House Plan, (see ill. 1) Plan Type E and F. This plan type correlates to the original Helier salt box presumed to date from the 1690's14. The Rear Parlor, when isolated from later additions, exhibits all of the characteristics of this particular Connecticut prototype. Although no probes or openings were made in the building, the fact that the settlement was inhabited primarily by the English makes it likely that their method of construction would predominate in this region.

The original house, as built in the late seventeenth century, would have had a steeply pitched roof that provided both weather protection and an attic space with sufficient headroom to be used for storage and for sleeping quarters for children. Lean-tos and porches may have also existed to provide additional shelter to livestock and firewood. The roof covering, following the English prototype, was either thatch or hand-rived shingles. Windows were also modest in size and constructed of small panes - usually the sash was formed of casement windows. For those wealthy enough to afford glass, the material was imported from England and purchased by the square foot. The individual panes would have been diamond-shaped and embedded in lead cames with their long axis vertically oriented. In addition, all openings would have been shuttered. The English settler accustomed to glass in their former English homes would most likely have considered the use of glass a necessity and not a luxury. Smaller attic windows would have provided light and ventilation to the upper sleeping loft. Framing for the houses was provided by the abundant timber of the New Colony, generally of oak or pine. Walls were constructed of timber posts, following the English half-timber construction technique. In America, the timber structure on the exterior was covered with wood shingles or clapboards; the interior cavity was filled with clay, adding insulation and protection. Brick was used to construct the foundations, as sufficient stone was difficult to come by, and would have been laid using a mixture of mud and sand. The use of lime was rare, as it was an expensive and imported commodity. The ground floor was often of earth and later covered over with wide plands resting on floor joists. Appendix V reproduces several construction details which are typical of the methods used in practice in the Colonies in the Seventeenth Century.





The Helier House has undergone three types of interventions over the last centuries. The first series of interventions were several additions to the house resulting in the configuration and massing of the house as it appears today. The second series of interventions include internal changes to the rooms involving updating the decorative appearance, change of use of the rooms, as well as the installation of systems for lighting, heating, security and drainage systems. The third series of interventions include unifying the appearance of the house by reshingling, replacing painted trim and installing modern double-hung window sashes.

The construction methods vary considerably between the Seventeenth and Nineteenth Century additions. Understanding where these modifications exist and where they are tied to the original structure, and to one another, will assist in the determination of a building chronology, if not by date, then by construction sequence.

Original House - Late Seventeenth Century
Little is known at this time about the early occupants of the house. However, it is probable that the Helier house began as a small farmhouse which was supposedly constructed in 1690. this is the date attributed to the house on the sign post at the entrance gate reads "BOX FARM EST 1960" but remains undocumented and substantiated in archival material. This present study suggests that the original house would have consisted of a single room with a large fireplace and chimney. Inspection of the basement and crawl spaces confirms that the largest brick component in the house is the double chimney at the center of the house. The earliest part of the house was most probably an area that included the present Rear Parlor, Hall and Bath on the ground floor.

Expansion of the house would have coincided with an increase in the household - more children or relatives coming to live together under one roof. The addition would have consisted of the construction of an adjacent building connected directly to the present dwelling. In this manner, the family could continue enjoying occupancy while the new addition was being built. This structure would have included, at a minimum, the present Dining Room, and Front Parlor, Pantry and Back Hall. The second floor and other rooms could have developed from modifying and lifting the attic to create a second floor and by enclosing porches at the perimeter of the building. A last addition may have been the present kitchen developmentlopement of the attic into additional bedrooms. This suggested and theoretical construction sequence is further corroborated by the doors frames, door panels, hardware and architectural details which are different in each of these delineated periods.

To confirm the construction sequence, further probing and research, involving testing and identification of building components, would be recommended. Selected openings of the building framing system and sampling of timber frame components would be a recommmended and worthwhile pursuit. In this manner, by comparative analysis, changes in technology could be identified ansubstantiatingstanciating the construction sequence. It would be important to know where pegged and nailed construction existed, and where cobbing, panelling and lath and plaster walls where applied to the different rooms. Additionally, the discovery of early plaster and paint finishes would provide a supporting chronology.

It is unlikely that the house would have originally had a cellar, as early structures were most often constructed over a crawl space. Digging of a cellar may have been a later improvement, particularly if the chimney was enlarged. Some of the original heavy timber post construction remains visible in the cupboard adjacent to the fireplace in the Rear Parlor (what might have been the old kitchen) indicating that some of the balloon frame construction was retained in later renovations.

The earliest period room in the house is the Rear Parlor, which has unadorned wainscot paneling, constructed of horizontal boards and reaching only to the window sill; above this is a plaster finished wall. Opposite the fireplace is partition consisting of single plank boards which conceal a narrow flight of stairs leading to what would have been the attic space. This ground floor room most likely contained a large communal kitchen, living and work room which was divided at some point in time by the lightweight framed wall. This is of a different dimension than the wainscot panelling, suggesting that it was installed after the room was constructed and decorated.

The foundation under this portion of the house suggests that there were modifications, not only to the perimeter walls, but also to the chimney and the floor framing. The foundations and chimney have been substantially re-pointed. Two or three different pointing mortars are visible in places where the whitewash no longer adheres. Additionally, repairs consisting of bricks and concrete block have been randomly inserted in the walls. The upper most part of the wall directly beneath the wall plate is constructed entirely of brick, and may have been a Nineteenth Century repair and improvement. The floor framing has been replaced in it's entirety and now consists of new pressure-treated framing members and steels joists. The original floor was also removed, as plywood can be seen from below as the subfloor between new wood and steel joists. All of the door hardware on the interior of this ground floor room consists of drop latches, presumably of forged iron. These are the earliest of their type in the house.

First Modification
Although no archival material has been found to confirm how and when the house was enlarged, there is evidence to support the next addition, which was along side and east of the existing fireplace and chimney. This addition took on the appearance of a salt box with it's second floor connecting to the attic space of the original structure. No distinguishing features are currently visible; all of the walls are enclosed and no probes were made to confirm the tying-in of a later structure to the original chimney. This enlargement includes the Entry Hall, Front Parlor, Dining Room, Pantry and Back Hall. Both the Back Hall and the Pantry have been remodelled at a later point in time. The second archival photograph, dated 1902 and found at the house, shows the house without a second story to the original portion and the adjacent salt box. Note that no porches have been constructed.

This salt box addition was far grander in appearance and the interior decoration is more sophisticated, with shallow molding and roundels to door frames, indicating that this could have been constructed in the Eighteenth Century. Door hardware on both the ground and second floor of this addition is of the same type - brass inset mortise locks with brass knobs. The fireplace mantle, door frames and the southern niche in the Front Parlor are similar in design and appearance following classical proportions and motiffs, although simple and unrefined. The northern nich is taller, suggesting that it may have previously been a window. The carpentry is not as consistent as the other architectural woodwork in the room. Details to the front entrance door are similar in arrangement to those of houses in East Marion, Long Island, dating from the 1790's, and similar in volume and form to the Anna Halsey House, Water Mill, Long Island, built in 1818. It was at this time that the entrance and visitor entrance to the house shifts to the new two story addition, which creates and entrance hall, front parlor and rear parlor or dining room. Rooms above would have been for sleeping chambers. Although the extent of the new construction is not clearly visible today, this significant transformation to the house doubled its size.

Second Modification
Both of the previous additions were at the same level. This next phase of construction most likely altered the eastern gable of the house and included the construction of the second floor from the attic. It is not clear how the rear stair leadign from the Back Hall was originally configured and framed, as this portion of the house appears to have been reworked. The window in the stairwell is somewhat unusual. It is clear that this addition did not extend to the front of the house, as seen in both the 1902 and 1936 photographs. This gable may have initially had a porch which was later enclosed and incorporated to increase the size of the ground floor. The second floor was added later, as suggested by the manner in which the roof planes meet the earlier two story portion of the house.

Third Modification
Once the configuration and volume of the building were established, there would have been a series of interior renovations which would have consisted of installation of lighting, interior plumbing, and lastly, electrical service to the property. As the house was "modernized" there would have been changes to the interior decorations. It is plausible to assume that any lean-to constructions which existed at this time were upgraded and porches enclosed, and that worn and defective finishes and components were simply replaced with new or salvaged materials. Perimeter porches, to compensate for changes in grade level to link the different additions from the exterior visually, may have been part of this series of modifications. There are no photographs or archival material to support these claims. Therefore, these conclusions are derived from observation knowledge of house framing techniques which would have followed simple construction practices. It is difficult to imagine that the roof-scape, for example, would have been designed so irregularly and each alteration was configured from the inside out, increasing the habitable area rather than considering the exterior appearance and overall uniformity.

Fourth Modification
This last building campaign is the easiest to recognize, as there is a dramatic shift in construction technology and fenestration. The house was extended to the south and the north. To the south, an addition was constructed creating a "Florida" type enclosure. With the exception of where the addition attaches to the southwest corner and an entrance door, all of the three exposures contain floor-to-cieling aluminum sliding glass doors. There is no insulated flooring, only open boarding to the crawl space below, similar to the porches surrounding it, suggesting its seasonal use. To the north, a new room was added to the ground and second story extending the primary entrance facade. Although constructed of wood framing, it is of different construction techniques than other parts of the house. On the interior, the room on the ground floor is unfinished with all wood framing left exposed. It would appear that some of the floor construction used salvaged building materials, as one exposed floor framing member show signs of insect infestation. It was not determined if this decay was caused by active or past insect attack. The upper room facing north has been refitted as a bathroom. It is possible that the lower room was at one time a porch which was only recently enclosed.

The most recent Twentieth Century improvements concern themselves with maintenance of the electrical, plumbing, and the substantial upgrading of the heating system. A central air system was installed which provides air conditioning as well as heating. The front plate of the older coal fired boiler remains in the basement.

The interiors throughout the house have been recently been renovated. The majority of all of the rooms have been repainted, including doors and architectural woodwork which have received the same flat white paint. Floors have been covered-over with wall to wall carpeting. Upstairs, the earlier board floors may exist, however, on the ground floor, these may have been replaced when the floor framing was replaced.