Snuggs Preservation Plan

Preservation Plan May 6th, 2011

Isaiah Wilson Snuggs Historic House Museum

Albemarle, NC

by Sunni L. Goodson BA; MS, Conservation of Historic Buildings 424 D. Earnhardt Road Rockwell, NC 28138 (p) (704) 433-0637 (e) sunnilgoodson@gmail.com

Table of Contents I.

Page

Executive Summary………………………………………………………….1 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K.

Name, Location, and Owner………………………………………………………1 General Description……………………………………………………………….1 Previous Alterations……………………………………………………………......1 Prioritized Zones of Significance…………………………………………………..2 Purpose and Scope………………………………………………………………...2 Overall Treatment Approach……………………………………………………....2 Prior Restoration/Rehabilitation…………………………………………………...3 General Recommendations for Work at Major Features…………………………...3 Interpretive Programs……………………………………………………………...4 Previous Reports…………………………………………………………………..4 Necessity of Maintenance Plan…………………………………………………….4

Introduction…………………………………………………………..………..5

II. A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

III.

Statement of Significance………………………………………………………….5 Historic Designations……………………………………………………….……..6 Description of Methodology………………………………………………………6 Organization of Document………………………………………………….……..7 Limitations/Parameters of Document……………………………………………..7 Areas of Future Study……………………………………………………………..8 Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………..9

Historical Background………………………………………………………11

A. Methodology of Research…………………………………………………………..11 B. History and Development………………………………………………………….11 i.

1844-1873………………………………………………………….11 ii.

1873-1909………………………………………………………….16 ii-a. I. W. Snuggs…………………………………………………...20 iii.

1909-1924………………………………………………………….22 iv.

1924-1974………………………………………………………….24 v.

1974-1976………………………………………………………….24 v-a. 1974-1976 Alterations…………………………………………25 vi.

1976-1990………………………………………………………….26 vii.

2008-2011………………………………………………………….27 C. Significance………………………………………………………………………...29 i.

Architectural……………………………………………………….29

ii. iii.

IV.

Historical…………………………………………………………29 Cultural…………………………………………………………...29

Building Analysis……………………………………………………………30

A. Architectural Description………………………………………………………....30

V.

Existing Conditions…………………………………………………………36 A. Exterior…………………………………………………………………………...36 B. Interior……………………………………………………………………………42

VI. A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. K. L.

Prioritization of Features, Spaces, and Materials…………………….57 Premiere Spaces…………………………………………………………………...57 Premiere Features…………………………………………………………………57 Premiere Materials………………………………………………………………...57 Important Spaces………………………………………………………………….57 Important Features………………………………………………………………..58 Important Materials……………………………………………………………….58 Contributing Spaces…………………………………………………….…………58 Contributing Features…………………………………………………….……….58 Contributing Materials…………………………………………………….………58 Non-Contributing Spaces…………………………………………………………58 Non-Contributing Features………………………………………………………..58 Non-Contributing Materials……………………………………………………….58

VII. Recommendations for Further Research………………………………60 VIII. Treatment Overview…………………………………………………………61 A. B. C. D. E.

IX. A. B. C. D.

Philosophical Basis for Period of Significance……………………………………..61 Philosophical Basis for Period of Interpretation…………………………………...61 Recommended Treatment Philosophy……………………………………………..61 Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Treatments…………………………62 Rationale for Rehabilitation of 1852-1904 Structure………………………………..63

Use and Interpretation of Resources…………………………………….64 Proposed and Recommended Use…………………………………………………64 Impact of Proposal on Fabric, Systems, and Surrounding Site……………………..65 Justification for Capital Project…………………………………………………….65 Interpretive Programs……………….……………………………………………..65

X.

Treatment Recommendations……………………………………………..69 A. General…………………………………………………………………………….69 B. Exterior…………………………………………………………………………….69 C. Interior……………………………………………………………………………..73

XI. A. B. C. D. E.

Prioritization of Works…………………………………………...…………..77 Works to be completed before project commencement…………………..………...77 Critical (0-6 months)…………………………………………………………..……77 Important (6-12 months)………………………………………………………..….77 Necessary (12-18 months)……………………………………………………….…78 Final (12-30 months)…………………………………………………………….…78

XII. Recommendations for Maintenance Plan Development…………….79 Bibliography Appendices

May 2011

I.

Page |1

Executive Summary A. Name, Location, and Owner This Preservation Plan applies to the Isaiah Wilson “Buck” Snuggs house (hereafter known as the Snuggs house) which is located at 112 N. Third Street, approximately 105 feet north of East Main Street, in the heart of downtown historic Albemarle, NC, near bustling Highway 52. It is oriented with its front elevation facing west, running parallel with N. Third Street, and is set back 30 feet from the road. To its rear is the historic Freeman-Marks House, both of which are owned and operated by the Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission (SCHPC), a government agency. The SCHPC has a small full-time staff and is assisted by a number of volunteers and interns.

Banks, retail shops, small restaurants, and residences are rife in this area, some of which are located in other late-nineteenth and early –twentieth century buildings. As the second oldest surviving property in Albemarle, the Snuggs House helps to anchor the area in its historic context as development continues in and around the city.

B. General Description The Snuggs house is a two-story, three-bay farmhouse on its front elevation and was originally one room deep. It has three one-story extensions to its rear which create an asymmetrical façade. Parts of all three of these extensions were at one time a porch/porches. The exterior is covered in white clapboard and possesses a boxed cornice, frieze band, and six-over-six timber sash windows. Its front porch is covered with a shed porch and boasts simple, chamfered, timber columns and a matching balustrade with two central steps leading to the brick pathway. A wooden shingle roof covers the house. Two end-gable, single-shoulder, Flemish bond chimneys pierce the overhanging eaves. The house rests on a shallow support system and is surrounded by a red brick curtain wall.

C. Previous Alterations The house was originally built as a two-room log cabin with single-pen construction in 1852. A bedroom or office was added on the south c. 1861, as well as a rear porch which extended across the entire length of the structure.

In 1874 the most famous owner, I.W. “Buck” Snuggs, purchased the house and built an internal, central stair, a second story with a parlor and bedroom, a kitchen ell which incorporated the north end of the rear porch into a dining room, and a small extension to create an L-shaped back porch. In c. 1886 the south end of the rear porch was enclosed into another bedroom.

May 2011

Page |2

Snuggs died in 1904 and in 1909 the house passed from his son to his daughter who most likely opened the house as a rental or boarding house. In 1911 the original front porch was demolished and rebuilt in the style of the period.

By 1924 the house was removed from its foundation and moved 30 feet east, away from N. Third Street. A small bathroom and closet were most likely at that time delineated from the small porch enclosure bedroom. A few alterations were made throughout the 20th century, such as the addition of tile or vinyl flooring and other materials, but no major structural changes took place.

D. Prioritized Zones of Significance The premiere zones of significance are the original log cabin or parlor and central stairway, the 1861 addition to the south, and the second floor. The chimneys are also included in this zone.

Of important significance are the enclosed back porch and the kitchen ell.

The area of contributing significance is the small porch enclosure/office to the rear.

E. Purpose and Scope This report seeks to consolidate previous reports with new research to provide a basic but thorough foundational understanding of the Isaiah Wilson “Buck� Snuggs House, including a structural and material description, a brief history, fundamental building chronology, and a prioritized assessment of features and spaces.

The goal of the report is to provide new or clarifying information about the history of the structure and to draw conclusions based on this data in order compile a formal and comprehensive document on its history, current condition, and significant features. It also seeks to initiate a plan for its treatment, use, interpretation, and future life. This plan will ensure it is understood and utilized effectively as a significant artifact and educational tool. It is not exhaustive and does not include cost estimates or more formalized evaluations, such as a building code review or ADA compliance review. It outlines and gives guidance for the creation of a maintenance plan. The report should be supplemented with additional research where necessary. 1

1

It should be understood that the chronology set forth in this report is based on visual inspection and historic building techniques only as opening-up works were not possible at the time of research.

May 2011

Page |3

F. Overall Treatment Approach The overall treatment approach for the Snuggs house is the philosophy of Rehabilitation. Significant amounts of Preservation along with elements of Restoration will be utilized to achieve this goal.

G. Prior Restoration/Rehabilitation In 1974 the house left the Snuggs family and was sold to the SCHPC. From 19741976 a major campaign of works took place to turn the building into a museum.

Sheetrock was hung in the parlor, the small L-shaped back porch was enclosed, wallpaper was hung on new paneling, carpet was laid, and various forms of lighting were installed. What was thought to be the design of the original porch was also reinstated, though current information indicates that the design was not accurate.

Since this period, no major structural or material changes have been initiated.

H. General Recommendations for Work at Major Features The most important works will be the restoration of a metal roof and structural consolidation in the crawl space/foundation, particularly in the girders and beams of the log cabin.

The Flemish bond chimneys suffer from progressive water damage and differential/thermal movement due to different structural materials and cement pointing. These issues will need to be addressed by re-pointing and rebuilding. The resolution of these issues will also aid in drying out the interior of the house so that new paint may be applied externally.

Many 1970s additions should be removed from the premiere significance zones, including sheetrock in the parlor, paneling and wallpaper from the 1861 addition, carpet, and a number of installations and lighting fixtures. A mantel which was previously removed may be reconstructed and added to the parlor fireplace which is to be re-opened. Much of the carpet will also be removed from many rooms.

The front porch should be restored to its original appearance and additional vents will be opened in the curtain wall to increase ventilation and reduce moistureinduced exterior paint damage.

The porch enclosure may be reintegrated with the bathroom and a well-researched balustrade constructed internally to bring two periods of significance into the same space.

May 2011

Page |4

Water damage to the porch enclosure, bathroom, and kitchen will be addressed.

Materials like vinyl flooring, tiles, and other materials will be removed during the restoration to the period of significance.

I. Interpretive Programs The house will be fitted out as a late-19th century farmhouse with appropriate furnishing, implements, and architecture in each room. Signage, leaflets, and plaques will lead the visitor through the structural evolution of the house during its period of significance from 1852-1904. Diagrams and possibly animated features will detail this progression. Information will also be conveyed on the cultural, historical, architectural, and technological trends in Stanly County and the surrounding region which shaped and affected this house and the Snuggs family. Docent-led and selfguided tours, rotating exhibits, and educational programs will provide further insight.

J. Previous Reports The 1995 National Register nomination required a wealth of research into the social and architectural history, use, and current condition of the house [Appendix A]. An intern for the SCHPC also completed in-depth research on similar subjects in recent years. Large SCHPC files contain newspaper clippings, firsthand accounts, census records, Sanborn maps, and 1974-1976 restoration records. In 2007-2008, architect Stephen Onxley was commissioned to create CAD drawings of the building and conducted a structural survey as well as suggested remedial action for building stabilization [Appendix B]. In 2010, Terry Wilbur of Goldstar Services conducted a condition survey of the structural elements and a basic architectural survey. He provided a two-page summary on the restoration and re-use of the house as well as a list of phased works and cost estimates for the structural stabilization works [Appendix C]. No comprehensive document has yet been created to contain its history, architectural features, current conditions, areas of significance and rationale, a plan for treatment and recommended works.

K. Necessity of Maintenance Plan The end of this report explains the basis for the development of a maintenance plan with suggestions for routine maintenance checks and tasks. A full maintenance plan is not within the scope of this document but resources are provided as well as guidance. Such a plan is vital to the continued life of the house.

May 2011

II.

Page |5

Introduction A. Statement of Significance After the Civil War, the plain and humble weatherboarded farmhouses of Stanly County evolved into respectable and desirable establishments of the middle class family. As in the case of the Snuggs house, second stories were often added, more attention was given to the quality of millwork, and embellishments like boxed cornices, cornerboards, and interior ornamentation such as fluted surrounds abounded. While the original porch was removed in 1911, one can conjecture that the front and rear porches of the Snuggs house in the late 19th century would have been adorned with decorative brackets and turned balusters.

The house is an excellent example of this type of regional evolution in that its former one-story, hall-and-parlor, and log foundation shell was heightened to two timber-frame stories by Snuggs himself c. 1873. Like other homes in the area, the kitchen was removed from a detached building and instead incorporated into an ell which was built onto the back of the house, creating an asymmetrical rear facade. Cooking and other domestic activities would have taken place here, bringing more daily chores into the home. By the end of the 19th century many families had also done as Snuggs did by enclosing the rear porch to house family or, in this case, live-in help.2 The oldest surviving house of this kind in the downtown district of Albemarle and incorporating the older single-pen log construction into its skin, the Snuggs house is an impeccable and well-crafted example of the architectural, technological, and cultural changes that took place during the last half of the 19th century in Stanly County.

Only the most affluent families maintained exterior chimneys at not one but both gabled ends, signifying the status of the Snuggs family in the local community.3 I. W. Snuggs was a decorated veteran who lost one of his legs at the battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse during the 1864 Civil War battle. He returned home and developed an illustrious career as a civil servant who held three titles in the county seat of Stanly County which no man during his lifetime or for fifty years afterward would do. The house was also reportedly the site of an important political event which shall be discussed in Section III-B-iia.

After his death which was allegedly publicly mourned, the house passed to his son, Edgar, who would later own a large tract of land in the town, though the plot would remain known as the I.W. Snuggs homestead. The house of his construction is undoubtedly an important marker in the collective memory of Albemarle and a reminder of the battles, both military and philosophical, which shaped it.

2 3

Dodenhoff, p. 33 Ibid.

May 2011

Page |6

B. Historic Designations The Isaiah Wilson “Buck� Snuggs house has been listed on the National Register of Historic Places since 1995 as #95000190, along with the Freeman-Marks house which is situated in its back lot. Its historic significance is that of Architecture/Engineering and I.W. Snuggs, himself, along with the significant areas of Politics/Government and Architecture. The periods of significance range the century from 1825-1924 (though the earliest of these years relate to the Freeman-Marks house only), and in this time the house was used domestically. Most recently it served as a historic house museum managed by the Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. It is now closed to the public while structural interventions and other restoration works are completed.

The house is also within the Albemarle Downtown Historic District. This district includes over 160 properties near the downtown area and approval must be obtained for all exterior works as well as all works except maintenance. However, as a government agency, the SCHPC is exempt for permission requirements.

C. Description of Methodology The author began investigation of the I.W. Snuggs house by first thoroughly examining the available historical documentation and AutoCAD drawings provided by Mr. Jonathan Underwood at the Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Once a thorough understanding of its previous use and known dates of construction was developed, supplementary research was also conducted at the Stanly County Public Library Heritage Room as well the Stanly County Register of Deeds where census records and previous deeds were examined. Available Sanborn Fire Insurance maps were also consulted.

The author then conducted an architectural survey and an assessment of the existing conditions of the site. Each exterior elevation was analyzed and photographed, noting the condition of all features including foundations, chimneys, porches, weatherboarding and roofs. On the interior, an analysis of each room was completed, noting: construction materials and methods, wall and floor finishes, door and window quantities and surrounds, and conditions of all materials and spaces. Evidence of past historic changes and alterations of all types were noted and investigated further to determine the undocumented structural chronology. Photographs were taken of each space in general and important elements in particular. Once the building and historic investigation was completed, the appropriate Period of Significance was evaluated and determined. This led to the development of an overall interpretation approach, which drove the proposed use plan.4

4

Some wording taken from Glenburn Preservation Plan by HMR Architects, 2007.

May 2011

Page |7

D. Organization of Document This preservation plan first presents historical background including its social history and structural/material evolution as well as various areas of significance to set the structure within its appropriate context. An architectural description follows with attention to structural evolution and designation of significant elements, spaces, or features.

Suggestions for further research and reports are followed by overall recommendations for treatment and their implications and rationale. Proposals for use and interpretation are then set out along with their implications as well as room/feature-specific treatment recommendations. Prioritization of these works follows, before the final recommendation of a maintenance plan is presented. A bibliography and appendices with photographs, historic documents, and diagrams provide further evidence.

E. Limitations/Parameters of Document The extended timeline normally required for the production of a preservation plan was necessarily truncated due to lack of man power and impending deadlines. Lack of civic funding for personnel and estimates also prohibited the assembly of a team of specialists such as engineers and materials conservators as well as cost estimates for remedial/restorative works, except for those already specified for the foundation repairs

by Terry Wilbur. However, the author holds a Masters degree in historic preservation and therefore the report is well-informed, responsibly researched and thorough.

Recommendations for further research, testing, and specialist consultations are noted where appropriate.

This plan contains analysis of accessible and presented historic fabric. Other historic fabric may be hidden beneath modern finishes. As the house is intact and it is unclear when repair works can commence, no opening up works were completed and it is suggested that as the project commences and limited demolition takes place, further investigative works should be undertaken to determine the exact chronology of certain spaces as well to uncover important materials.

The focus of this project was on examining the extant fabric to determine building chronology and therefore areas of significance. Available research was supplemented with additional primary research and the information contained herein is ample for the purposes and scope of the present document and initial discussions pertaining to the restoration of the I.W. Snuggs House. It is not exhaustive and as the project advances it is recommended that further research be completed, particularly into the houseâ€&#x;s use between 1852-1873 as well as the 20th century history of the buildingâ€&#x;s use as a boarding house. While these eras are not paramount to the buildingâ€&#x;s significance, it is a matter of best practice to maintain a full and comprehensive historic document.

May 2011

Page |8

F. Areas of Future Study The scope of this report does not encompass all of the specialized studies necessary for the documentation, preservation, and efficient use of an historic building. The following studies should therefore be undertaken before recommended works commence: The foundation/crawl space of the house is covered in debris and detritus, among which can be found pottery shards and other historic materials. Evidence of a chimney fall beneath the log house as well as the record of a detached kitchen warrant an archaeological survey beneath and around the lot before any works commence. Signs of early foundations, previous bricks and stones, hearths, and other materials, particularly in the period before 1874, should be searched for with care and all findings should be duly noted and historic materials properly preserved, in place where possible and if not then following proper protocol.

Like most historic buildings, the Snuggs house is not currently fully accessible to those with disabilities. While not all accessibility guidelines apply to historic buildings, before works begin an ADA compliance review should be carried out. The recommendations contained herein should be altered insofar as is necessary and other alterations made in keeping with the legislation should also follow the Secretary of the Interiorâ€&#x;s Standards for the given treatment.

The recommendations and plans made in this report should also be checked for compliance with current building code requirements for historic buildings. Such a review was not possible during the composition of this report. This includes issues of loading, fire safety, visitor capacity, and other concerns. Alterations and additions to these plans should be made accordingly.

A building systems evaluation should be conducted by specialists in each area (mechanical or plumbing, electrical, HVAC) prior to work commencement. The safety and stability of these services ought to be assessed, analyzed, and remediated where necessary. This ought to be done during the opening-up process where required although all such works should be conducted as sympathetically as possible and in compliance with the Secretary of the Interiorâ€&#x;s Standards.

A Feasibility Study may also be undertaken to determine the total effects of the possible upgrading of modern and technological services, as well as the addition of thermal/energy conserving measures such as new attic insulation. These effects are briefly discussed here, though a more thorough inquiry should be completed by a specialist before works commence.

May 2011

Page |9

Wallpaper analysis should be completed on the extant material beneath the 1970s paneling to determine its dating. A number of excellent historic wallpaper conservators may perform these services at reasonable costs.

Paint analysis, while not entirely necessary, may help to support the building chronology set forth here and would further pinpoint the date of the exterior weatherboard.

If more exact dating is required, dendrochronology is a simple and affordable procedure which may be completed to determine the age of construction timbers and weatherboard and therefore the age of various additions/features.

A formal Interpretive Plan should be created to fully realize and create the best possible interpretation of the house, making full use of the resources available while taking into account the total effects on the fabric of the building.

This preservation plan would inform and provide the basis for a larger Historic Building Preservation Plan which would be an ideal tool for a building of this local importance, and would formalize overall management and maintenance procedures of the property for all future stewards. Such a document is vital to ensuring the continued life of the building.

The photographs taken previous to and during this report should be compiled along with this report and other historic research which has already been gathered to create a full documentation of the past and present state of the house. Any spaces, features, or materials which have not been photographed should be captured and added to this body of research.

G. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission for its continued stewardship of the I.W. Snuggs house and its commitment to historical education and preservation. The Director, Mr. Jonathan Underwood, is especially appreciated for spearheading this project as well as for his tireless supply of historical information and resources, his in-depth knowledge of the house and of the surrounding region. The author wishes to express gratitude to Mr. Aaron Kepley, a seasoned intern with the Preservation Commission and History major at Pfeiffer University, for previously completing much of the background research on the I.W. Snuggs house as well as for contributing his knowledge of historic American building technologies [Appendix D]. Mr. Stephen Onxley, of Onxley Architects in Charlotte, North Carolina, formerly completed an inspection of the houseâ€&#x;s structural system as well as excellent measured drawings which were used in the research and creation of this preservation plan. Mr. Terry Wilbur of Goldstar Services in Salisbury, North Carolina, also previously

May 2011

P a g e | 10

completed a structural and architectural survey which proved very informative. Mr. Davyd Foard Hood completed the 1995 National Register nomination form which contained a wealth of historical and architectural research that aided in the completion of this preservation plan.

May 2011

III.

P a g e | 11

Historical Background A. Methodology of Research Historical information was gathered largely by consulting previous reports and reconciling this information with newspaper clippings, first-hand accounts, and other information contained within the Snuggs house file of the SCHPC. Recorded alterations history was then verified by comparing with structural and material evidence on site.

Census records were gathered at the Stanly County Public Library Heritage Room in addition to research conducted at the Stanly County Register of Deeds to confirm the chain of title previously assembled.

B. History and Development Except for the campaign of works completed in the 1970s, there is little record or documentation of other alterations made throughout the life of the building. The building chronology listed below is a result of detailed examination of the historic fabric, construction technologies, knowledge of the availability of certain materials, and relationships between various parts of the structure. The reasoning and logic of the given chronology are explained.

(i). 1844-1873 On July 25, 1844, William Swearingen sold vacant lot #56 in Albemarle, the county seat of Stanly County, to Michael Fesperman for the price of $10.00 [Appendix E].

By October of 1848 Fesperman had subsequently sold it to David Austin for a minimal profit at $15.00. Austin‟s tax records for the years 1851, 1852, and 1853 show that the property was worth $15.00, $100.00, and $375.00, respectively. The increased value indicates that a building was erected on the site during this time period. Unfortunately, Austin lost it in a Sheriff sale and the property was subsequently bought by Daniel Freeman and then sold to Culpepper Austin in 1859.

There is no deed to confirm this, but records state that Austin sold the property to John O. Ross in 1861-62 for $309.00 and, in November 1865, it passed to Lafayette Green for $400.00. Stanly County deed book #5, page #614 which lists the deed of sale between Ross and Green calls the property being sold “the lots whereon the said John O. Ross lately lived,” indicating that the site was occupied from 1861/62-1865.

There is no indication that Green ever lived there, but on December 20, 1873, Green sold the existing structure and lot #56 to Isaiah Wilson “Buck” Snuggs for the price of $375.00.5

5

Kepley, Snuggs House Report

May 2011

P a g e | 12

In the early-mid 19th century, the dwellings and outbuildings of an undeveloped Stanly County were largely made of hand hewn logs. The Snuggs house was originally a two-room log cabin built c. 1852 by David Austin and held together by single-pen construction, a building technique brought by British settlers.6 The halland-parlor plan was typical of that era (which may also be seen in the FreemanMarks house), in that the parlor was utilized for sleeping and as a sitting room, while the hall was a point of entry as well as a work space. The present day fireplace ghost marks and chimney indicate the location of an early hearth in the parlor. Most important is that this log cabin and the subsequent additions originally sat 30 feet to the west, closer to North Third Street until they were pushed back in 1924.7 Given this fact, the presence of a chimney fall under the current parlor may be indicative of an early detached kitchen on the site [Image 1-2].

Figure 1: Possible early chimney fall

Figure 2: Early brick foundation

6 7

Dodenhoff, p. 19 Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Snuggs House File.

May 2011

P a g e | 13

As aforementioned, after David Austin built this cabin the home was passed through a number of hands before being purchased by Snuggs in 1873. It has previously been thought that at that time the house consisted of only the log cabin. However, recent inspection of the property reveals evidence that what served as Snuggs‟ bedroom (the main south room on the first floor) and the former rear porch were already built at the time of purchase.

Examination of the foundation shows that the log floor joists of the original log cabin, Snuggs‟ bedroom, and the rear porch appear to be the same in size, color, condition, and joinery [Image 3]. Those under the main house are oriented east to west while those under the porch run north to south, which may indicate that the rear porch was added slightly later. The log house has large framing girders instead of the smaller girders that frame the other rooms and porch, in addition to log walls in contrast to cut lumber studs throughout the rest of the house, thereby supporting the record that the log house was originally built as a freestanding structure.

Figure 3: Log joists matching log cabin underneath south addition

In general, there is a marked difference between these areas‟ floor joists and sills and those which make up the rear kitchen and part of the rear porch enclosure; those under the kitchen are cut lumber from a later era, as are three-foot timbers spliced onto the logs joists to give added width to the rear porch. Photographs from alterations made in 1974 show that the second story floor structure is made of cut lumber [Image 4]. Since it is known that these were Snuggs‟ additions after 1873, the construction methods of the rear porch and both the main rooms on the first pre-date the second floor, the kitchen, and the rear porch extension/enclosure.

May 2011

P a g e | 14

Figure 4: 1974 porch restoration photo showing construction techniques

One may counter that building techniques had not changed sufficiently between the time that the original log house was built and when Snuggs purchased it, and thus any similarity in the joists of the log cabin and Snuggsâ€&#x; bedroom is merely down to limited technology or local custom and does not necessarily mean that these areas of the house were built more closely together in time. However, log houses dominated the architecture of the early-mid 19th century and not until 1860 did three hydropowered saw mills spring up along creeks and rivers, bringing some, but limited, cut lumber to the area. This explains the use of more accessible logs joists for the south room floor structure, along with the small amount of newly-available cut lumber to frame the walls in an easier and swifter manner.8 The interior of the house also corroborates the hypothesis that the south room was built previous to Snuggs purchase: Older photographs reveal another main façade entry door from the front porch into the south room, as well as a door beneath the stairs that led from the hallway to this room, which are significant clues [Image 5]. Firstly, there is no reason for Snuggs to build a separate entry door into his room. Also, because the historic record shows that Snuggs built the second floor to accommodate his growing family (his first child was born in 1875), it would show an astonishing lack of foresight if Snuggs went through the arduous process of first cutting through the original log frame to create 8

Dodenhoff, p. 15

May 2011

P a g e | 15

interior access from the hall to his new bedroom, only to seal it up shortly thereafter and begin creating the stairs and second floor. Also, cutting through the logs would have been a difficult task, perhaps one that a previous owner would not have had the tools or energy to complete. This would explain the second exterior door which would have provided access to the new southern extension, or alternatively the extension could have served as a rental home or office and therefore would have required private access. These changes and uses most likely took place under the ownership of John O. Ross between 1861-1865 given the increase in value from $309.00 to $400.00, especially during the Civil War. Lafayette Green may have tired of this inconvenience and created the interior door and sealed the front entrance to create a domestic rental. Years later, when Snuggs acquired the house, he would have added the second story and the placement of the stairs required sealing the interior door and the opening of a new bedroom access if this was not already done. This is corroborated by the presence of skirting board in the bedroom which, allegedly installed by Snuggs, continuously covers the bottom of the door frames/walls where these doors would have existed, showing that they both were there before Snuggs arrived.

Figure 5: 1861 addition looking west shows one entry door from porch (left) and one from hallway, which is under staircase since 1874 (right)

May 2011

P a g e | 16

(ii). 1873-1909 With the advent of the railroad and its eventual expansion into the county through the 1890s came steam-powered machinery that allowed sawmills to extend away from the waterways. In 1880, three steam-powered sawmills dotted the county and transportable mills made cut lumber more readily available.9 After returning from the Civil War, I.W. Snuggs owned a sawmill himself and thus had access to the material he needed to expand this home with modern technology.

In the Reconstruction era, the plain and humble weatherboarded farmhouses of Stanly County evolved into respectable and desirable establishments of the middle class family. As in the case of the Snuggs house, second stories were often added, more attention was given to the quality of millwork, and embellishments like boxed cornices, cornerboards, and interior ornamentation such as fluted surrounds abounded. While the original porch was removed in 1911, one can conjecture that the front and rear porches of the Snuggs house in the late 19th century would have been adorned with decorative brackets and turned balusters like many of its contemporaries.

The house is an excellent example of this type of cultural, architectural, and technological evolution in that its former single pile plan was heightened to two stories by Snuggs himself c. 1874. The second story is entirely of timber frame construction. The ell which encompasses the north end of the porch-cum-dining room and extended kitchen was built by Snuggs. From its second story crawl space, 2x8” cut floor joists extending from the second floor south bedroom are visibly protruding from the main house into the porch roof space and the joist ends are unattached to any other structure. Some are also several feet longer than others, indicating that they were never attached to another body [Image 6]. The 1974 renovation photos reveal the responding ends of these joists which, when viewed closely, were obviously utilized to provide further floor support as those previous were either rotted or never existed. When the next phase of construction began, the joists were put in place and no effort was made to cut them to the appropriate length at the rear of the house. This can only be because Snuggs knew they would be concealed within the new roof of the existing porch which he was building. This is corroborated by the similar color, size, condition, and method of sawing of the timbers in the rear porch roof and the “new” second floor bedroom floor joists.

These properties are also shared by the ell‟s floor and attic structures, suggesting that the second floor, rear porch roof, and kitchen ell were all added at the same time.

This is further supported by the ell ceiling joists which, like those in the second floor bedroom, haphazardly protrude into the roof space of the rear porch, indicating that 9

Ibid., p. 29

May 2011

P a g e | 17

the ell was built at the same time as the porch and thus at the same time as the second story and porch roof [Image 7]. Like other homes in the area, the kitchen was removed from a detached (probably brick) building and instead incorporated into an ell which was built onto the back of the house, creating an asymmetrical rear facade. Cooking and other domestic activities would have taken place here, bringing daily chores into a new area of the home.

Figure 6: Second story floor joists end in porch roof space

Figure 7: Kitchen ell ceiling joists end in porch roof space

May 2011

P a g e | 18

Exterior inspection of the porch enclosure also reveals a break in the line of the roof and in the frieze band on the south side of the enclosure which proves that the porch underwent a second phase of construction/extension [Image 8]. It is possible that after the roof was built the south side of the porch was enclosed along with the north end that was incorporated into the dining room. However, it is more likely that the porch roof was built with the intention of leaving it open because if a room had been intended, it would have made more sense to build a shallower roof with more headroom. The date of the machine-sawn pine timbers beneath the former, smaller porch in the center of the rear faรงade (now an office) and the 19th century blind door leading in from the kitchen both suggest that the office was also built as a porch at the same time and covered, creating an L-shaped porch.

Figure 8: Break in porch roofline indicating later extension and enclosure

Since the frieze of the office and porch enclosures are different from the rest of the house, and that the boxing at the attachment of the office to the ell betrays different building phases, this supports the idea that the L-shaped porch was given a roof but left open while the dining room was enclosed and the ell was built. The spliced pine timbers beneath the south side of the porch and the broken roofline suggest that the porch was extended and enclosed and the small porch (office) was retained as an outdoor space until it was enclosed in the 1970s. This would explain why the bead board which covers the walls in the porch enclosure and bathroom is wider than that in the rest of the house. The ceiling height in the rear hall is the original height of the porch, while the ceiling in the bathroom and shed enclosure have been dropped, a common custom when renovating. The bead board is also oriented in different directions between the bedroom and center hall, supporting the idea of a dropped ceiling which explains the different ceiling heights [Image 9].

May 2011

P a g e | 19

Figure 9: Image shot up across door jamb between bathroom and central rear hall (both former porch)

The impetus for the porch enclosure was most likely the death of Ellen Snuggs, at which time Snuggs would have required another bedroom for Sallie Boysworth (more affectionately known as “Aunt Sac”), a family member who came to care for the children.10 Seeing that the porch was quite narrow for a bedroom, it is likely that Snuggs extended it by a few feet and enclosed it while also creating the rear center hall with new access to the small porch, hence the replacement cut lumber which is attached to the older log joists and which enlarged the floor space of the bedroom.

By the end of the 19th century many families had also followed suit by enclosing the rear porch to house family or, in this case, live-in help [Image 10]11 The small porch/office is now accessed by a 19th century door and fluted door surrounds which, though necessarily added later than those same features in the rest of the house, may be explained by their re-use either by the original inhabitants or by the SCHPC in the 1970s. This also creates an interesting educational tool; the log, log and timber frame, and timber frame sections show an evolution of mid-late nineteenth century construction techniques under one roof which are directly indicative of the industry and technological changes occurring in that era.

10

Sallie Boysworth was well-known in the community and was a much-loved and respected character. She helped raise the Snuggs children after their mother’s death and, in her later years, they took her in and cared for her as a mother. “Rites Held Monday For Miss Boysworth.” Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Snuggs House File.

11 Ibid., p. 33

May 2011

P a g e | 20

Figure 10: Entrance to Aunt Sac's room (porch enclosure) from 1861 addition

(ii-a) I. W. Snuggs At the end of the 19th century, only the most affluent families maintained exterior chimneys at not one but both gabled ends, signifying the status of the Snuggs family in the local community.12 Isaiah Wilson “Buck” Snuggs was born in Harris Township, about six miles north of Albemarle, on March 8, 1846 to Priscilla Shankle and Robert D. Snuggs, a farmer.

Isaiah was one of six children.13 After joining North Carolina‟s 14th Regiment in April 1864, he was badly wounded at the Battle of Spotsylvania Courthouse on May 12 and, after brief attention by Confederate medics, he was left to be discovered by soldiers who carried him to a Union hospital where a surgeon removed his left leg.

He was held as a prisoner of war in Virginia and upon the war‟s end he returned home to Stanly County.14 He lived with the Mumford Parker family who moved their harness shop to Albemarle and Snuggs became a saddler before taking an interest in politics.15 He was elected Register of Deeds in 1872 and held this post for 14 years.

12

Ibid.

1860 Federal Census 14 Kepley, Snuggs House History 15 1870 Federal Census 13

May 2011

P a g e | 21

Snuggs married Ellen Douglas Milton on March 3, 1874, less than three months after purchasing his house in Albemarle, which was only two doors down from Ellenâ€&#x;s home. He was elected sheriff to fill the expired term of B.C. Blalock in 1889 and developed an illustrious thirty-year career as a civil servant who held three titles in the county seat of Stanly County which no man during his lifetime or for fifty years afterward would do, including Treasurer [Image 11].16

Figure 11: Isaiah Wilson "Buck" Snuggs

It is reported that in June 1892, an angry mob gathered and was marching to the County Jail which was located just across Third Street from the house, upon the site of the present day Stanly County Public Library.17 The mob was coming for Alec Whitley, a local who was accused of gruesome Arkansas murders. Knowing that Whitley would not be spared, Snuggs allegedly snuck all other prisoners across the street and hid them on his porch, which, in order to be concealed behind walls, probably means that the porch was enclosed to create Aunt Sacâ€&#x;s room by this time.

Whitley was captured and hung from a tree, but all other prisoners remained safe.

Actions such as this reportedly earned Snuggs a deep respect throughout the county.18 16

Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Snuggs House File. Albemarle Press, May 9, 1904 For 1920s photo showing Snuggs house in relation to Stanly County Jail, see Appendix F. 18 Kepley, Snuggs House History 17

May 2011

P a g e | 22

In early 1904 Snuggs suffered from severe abdominal pain and was carried by train to Salisbury on May 5 for admission to the Whitehead-Stokes Sanitarium. Dr. Stokes performed surgery to remove gall stones from his bladder, and after an initial positive prognosis his health suddenly failed, and he died on Sunday, March 8 at 5:00am. The story printed in the Albemarle newspaper the day after his funeral states that hundreds attended his service which „attested to the immense popularity of the man‟ and reported a „sorrow that fill[ed] all hearts‟ and a „deep and general gloom.‟ After his death, the house passed to his son, Edgar Eugene, who would later own a large tract of land in the town, though the plot would remain known as the I.W. Snuggs homestead. The house of his construction is undoubtedly an important marker in the collective memory of Albemarle and a reminder of the people and the battles, both military and civil, which shaped it.19 (iii). 1909-1974 On October 27, 1909, the house was sold from Snuggs‟ children and their spouses to Bertha E. Efird, Snuggs‟ eldest child, for $2,600.20 History implies that the house was then converted to a rental or boarding house. Records of the SCHPC indicate that the original porch was removed in 1911 and replaced with one of contemporary design, possessing four square, red brick pillars surmounted by white timber columns with wide bases and a cornice. Between each was a geometric balustrade of vertical, horizontal, and diagonal members. The hipped roof seen in the pre-renovation photos of 1974 show the central second story window on the main façade sitting several inches higher than those on either side and projecting into the frieze [Image 12]. This suggests that either the new porch roof added in 1911 was pitched such that it required alteration of the existing window and thus that the previous porch had had a shed roof, or that the porch roof was not altered in 1911 and therefore Snuggs merely raised the level of the central window to accommodate the existing porch roofline, or that the pitch of the new hipped roof in 1911 was simply miscalculated and that the previous roof had been hipped as well. It would seem illogical that Snuggs would not have built all the second story windows at the same height if he knew that the central window would need to be higher (ghost marks on the interior also prove that the window was raised after Snuggs‟ renovations were completed). It is also highly unlikely that the porch would have had a shed roof as the local custom in the late 19th century was to affix a hipped roof to hall-and-parlor farmhouses. It is far more likely that the required roof pitch was misjudged when rebuilt in 1911.

19 20

Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Snuggs House File. Albemarle Press, May 9, 1904 Stanly County Register of Deeds. Deed Book 40, p. 70

May 2011

P a g e | 23

Figure 12: Photo prior to 1974 renovation showing 1911 porch and central window higher than those flanking

The earliest Sanborn Fire Insurance map which depicts the house is that of 1913 which indicates that the dwelling possessed its essential structural components by this time. The small back porch (later the office) was not yet enclosed, though the shed porch was. All sections of the house were roofed with shingles, and outbuildings lay approximately 50 feet to the rear. They consisted of two one-story structures with shingled roofs abutting either side of a one-story stable beneath a composite roof, all oriented north to south. Also included was a large 1 ½ story stable with a composite roof with two one story, shingle roof structures attached to the east [Image 13].21

Figure 13: 1913 Sanborn Map showing Snuggs house(left) and outbuildings (right) 21

1913 Albemarle Sanborn Fire Insurance Map

May 2011

P a g e | 24

Some interior material changes were made in the 19-20th century. One was the application of wallpaper to Snuggs‟ bedroom; it is hidden beneath 1970s paneling, but what is left shows a faded and delicate red, blue, and green floral design which climbs the wall in columns. Modern plumbing also came to Albemarle and to the Snuggs house, most likely in the 1910s.22 At the front of the second story hallway, scarring on the walls and floors indicate that a partition used to exist in front of the central window and that this area most likely served as a bathroom, which was probably an addition necessitated by the structure‟s use as a boarding house. Also around this time it is likely that the first floor bathroom was delineated from the shed room/bedroom, given that indoor plumbing recently came to Albemarle (the bathroom entry was probably the original entry onto Aunt Sac‟s room because, while the door dates to the 1910s, many of the doors in the house have been recycled. To have only an entry through Snuggs‟ bedroom would be inconvenient and illogical).

In 1924, Snuggs‟ descendants moved the house back from the road approximately 30 feet, re-using the original stone and brick piers and creating a curtain wall with the bricks of a demolished outbuilding.23 Now enclosed under the parlor is what appears to be a hearth or early chimney fall which may have been part of a detached kitchen that served this or another house. The house was rented from Bertie E. Efird to J.F. Morton at this time. (iv). 1924-1974 In 1947 the house was sold from Bertha Snuggs to Bertie Snuggs Patterson for $10.00.24 Some 1940s tile can be seen below later vinyl on the bathroom floor.

Hurricane Hazel tore from the Caribbean to Canada in October 1954 and caused significant damage in central North Carolina. The top third of the south chimney was ripped from the house and was rebuilt in machine-made brick and cement pointing. At some point different courses of the bottom third of the chimney were also re-pointed in cement. The top of the north chimney was rebuilt at some point with cement pointing, abutting areas of lime mortar pointing.25 (v). 1974-1976 Bertie Snuggs Patterson sold the house to Reade Pickler on April 9, 1974, who in turn sold it to the SCHPC in May for $1.00.26 For the first time in a century, the Snuggs house left family ownership. The commission began a campaign of alterations and renovations in order to adapt the house into a museum.

22

Underwood, April 2011 Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Snuggs House File. Albemarle Press, September 8, 1924 24 Stanly County Register of Deeds. Deed Book 140, p.234 25 For photos depicting the house in the 1960s, see Appendix G. 26 Stanly County Register of Deeds. Deed Book 280, p. 228-229 23

May 2011

P a g e | 25

(v-a). 1974-1976 Alterations Exterior: Porch  The most significant change was the destruction of the 1911 front porch and the reinstatement of what was felt to be a design of the late-19th century, with the aforementioned chamfered wood columns and plain balustrade. This most likely matched the earlier porch except in its shed roof and porch depth. The 1974 restoration measures approximately four feet in depth, whereas the previous porch would probably have exceeded this by a few feet.

Roof 

The asphalt shingles were removed and the entire house was re-roofed in wooden shingles.

Glazing  All broken and new window panes were replaced with old ones.

Walkways and Steps  Permanent brick steps were built in front of the house as well as a retaining wall.  The brick walkway was also installed in May 1975.

Envelope  

The exterior was repainted and caulked.

All decayed wood, inside, out and beneath the house was replaced.27

Interior: Finishes/Materials  Sheetrock was also hung in the first floor parlor to accommodate wall-hung exhibits.  Carpet was laid in most rooms of the first floor.  The vinyl flooring in the bathroom and kitchen were most likely laid sometime between 1950-1975, either by the previous owner or the commission, though no documentation exists.  The instatement of fibrous wood grain paneling over existing wallpaper in Snuggs‟ bedroom was significant. This was done with the paneling to the wall in order to create a flat surface for the affixing of modern wallpaper.

27

For exterior photos from the 1970s renovations, see Appendix H.

May 2011

 

P a g e | 26

The small wooden cornice in this room is atop the paneling and thus it must have been a commission alteration.

The interior was painted upstairs and in the downstairs hallway.

Structural  The small rear porch was enclosed with sheetrock and converted to a small office for the commission.  The root cellars were enclosed with timber doors.  The cutaways in the first floor parlor and stairwell were created to educate visitors on the construction and orientation of the original log cabin.  Some doors, like the ones to both parlors, were also removed and placed in the attic.

Services  Modern services were also instated, with the new HVAC system, wiring and plumbing upgraded in 1975.  Museum lighting fixtures were installed around the house.  New electrical sockets were also placed throughout the house, though unfortunately in rather obtrusive locations and at the detriment of historic fabric.

Furnishings  The parlor and upstairs bedroom were also furnished in 1874 period style.28  Display cases were installed in the downstairs parlor where exhibits took place.  A Junior Historians Gallery was also installed in the house.

The museum opened to the public in early 1976 with an all-volunteer staff. It was planned to sponsor an antique show annually in order to fund the museum. The SCHPC put an office in the small enclosed porch and converted Aunt Sac‟s room into the Director‟s office. This was the first formal effort at historical preservation in Stanly County since its formation in 1841.29

(vi). 1976-1990 The 1983 Colonial Dames State Conference was held in Albemarle and many visitors went to the Snuggs house, including NC Governor Archdale‟s wife. A newspaper article 28 29

For a more detailed list of furnishings, see Appendix H. Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Snuggs House File.

May 2011

P a g e | 27

covering this event also shows W. H. McSwain, president of the Stanly County Historic Assocation, holding an artist‟s drawing of the original wallpaper in Snuggs‟ bedroom.

Alterations:  The HVAC system was replaced again c. 1990. (vii). 2008-2011 The house functioned in a museum capacity up until 2008 at which time the foundation‟s structural flaws became apparent and the house was deemed unsafe for heavy exhibits and large numbers of people. It was closed and architect Stephen Onxley of Charlotte, NC, was hired to create a number of measured drawings. In 2010 Terry Wilbur created a stabilization plan and brief restoration recommendations for the porch and roof. Resurgence in restoration efforts recently took place and at the time of this report funds are being collected for a full roof restoration [Image 14].

May 2011

P a g e | 28

Figure 14: Red = 1852 log cabin; Solid Green = 1861 addition; Dotted Green = 1861 porch; Solid Blue = 1874 additions; Dotted Blue = 1874 porch addition; Purple = 1886 Enclosure; Yellow = 1910-20s delineated; Dotted Orange = 1974 porch restoration

May 2011

P a g e | 29

C. Significance (i). Architectural The oldest surviving house of this kind in the downtown district of Albemarle and incorporating the older single-pen log construction into its skin, the Snuggs house is an impeccable and well-crafted example of the architectural and technological changes that took place during the last half of the 19th century in Stanly County.

Like other houses in the area, the house developed from a modest one-story dwelling to a stylized and expanded farmhouse with quality architectural details of the era such as Flemish bond chimney stacks, geometric balustrades, pine and oak flooring, ornate mantels and carved four and five panel doors, all of which it still maintained with integrity and authenticity. The embodiment of a halfcentury‟s evolution in building technology is also housed under one roof, with the log, log and timber frame, and timber frame additions. The changes made in the 20th century while not all sympathetic are nevertheless reversible to a large degree. The house marks an important time period in the architectural history of Stanly County and indeed the Piedmont of North Carolina.

(ii). Historical The building techniques represented by the Snuggs house are a result of an area which, in the midlate 19th century, had limited access to certain industries and services. The development of water and steam-powered sawmills as well as the railroad affected the construction and materials of this house.

It is therefore an embodiment of local history which is still readily accessible and visible in the 21st century.

(iii). Cultural Mr. I. W. “Buck” Snuggs was an important figure in Stanly County‟s history. He was wellremembered and respected during and after his lifetime and the homestead he built is a reminder of a time when justice and civil duties were borne not by boards, committees or task forces but by single individuals. A veteran of the Civil War, his legacy is also a reminder of the local customs previous to the conflict as well as the price paid during Reconstruction.

After the war, there was a definitive turn in the way money was earned and family units were rearranged, their daily chores brought closer to the hearth along with a rise of the middle class. The architectural and material effects of this trend shaped the fabric of the Snuggs house and by studying these intact elements we are reminded of a dramatic and important shift in the local way of life.

May 2011

IV.

P a g e | 30

Building Analysis A. Architectural Description

The structure is a log and timber frame farmhouse covered in white painted weatherboard, with cornerboards, a gable roof and an ell and porch enclosure to the rear faรงade. Though there is no proper foundation, the house and porch sit atop a red brick curtain wall with small cellar door openings beneath the rear extensions. Piers of brick, stone and, in some places, wood support the house from underneath. The floor systems are a mix of log and timber frame construction with floorboards secured directly to the joists. Large attic space exists over the length of the main structure and the gabled ell.

Exterior A red brick curtain wall extends around the house as does a plain board frieze band, except for the two porch enclosure of the rear facade. The main (west) faรงade completed c. 1874 is three bays over two stories. Five timber sash windows of six-over-six configuration with some historic glazing adorn the faรงade as well as a 19th century, central door with two arched glazing panels above two carved panels. A mid-20th century screen door protects it. Above the second floor central window is a break in the frieze band which documents the raising of the window in 1911 when a new porch (now demolished) was built. A 1975 replica of the late-19th century porch fronts the house and its blue, narrow floorboards create a floor which is approximately four feet in depth. It presents six chamfered, wooden columns and a square post balustrade. A matching handrail and newel system border two central steps which descend to the brick pathway leading to the street. The porch is surmounted by a shed roof which is a likely departure from what would have originally been a hipped roof [Image 14].

Figure 15: West faรงade (NB: access ramp no longer in existence)

May 2011

P a g e | 31

The south façade is two bays wide in the main house with a single story enclosed porch extension to the east finished c. 1896. The main house possesses an exterior single-shoulder chimney of 19th century handmade and 20th century machine-made brick in Flemish bond which pierces the overhanging eaves. The top third of the stack was rebuilt in 1954 after Hurricane Hazel destroyed it, and this section as well as the bottom third of the stack possess cement pointing while the middle third is pointed in lime mortar. On either side of the chimney, both levels also contain the same timber, double sash windows of six-over-six configuration. A small, rectangular louvered vent is above the top right window. The porch extension is topped by a shed roof and contains one timber, double sash window as elsewhere. A slight break in the frieze band indicates the location of an extension c. 1886. Another louvered vent as previously mentioned is above and to the left of the porch window [Image 15].

Figure 16: South facade

The rear (east) façade is asymmetrical and features three single-story extensions: On the left is the shallow porch enclosure with a shed roof which extends to the center of the façade and is perpendicular to the small porch enclosure/office. Two timber sash windows open the east elevation of the larger enclosure. The small, projecting shed porch built c. 1874 and enclosed in 1975 with two smaller six-over-six timber sash windows on the east and south faces connects the long enclosure with a gabled ell to the right. The two porch enclosures share a small, molded cornice instead of a frieze band, corroborating their later alteration. This ell was incorporated into the porch enclosure c. 1874. A single timber sash window of the larger variety opens the left side of ell‟s east elevation as well as another louvered vent at the gable‟s apex. There is an additional timber sash window of three-over-three configuration in the second floor, central stair hall which can be seen above the shed roof to the rear [Image 16].

May 2011

P a g e | 32

Figure 17: East facade

The north façade is two bays wide in the main house with the single story ell to the east end. The ell features a central door on its north elevation of five mixed vertical and horizontal panels from the 1870s-1880s and is flanked by two of the same sash windows. A single sash window opens the left side of this structure‟s east façade. The north elevation of the main house is a mirror image of the south, including the rectangular vent. Here, only the top third of the chimney was rebuilt in machine-made brick, though the cause of the damage is unknown. Cement and lime mortar are present in the same courses throughout, muddling the history of re-pointing [Image 17].

Figure 18: North façade (NB: Access ramp now gone)

May 2011

P a g e | 33

Interior Interior photographs included in Section V: Existing Conditions.

The interior floors are composed largely of pine, though they have in places been overlaid with vinyl, carpet, or even oak flooring. A narrow range of tongue-and-groove ceiling sheathing is seen in some rooms, dating them to slightly different time periods. The rooms which make up the center hall, single pile plan are an amalgamation of structures from varying time periods.

The first floor was originally a two-room log cabin which consisted of what is now the north parlor and front, central hallway. The other rooms were later additions as will be discussed, though it should be noted here that all other rooms are of timber frame construction.

In the parlor the original oak floors are hidden beneath carpet which was added during the 1970s SCHPC renovations. Also at that time sheetrock was placed over the flush plank wall to accommodate wall-hung exhibitions. Museum staff also cut away the sheetrock in the northwest corner of the parlor to reveal plank boards with their milk wash finish, as well as the original log members which can be seen beneath glass panels.30 Track lighting has also been installed in this room. The parlor door is missing at present, though the door frame boasts a central band of convex fluting, as does the wide skirting board. The window surrounds are plain. The fireplace in the north wall has been closed and its mantel now resides in the first floor bedroom. This room would have been an allpurpose space used for entertaining, chores, sleeping, and quiet repose. A marked slant toward the center of the house can be felt and viewed in the parlor.

The room which is south of the staircase and which served as Snuggsâ€&#x; bedroom is entered through a five horizontal and vertical panel door opened by Snuggs in the 1870s, though the room itself was in existence as a rental space or office from c. 1861. The room contains oak floorboards placed over the original flooring while the ceiling and walls are covered in 1970s fiberboard paneling turned backward, topped by wallpaper.

The simple cornice is joined by fluted baseboards and door surrounds as well as plain board window surrounds. The mantelpiece taken from the parlor features molded Tuscan pilasters under a scalloped frieze and molded brackets which support the mantel shelf. The fireplace likely was for burning coal given the shallow depth.31 Documents followed up by panel removal show evidence of a second doorway leading onto the front porch which has been closed and is so longer visible.

A two-vertical-panel door with fluted surrounds leads from the east wall of the bedroom into a shed room/porch enclosure where the ceiling height was dropped dramatically beneath the low porch roof, probably around the 1910s-1920s when the house was rented out. This door is said to be the original door to the log cabin and ghost marks of 30 31

Hood, Section 7, Page 3 Underwood, April 2011

May 2011

P a g e | 34

previous hinges show that it is now hung upside down from its original orientation. This portion of the open, roofed porch was extended and enclosed c. 1886 to accommodate Sallie Boysworth. This room is also carpeted, has a simple molded cornice, plain window surrounds and features flush-sheathing of 6 ½” width as well as fluorescent lighting. A small closet to the north features shelving and houses the modern HVAC system.

The front central hallway is covered in 5 ¼” bead board from the late 19th century, is carpeted and features track lighting. A deep doorway with fluted surrounds at the back of the main house leads to the small rear hall which was once part of the porch that was built in the 1860s. The ceiling here is lower than the previous hall, showing the original height of the porch roof. The walls are sheathed in 6 ½” bead board. A doorway on the south wall has an early-20th century, five-horizontal-panel arrangement leading into the bathroom, and the closet door in this room is of the same type. The bathroom possesses vinyl laid over 1940s tile which most likely covers the original floorboards. The walls here are also 6 ½” flush-sheathed. Originally part of the porch and then Boysworth‟s room, the bathroom and its closet were delineated probably in the 1910s-1920s.

Sheathing of the same width is on the left wall of the closet interior, while sheathing of 5 ¼” overlays the back and right walls. A small sink and toilet are the only services in this room.

At the end of the rear hallway is a small office mentioned previously as the middle of the three extensions, which was created by enclosing the shorter section of the L porch that was added to the existing, linear porch c. 1874. The door to the office is a four vertical panel door from the late 19th century and has fluted surrounds while the interior window surrounds are plain board. The room is also carpeted and has sheetrock walls and ceiling in addition to fluorescent lighting.

The north end of the porch enclosure, incorporated into the new kitchen ell c. 1874, is the dining room which is accessed through a now doorless entry from the rear hall and through a double-width opening in the east, log wall of the parlor. This room retains 5 ¼” sheathing on the walls and ceiling as well as plain window surrounds. The floor joists beneath all sections previously mentioned, except for the rear office, are log and pre-date Snuggs’ arrival in 1874.

The kitchen (rear of the ell) is accessed through another early-20th century, fivehorizontal-panel door in the dining room. The walls and ceiling contain 5 ¼” tongueand-groove sheathing and features plain board window and door surrounds except for the dining room entry surrounds which are fluted. An additional late-19th century, fivepanel door opens on the north wall onto the stoop and a blind door once gave access to the former small porch/office c. 1874. This door was shut during the mid-1970s restoration project. Scarring on the walls suggest a variety of appliances, cooking methods, and other kitchen furniture installed through the years. Blocked flu access is seen on the ceiling suggesting a former coal-burning stove.

May 2011

P a g e | 35

The robust stairway c. 1874 is the main feature of the interior. It is a closed staircase and has a large air vent on its side, but access to this area is permitted with an under-stair door of four panels from the late-19th century with fluted surrounds. Inside one finds original floorboards as well as a hallway/bedroom access which was sealed by Snuggs when the staircase was built. Twentieth century newspapers cover the bottom of the treads to provide insulation. The stairway itself boasts a robust, turned newel with a polished handrail over horizontal, vertical, and diagonal members which form a geometric balustrade. At the interim landing in which is a 1980s floor vent, one step turns 90 degrees to the left and terminates at the second floor landing.

Pine boards of 5 Ÿ� width compose the floor of the second floor hallway which finds the balustrade and handrail returning to the front of the house. Ghost marks may be seen on the ceiling near the front, central window which indicates that this area was formally enclosed, perhaps to provide a small bathroom, corroborated by small holes and cut outs in the floor for pipe access. Breaks in the sheathing are also evidence of the central window being raised to accommodate the new porch roof in 1911.

The north parlor and second floor bedroom are virtually unchanged from their nineteenth century appearance. While the other rooms in the house play host to a variety of old exhibit materials and equipment, the upstairs rooms are presented in their original uses with period furniture, portraits, and other historic decorations, though with a few bits of clutter in the parlor. They both feature wide, pine flooring and matching mantels which boast simple Doric pilasters atop exaggerated bases and large scalloped cornices beneath sills which break forward. The fireplace in the parlor is bricked in but the one in the bedroom is open and maintains a stone hearth. The bedroom is also painted in gray paint while the parlor is painted a soft pink and has a 1980s wallpaper cornice. Both rooms also have flush sheathing on the walls and ceiling. The parlor provides limited access to the attic over the kitchen ell through a small door with fluted surrounds to match the doorways and in contrast to the plain board window surrounds of this floor.

The bedroom maintains a small ceiling hatch which provides admission to the attic space above. Neither attic space possesses a ridge pole. The attic above the bedroom contains a large amount of patch work on the south gable.

May 2011

V.

P a g e | 36

Existing Conditions The house is in generally good condition with a minimal amount of material decay and only one important structural issue to be addressed. Issues of water ingress from various sources are cause for concern, though damage is not irreparable. Smoke detectors need batteries, replacing, or repair in most rooms.

A. Exterior The house needs great attention to increased ventilation, decreased water/moisture ingress, and peeling paint. Mold is present in small quantities throughout the exterior, particularly around the boxing. With the exception of the roof and the peeling paint, the exterior of the house is currently in good condition, although remedial measures are necessary to avoid further problems.

Exterior Cladding The exterior is suffering from mold and mildew attack along the front wall and under the cornice. Excessive moisture is also causing peeling paint in many areas [Images 18-19].

Figure 18: Mold/Mildew beneath cornice

Figure 19: Example of peeling paint (North faรงade)

May 2011

P a g e | 37

Roof The roof is in very poor condition. Most shingles are weathered, broken, split, missing, or lifted in many places. It is beyond repair. Areas of particular damage are the kitchen ell (missing ridge cap in several areas), above the shed room and bathroom, and along the ridge of the main house [Images 20-22].

Figure 20: Roof damage about porch enclosures

Figure 21: Damage to roof/ridge cap over ell

May 2011

P a g e | 38

Figure 22: Roof damage above main house

Curtain Wall The effects of moisture are evident, especially near the front porch. Fungal growth is rampant [Image 23].

Figure 23: Fungal growth on curtain wall

May 2011

P a g e | 39

Front Porch Mold and mildew is present on the ceiling, cornice and faรงade wall. The porch floorboards, front sill and balustrade have a large amount of peeling paint. Some of the treads to the path show decay/wear as do the floorboards. Floor boxing is decayed/broken in places.

Floorboards at the northern end of the porch are completely rotted away and gone. The joists are visible underneath [Image 24-25].

Figure 24: Decay to central floorboards/treads

Figure 25: Damage due to rot on north floorboards

May 2011

P a g e | 40

South Chimney Water ingress is also a serious issue for this chimney. It is again largely due to the use of both cement and lime mortar which is causing a variety of issues, namely salt action. Cracking and especially fretting and receding pointing are evident, especially in the areas of lime mortar use [Image 26-27].

Figure 26: Cement pointing above and below, lime mortar in middle

Figure 28: Fretting, pointing receding

Figure 27: Cracking

May 2011

P a g e | 41

Crawl Space Door Decay/damage is evident at the base of the crawl space door, beneath the enclosed office.

Kitchen Stoop Main supporting members (i.e., newels) and show a great amount of decay at their bases.

This is also true for the stringers. Paint is also severely peeling [Image 29].

Figure 29: Water damage to stoop

North Chimney Water ingress is a serious issue for this chimney. It is largely due to the use of both cement and lime mortar which is causing a variety of issues, from thermal and differential movement to salt action and internal decay. Cracking, fretting, and receding pointing are evident, especially in the areas of lime mortar use [Images 30-31].

May 2011

P a g e | 42

Figure 30: Cracking on North chimney

Figure 31: Damage and pointing receding

B. Interior Foundation This area is dirty and cluttered with detritus. Fungal growth is evident along the rear curtain wall [Image 32]. The brick pillar beneath the kitchen also shows evidence of salt action and decay from water ingress. One of the log girders beneath the cabin is twisted and causing a lack of sufficient support for the additional rooms above. The structure dips and sinks toward the center of the house [Image 33]. Beneath the main house, in one place only a small piece of timber serves as a pier, and there are generally weak or limited supports [Image 34].32

32

Onxley, Field Report

May 2011

P a g e | 43

Figure 32: Fungal growth on curtain wall

Figure 33: Twisted girder barely supported

Figure 34: Timber pier support

Parlor The first floor parlor shows no signs of water ingress. Sheathing, floors, ceilings, and materials are in good condition [Image 35]. There is general wear and tear and further inspection no doubt will reveal that the sheetrock has damaged the original sheathing to

May 2011

P a g e | 44

some extent. There is a marked slant of the floor toward the center of the house which exposes the major structural issue.33

Figure 35: Sheetrock, plank wall and log construction in parlor

Bedroom The bedroom shows no sign of water ingress or other decay. Like the parlor, the floor structure feels shaky and unstable and structural movement is noticeable. The 1970s paneling has been removed behind the main door to reveal the earlier entry which has been boarded up with recycled weather boards. A draft can be felt from this area. Also behind the paneling, earlier wallpaper is revealed which is deteriorating and in very poor condition [Images 36-39].

33

For a recent photo of the parlor cleared of equipment, etc., see Appendix J.

May 2011

P a g e | 45

Figure 36: Historic wallpaper hidden behind paneling (where entry door is enclosed)

Figure 37: 1870s-80s entry door

May 2011

P a g e | 46

Figure 38: Original fireplace taken from parlor; good condition

Figure 3919: 1970s-80s wallpaper over paneling in northeast corner

Shed Room This room suffers from normal wear and tear and is in generally good condition. Some paint is missing from the walls and trim. Water damage is evident in the fluorescent light fixture.

The door is hung upside down from its original orientation and is said to be the houseâ€&#x;s original door [Images 40-41].

May 2011

Figure 40: Original door hung upside down

P a g e | 47

Figure 41: Water damage in fluorescent fixture

Central Hallway Paint around and on the main entry door is missing in some places. The first floor hallway is in good condition otherwise.

Rear Hall This area is in good condition.

Bathroom Areas of the vinyl flooring are stained. There is evidence of water damage from isolated areas of rot and on the ceiling by the window and between the sink and closet [Image 4244].

May 2011

P a g e | 48

Figure 42: Stains on vinyl floor

Figure 43: Water damage on bead board ceiling

Figure 44: Water damage on bead board ceiling

Office This room is in good condition [Image 45].

May 2011

P a g e | 49

Figure 45: Office/Small Porch Enclosure

Dining Room The dining room is in good condition. Sheathing, floors, ceilings, and materials are in good condition. Floor slants with the natural plane of the original porch.

Kitchen The blind door to the office is in need of repair and painting as is the rest of the room to even out earlier paint jobs. The vinyl flooring is stained and dirty and in some places is torn/missing, revealing floorboards beneath. The room is generally in good condition [Images 46-49].

May 2011

P a g e | 50

Figure 46: Blind door in need of repair

Figure 48: Damaged vinyl flooring

Figure 47: Door enclosure to office

Figure 49: 1970s-80s changes/paint

May 2011

P a g e | 51

Under-Stair Space and Stairway This space is in good condition and is merely dirty. The stairway is in good condition with only one-two treads showing cracking and stress [Image 50].

Figure 50: Under stairs area (detritus) with enclosed door to bedroom

Second Floor Hallway Paint is required on some areas of the ceiling. Near the front, central window there is some evidence of isolated rot in the floorboards and there are holes in the floor which saw earlier pipes [Images 51-52].

May 2011

P a g e | 52

Figure 5120: Evidence of previous pipes

Figure 52: Evidence of previous isolated rot

Second Floor Parlor This room is in very good condition [Image 53].

May 2011

P a g e | 53

Figure 53: Second Floor Parlor

Second Floor Bedroom Another coat of paint is required on the walls. Some brick decay is evident in the fireplace and the stone hearth is cracked [Images 54-56].

Figure 54: Paint required on south wall of second floor bedroom

May 2011

P a g e | 54

Figure 55: Damage to fireplace, hearth

Figure 56: Decoration of Second Floor Bedroom

Ell Attic The attic is in good material condition but there is no ridge pole. Sharp nails protrude straight into the headspace of the attic from the exterior roof. Plywood sheets loosely cover

May 2011

P a g e | 55

the floor, in addition to two doors removed from the house, and the structure is generally shaky and unpredictable [Images 57-58].

Figure 57: Ell Attic structure (no ridge beam); Nails protruding

Figure 58: Doors salvaged from inside house used as flooring

May 2011

P a g e | 56

Main House Attic The attic is generally in good condition, although extensive patch work has been conducted on the south gable. Sunlight freely shines in and the chimney is visible in many places [Images 59-60].

Figure 59: Main House attic looking north from hatch above bedroom

Figure 60: Main House attic looking south from hatch above bedroom

May 2011

VI.

P a g e | 57

Prioritization of Features, Spaces, and Materials

Before beginning any treatment plan it is essential to create a prioritized list of features as a guide to future work. The character-defining features, spaces, and materials of the Snuggs house are categorized here in degrees of importance which correlate to the level of necessity in maintaining the features intact where this is not less important than another feature or sympathetic goal. The degrees are, 1) Premiere ; 2) Important; 3) Contributing; 4) Non-contributing.

A.   

Premiere Spaces Parlor 1861 addition (Snuggs‟ bedroom) Central hallway

B. Premiere Features  Original log joists, beams, plates and signs of single-pen construction (log house, 1861 addition, rear porch floor structure)  19th century timber frame construction methods  Enclosed second entry door from front porch to 1861 addition (Snuggs‟ bedroom)  All existing doors  All existing timber sashes  Enclosed hall/bedroom access beneath staircase  Original hardware  Plank walls in parlor  Oak and Pine flooring  Central staircase  Mantels  North and South chimneys with Flemish bond and lime mortar pointing C. Premiere Materials  late-19th and early-20th century glazing  Bead board of all sizes  Milkwash treatment on parlor plank walls  Historic wallpaper beneath paneling in 1861 addition D. Important Spaces  Kitchen/Dining Room ell  Enclosed shed room on rear porch (Aunt Sac‟s room, excluding bathroom partitions)  Second floor hallway

May 2011

P a g e | 58

   E.     

Second floor parlor Second floor bedroom Front porch (chamfered columns and balustrade)

Important Features Stone and brick foundation piers Early-20th century hardware Fireplace openings and hearths All current door and window openings Period furnishings, portraits, implements, antiques

F. Important Materials  Exterior weatherboard cladding G. Contributing Spaces  Small porch enclosure H. Contributing Features  20th century wallpaper insulation beneath stairs  Breaks in cornice above central window (exterior and interior)  Pipe holes, ghost marks, floor markings at front of second floor hall showing previous bathroom delineation I. Contributing Materials  N/A J. Non-contributing Spaces  Bathroom K. Non-contributing Features  1974-1975 lighting fixtures (track, fluorescent, hung)  1974-1975 light switches  1974-1975 electrical sockets  1974-1990 services  Bathroom appliances/fixtures L. Non-contributing Materials  Vinyl flooring  Kitchen wall hole board

May 2011

P a g e | 59

  

Tile flooring 1974-1975 first floor carpet 1970s-1980s wallpaper in Snuggs‟ bedroom in second floor parlor

May 2011

VII.

P a g e | 60

Recommendations for Further Research It is recommended that before works and interpretive plans are begun, that simple and modest dendrochronology testing be conducted on several rooms to clarify the historical record: First, testing can be conducted on the timbers and logs of Snuggsâ€&#x; first floor, south bedroom which is believed to be an addition from c. 1861. The results of such testing would yield more precise results and would help in pinpointing age, structural progression, and use of the room. Possible benefits include not only a clearer historical record but potential changes to the interpretive elements of the house museum.

This testing may also be completed on the interior bathroom wall partitions to determine the exact date of demarcation and thus the possible use of the property at that time.

Lastly, dendrochronology testing could be conducted on the exterior wall studs of Boysworthâ€&#x;s room which would help create a clearer timeline of enclosure and possible historical understanding for such changes at that time.

Opening-up works and analysis will also be necessary to more accurately determine layers, dates, and types of flooring, paint colors and dates of application, wallpaper history, and appliance/services evolution.

May 2011

P a g e | 61

VIII. Treatment Overview A. Philosophical Basis for Period of Significance The period of significance for the Snuggs house is, for local purposes, 1852-1909, though the National Register states that this period is extended to 1924. The structure is a bastion of mid-late 19th century architectural, historical, and cultural significance. Its various historic building technologies, materials, and features are a reflection of the innovations, conflicts, economics, customs and mores of an important era in Stanly County history. The elements of the house which were added between its erection in 1852 and the time of the last major alteration (the final enclosure of the rear porch) c. 1886 contain significant elements of the houseâ€&#x;s history. The arrival of Aunt Sac after Ellen Snuggsâ€&#x; death is also an important part of the Snuggs family history, and her room in the enclosed porch signifies her presence. The changes made in the majority of the 20th century were not only outside of the original ownership and under a different structural use (boarding house) but many alterations were minor, of poorer quality than the original construction and, in some cases, detracted from the character of the historic building. They also do not represent clear and in-depth interpretive possibilities. The exterior form of the building does not represent these changes and therefore the period of significance is limited to 1909 when the house was sold to Snuggsâ€&#x; daughter to be turned into a boarding house, at which time it left its single-family use.

B. Philosophical Basis for Period of Interpretation It is difficult and sometimes counterproductive to attempt to offer a wide chronological range of interpretive exhibits in small house museums, and thus the period of interpretation should be limited to it most significant era of evolution which was 1852-1904. This period will accommodate any slight dating deviations which may be uncovered by dendrochronological testing. In addition, the railroad came to Albemarle in the 1890s and the extent to which its new and important presence affected the contents of the house, its occupants, or construction should be encompassed in the interpretive period. I.W. Snuggs died in 1904, and therefore any additions he made after 1900 (of which there is currently no evidence) are included should they be discovered. However, modern plumbing and electricity were possible by the time of the major renovation/move of 1924, and therefore any evidence of these advances should be retained as supplementary evidence of local service technologies.

C. Recommended Treatment Philosophy Of the four treatment options for historic buildings offered by the Secretary of the Interior (Preservation; Rehabilitation; Restoration; Reconstruction), only Rehabilitation allows for the alteration or addition of some spaces, materials, or features as appropriate for a

May 2011

P a g e | 62

contemporary use and where sympathetically carried out in accordance with standard guidelines.

The renovations made in 1974-1975 by the SCHPC created an important local house museum and a space for historical exhibits and heritage education through the decades.

Along with the well-intended alterations and additions, some character-defining and historical elements of the house were also obscured and other opportunities for historic interpretation were not fully realized. A new plan for improved interpretation and structural/material health can be accomplished by overall rehabilitation made possible by preservation and limited restoration.

Areas of preservation will be limited to exterior features such as chimneys and porches, interior features such as bead board and areas of rot/water damage, structural stabilization, application of paint and the repair of any damage caused by 20th century fixings/alterations.

Restoration will include the opening of some original fireplaces which have been closed, the removal of inappropriate alterations or those non-contributing features which obscure the period of significance, returning the roof to its original material, and reinstating features which are intact but which have been removed from their original locations, such as doors.

The rehabilitation that will be recommended will be limited to the partial removal of the shed porch enclosure and instatement of replica materials and features (with minimal conjecture) which will help to present it in both states in which it existed during the period of significance.

D. Advantages and Disadvantages of Alternative Treatments The only alternative treatment which is not being employed in the following treatment plan is the option of Reconstruction. In the life of the building there has been no major feature or material which has been removed, only new alterations/partitions which have been erected or shifted. Therefore reconstruction is not an option for the Snuggs house.

To utilize only the option of Preservation would lend more funding to the material and structural conservation of the house. It may then be reopened to visitors at an earlier date than if a more extensive campaign of works is attempted. However, Preservation makes no provisions for the removal of inappropriate alterations/additions and thus the educational and interpretive benefits of the museum would see no improvement. Preservation also makes no allowances for limited removal of period alterations and thus the full potential of the house as an educational tool could not be fully developed. More specifically, at least one important era and local trend could not be embodied and conveyed by new, sympathetic interventions in the shed porch. This would be an option, except in order to meet the goal of showing a true structural progression from 1852-1904, it is ideal to show that this area, built during the Civil War, was once an actual porch. This is to give an improved depiction of architectural history in Stanly County. It is not in keeping with good preservation ethics to

May 2011

P a g e | 63

demolish the north end of porch/dining room, not only because it was enclosed at least a decade earlier than the south end but also because this would mean altering the kitchen/ell roof. The intervention would be far less substantial if the limited restoration was isolated to part of the shed enclosure. Such an option would not be possible if only Preservation were employed.

If only the option of Restoration was employed, inappropriate alterations such as sheetrock, paneling, and late-20th century wallpaper could be removed and the house could be restored to its earlier appearance. The enclosed shed porch could also potentially be re-opened to its pre-1886 state. However no preservation works be possible, potentially causing grave structural problems and material decay E. Rationale for Rehabilitation of 1852-1904 Structure By combining the benefits of material, structural, and historical authenticity which are achieved by preservation and restoration, as well as limited new works which conserve and present a comprehensive representation of the buildingâ€&#x;s most significant era, the option of Rehabilitative treatment clarifies and focuses the historic interpretation of the house museum and takes full advantage of the educational opportunities available there. It also will attain an overall retention of material adhering to the Secretary of the Interiorâ€&#x;s Standards.

This option will not require the removal of later additions which have taken on historic significance in their own right, it does allow for the retention of character-defining materials, features, and spaces in conjunction with meeting the present goals of interpretation, it permits gentle means of repair where possible and replacement only where necessary, and new works will not affect the overall form of the historic structure.

May 2011

IX.

P a g e | 64

Use and Interpretation of Resource A. Proposed and Recommended Use The Snuggs house most recently was used as one of two SCHPC house museums. It was in operation in this capacity from 1976-2008 at which time it was deemed structurally unsafe for large numbers of people and it was closed to the public. Interpretation was divided between the house itself, mostly on the second floor, and displays and various historical exhibits in the parlor and dining room.

The SCHPC would like to complete a campaign of remedial and restorative works and re-open the museum as a historic house museum with interpretation based heavily on the structure, materials, and furnishings therein. It is hoped to achieve a comprehensive representation of the cultural, historical, and architectural values in the house and to utilize them to their full potential as educational tools.

The author recommends that this plan be carried out. The potential benefits and historical information which can be provided by the house museum is immense. Private individuals, class trips, special interest groups, and other parties may visit the museum and in so doing may support local heritage and gain detailed insight into the period of significance. The desires of the SCHPC may be realized while fully maintaining the Secretary of the Interiorâ€&#x;s Standards.

B. Impact of Proposal on Fabric, Systems, and Surrounding Site The new impact of the proposal is limited in that the house has largely served in the intended function.

The removal of some interior cladding such as 1970s paneling and sheetrock in order to restore the original appearance of some spaces will decrease the energy performance of the building. Heating and cooling systems will have to work harder or longer to maintain the temperature inside the house. These new changes in temperature and humidity may also affect the textiles, timber, and other materials inside the house. Preventative measures should be taken to safeguard them against decay or damage and they should be regularly monitored.

Increased traffic through the house will naturally create more daily wear and tear on the materials and features such as stair treads, floorboards, and even door jambs. The same is true for the exterior siting, walkways, yard, and steps. “Runner� carpets and other preventative measures can be taken to minimize these effects. In time, repair works or restorative measures may need to be undertaken.

May 2011

P a g e | 65

Increased traffic will also mean heavier loads to be supported by the structural system.

Remedial structural works should be completed to a high standard before the museum re-opens to ensure that the building is safe and can handle loads of this capacity.

C. Justification for Capital Project The completion of the recommendations contained in this report will obviously come at a capital cost. However, there are a number of benefits to be found in this project: The size of the Snuggs house offers greater opportunities for interpretive programs, installations and group visits than the Freeman-Marks house, filling a need for a local historic house museum. It also offers a setting for an organized, comprehensive, and informative interpretation in one setting rather than depending on the need for visits to separate sites, museums, or even publications to understand the cultural, historical, architectural, and even technological developments of the period from 1852-1904, a significant era in Stanly County history.

The completion of these remedial and restorative works will ensure the continued life of the house, a major historical asset, and when upgraded will offer programs and features that may merit a nominal fee from visitors to offset utility bills and maintenance costs. It is particularly important to complete restorative works sooner rather than later as documentation, materials, and even personal knowledge of the site can be lost over time.

D. Interpretive Programs There are several types of interpretive programs which may be offered in the upgraded I.W. Snuggs House Museum which would provide excellent educational opportunities for visitors, including:    

Self-guided tours with the aid of signage Docent-led tours Museum exhibits Educational programs (Snuggs family history; architectural; historical; cultural)

Suggestions for room interpretation have been requested. These brief proposals are as follows:

i.

Exterior The house may be fronted by a plaque briefly stating its structural evolution beginning in 1852.

May 2011

P a g e | 66

Signs near the chimneys may convey the history and origin of Flemish bond as well as the properties and historical use of lime mortar.

At the rear, annotated diagrams of the house may point out various features and their names such as a boxed cornice, curtain wall, sash windows, frieze band, and hipped vs. gabled roofs.

Signage may also indicate the earlier presence of outbuildings and a detached kitchen and provide information on the uses and reasoning for the location of those buildings. ii.

Central Hallway The hallway may contain signage and schematic drawings illustrating the structural progression of the house, from a two room structure, to a three room house, with the addition of Snuggs‟ rooms and finally the enclosure and movement of the house. Information about the cultural and historical trends that affected its use should be conveyed to set the house within its appropriate context and to convey its significance.

If more funding is available, the creation of an animated diagram depicting the structural evolution, both with floor plans as well as perspective images, would be an excellent tool to display on a small screen (computer or television). The relevance of technology in house museums today cannot be overstated.

iii.

Parlor Once the sheetrock is removed, this room may be furnished as the parlor of an 1852 hall-and-parlor log cabin. A period bed, table and chairs, games, tools, and other household implements may be displayed. Signage and leaflets for self-guided tours could be available for reading with explanations about the original owner and architectural history of the period. One sign may give information about the single-pen construction techniques which originally formed the house and which are showcased in the northwest corner. Information on the activities which would have taken place here, rules of recreational games, or live demonstrations would be added bonuses.

iv.

1861 Addition (South Room) Upon further research into the use of this room, signage may indicate its later use as Snuggs‟ bedroom, but information should point to the two closed doorways to indicate the room‟s earlier uses. It may be fitted out

May 2011

P a g e | 67

appropriately as a work room or office which may have been its purpose in the 1860s. Further research will be required prior to its interpretation.

It may also be possible to retrofit the room with a coal burning stove suitable to the period. v.

Porch Enclosure Carpet removal will probably locate ghost marks of previous balusters and will determine their size and shape for recreation pieces. A period balustrade (most likely one that matches the front porch) may be reinstated around the southeast corner of the original line of the porch.

An area rug may be place such that it divides the room into a “porch” area to the right and a “bedroom” area to the left. This is to give one the feeling of being outdoors on the original porch on one hand, while also being in the enclosed bedroom on the other, which was a common custom at the end of the 19th century. On the bedroom side of the room, a small, period-appropriate trundle bed, basin or nightstand may be instated to recreate “Aunt Sac‟s” room. Again, signage may be used to explain the activities which would have taken place on back porches as well as the Snuggs family history for the enclosure of this room. The story of the sequestering of the prisoners in this area of the house may also be relayed.

vi.

Dining Room This room should be fitted out as it was used, in the style of a late-19th century dining room. Signage may discuss foodways, etiquette, or even family structure at that time. Information may also be given to make clear that this area was once part of the back porch and was added by Snuggs in 1874 to create a better quality of life for his middle-class family.

Opportunities for educational programs on late-19th century family life may employ the possibilities of this and other rooms to their full extent.

vii.

Kitchen The kitchen may be restored to a late-19th century space with appropriate implements. A period stove may be installed along with a display of cooking utensils, different dishes, and other implements of chores that would have taken place in this room. Signage and leaflets may give historical explanations for these features and also indicate the late-19th century custom of incorporating the kitchen into the main house (as when Snuggs built it c. 1874). An audio track featuring the sounds of cooking, pots and pans, crackling fire, and other appropriate noises would assist in interpretation.

May 2011

P a g e | 68

viii.

Bathroom This room will be demolished while the rear hall is maintained, although the entry door should be retained as it was most likely the entry to the bedroom for Aunt Sac. A drawing and photographs to the exterior should indicate that in the early 20th century it was sectioned off into a bathroom so as to convey the buildingâ€&#x;s history honestly. The period water pipes may be encased or retained in some way in the restored bedroom to indicate the evolution of services in Stanly County as represented by the house.

ix.

Office This room has no specific significance and so it may be used as a small workspace or even as a room for revolving exhibits.

x.

Staircase Signage may again indicate the single-pen construction techniques of the original log cabin by the glass cut-outs. This may also be an excellent opportunity for education on 19th-century woodworking.

xi.

Second Story Hallways Signage and leaflets should here point out the history of the second floor, kitchen ell, and porch enclosure in the context of I.W. Snuggs and his family. Information about Snuggs, his life and work, his status within the county and his good deeds should be conveyed along with the common architectural trends represented by the house.

xii.

Second Story Parlor This room may be left as it is at present, being portrayed in unaltered form as a late-19th century parlor. Signage and leaflets may give information about the different uses of first and second story parlors in the late-19th century.

xiii.

Second Story Bedroom The bedroom may likewise be interpreted in its present state as a late-19th century bedroom.

May 2011

X.

P a g e | 69

Treatment Recommendations A. General See section II-F for works to be completed prior to the commencement of remedial treatment which were either not feasible or are not covered under the scope of this report. These include:           

Archaeological site evaluation ADA compliance review Building code compliance review Building systems analysis Feasibility Study for the upgrading of building services including energy efficiency Wallpaper analysis Paint analysis (optional) Dendrochronology (optional) Formal Interpretive Plan Historic Building Preservation Plan (full) Full photographic survey compiled

Any discrepancies which arise during these evaluation processes should be addressed in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior‟s Standards.34 All work should be documented in detail for the historical record. Written records of steps taken, contractors and specialists consulted, photographs of before, during, and after works, measurements of existing features, and other documentations should be gathered. This information should be consolidated into paper and electronic files for future reference.

B. Exterior Walls of enclosed porches The walls of the enclosed porches are particularly subject to paint peeling which, unless excessive layers of oil paint have been applied which does not appear to be the case, indicates a source of internal moisture. The culprit is most likely a leaky roof. The interior of the large porch enclosure does show water damage in the fluorescent light fixture, though the extent of the damage is not known. This can cause humidity in the interior air which can result in a swelling of weatherboards 34

The author is a general preservation consultant and not a specialist in any particular area. Before beginning any one remedial work, a specialist in that particular area should be consulted for appropriate guidance or engaged to complete works.

May 2011

P a g e | 70

and peeling paint. There is no evident water damage in the small enclosure/office. However, since these walls are covered in sheetrock, the presence of moisture would most likely show on the exterior cladding before it would on the interior finishes. The issue of roof repair is addressed below.

Roof The entire roof is badly damaged. Wooden shingles are broken, missing, or slipped in many places.

All shingles are severely weathered and the tar base is showing. Based on the architectural trends in the late-19 century, the house probably had a standing-seam metal roof. The current roof was added in 1975, is not historically accurate, and is not character-defining. Once the material of the original roof is researched further and verified, the wooden shingles should be removed and the roof should be entirely restored, including the new hipped porch roof and all flashings. Appropriate overhang of the roofing material from the edge of the eaves should be maintained. This will eliminate current and imminent problems with damp resulting from a damaged roof.

The instatement of gutters and downpipes may help to address the back-falling rain water which exacerbates the fungal growth and can assist in whisking water away from the foundation. If gutters are chosen, they should be completed in period-appropriate materials and styles such as iron so as not to detract from the 19th-century character of the building. Care should be taken to ensure proper depositing of water and that it is not merely poured into the foundation.

The south gable of the roof interior has been poorly patched with tar and other elements over the years. The chimney may be seen through the wall where clapboard is missing. These elements should be repaired using similar materials in the same size, orientation, and finish and in keeping with best practices and the Standards of Preservation.

Mold and mildew growth Mold and mildew is growing on the cornice and frieze band in all sections of the house as well as the first floor main facade. Because these fungi will continue to grow through new layers of paint if not removed, the mold and mildew growth should first be addressed in a sympathetic manner which does not aggressively abrade the surface of the materials, such as with a solution of non-ammoniated detergent, bleach, and water.35

Front porch The moisture on the sill or face of the front porch which is evidenced by peeling paint is probably a result of a lack of ventilation in the crawl space/foundation. The cement pointing of the brick curtain wall does not allow for the expulsion of moisture which causes a buildup on the internal side 35

Weeks, Kay D. and David W. Look

May 2011

P a g e | 71

of the sill, particularly here where the presence of brick moss indicates a particular moisture presence (the exact cause, such as drainage problems, water tables, etc. should be ascertained by a specialist in these matters). The lack of ventilation behind the sill (i.e., the crawl space) prohibits a circulation of air and thus disallows any drying out. The moisture on the brick also promotes moss growth.

The areas of curtain wall which show fungal growth should be re-pointed using appropriate lime mortar to increase breathability. Several more vents should also be opened in the curtain wall, making sure to only remove what bricks are necessary for proper ventilation. Once the porch timbers are dry, the area can be gently scraped and re-painted in an oil or latex paint as dictated by a specialist (paint analysis is necessary here as oil paint may not be put over latex paint).

The last floorboard on the north side of the porch as well as the edge of the one next to it suffer from rot. The last floorboard is almost entirely missing except for a small wedge held on by a rusted nail at the front wall. This porch was built in 1975 and thus the exact floorboards are not characterdefining. These two floorboards may be removed and new ones created in the same material, size, profile, finish, and appearance as the old. The same is true for 1970s central floorboards and stair treads showing signs of wear and decay.

When the porch was rebuilt c. 1975 the SCHPC built the aforementioned shed roof. However, historical trends of the late-19th century dictate that the porch would most likely have had a hipped roof and therefore the restoration of the 1970s was not in keeping with current Standards. Further research is required to validate this as well as to research the original depth, perhaps by looking for original footprints closer to N. Third Street. If the hipped roof is validated, it is suggested that, in keeping with the period of interpretation, that the porch be restored to its original appearance with a hipped roof and deeper porch. Care should be taken not to disturb more fabric, especially on the main faรงade, than is necessary. All current timber should be salvaged and re-used as far as possible in the course of the restoration. The current chamfered columns and other porch features should be retained in full, if only brought forward. This would also affect the curtain wall which should be extended with similar brick that should be discernible upon close inspection, in keeping with the Standards. Current bricks should be numbered and reassembled using lime mortar in the same configuration in which they now exist. Any bricks removed to create new vents can be used in the new brick extensions.

Kitchen Stoop One of the causes of peeling paint on the kitchen stoop is the ingress of water from the base of the newels and vertical posts which are planted directly into the ground. Moisture causes the wood to swell and the bottom layer of paint to break. This stoop dates from c. 1975 and thus is not a character-defining feature of the house. It may be replaced in a fashion copying the material, size, construction, orientation, and joints of the current porch and set within the following pier/footing, or otherwise preserved for the future. If it is replaced, it should first be thoroughly recorded. If the second option is chosen, it is recommended that any resulting rot be cut out beyond its current

May 2011

P a g e | 72

extent only as far as necessary and either a scarf or similar joint of the same timber material (supposedly pine) be spliced in, retaining as much timber as possible, and set on a brick slab with lime mortar, or set on a brick pier with lime mortar. No new paint should be applied to the stoop until all timber has thoroughly dried out. The same process applies to excessive dampness on the stringers. Paint analysis should be carried out on this area to determine if water-proof paint was applied. If so, it should be gently removed and re-painted in oil or latex paint as dictated by a specialist. Any disassembling of the kitchen stoop while this work takes place should be conducted methodically by numbering the pieces, retaining the hardware, and reassembling the structure in its current form.

Chimneys and surrounding walls Water ingress is a serious issue for the chimneys. It is largely due to the use of both cement and lime mortar which is causing a variety of issues, from thermal and differential movement to salt action and internal decay. Cracking, fretting, and receding pointing are evident, especially in the areas of lime mortar use, as lime is a sacrificial material. This issue can over time cause serious structural issues for the chimney.

Limited opening up works can be conducted to determine whether the internal core of the chimney is breaking down. If so, it is allowing excessive moisture to penetrate the wall and air of the parlor and south bedroom which can cause paint to peel on the exterior. A lack of air circulation impedes the drying out process which could also not compete with the dampness of the chimney structure. It is suggested that the cement pointing in the chimneys be raked out and replaced with lime mortar. It may be necessary to replace mid-20th century hard brick with softer brick resembling earlier ones to avoid the problems of differential expansion (a specialist in masonry should be consulted). Severely eroded bricks should be replaced only where necessary in similar materials which can be differentiated upon close inspection so as to not confuse the historical record. Efforts to dry out the interior may be made, using ventilating fans, etc. Further louvered vents may be necessary, though this should only be carried out by a specialist in an inconspicuous place and in conserving as much original material as possible.

Once the drying out process has been completed, the exterior walls may be lightly scraped and handsanded where necessary and re-painted using an oil or latex paint as dictated by a specialist. Care should be taken to not add another layer of paint where it is not necessary since thick paint can cause further problems.

Window sashes The exterior window sashes are, in most cases, suffering from severe peeling of paint. While damp may be the culprit, some areas also show signs of successive layers of paint. More thorough analysis should be conducted to determine whether such is the case. If so, excessive layers may be gently

May 2011

P a g e | 73

removed with hand tools and re-covered in appropriate paint. If damp is the cause of the issue, the aforementioned works may be enough to solve the problem, or alternatively the windows should be checked for other signs of water ingress, particularly between sashes. Broken or cracked panes in the front, second story, central window should be repaired or replaced, though this glazing and timber should be retained as far as possible during any remedial works, in keeping with the Standards for Preservation, as they are character-defining features of the house.

C. Interior In general, the carpet laid down in the 1970s, specifically in the parlor, central hallway, rear hallway, dining room, and Aunt Sac‟s room should be removed. Some damage will have been done to the floorboards underneath with carpet tacks, and any possibility of remedial work in this case should be taken. To protect these floors from the wear and tear of visitor traffic caused by carpet removal, “runner” carpets should be placed on direct traffic routes. The carpet may be left in the small enclosure/office to protect floors against exhibit cases.

Doorways which have no doors, such as both parlor entrances and the dining room entrance, should be restored to their previous state. Two four- and five-panel doors from the late-19th century which are in the ell attic can be used on the first two locations, while a similar door found leaning against the parlor wall may be used for the dining room.

All clutter should be removed to a storage facility and the rooms spared of all equipment, tools, or furnishings which are not part of their interpretive elements. The interior should be re-painted to even out colors in some rooms like the kitchen, with particular attention around other doorways and on bead board. Duplicate or blatantly-inappropriate lighting fixtures such as track lighting should be removed. It is expected that modern lighting is necessary, but more period-appropriate fixtures should be installed.

Parlor Materially, the parlor needs two major interventions: The first is the removal of the sheetrock to reveal the milkwashed plank walls beneath, though it should be thoroughly documented first. The sheetrock will undoubtedly have damaged the surface of the wall. It should therefore be removed as gently as possible with a knowledge that remedial action will need to be taken depending on the type/extent of the damage. The removal of this material will decrease the energy efficiency of the house in general and particularly the parlor, though it is a vital component of realistically interpreting the house in its period of significance.

For the purposes of interpretation, it is suggested that the enclosed fireplace in the parlor be reopened. It is unclear when this fireplace was originally shut, though it was been covered in sheetrock since the 1970s. The record shows that the mantel now found in Snuggs‟ bedroom was originally in

May 2011

P a g e | 74

this room. Though it is unclear exactly how long the mantel has been in its current location, it is likely that its presence there has developed a historical significance in its own right. Therefore a replica mantel may be made of the same material and in the same design to restore the parlor to its mid-19th century appearance. In keeping with the Standards for Restoration, no conjectural details may be created and passed as authentic. Again, the opening of such the fireplace will decrease the energy efficiency of the space and, unless the north chimney damage is addressed, may lead to increased moisture in the parlor. These issues may be addressed as previously noted and with appropriate evaluations, however, and should be as the fireplace is vital to the interpretation of this room.

Snuggs’ Bedroom (1861 Addition) The 1970s paneling which has been added to the 1861 addition and the wallpaper which covers it should be removed, though, in keeping with the Standards of Restoration, the type of paneling and its appearance, condition, etc. should be thoroughly recorded before doing so. Care should be taken as the paneling is tacked beneath the cornice and this will most likely need to be taken down. The doorframes of the front entry door and door beneath the stairs should be opened or in some way presented as part of the interpretation. The fluted skirting boards and door surrounds, while not part of the 1860s addition, were later added by Snuggs here as in the rest of the house. As they are significant in their own right, they should be left in situ and the interpretation should state that they were additions of c. 15 years later. This may assist in showing the structural progression of the house, regardless of the interpretation of this room.

Wallpaper analysis should be conducted on the remnants found underneath the paneling. A number of historic wallpaper specialists can perform this service. The National Archive also has an index of designers and papers. As the paper is now of a brown tint and friable, the paper may be from the 19th century. Further inspection along any existing margins may be an indication of the designer or date. Once these are determined, the paper should be removed. However, as it is glued directly to the planks used to enclose the second entry doorway, to remove the paper in situ would be difficult and therefore the planks may be temporarily removed. An experienced wallpaper conservator can choose the best method of removal, perhaps using an EVM (electronic vapormachine). Once removed and any water stains are cleaned, a sample of the wallpaper (including a full pattern repeat if possible) should be retained between two Mylar sheets. This sample should be stored in a lightfree and humidity-controlled container.36 The removal of the 1970s paneling will undoubtedly cause a decrease in energy efficiency. It may also allow internal humidity to build up on plank walls and therefore the paint outside of this room may develop a tendency to peel. However, like in the parlor, the reinstatement of the original walls is vital to the interpretation of the site in its period of significance. The possible impacts of this removal can be addressed with an energy efficiency evaluation.

36

Goodson, “Historic Wallpaper: A Materials Report,� 2009

May 2011

P a g e | 75

Kitchen No major damage is found in the kitchen. Some limited water damage beneath the current sink may be addressed by cutting off the water supply in this area and increasing ventilation temporarily until the space has dried before repainting. In general, the vinyl flooring should be taken up to reveal the earlier floor beneath, provided the vinyl attachment has not damaged it severely. The cork boards and other late-20th century features should be removed and the 5 ¼” beadboard should be restored.

The blind door to the office may be re-opened to show the original layout and access of the house in the 1870s. This door will also require preservation along its outside edge. A late-19th century stove and other authentic, period-appropriate implements should be reinstated as a vital component of interpreting the room as an example of the new attached-kitchen trend of the late 19th century.

Bathroom and Porch Enclosure Severe peeling paint is found on the interior of the bathroom, on the ceiling by the window and between the closet and the sink. This is due to water ingress from the faulty roof above. Once the roof is fixed, the roof space as well as the bathroom should be ventilated before gently scraping and re-painting the bathroom. The vinyl and tile flooring should be gently removed to display the original flooring from 1924, supposedly wood floorboards. Care should be taken in removing any glues or epoxies from this flooring with attention to preservation best practices. The toilet and sink should be cleaned.

The extent of the water damage in the porch enclosure has so far been undetermined as it was not possible to remove the fluorescent light fixture at the time of this report. However, it will need to be handled in the same manner as the bathroom.

According to the Secretary of the Interior‟s Standards for Rehabilitation, no character-defining feature, material or space may be demolished during a restoration. The porch enclosure, its exterior cladding and the timber sash windows all constitute either premiere or important aspects of the house‟s historic character, therefore as little of the fabric as possible is to be disturbed. However, both time periods represented by the porch enclosure are important in the house‟s interpretation (1860s-1870s, 1880‟s-1890s), and a sympathetic plan of interpretation is necessary. The goal is to give one an understanding of stepping outside onto the back porch from the 1860s, as well as stepping into a porch enclosure in the 1880s, which was a common custom at the end of the 19th century as well as being an important aspect of Snuggs family history. One solution is to demolish the bathroom partition and reinstate the porch enclosure to its original size (except for retaining the rear central hall). This room can be interpreted to the left as Aunt Sac‟s bedroom, with a small bed, nightstand, and wash basin. When the carpet is removed, ghost marks from previous balusters will most likely be left in the floor. These measurements can help inform the size and shape of the previous balustrade which can then be recreated in appropriate materials and technologies as appropriate to the period of significance. This baluster can be placed in an L-shape around the southeast corner and south wall to show where the porch would have ended prior to 1886. This technique allows for the maximum retention of character-defining historic fabric while also meeting the interpretation goals, in keeping with the Secretary of the Interior‟s Standards of Rehabilitation.

May 2011

P a g e | 76

The Standards of Restoration prohibit the dual instatement of architectural features that never existed together so as to not confuse the historical record or to convey a false sense of history.

However, each feature will not only be authenticated by research but this work also does not seek to falsely convey that the room ever existed in this condition. It should be made abundantly clear by the interpretation that this room depicts a structural evolution and it is solely for architectural history and interpretive purposes that this work shall be completed.

Second floor parlor and Bedroom The wallpaper cornice should be removed from the second floor parlor. This was an inappropriate late-20th century addition which detracts from the period interpretation of the room. Its light pink paint scheme should also be investigated with paint analysis and historical research, along with the gray color of the bedroom, to determine if these paint schemes are original and appropriate to these rooms. If they are not, the rooms should be returned to their original, most likely white, color.

Foundation/Crawl Space The brick pier closest to the cellar door under the kitchen is suffering badly from fretting.

Temporary support structures should be erected and the entire pier should be rebuilt with recycled brick and lime mortar. Only those bricks which are severely deteriorated should be replaced in the same masonry material and in the correct size, finishing, etc.

The curtain wall in many places shows moss growth as a result of dampness. These areas should have their cement raked out and replaced with lime mortar. Care should be taken not to damage this brick.

Those piers which are leaning, decayed, or are subpar should be reinforced according to Wilburâ€&#x;s instructions. One log girder is twisted and is causing the sinking of the floors above. Wilbur recommends instating a steel girder beneath the log cabin to slightly raise and support the floor (too much raising will stress and damage the structure). This is the most important structural repair necessary to the re-opening of the house as a museum. Original materials should be used where possibly for repairs, except in necessary cases like that of the steel girder. Steel is permitted in the Standards of Preservation. Wilbur makes other suggestions such as the repair of rotted joists and sills which should be carried out to his specifications. New footings are also required.

Attic Structures The attic structures of this house contain no collars or ridge beams. An engineer or architect may be consulted to determine the efficacy of the current tying of the rafters to the wall plate, although the author is skeptical of its safety. Lateral tension may be applied by the instatement of several collars, though again this should be verified by a structural specialist. If so, appropriate hardware, similar material, and preservation best practices should be followed.

May 2011

XI.

P a g e | 77

Prioritization of Works Works are listed in order of importance or chronological necessity.

A. Works to be completed before project commencement  Archaeological site evaluation  Building code compliance review  ADA compliance review  Dendrochronology (optional but may assist in precise dating)  Full photographic survey  Consultation with specialists for all areas of remedial or restorative works  Cost estimates for all work  Document all work completed

B. Critical (0-6 months)  Roof restoration (all areas)  Reinforce log girder with steel beam as per Onxley‟s specifications  Open vents in curtain wall  Reinforce/rebuild piers, supports. Make structurally sound.  Instate gutters and downpipes  Document all work completed

C. Important (6-12 months)  Opening up works on chimneys  Rake out cement and re-point in lime mortar (replace hard bricks with soft bricks to specialist‟s directions)  Increase ventilation in house, especially parlor and 1861 addition  Scrape walls around chimneys  Determine cause of paint failure on timber sashes  Address causes, scrape and re-paint as appropriate  Repair glazing  Address mold and mildew on exterior  Repaint exterior  Address water damage in bathroom and large porch enclosure; repaint  Feasibility study for upgrading services and energy efficiency  Wallpaper analysis  Historic Building Preservation Plan

May 2011

P a g e | 78

   

Engage consultant about stability of attics/reinforce with collars or other Full Interpretive Plan Paint analysis Document all work completed

D. Necessary (12-18 months)  Remove clutter from house  Kitchen stoop repaired  Address water damage in kitchen  Commission replica mantel for parlor  Remove sheetrock in parlor. Address damage to plank wall.  Remove 1970s paneling in 1861 addition. Address damage to plank wall.  Remove vinyl flooring in bathroom and kitchen. Address damage to floorboards.  Complete opening up works to look for ghost marks of balusters in enclosed porch. Commission replicas.  Document all work completed

E. Final (18-30 months)  Restore front porch and paint  Address porch decay  Re-point curtain wall in lime mortar (do not mix lime and cement in same structure)  Reinstate parlor fireplace  Reinstate two doorways in 1861 addition  Demolish bathroom partitions, retaining bathroom door  Take up carpet in porch enclosure  Reinstate baluster to porch enclosure  Restore 5 ½” bead board in kitchen  Reinstate doors  Repaint interior  Remove carpet and put down runner  All interpretive elements, furnishings, signage installed  Document all work completed

May 2011

XII.

P a g e | 79

Recommendation for Maintenance Plan Development To restore, consolidate, and make sound an historic building for future generations is a worthwhile task and one that has significant merit in its own right. However, capital, time, and manpower are wasted and, most importantly, historic fabric is lost if the building is not regularly and consistently maintained in that state of health. The daily, monthly, yearly, long-term and ad hoc tasks associated with appropriate maintenance can often be forgotten, taken for granted, or attributed to another‟s responsibility, especially when stewardship changes hands over time. For these reasons, the composition and implementation of a thorough maintenance plan is vital to the health of an historic structure.

Maintenance falls into three categories:  regular inspections  specific tasks (such as testing services or clearing gutters)  minor repairs It is important to identify the specific inspections and tasks to be completed based on building damage history, the calendar or frequency for these tasks, the responsible party, the costs involved if maintenance staff or contractors are hired, and guidance for the redressing of minor damage.37 Examples of inspections and tasks that should be engaged for the Snuggs house include but are not limited to:            

37 38

clearing rainwater good twice per year visually checking rainwater goods for damage annually checking windows for damage or decay annually checking door and window hardware operation twice per year inspecting perimeter and below ground drainage channels twice per year checking of internal spaces like attics for damage annually and after storms examining roof and floor voids for signs of vermin annually examining roof and floor voids for signs of structural failure or damage annually general examination of interior spaces for damage or decay annually testing services annually ensure prospering ventilation year round and checking for signs annually re-painting every 5-7 years38

“Maintenance Plans,” English Heritage, 2004 Ibid.

May 2011

P a g e | 80

Maintenance Plans are sometimes separate documents to historic structure reports or preservation plans due to their complexity and detail. A consultant may be engaged to create this plan, and excellent guidance is also available online and in print from a number of sources, including the National Parks Service, English Heritage, and others. It is helpful to keep a journal noting conditions, damage, repairs, and photographs of various features as it occurs.

As part of, and using information from, the overall preservation plan outlined here, a comprehensive maintenance plan should be created for the I.W. Snuggs house, followed regularly, and passed on to future stewards.

Bibliography

Dodenhoff, Donna. Stanly County: The Architectural Legacy of a Rural North Carolina County. Charlotte; Wayne Wolfe, Herb Eaton Historical Publications. 1992.

Goodson, Sunni. “Historic Wallpaper: A Materials Report.” Graduate paper. University of Bath. 2009.

HMR Architects. “Preservation Plan: Glenburn.” Princeton, NJ. HMR Architects. 2007.

Hood, Davyd Foard. National Register of Historic Places Nomination Form. 1995.

“I.W. ‘Buck’ Snuggs was Ninth Sheriff of County.” Unknown Author. Albemarle Press. Date unknown.

Kepley, Aaron. “Snuggs House History.” SCHPC Snuggs House File. 2009.

Maintenance Plans. English Heritage. 2004. http://www.englishheritage.org.uk/content/imported-docs/f-j/hbmdl-maintenance-plan. Accessed April 30, 2011.

Onxley, Stephen. “Field Report: I.W. Snuggs House.” Charlotte, NC. 2009.

Stanly County Historic Preservation Commission. Historical files. Various sources, articles and photos.

Stanly County Register of Deeds. Deed Books. Various dates.

Weeks, Kay D. and David W. Look. “Preservation Brief 10: Exterior Paint Problems on Historic Woodwork.� National Parks Service. 2002.

Wilbur, Terry. Condition Survey and Stabilization Plan. Goldstar Services. Salisbury, NC. 2010.

U.S. Federal Census. Albemarle, NC. 1860. 1870.

Sanborn Fire Insurance Map. Albemarle, NC. 1913.

Underwood, Jonathan. Personal comments. April 2011.