Physical Evidence: Ceramic Tiles Pop Up in the Bathroom, Revealing Old Vinyl Flooring

Slowly, over the last month, the grouted joints between the ceramic tiles in our main bathroom have begun to crack. This has occurred to a minor degree ever since we moved into the house nearly two years ago, but only recently began to become a real issue. The joint cracking was also more significant at the area right against the tub. I had already previously noticed that the perimeter of the ceramic tile floor (against the walls and against the tub) were hard grouted joints, rather than flexible sealant joints, leaving the flooring nowhere to expand and contract without cracking. I had been hoping that the problem was merely because of that sole issue.

Well, it wasn't. Finally, this week, two of the tiles against the tub came fully unbonded from the subfloor beneath. Once I was able to fully lift up these two tiles, the improper installation of this ceramic became evident:

Not good.

What you see here is old flooring, and at a small portion of this area you see wood subflooring, which is now wet on the top side (the underside has been and continues to appear sound from the basement). What you do NOT see is any type of backerboard or underlayment matting. In case you were wondering, that is NOT the way to install new ceramic tile over existing vinyl floor. Sigh. This relatively new ceramic tile is now useless-- it all needs to come out. I have already begun making calls to tile contractors to have them come out for estimates.

Well, Let's at Least Learn More History About This House

We might as well take a closer look then and understand the two layers of previous flooring I see here. I had to do this carefully, however. The reason that I'm not even considering replacing this tile myself, and providing another layer of concern, is that the dark-colored flooring you see has a very good chance of containing asbestos. Aside from removing the ceramic tiles for inspection, I have tried to not mess around with this and to keep it more or less as-is, due to the potential hazard.

First off, what do I know about the history of this bathroom? I know that this is the only bathroom of the two that is original to the 1920's house. The only other bathroom was converted from a kitchen in the 1960's. This original bathroom was part of the second living unit, used by family members of the Cantlins after the house was modified into a duplex. There used to be an exterior window at the tub area. After it was re-instated back to a single-family house by my house's previous owners after 2001, the window was infilled, the bathroom was remodelled, and a fiberglass shower surround was installed. The exact timeframe of the remodel is unknown. Judging by the floor tile installation, I'd guess that this was performed in preparation of placing the home on the market.

Anyway, the dark-colored tiles measure 9" x 9"-- a common dimension for vinyl-asbestos tiles produced prior to the 1970's. I'd guess that what I see here was originally installed in the 1950's or so, perhaps as the Cantlins began to convert the house to a duplex. It may even be older since there does not appear to be much of a pattern to it-- perhaps even the 1940's, when the Cantlins were building an addition onto the back of the house.

As for the lighter, beige-colored flooring, this appears to be from the 1970's or early 1980's. It has a decorative pattern and appears to have largely been removed with the exception of a few remnants at the tub.

Based on the small section and the partial fragments I am seeing, it could either have been a sheet or 12" x 12" tile. This could be more of a linoleum sheet product, but even in the 1970's-80's one cannot rule out vinyl-asbestos without having it lab-tested.

Next Steps

Asbestos-containing materials (ACM's) do not need to be a cause of panic by any means, if they are in good physical shape and are of the less friable varieties. In the case of vinyl-asbestos floor tiles, the percentage of asbestos in the tile's composition could be as little as below 5%. That said, these materials ABSOLUTELY must be treated with care, and consultation by professionals licensed to inspect for asbestos is always a good idea. In my case, you can see that at least one of the 9"x9" has broken once, meaning that at least a small, yet hopefully still safe, level of asbestos fibers may have been released.

My plan of attack is first to have a few professional TILE installers in to provide a consultation and recommendations. I want a company specializing in tile installation, not just a handyman that has the ability to throw down a few tiles. If the tile contractor I decide to hire is able to leave the old flooring in place to encapsulate it under a proper and professional installation, then all the better. If a proper substrate can not be provided over the old vinyl and it must come out, then I probably at least need to have the tiles tested and may need to have a licensed asbestos professional in sooner rather than later. Even if the tile setter is able to keep the old tile in place, at the very least I plan to have the air tested.

Even though this is an unwelcome monetary expense to deal with, it is always interesting to me to uncover old building materials. After all, I still consider these layers to be part of the history of the home.

Read More »

An Ink Sketch of the House From the Previous Owner

Hanging on the wall as we toured this house for the first time, in the front room, was this ink sketch of the house as it existed in 2001:

Honestly, this was one of the homey details we noticed as we walked through, placed there by the previous owners. There were a few more-- the enlarged ruler marking the growth of the sellers' children through the years; the old stone stove in the backyard with the heart-shaped rock on it. I certainly would not say that these little items "sold" the house for us-- we had already walked through the front door and realized that this was it, that we had experienced our "You'll know it when you see it" moment that comes for many in the home-buying process. These things certainly spoke to us, however. We replicated the growth chart idea by getting one ourselves after we moved in. Although I haven't done it yet, I plan on somehow finding a similar heart-shaped rock and presenting it to my wife and daughters at some point. 

And finally, the sketch. After all the negotiation was completed, after the inspection was over but before closing day, we still remembered the sketch, and I wanted it. I assumed that the drawing, as was the house, was important to the sellers and didn't dare asking for the original sketch (although did hold out brief hope that they would kindly offer it up to stay with the house). Instead, I asked our realtor if he could pass along a request to allow us to make a copy of it. The sellers were kind enough to oblige and that's exactly what we did.

Although I've not had all that much communication with this former owner, I did ask him through email about the sketch, among other questions after I began hunting down the history of this house. His reply to the query was that the drawing was completed by an artist friend of theirs shortly after they purchased the house in 2001. It was a Christmas present to his wife for their first holiday in their new home. Sure enough, the drawing is signed by the artist and dated 12/4/01. For the life of me I've never been able to make out this artist's name-- George something. The last name starts with a "J" I believe, but the letters after that could be almost anything. I have not re-asked the previous owner as of yet.

Anyway, this is the house frozen in a moment in time 15 years ago. It is not very different today from the way it appeared then, although the untold story is that those owners painted it from white to the current olive green. They also put decorative vinyl shutters on the porch windows, the attic window, and the front-most window on that left side. You don't see those add-on shutters in the sketch of course. The front planting bed is much less crowded nowadays, with less bushes than are depicted here. The downspout on the left-front stone porch pier has been moved to the left side instead of being on the front face. I've wondered about the driveway at the left-side of the house in this image. Here, it looks like it extends nearly all the way to the backyard. Was it really like this? Today, most of this side-yard is grass and a picket fence aligns with the projecting bay window, terminating the current driveway.

Other than those frankly minor details, this is a spitting image of the house we know and love today. It also is pretty much the same as the public record image I found, dated to the 1990s. These two images show the house that Catherine Cantlin finally needed to move out of in 2001, after having lived there for the previous 70 years.

Have you ever had a painting or a sketch of your home completed? If not, consider doing so, both for yourself and for future owners. It's really a special detail that can remain with the home for a long, long time.

Read More »

Saturday Spotlight- 19th Century Folk Victorian (Turned Colonial Revival) in Roxborough

This week's Saturday Spotlight house is one with a storied past, a Folk Victorian in the Roxborough section of Philadelphia. It dates back to the latter half of the 19th century and was renovated and expanded in 1935-36 as a Colonial Revival.

Image courtesy of The Sivel Group

Architectural styles can be tricky sometimes. They change over times, of course, and sometimes a homeowner will want to update or expand a home significantly, incorporating details and stylistic trends of the day. The physical evolution of a home may fool one into thinking that the currently presented architectural style was always so. Fortunately here, the current owner of this home has a few historical photos which their listing agent was kind enough to pass along.

Image of the rear of the house, prior to 1935 addition. Courtesy of homeowner.

The house as shown in this older photo is clearly a folk, vernacular form, presenting as a two-story I-house with a side gable on one side and rear and front-facing gables at the other end. Tales of this house have its origins as far back as the 1850's. The intricate turned porch posts and the brackets at the roof eaves, however, suggest a few decades later to me. While a Victorian-style porch was a very common addition to existing earlier Folk homes of this time period and could have come after the original construction, I'd still wager that this house was constructed closer to the 1870's due to the eave detail. The simple frieze trim over the windows also was more likely to have occurred a bit later than the 1850's. This historical photo gives us a fantastic demonstration of how shutters were actually functional back in the day. Second floor window shutters were louvered, allowing a breeze to enter on a warm day, while first floor shutters were often comprised of solid raised panels to increase privacy. This arrangement was thoughtfully extended and maintained in future additions.

The facade shown in the historic image above is the current rear of the house. Take a look at it compared to a present-day image of the rear facade (below) and notice the asymmetrical window pattern largely intact, albeit with a door replacing one of the first floor windows, another door added, and the cross gable removed as part of an extensive 1930's renovation. Today we see much more of a Revival style, with the original house down to side gables on both ends, now accompanied by lower-height additions continuing the side gable form. Dormers are added on both the front and back at roof level to continue the rhythm of the facade's fenestration pattern. The white German siding set off with dark-painted shutters gives the house a classic farmhouse look.

Current rear of the house. Image courtesy of The Sivel Group

Origins

The home currently sits on land at what is modern-day Andorra, in Upper Roxborough. However, this was not its original location; more on that in a moment. At the edge of northwestern Philadelphia, this area was largely undeveloped through most of the 19th century, with groupings of houses along Ridge Pike surrounded by larger ownership tracts. As of 1875, this immediate area was still referred to as “Manatawna”, a name which persists today in the form of Manatawna Ave. The exact land on which the house exists today is marked by the ownership of a Mr. Sebold in that same year. A structure is shown on the 1875 map further northeast of the home which is the subject of this piece, existing close to the corner of Spring Lane and Ridge Pike. According to the current owner, the original frame structure of our feature house may have been sitting further to the south along the banks of the Schuylkill River at this time, to be relocated to its present site later on.

Aerial image from 1930. The house, pre-addition on its new (and present) site, is marked with the red arrow to the west of Ridge Pike, the main north-south thoroughfare.

In the last decades of the 19th century, local railroad executive and philanthropist Henry Howard Houston began acquiring many of the large tracts of land in Upper Roxborough. Houston had already burgeoned the adjacent neighborhood of Chestnut Hill as an upper class haven, having amassed a wealth of land and establishing his own mansion residence there (Druim Moir). By the time of his death in 1895, Houston’s holdings in Roxborough had yet to be developed to a significant extent. That would change, however, with the efforts of his son Samuel Frederic Houston, who took over the Estate’s real estate holdings. The younger Houston set out to replicate the section as an elite residential area similar to Chestnut Hill, with grand ambition to construct a cross-country parkway from Chestnut Hill, with a large bridge over the Wissahickon Gorge and through Roxborough, connecting to the Main Line to the west. Those plans never materialized, nor did S.F. Houston’s hopes for a massive Cathedral in Andorra a few blocks away from our subject folk house.

Samuel F. Houston, circa 1900. Image courtesy of UPenn Archives

Instead, smaller-scaled plans did materialize in the core of the neighborhood. This occurred largely through Houston’s commissioning of professional architects, such as Robert Rodes McGoodwin, to design elegant residential houses, including what is now the Renfrew Center further down Spring Lane. This, too, is where the tale of the white folk house picks up. According to the owner, the original house was relocated from its location along the Schuylkill River to a new foundation on its present site on Spring Lane. The house, missing from a 1910 property atlas, may have been moved to this site shortly thereafter. It appears with its smaller, original footprint in a 1930 aerial photograph (seen above). A large-scale renovation and addition was then executed by R.R. McGoodwin, commissioned by Samuel F. Houston’s wife. The Houstons never lived at this home, but merely commissioned its expansion. Fortunately, building plans have survived for this work and are in the care of current ownership. The addition and alterations nearly doubled the footprint of the house, to its current 4,930 sf, and altered the exterior style to its present appearance.

Left: The title block portion of a drawing sheet for the addition of the house, courtesy of the owner. Right: Robert Rodes McGoodwin, architect of the modified end result. Image via UPenn Archives.

1950s to Present

This house continued its expanded existence into the next few decades and eventually came under the ownership of George S. Greene, a financial investment banker. Greene performed some alterations of his own, hiring contractor William Milton in 1959 to remove an existing porch (in the location of, and perhaps the same porch shown at the left side of the historical image) and to add a small one-story cinder block addition. This addition is manifested as the infilled-corner portion at the far right of the house when viewed from the street.

Building permit drawing for small addition, 1959.

Ownership changes continued through the latter half of the 20th century, with a Harry & Susan West selling the house to Frank & Elizabeth Blair in 1973. Mr. Blair was a medical physician. The Blairs owned the home until 1991, at which time they conveyed the property to Paul Tucker and Mary Rugala who held it for the next twenty years. 

The current owners have owned the home since 2011 and have performed a number of tasteful modern improvements, including upgrades to multiple bathrooms and a master bath. Yet, at the same time, the historic character of the house itself has been maintained, and it awaits a new owner to carry on the legacy.

Interior images courtesy of The Sivel Group

Read More »

Zeroing in on the House's Construction Date, Part 2 (Andrew F. Gutekunst)

This is Part 2 of a short series focusing in on my house's assumed construction date between 1922 and 1924. For an overview given in Part 1, see here. 
This article will focus on the real estate transactions of local North Glenside flooring contractor Andrew F. Gutekunst, one candidate out of three possibilities who had my home built. The goal of this exercise is to provide additional and specific context around my home's origin in order to hopefully narrow that construction date even further.

What I knew before this focused exercise, based on some fairly basic chain of title research for my property, is that Andrew F. Gutekunst owned the property from November 1923 to October 1924. He bought the property for $650 and sold it at the end of that short span for $5,500. However, he simultaneously leveraged the property for a $3,800 mortgage upon purchasing it, suggesting that the increase in value within a year is not as dramatic as it seems at first glance.

As described in Part 1, further searches of deed and mortgage indexes for Gutekunst related to properties in Abington Township yielded the following:

• Grantee on eight (8) deed between 1923 and 1928, plus two more in the 1940's
• Grantor on six (6) deeds in 1923 and 1924, plus three more from 1930-1947
• Mortgagor on eight (8) mortgages from 1921 to 1924

How This Information Was Analyzed

A more detailed breakdown and summary of these transactions is included in the following table:

This table organizes all of Gutekunst's recorded transactions by current address. The reason for this is simple-- the 22 recorded documents were the result of transactions involving only nine (9) current properties as they exist today. This allows me to examine when Andrew Gutekunst acquired each property, for how long he owned it, and whether or not he mortgaged each property.

Next, I ventured to specifically locate each property on three maps: a current Google Maps satellite image, a 1927 historical atlas map, and a 1937 historical atlas map. By using the legal description of each property as spelled out in the deeds, I can pinpoint the exact property as it exists today on Google Maps. Then, I can find the same property on the two atlas maps. Why did I choose these two years? If you'll notice in the table above, Gutekunst was most active in the specific years of 1923 and 1924. By locating the lots on maps in 1927 and 1937 (the two closest dates available), I can get a good sense of whether or not Gutekunst may have built houses on these properties or whether he was simply making a short-term investment as values increased in the neighborhood. Note that there is also a 1916 map for my area, but it depicts the neighborhood as it existed before it was largely subdivided around 1920, so none of these lots would have had houses on them in that year.

There are two properties on Cricket Avenue, adjacent properties no less, where Gutekunst came into ownership in the 1940's. Although I will describe them below since they do complete the picture of Gutekunst's local real estate dealings, these are less relevant to the task at hand due to the timeframe. One was actually his own residence, previously owned by his father, Frederick William Gutekunst. 

Some quick, general observations based on the table I've constructed. First, nearly all of these properties are within the block closest to the main arterial road of Jenkintown Road. The exception is very close to Limeklin Pike (at 257-263 Maple Ave), the arterial road at the south end of the neighborhood. Maps show that the earliest development occurred closest to these two roads, and Gutekunst's affinity was no exception. Second, Gutekunst appears to have purchased 3 lots directly from Reginald Ferguson, the originator of the Ferguson's North Glenside subdivision. With one exception (that same 257-263 Maple Ave), Gutekunst dealt entirely in land within this subdivision. It seems clear that this man was delving into something new to him, and perhaps he gained a greater comfort level by keeping his investments very close to home. He was age 25 in 1921 at the time of his first purchase. Now, onto the properties:

657 Jackson Avenue

This is Gutekunst's first investment, acquiring the lot directly from Ferguson in September 1921. Although the financial consideration of his purchase is not fully disclosed in the deed, Gutekunst did mortgage the property to a man named Sigurd Larsen in exchange for $2,500 within days of his land acquisition. Larsen may have been a long-time associate (it appears they may have worked at the same company as machinists as of 1917), as A.F. Gutekunst would later buy a different plot of land directly from Mr. Larsen in the 1940's. He further took out an additional $1,000 mortgage with a Building and Loan corporation a year later in 1922. There is a curious set of deed transactions on this property in June of 1923, with Gutekunst conveying the land to a Ms. Edith S. Mattson, a real estate stenographer of nearby Rockledge, then receiving it back from her one day later. Gutekunst ultimately sold the property to Frederick Locher for an undisclosed sum in July 1924.

Did Andrew Gutekunst build the home we see here today in the picture above? The amounts listed in each transaction are of little real help to us as they remain as murky as several other transactions involving $1 consideration amounts, plus with a few mortgages to boot. However, the house does exist on both the 1927 and 1937 maps. But, I was able to make a key discovery in the form of a newspaper advertisement in the Philadelphia Inquirer from May 7, 1922:

Bingo! This is absolutely a match for this property-- the house that exists on this land today fits well with the description given in the ad: an 8-room "semi-bungalow" (bigger than a typical bungalow, often two stories). The lot described in the property deeds is exactly 60x129, matching the ad. The use of the word "cheap" is interesting. This ad confirms to me that this house was completed by May 1922. The only reason I can't definitively peg this "new" home as having been built during Gutekunst's ownership is that he bought it only 8 months prior to taking out this ad. He easily could have bought it as a brand new house already and well within his rights continued to claim it as a new house in selling it. Given his $2,500 mortgage of the property upon his purchase, I'm guessing that's exactly what he did, taking it slow in the real estate game for his first property.

628 Maple Avenue

A.F. Gutekunst acquired this property in June 1923, right around the time when the mysterious transactions for the Jackson Ave house appear with Ms. Mattson. He acquired a separate double-wide lot on Maple Ave near Limekiln Pike this same month (see below). As for this lot at 628 Maple, Gutekunst again acquired it directly from Reginald Ferguson, and this time he had a partner. This partner was a Mr. William Brosz, a carpenter!!!

Did Gutekunst and Brosz work together to build this house in 1923? Well, they owned the lot less than 3 months. It doesn't seem like enough time even with a skilled carpenter on board. But maybe... maybe plans were in the works prior to buying from Ferguson and who knows, maybe they even had a deal worked out with Ferguson to start early (I think I'm reaching). Gutekunst obtained a mortgage on this property as well, for $2,500, and the partnership sold it in September of that year to a Nelson Mathis for an undisclosed amount. Mr. Mathis took out a $4,500 mortgage immediately, so a short-term bump in value of $2,000 may have been achieved here. The house does show up on both the 1927 and 1937 maps.

Look at the photo above of the house as it exists today. It has clearly been modified to a great extent over its life-- a second story has been added, and the front porch has been enclosed. But if you take away those two things, I see ALOT of similarities to my own house on Central Avenue-- the hipped roof over the front porch, the width of the house, and the existence of a projecting bay on the first floor left side of the house. It's just something to keep in mind... another "maybe" here.

257-263 Maple Avenue

Gutekunst and Brosz had a busy summer in 1923, as they also together acquired this double-wide lot further to the southwest on Maple Ave, near Limekiln Pike and outside of Ferguson's subdivision. This time, they bought from a Samuel Thompson, and the consideration amount is actually provided in the deed this time, for $1,550. However, another deed shows up shortly thereafter granting Brosz's half-share entirely to Gutekunst for slightly more than half the original investment-- $800. It's hard to know what happened here that caused Andrew Gutekunst to buy out his partner's half-- maybe they had a falling out, or maybe Brosz only wanted to build and not take on the risk of ownership/investment. Coupled with the previous property above, we have a partnership between Gutekunst and a carpenter that lasted, on record at least, only 3 months.

As for the houses that sit on these two now-separate lots today, I'm somewhat baffled. At first, you might imagine my excitement upon seeing nearly identical houses which I knew were owned and possibly built by the same person(s) in Gutekunst/Brosz. However, the house you see on the left, #263, appears on both the 1927 and 1937 maps, whereas #257 on the right appears only in 1937. Andrew Gutekunst mortgaged these properties heavily, in total to the amount of $25,000 through four separate mortgages over the next year, before selling the property to a local business, Glenside Lumber and Coal Company, in November 1924, for a total of $5,400.

I can't quite fathom the possibility that these two houses were built very far apart chronologically as suggested by the 1927 map-- they just look too similar. The theory I am running with, for now, is that Glenside Lumber and Coal Co. erected the houses, starting with #263 and completing it in time for the first atlas map (likely by 1926), with the neighboring house following shortly thereafter, maybe within a year or so after the map publisher finished their survey. All told, I believe that Andrew Gutekunst did not play a part in building these houses, although the incredible amount he borrowed via mortgage of the property is a huge mystery here. He must have improved the property in some way.

502 Central Avenue

My house is within walking distance of all these other Gutekunst-held properties. Andrew Gutekunst came into ownership in November 1923, and it was a sole venture after absolving his ownership ties with carpenter William Brosz. He acquired the property from local real estate broker Harry Renninger for $650 and simultaneously mortgaged it for $3,800. Owning the property for approximately one year, he unloaded it in October 1924 to Anna Coogan for the amount of $5,500.

Did Andrew F. Gutekunst, or someone working for him, build this house during his ownership? If you've been reading this blog to any extent, you know that this is among the foremost unknowns I hope to solve. As I've described previously, the house appears on both the 1927 and 1937 atlas maps, and I feel very confident that it was constructed at the very latest by the end of Gutekunst's sale to Ms. Coogan in October 1924.

647 Jackson Avenue

This property, acquired in May 1924, is located directly adjacent to A.F. Gutekunst's first investment property, which he sold a few months after acquiring this one. Again a sole venture in terms of ownership, it is another which was conveyed directly from Reginald Ferguson, the subdivision's creator.

A bit curiously, a house is shown on the 1927 map but NOT the 1937 map-- I had to check multiple times to be sure I was looking at the same property on both maps. Was an existing house demolished sometime after 1927? Maybe. Perhaps it was a mistake by the atlas map surveyor.

No matter, for now. Mr. Gutekunst, it seems clear, did not erect the house which sits on the property today. Having obtained the property for an disclosed sum, he conveyed it to Glenside Coal and Lumber for $400 on the same day he sold the company his properties at 257-263 Maple. Was November 24, 1924 a day that Andrew Gutekunst, to a large extent, gave up his dabbling in the real estate game? This day, where he offloaded three properties to the same buyer, was his final transaction recorded for several more years.

626 Penn Avenue

In July 1928, Andrew Gutekunst re-entered the marketplace, having acquired an empty lot on Penn Avenue at the west end of the neighborhood. He owned it for less than two months. The true market value is not recorded on either end of his ownership, and it appears that no house existed on this property until the 1950's.

621-631 Cricket Avenue

The house at 621 Cricket Ave (on the right in the photo below) is another outlier to the 1923-24 transactions, as it served as Andrew Gutekunst's personal residence. His father, Frederick William Gutekunst, who like Andrew was listed as a flooring contractor/finisher in several records, was the owner until he conveyed it to Andrew and his wife Olga in 1941. The father did not pass away until 1953, but he was 71 years old at the time of this transaction. It appears that this home had remained in the Gutekunst family until very recently, just last year 2015. It was built prior to 1927.

The house to the left, #631, was likely built in the 1950's, and not by Andrew Gutekunst. He acquired the land in 1946 for the amount of $390 from Sigured Larsen and sold it less than a year later for $600. Both amounts are suggestive of a vacant lot, and no house is shown on the 1927 or 1937 maps. Perhaps Andrew, although having largely given up real estate, happened upon an opportunity to purchase the lot neighboring his and took it.

Observations and Analysis

Below is a much simplified version of the table shown at the beginning of this post:

I did what I set out to do here, which was to get as full a picture as possible of Andrew F. Gutekunst's personal dealings in local real estate. Further, I would contend that I can at the very least draw a reasonable conclusion that he likely did NOT build or have my house built during his ownership of the property. Instead, I am continuing with the theory that at which I arrived after my initial mortgage document analysis-- that the house was probably already there in November 1923.

The simplified table here shows that five (5) houses had been built on properties he owned in time for the 1927 atlas map. His now-discovered business association with the carpenter William Brosz in 1923, within the midst of Gutekunst's whirlwind of the same year, leads me to believe that he did build at least one house with this partner. The apparent dissolution of that ownership partnership, coupled with the fact that I just don't see a huge jump in value over his investment on most of these properties, leads me to infer that A.F. Gutekunst intended to build more houses than he actually did. Until I see more evidence that could suggest the contrary, I believe that my house is a case of him acquiring a recently built home in the rapidly-developing neighborhood and flipping it after a short time for a profit.

Coming soon, I'll do a similar examination of properties in this neighborhood bought and sold by Philadelphia carpenter Jayson Stover in Part 3.

Read More »

Zeroing in on the House's Construction Date, Part 1

This is Part 1 of a series of posts focusing in on my house's assumed construction date within the years 1922-1924.

Short of locating an original building permit, a record of one, or some other primary document providing definitive proof, nailing down the construction date of an older house down to the exact year can be quite elusive. For my house, after I completed a chain of title chart based on recorded property deeds, I noted a jump in sales price from $650 in November 1923 to $5,500 less than a year later in October 1924. Such an increase could indicate that the house was constructed within that time frame during Andrew F. Gutekunst's ownership-- $650 is more in line with what an empty lot would have cost in this area at that time, whereas a price tag of a few thousand dollars is in line with what a single-family house would have cost. However, one must be careful with taking this at face value-- several of the deeds in the property's history recorded a consideration amount of only $1, meaning the actual market value is unrecorded.

Mortgage documents associated with the exact same property can be consulted to shed further light on the value, especially in these cases of "$1" transactions. Andrew Gutekunst, although he paid $650 (that we know of) directly to Harry Renninger in November 1923, he also simultaneously took out a mortgage on the property in the amount of $3,800. Whether he used part of these proceeds to compensate Renninger more properly, or used them for some other purpose, is not known, but the fact remains that the property was used as collateral to take out that mortgage-- the subject property is legally described in the mortgage document on record. This is highly suggestive that the property is "worth" at least $3,800 in November 1923, and that the house may have been built prior to that date.

Further clouding the issue is the fact that Harry Renninger bought the property the year prior in December 1922 from Jayson Stover, whom I know was a carpenter by trade. Stover had only owned the property for about 7 months, since May 1922. A shortened timeline presents the basic facts:

• May to December 1922: Jayson Stover, a carpenter who probably would have been capable of building a home in such a time period, owns the property.
• December 1922: Harry Renninger, a real estate broker who conducted many, many transactions, buys the property. The recorded consideration amount is $465, more suggestive of an empty lot value. No mortgage document is associated with this transaction, but note that Renninger may have had the means to compensate Stover a higher unrecorded amount without the use of a mortgage instrument.
• November 1923: Andrew F. Gutekunst, a flooring contractor, buys the property, officially for $650, while simultaneously using the property as collateral for a $3,800 mortgage.
• October 1924: Gutekunst sells the property to Anna Coogan for an official amount of $5,500. I feel very confident that the house was built prior to this date.

These facts give me enough reason to keep the dates from May 1922 to October 1924 as candidates for the actual construction date of the house. This is a relatively satisfactory range (2 year, 5 months), but it spans three different owners. I want to know WHO built this house, and if I can, narrow the WHEN down to a specific year.

So How Can We Narrow This Down Further?

One method is to locate other property deeds and mortgages for these three men-- Jayson Stover, Harry Renninger, and Andrew Gutekunst-- which are unrelated to my specific property. How many other properties were they buying in this general time frame and does it give me any further relevant insight into my own house?? This research will certainly give us more contextual information to consider. Renninger, as I've noted, bought and sold real estate for a living, and was associated with several real estate businesses. Index searches at the Recorder of Deeds yield over 150 documents involving him by name as one of the parties. It's too overwhelming to start with Renninger, so we'll focus on Stover and Gutekunst for now.

Both seem to have been somewhat active in local real estate investment, yet only for relatively brief periods of time in Abington. Limiting my search for Jayson Stover to transactions involving only property in Abington Township yielded the following results:

• Grantee on three (3) deeds in 1922, plus one in 1951
• Grantor on five (5) deeds between 1919 and 1922, plus one in 1952
• Mortgagor on five (5) mortgages in 1922

As a side note, Stover was very active in Hatboro, Horsham, and Upper Moreland to the north, during the 1940's and 1950's when he lived in that area.

And now for Andrew F. Gutekunst:

• Grantee on eight (8) deed between 1923 and 1928, plus two more in the 1940's
• Grantor on six (6) deeds in 1923 and 1924, plus three more from 1930-1947
• Mortgagor on eight (8) mortgages from 1921 to 1924

These are just from index searches-- there certainly are likely at least a few more that are not indexed quite correctly and might turn up once we look closer at each of these documents.

Observations and Next Steps

It's interesting that both of these men seem to have been dabbling in real estate. Jayson Stover, the carpenter, was in and out of Abington rather quickly, gone by the end of 1922 when he sold my property to Renninger. He was a Philadelphia resident at the time, and perhaps had always been quite active there. At first glance it appears that Stover held properties for short periods of time-- perhaps building homes quickly and moving on?

Andrew Gutekunst was a resident of North Glenside and was most actively acquiring property in 1923, the year in which he also acquired my property. He disposed of these properties more gradually over time and lived within walking distance of the properties he held. He was also a skilled tradesman, a flooring contractor, and perhaps was engaged in improving these properties to the point of building houses, albeit at a slower pace that Stover would have.

Something in my gut tells me that if I investigate each of these local properties where Stover and Gutekunst dipped their toes, I'll get closer to my answer. I plan to take this deeper dive by examining the legal descriptions listed in the recorded documents and locating the properties on Google Maps. If I can determine how often or how rarely each man left behind a house when they disposed of a property, it may serve as an important clue in bolstering the case for either as the builder of my own house.

Read More »

Saturday Spotlight- Circa 1879 Gothic Revival in Plymouth Meeting

This week's Saturday Spotlight is a bright yellow Gothic Revival home in Plymouth Meeting, PA. It is a contributing structure to the Cold Point Historic District, listed on the National Register of Historic Places.

Image via Google Street View

Measuring in at approximately 3,800 square feet, this property also has a fairly large barn structure behind the main house. Built with an L-shaped plan, the main form is a cross-gabled Gothic form. In the straight-on photo of the front facade seen above, we see the hallmark of many Gothic Revival houses with a steeply pitched, centered front gable that dominates the roof line and incorporates a single pointed arch window. A simple king post truss adorns the primary gable as well as the two side gables.. This example, built during the tail end of this style's popularity, includes a relatively small number of Gothic detailing and even includes some Italianate roof eave bracketing. The existence of a full-width porch at the entry is indeed common to Gothic Revivals, however.

Taking a spin around to the right side, we see that the house presents two facades of architectural interest to the street. The front porch wraps around to meet the rear ell, which rises the same 2-1/2 stories and terminates with a secondary gable and a palladian window. Above the porch are two symmetrical projecting bay windows, and directly above those we see some further late-19th-century Victorian-era influence with arch top windows. The single-story piece extending from the house out to the right seems to be an addition, as one is documented as having been performed in the late 1980's.

Image by author.

Origins

This house was constructed approximately in 1879 by carpenter Charles B. Camburn. Born in 1853 and having been raised in the area, Camburn built this as a home for he and his wife, Emma. Having acquired the land in 1879, Charles and Emma are listed at this location in the 1880 census, along with two other young carpenters, George W. Janes and Edward Coulston. Perhaps these fellow carpenters were boarding in Camburn's house to help him finish the job.

Carpentry was a trade which ran in this family: in 1900, Charles has a nephew, Joseph, who was also a carpenter and was living with them for some time. Charles and Emma's only child, daughter Elsie, married a man named George Matz, who was also a carpenter. Although Charles Camburn was a skilled builder, he also seems to have enjoyed his diversions, taking out a patent for a checkers-like solitaire game in 1897.

Camburn's patent for a "game apparatus" from 1897. Image via Google Patents.

George and Elsie Matz remained at the Camburn house through at least 1910, having produced two grand-daughters for Charles and Emma-- Eleanor and Hazel, before eventually moving on to their own house in Upper Dublin. Charles Camburn passed away in 1914, at the age of 61, of stomach cancer, and Emma Camburn followed in 1918. Their final resting place is very nearby, only a few doors down at the Cold Point Baptist Church cemetery.

1919 to 1960

The next several decades proved to be find relatively stable ownership for this house. George and Elsie Matz sold it in 1919 to William Hemphill Potts. Potts, age 42, was a manager at the Germantown facility of Abbott's Alderney Dairies, a highly successful company distributing butter, milk, cheese and other dairy products which had several locations in Philadelphia. Potts had a wife, Jennie, and three children, Helen, Alice, and William, Jr, with him at the home. A third daughter, Marion, was already married by the time the Potts family moved in at the end of 1919.

William Potts would continue his job with Abbott's Dairy for several more years, commuting from the Gothic home at Cold Point. He likely was accompanied daily by his daughters Helen and Alice, who took up jobs as bookkeepers at the dairy. In 1938, matriarch Jennie Potts passed away after battling a strep infection in her throat for several weeks. Soon thereafter, William appears to have retired from Abbott's. As of the 1940 census, now-grown children Alice and William Jr. remained in the house with their father, and Marion had moved in as well along with her husband and two children. William H. Potts sold the property in 1944, and later died in 1948.

The next 13 years saw the house owned by a John C. Fetter, and his wife Helen. Fetter, having lived most recently in nearby Conshohocken, was an inspector at a glass factory. The Fetters had at least one child, daughter Helen-- making a total of at least three Helens to have lived in the Gothic home.

1960s to Present

At some point, most likely upon his sale of the property in 1961, John Fetter subdivided his 4+ acre land into two parcels. The other parcel saw a one-story ranch house erected, which was later demolished for a new home in 2003-04. As for the Gothic Revival house, it stood the test of time, owned by Bernard and Mercedes Pannone from 1961-1972. The current owners have continued to hold the mantle of long-term and stable ownership for nearly 45 years, giving them the longest term of ownership in this house's 135+ year history. And I'm thrilled that despite the missing shutters at the pointed arch Gothic window in a 1990's photo of the house, these owners have replaced or repaired them in an architectural accurate manner.

Circa 1990's photo via Montgomery County.

Read More »

Confirmed: The Neighboring Lot Was Once "Part" of My Current Property

Several months ago, I was fortunate enough to interview the daughter-in-law of John J. and Catherine Cantlin, the long-time owners of my home from 1932-2001 (John Cantlin passed away in 1961 and Catherine continued living here for 40 more years). This woman was able to share several pieces of information I had not known previously, including a birth in the home (her husband, in 1934), and the fact that Mrs. Cantlin also owned the neighboring lot on the north side, which was undeveloped at the time. This was the lead upon which to build more solid information.

My 1920's home in the foreground, with an even earlier home in the background (light blue); sandwiched in between the two is land which was owned by the Cantlins for some time, now occupied by my neighbor's ranch house.

Today, that lot contains a one-story ranch style house where my neighbors, a friendly family of Italian descent, live. These being lots of modest width, their driveway defines the property line, leaving about 6-8 feet between it and my house. The daughter-in-law had relayed that Catherine owned the lot and "sold it off about 20 or 30 years ago. She sold it and then that house was built." The stucco and brick rancher could be 1980's by the looks of it, although I'd have bet somewhere in the 1950-1980 range. My neighbor has been there since 1989 (27 years ago, could fit the timeline given). The only problem was that on the county assessment office's online database, there are listed transactions back to 1973, and none of them involve the Cantlins. So, naturally, where would I look to solve the problem? A chain of title search at the county's Recorder of Deeds office, of course.

I performed the search in person at the office-- although my county does allow off-site access to historical deeds, it currently costs 30 cents per minute so this can add up (I hope new Recorder Jeanne Sorg takes cues from Mr. Schiller in Berks County!). Also, since the assessor's database lists the last three transactions for this property, I could have skipped back to 1973 if I so chose. But, since I was there in person I decided to complete the full chain from my current neighbor back to Ferguson's subdivision (Reginald T. Ferguson was the man who subdivided Emma Spear's roughly 200 acre tract into individual building lots).

The first step was to locate my current neighbor's Grantee deed from 1989. As with most deeds in this area, there is a paragraph which includes reference to the previous deed in the chain. Repeating this process took me backwards successively in time, from deed to deed, and after not too long I located the 1919 deed with Ferguson's conveyance of the lot to a Albert F. Troast.

However, it's later in the chain's chronology where I'm hoping to locate the Cantlins, and earlier within that search I found it. On May 18, 1946, John J. Cantlin and Catherine Cantlin purchased the lot from Troast, who apparently held it for 26 years, for the sum of $500. The property actually consisted of three skinny lots, numbered #2220, #2221, and #2223 on Ferguson's plan, none of which were individually large enough to build on-- I have yet to learn why most of the land was apportioned in such a way by Ferguson's surveyor.

Clip from 1946 deed conveying the neighboring lot from Albert Troast to John and Catherine Cantlin

Around this time in the 1940s, the remainder of the block was finally starting to fill in with new stone-front Cape Cod homes. Although it is mere speculation, the Cantlins may have recognized burgeoning development on their block and decided to snag the adjacent land while they had the chance, holding open the possibility of expanding to the north, or to hold onto the lot for use by one of their children or other family. As I've discovered previously, the Cantlins were in the process of enclosing their rear porch to expand the house, taking out the permit only a month prior to this! So clearly, they had expansion on their minds in some respect. If I get the chance to ask the Cantlins' daughter-in-law, I'll see if she can provide any further insight.

In any case, John Cantlin passed on in 1961, and the neighboring lot remained undeveloped by the Cantlins. Catherine held onto it until 1972-- 44 years ago. I'll certainly forgive the daughter-in-law for the inaccuracy in timing, for she provided me the clue in the first place! I wonder how Catherine used the open lot-- did she garden there? Let her teenage kids frolic there? Another question to ask. When she did unload the land on May 10, 1972, she sold it to a company called Mont-Bux, Inc. for $7,000. Mont-Bux flipped it a year later to a Sidney and Carol Mann for $29,275. It seems clear that Mont-Bux Inc. was a local residential development company; a brief search turns up a few appellate court cases from the 1970's, all involving residential developments planned by the company. This evidence that Mont-Bux was a residential developer, grouped with the sharp increase in value in 1973 plus my interviewee's recollection that a house was built shortly after Mrs. Cantlin's sale of the land, strongly suggest that the rancher house was built between May 1972 and May 1973.

Clip from 1972 deed conveying the lot from Catherine Cantlin to Mont-Bux, Inc.

The second page of the 1972 mentions John's passing in 1961, in order to clear up any potential question in the title chain. Also note in the last line of this page that the lot is subject to the same restrictions spelled out in all Ferguson's lots, as discussed here.

Another clue turns into a fun research task and a question answered, adding another component to the history of my house! And further evidence that you must reach out to actual people who may have first-hand knowledge about your house's history, even if they don't realize it.

Read More »

Anatomy of the 1920 Deed from Reginald Ferguson to Frederick Brandes

Today we take a detailed look at the June 4, 1920 property deed which conveyed the land on which my home was later built, from Reginald T. Ferguson to Frederick A. Brandes. If you'll recall from some of my previous posts, Reginald Ferguson was a jeweler by trade in North Philadelphia, and had purchased a sizable tract of land in Abington from a Mrs. Emma Spear a few years prior. He then hired a surveyor to subdivide the land into individual home-building lots, a subdivision recorded with the name "Ferguson's North Glenside". Rather than hire a builder to construct new homes in the subdivision, Ferguson instead profited by selling off the individual lots in order for owners to build their own homes.

I do not know the exact circumstances of how Frederick Brandes came to acquire this particular land parcel from Ferguson. However, in piecing together a biographical sketch on Brandes, I do know that he had an older brother in the jewel trade and perhaps came upon Ferguson's development through that connection.

 

What follows here is the transcribed text of the actual property deed which gave Brandes ownership of two lots of Ferguson's North Glenside. Sometime within the next several years, my house was erected on the property, although not by Brandes. I find this particular deed more interesting than many of the others in my property's title chain. As it is the first deed in the chain conveying the parcel out of subdivider Ferguson's possession, it specifies all of the restrictive covenants on the property which are only alluded to in future deeds (such as restricting how close houses are built to the streets, prohibiting manufacturing and tavern uses, and even specifying fences and/or trees which must be built around any outdoor latrines). Here, I will also demonstrate the various clauses and important portions of a typical deed. Thank you to Laws for filling in gaps of my own knowledge about the specific parts of a property deed.

June 4, 1920 Deed from Reginald T. Ferguson to Frederick A. Brandes

Here follows the transcription (in italics, including typos in the recorded document) of this particular deed, along with anything in particular I've learned from the deed as it relates to my property (in bold):

DEED

REGINALD T. FERGUSON

ET UX

TO

FREDERICK A. BRANDES

ET UX

The beginning of the deed is called the "premises", and it is here where the Grantors and Grantees are specified, as well as the date of execution. In this particular case, I learn that both Ferguson and Brandes were residents of Philadelphia and not of Abington or Glenside, where the land is. Ferguson's occupation as "jeweler" is also listed:

THIS INDENTURE MADE THE fourth day of June in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and twenty (1920)

BETWEEN Reginald T. Ferguson, of the City of Philadelphia, State of Pennsylvania, Jeweler, and katherine E., his wife, (hereinafter called the Grantors), of the one part, and Frederick A. Brandes and Bertha C., his wife, of the said City and State (hereinafter called the Grantees), of the other part:

Next is the "granting clause". Here, it is made clear that a specific parcel of land is being conveyed from one party to the other. The amount of consideration (if specified in the deed) is included in this section, followed by a legal description of the property being transferred. In this deed, we learn that the consideration is merely a nominal amount ($1) but that "other good and valuable consideration" is a part of the transaction. It is not clear what profit Ferguson gained here, as it is not specified. Further, no corresponding mortgage document was found in Brandes' name. I would imagine that unless the two men knew each other previously and that Ferguson was using the land to pay some debt owed to Brandes (a possibility), that in actuality Brandes gave Ferguson some considerable value, which was not documented here, in exchange for the building lot:

WITNESSETH, That the said grantors for and in consideration of the sum of ONE DOLLAR and other good and valuable consideration lawful money of the United States of America, unto them well and truly paid by the said Grantees at and before the sealing and delivery of these presents, the receipt whereof is hereby acknowledged, have granted, bargained, sold, aliened, enfeoffed, released and confirmed, and by these presents do grant, bargain, sell, alien, enfeoff, release and confirm unto the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns as tenants by entireties

Part of the granting clause is the legal description of the propety being conveyed. The description can be performed in a number of ways but must make clear specifically what land is being conveyed. In this deed, Brandes is buying two of the lots that Ferguson's surveyor laid out. If I compare this description to the one in the 2014 deed conveying the land to me, it is identical. Note that one "mystery" I need to investigate further is that I've been told that my current neighbor's lot was originally owned by the Cantlins, the long-time owners of my house. I will be investigating the assumption that this neighboring lot came to be owned separately from the two lots described here, since the legal description of my current property is the same two lots described in this 1920 deed. Note that in the first paragraph here, the survey information (as well as where it can be found in the Deed books) is included, having been recorded at the County the previous year in 1919:

ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground situate in the Township of Abington, County of Montgomery and State of Pennsylvania. Described according to a survey thereof made by William T. Muldrew, Surveyor and Regulator, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, and recorded at Norristown, Pennsylvania, on July 12th, 1919, in Deed Book 732, page 600, as follows:-

BEGINNING at a point in the center line of Avenue "C" at the distance of four hundred and fifty-five and thirteen one-hundredths feet Southwest of the intersection of the center lines of Avenue "C" (as laid out forty feet wide) and Jenkintown Road (as laid out fifty feet wide); thence along the center line of said Avenue "C" on a curve to the left radius one hundred and twenty-three and sixty-six one-hundredths feet, arc twenty-one and fifty-eight one-hundredths feet; thence by lot numbered2224 North forty-three degrees twenty-five minutes, West one hundred and eighty and thirty-three one-hundredths feet to a corner; thence by lot numbered 2206 North eighty degrees fifty-five minutes, East twenty-four and twenty-two one-hundredths feet to a corner; thence by lot numbered 2222 South forty-three degrees twenty-five minutes East one hundred and seventy-four and seventy one-hundredths feet to the place of beginning. being lot numbered 2223 on the said survey.

AND ALSO ALL THAT CERTAIN lot or piece of ground situate in the Township, County and State aforesaid, and described according to the said survey as follows:-

BEGINNING at a point in the center line of Avenue "C" at the distance of four hundred and seventy-six and seventy-one one-hundredths feet Southwest of the intersection of the center lines of Avenue "C" (as laid out forty feet wide) and jenkintown Road (as laid out fifty feet wide); thence along the center line of said Avenue "C" on a curve to the left, radius one hundred and twenty-three and sixty-six one-hundredths feet, arc thirty-five and seventy one-hundredths feet; thence by land of the North Glenside Land Company North forty-two degrees twenty-three minutes, West one hundred and and seventy-five feet to a corner; thence by lot numbered 2207, North forty-six degrees thirty-five minutes, East thirty-two and one one-hundredths feet to a corner; thence by lot numbered 2223 South forty-three degrees twenty-five minutes, East one hundred and eighty and thirty-three one-hundredths feet to the place of beginning. Being lot numbered 2224 on the said survey.

As with most deeds in my county, the granting clause includes reference to the last recorded conveyance of this land (including the Deed Book and Page information). In this case, here it is described that the land is part of the larger tract of land Ferguson purchased from Emma Spear three years prior:

BEING a part of the same premises which Emma L. Spear, by identurebearing date the fifth day of October, A.D. 1917, and recorded at Norristown, Pennsylvania, in Deed Book No. 763, page 82, &c., granted and conveyed unto the said reginald T. Ferguson in fee.

TOGETHER with all and singular the improvements, ways, streets, alleys, passages, waters, water-courses, rights, liberties, privileges, hereditaments and appurtenances whatsoever thereunto belonging, or in any wise appertaining, and the reversions and remainders, rents, issues and profits thereof, and all the estate, right, title, interest, property, claim and demand whatsoever of the said Grantors, in law, equity, or otherwise howsoever, of, in, and to the same, and every part thereof.

Next is the "habendum clause" which usually begins with the term "to have and to hold". Here it is stated the duration of the conveyance as well as any further clarification of the new owner's rights to the land. In some cases, the new owner may only be receiving rights to the land "during his/her natural life", and this clause should go on further to declare what is to happen after this point. The most straightforward and least restrictive conveyance is in "fee simple", which gives the new owner all rights to the land indefinitely. This is what has occurred here in this 1920 deed, as exhibited by the reference to "heirs and assigns" of the Grantees, as well as use of the term "forever" at the end. "Heirs and assigns" allows the Grantee to give all or some claim to whomever he wishes in the future, and allows for inheritance of these land rights in the event of the new owner's death. Of course, in many cases, this new owner will at some point transfer and relinquish the claim to the land to yet a new owner. Thus, the "forever" means forever until that person gives up the claim to someone else:

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said lots or pieces of ground above described hereditaments and premises hereby granted, or mentioned and intended so to be, with the appurtenances, unto the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns to and for the only proper use and behoof of the said grantees, their heirs and assigns as tenants by entireties forever.

Here begins the clause which spells out any restrictive covenants on new development for the land being conveyed. This is the most interesting portion of this particular deed to me. Reginald Ferguson has now successfully subdivided the Emma Spear land tract into individual building lots, and with these deed restrictions he is laying out a standard for new development which will protect the value of the entire development at large (including lots which Ferguson has not yet sold). Several references to other pieces of land not involved in this particular conveyance, but part of the North Glenside subdivision, are included, as this entire section of restrictive covenants would have been included verbatim in all deeds involving Ferguson's North Glenside lots. The first paragraph restricts certain uses on the property-- no cemeteries, manufacturing, taverns, or any "other building for offensive occupations or business, shall be erected". Again, Ferguson is protecting the value of the entirety of his holdings as a desirable residential community. Thus, no bone-boiling and no piggeries!

UNDER AND SUBJECT to the express conditions and restrictions: That said premisesshall not be used for cemetery or burial purposes. That no bone-boiling or fat rendering establishment, soap, glue, candle, varnishing factroy, brick manufactory, or any manufacturing business, slaughter house, piggery, tannery, tavern/drinking saloon or any building for the manufacture or sale of spirituous or malt liquors or wine of any kind or description whatever, or other building for offensive occupations or business, shall be erected on any part thereof, and that sidewalks shall be eight feet wide. That all lots are conveyed to the center of the road or avenue, and that all roads or avenues are forty feet wide, except Jenkintown Road and Susquehanna Road.

The next restrictive covenant essentially amounts to an easement allowing for the creation of Township-managed roads fronting the property:

That the grantee will without consideration dedicate such portion of the above premises as now forms the bed of any road or avenue, whenver said road or avenue shall be taken by the Township or County.

Next, further regulation on outhouses: 

Any privy wall used or maintained upon the premises above described or any part thereof shall be subject to the inspection and approval of the Board of health. Any outside water closet erected on said lot or lots shall be enclosed by an arbor or fence built at least three feet distant from the said water closet on all sides, and at least the full height of same.

The following covenants amount to the equivalent of zoning setbacks and density restrictions, despite the fact that Abington Township would not have its own formalized zoning code until later in the decade. Note the reference to Ferguson's lots numbered 2062 to 2094, despite their being located elsewhere in the subdivision:

That the house or building line on all roads or avenue shall be always at least twenty feet from the front road or avenue line and no part of any building such as porches, verandas, bay-windows or property area, exclusive of steps, shall be erected more than twelve feet beyond the said building line.

That the building line of all stables, garages or our-buildings of any kind hereafter erected upon any lot, shall recede from the front road or avenue line, so that the building line of such stable, garage or out-building shall not be nearer than sevnety-five feet from the said front road or avenue line, except that stables, garages or out-buildings of any kind hereafter erected on lots 2062 to 2094 inclusive shall only be built on the rear twenty feet of said lots.

That no more than one house shall be erected on each lot of ground until the year A.D. 1930.

And finally, Ferguson places actual minimums on the construction cost of houses to be built in his subdivision, even those not being conveyed in this deed. My house is located in the area described as "on any other avenue to the Southwest of... Jenkintown Road", which is a considerably small percentage of the subdivision, bearing a minimum cost of $2,500. Thus, if this deed restriction was adhered to (and it would be difficult to prove that it was), then I have a pretty good idea that it cost at least $2,500 to construct the house a few years later. I will be interested to search deeds for properties east of Jenkintown Road, in what is more traditionally known as the Ardsley neighborhood. As described in my post exploring the larger development of Ardsley, most of those houses were built in the 1950's or later, decades after these restrictions were written. In addition to investigating what happened to all of Ferguson's unsold land upon his death in 1924, I'll be curious to see if these restrictions differed in the later phases of development:

That any house erected on lots fronting on either side of Jenkintown Road on Avenues "E" and "F" to the Southwest of Jenkintown Road shall cost not less than Three Thousand Dollars; that any house erected on lots fronting on any other avenue to the Southwest of lots fronting on Jenkintown Road shall cost not less than Twenty-five hundred dollars; and that any house erected on any other lots shown on the said plan shall cost not less than Eighteen Hundred Dollars.

This next clause is among the most important in the entire document from a legal perspective, and it is called the "warranty clause". The Grantor, Reginald Ferguson, is essentially giving Brandes, the new owner, a guarantee that this land is free of any other claims. He further agrees to defend against any other third-party claims on the property which may arise. This is the most protective form of warranty for the new owner and involves the least risk for him. Not all deeds are general warranty deeds as this one is; some warrant to a lesser degree than implied here (i.e. "special warranty" deeds). "Quitclaim deeds" carry even more risk for the buyer, as they do not carry any warranty against third-party claims on the property-- they might be more often used in conveyances within a family:

AND the said Reginald T. ferguson, for himself and his heirs, executors and administrators, doth by these presents covenant, grant and agree, to andwith the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns that he, the said Reginald T. Ferguson, and his heirs, all and singular the hereditaments and premises herein described and granted or mentioned and intended so to be, with the appurtenances, unto the said Grantees, their heirs and assigns against him the said Reginald T. Ferguson and his heirs, and against all and every other person and persons whomsoever lawfully claiming or to claim the same or any part thereof, by, fromm or under him, them, or any of them, shall and will subject as aforesaid, warrant and forever defend.

Finally is the testimonial section or "execution clause". Appropriate signatures of the Grantors are included, including those of witnesses and the notary public:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said parties to these presents have hereunto interchangeably set their hands and seals. Dated the day and year first above written.

   SEALED AND DELIVERED

Reginald T. Ferguson (SEAL)

Katherine E. Ferguson (SEAL)

in the presence of us:

N.H. Ritter

Chas. F. Myers (.50 cancelled stamp)

RECEIVED on the day of the date of the above indenture of the above-named Grantees the full consideration therein mentioned.

   WITNESS AT SIGNING:

A.F. Ritter Reginald T. Ferguson

Chas. F. Myers

On the fourth day of June Anno Domini 1920, before me, the subscriber, a Notary Public for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, residing in the City of Philadelphia, personally appeared the above-named Reginald T. Ferguson and katherine E., his wife, and in due form of law acknowledged the above indenture to be their and each of their act and deed, and desired the same might be recorded as such.

WITNESS my hand and official seal the day and year aforesaid.

Chas. F. Myers (N.P.)

Notary Public (SEAL)

My commission expires Jan. 21, 1923.

Recorded June 30, 1920. H.L.N.

The deed was recorded at Norristown, the county seat, on June 30, less than a month after the actual conveyance took place on June 4. I've not yet been able to locate a list of previous Recorders of Deeds for the County, but I presume that "H.L.N." were the initials of the current Recorder of Deeds in 1920.

Read More »