The Oak Hill Farm Historic District includes approximately 213 acres of farmland straddling the Tipton and Haywood County lines. The district is comprised of two dwellings, including an 1834 Federal-style I-house, and a collection of outbuildings associated with the mid-20th century period of rural reform and agriculture. The main house, referred to as the Taylor House, is a good surviving example of early settlement Federal-style frame architecture in West Tennessee. The house retains a high degree of integrity dating to its original construction and the postwar period of agricultural innovation (1945-1963). The dwelling’s mid-20th century additions are situated on the south and southeast portions of the house and reflect postwar emphasis on modernizing and improving the quality of life for the farm family. For example, the rear addition (dating to 1945-1946) replaced an original ell on the rear of the house and added a kitchen and bath to the home, introducing indoor plumbing for the first time. At the same time these additions were made, electricity was installed throughout the main dwelling.
Oak Hill Farm includes both domestic and agricultural spaces. The built environment is concentrated at the center of the nominated acreage. The Taylor House anchors the property and the agricultural complex surrounds it on the east and south. Most of the supporting agriculture-related resources date to the postwar period of agricultural innovation. To the east of the house sits the barn, the dairy parlor, the Keeling House, the granary, the smoke house, and the well house. To the south of the house are the machine shed and the chicken house. The tenant houses are situated further out from the agricultural and domestic complex. This placed tenants closer to the fields and animals they tended. Tenant House is situated the closest to the main house of any of the tenant buildings because it was physically removed intact from the main body of the Taylor House, while the other houses were erected on site in wooded areas.
Access to the property is along Keeling Road in Tipton County, and extends east into Haywood County. The Taylor House and mid-20th century buildings are located in Tipton County while portions of the agricultural land are situated in Haywood County. The agricultural land was used primarily for row crop production from the early settlement period. Some row crop production continued through the mid-century, but beginning in 1918, the land most notably served as pastureland for the dairy stock and to produce the feed and roughage necessary to support the dairy operation. The agricultural fields from this period of innovation and progressive agriculture (1918-1940) are still extant. During the mid-20th century, the property owner, Lancelot Maclin, Jr., transformed the landscape through an extensive program of soil reclamation and terracing to create productive acreage from land exhausted by cotton and other row crops during the 19th century. The fields were re-terraced later in the 20th century, but the new terracing is visible in the same fields as the historic terracing. The landscape of both the domestic complex and the agricultural fields contribute to the historic character of the property. The driveway follows its historic path and mature trees remain from the early settlement period. Other landscape features such as the fields, pastures, tree lines, fences, gates, and farm roads date to the 20th century periods of progressive agriculture and postwar innovation. The nominated property is comprised of a total of twelve contributing buildings and structures dating to the early settlement period, the progressive agriculture period, and to the postwar innovation period. Two contributing sites are also extant, a c. 1860-1880 cemetery and the overall agricultural landscape, c. 1918-1963. Non-contributing resources include five buildings that are either less than fifty years old or whose present condition is so deteriorated that it no longer contributes to the overall historic integrity of the district.
Taylor House -1834, Contributing building
The Taylor House is a two-story, wood frame, Federal-style I-house completed in 1834. There is no record of who designed the house. Among the character-defining Federal-style detailing are the symmetrical, five bay facade, entry door and central hall plan, original fireplace mantels, and decorative interior detailing. Small, single-story additions dating to 1945-1946 are situated on the east and south elevations. Brick used for the continuous brick foundation and external end chimneys was produced on-site, and portions of the foundation have been replaced to stabilize the house, mainly during the mid-20th century period of improvements. The side-gabled roof is asphalt shingled. A single-story, Craftsman-style porch with hipped roof is centered on the facade and was likely constructed during the early to mid-20th century. Above this porch is situated a later, single bay, gabled porch that is not accessible. Unless otherwise specified, primary windows are two-over-two, double-hung wood sash. The facade windows feature fixed, wood louvered shutters. These windows, though historic, replaced the original windows during the mid-20th century.
The single-story shed roof additions to the east and south elevations are clad in weatherboard and have asphalt shingle roofs. The east elevation addition sits on a brick foundation, and the south elevation addition sits on a mixed brick and concrete block foundation. The south elevation addition houses a kitchen, a room currently used as an office, and a modem bathroom. This addition took the place of a large gable-roof wing which was relocated to an area south of the Taylor House and converted into a tenant house. The east elevation addition houses a mudroom and functions as the primary entry from the farm and outbuildings. The construction of the mudroom reduced the amount of farm dirt and mess tracked into the home; a common modification during the mid-20th century period of rural farm improvements.
The facade (north) of the Taylor House sits on a continuous brick foundation. The structure of the house is wood frame with weatherboard siding, and the side gable roof has a boxed cornice and is clad in asphalt shingle. Two brick external end chimneys are visible. The facade is divided into five symmetrical bays, and the central bay is dominated by an early- to mid-20th century, single-story, one-third-width porch featuring Craftsman-style influences. The porch sits on a continuous brick foundation with concrete flooring. The porch features a hipped, asphalt-shingle roof with exposed rafter tails. The roof is supported by square wooden columns with brick piers. The porch is accessed by a central concrete stair with brick balustrade. Centered above the porch is situated an inaccessible single-bay, gabled porch. This porch features a plain vertical plank balustrade and a gable-front asphalt shingle roof with visible rafter tails and is supported by two square wooden columns. The underside of both porch roofs is headboard.
The facade’s central bay includes the main entrance to the house on the first level: a Federal-style, single leaf, eight-panel wood door flanked by fluted Ionic pilasters and four-light sidelights. An elliptical fifteen light fanlight is situated above the door. The door retains its original hardware, and is protected by a c. 1950s wrought-iron and glass storm door. The second level of the central bay includes an eight-over eight, double-hung, wood sash window, and is the smallest on the facade. All of the windows on the facade have been fitted with storm windows. The north elevation of the east mudroom addition is visible behind the access point to the basement, both of which extend from the east elevation of the house. The north elevation of the enclosed, exterior basement access features a brick foundation with weatherboard-clad walls and an asphalt-shingle roof pitched down toward the house. The north elevation of the mudroom addition features a three-over-one, double-hung, wood sash window.
The west elevation of the Taylor House is dominated by the wide brick exterior end chimney, which narrows at the attic level. On the second level, a two-over-two double-hung, wood sash window is situated south of the chimney. The west elevation also includes the west elevation of the rear shed-roof additions from 1945- 1946. A rectangular louvered vent sits near where the shed roof touches the Taylor House, and on a projection at the south end of the addition there is a three-over-one, double-hung, wood sash window with a fixed metal awning.
The south elevation includes the main core of the 1834 house, the 1945-1946 shed roof addition, and the south elevation of the mudroom addition. The 1945-1946 shed roof addition occupies the east two-thirds of the south elevation. The west end of the south elevation (the main body of the 1834 house) includes four windows, two on each floor. The windows match those on the facade, with the exception of the eastern-most second-story window, which is a one-over-one, double-hung, wood sash window. The south elevation of the 1945-1946 addition includes five, three-over-one, double-hung, wood sash windows. The south elevation of the mudroom addition includes a single three-over-one, double-hung, wood sash window.
The east elevation includes the gable end of the house, the one-story mudroom addition, the east elevation of the south/rear addition, and the enclosed access point to the basement. The east elevation of the 1834 portion of the house is dominated by the wide brick exterior end chimney, which narrows at the attic level. On the second floor, a two-over-two, double-hung, wood sash window with fixed louvered shutters is situated south of the chimney. On the first floor, a one-over-one replacement metal sash window is located north of the chimney, behind the enclosed basement stairwell. The mudroom addition sits on a continuous brick foundation, and includes a contemporary glass storm door on the south end of the east elevation and a pair of three-over-one, double-hung, wood sash windows on the north end.4 The enclosed basement stairwell is shorter than the other additions, and includes a glass storm door at the top of the stairs. The enclosure of the stairwell was undertaken by Lance Maclin, Jr. when he converted a portion of the basement into his farm office, likely c. 1960 when the concrete basement floor was poured. It is most likely that the entrance to the basement existed before Maclin made his updates.
The 1834 house follows a central hall plan featuring parlors on either side and a dog-leg staircase at the hall’s south end. This plan is more or less reflected upstairs, with a central hall and two flanking bedrooms. The north end of the upstairs hall, however, is enclosed to form a small bedroom. The 1834 section of the house retains a high degree of integrity, including the majority of its historic tongue-and-groove hardwood floors, paneled wainscoting with simple molded chair rails on the lower level, eight-inch baseboards, brick fireplaces and Federal-style wood mantels, original multi-paneled wood doors with original hardware, and plaster walls. The upper and lower levels have the same molded square architrave surrounds on doors and windows, except where otherwise noted.
The imposing formal front entry opens to the central hall. The hall features an original dog-leg wood staircase leading up to the second floor. The banister is plain and curved with square balusters and decorative turned newel posts. The carriage of the stairway extends to the floor and features historic wood paneling. Historic hardwood floors survive and are hidden beneath contemporary carpeting. In addition to the historic features seen throughout the lower level, the central hall also features a picture rail as well as wood paneled wainscoting. There are five openings in the hall, including the Federal-style front door. A simple molded and arched trim surrounds the entryway and the door retains its historic hardware. Directly across from the front entrance on the south end of the hall is a matching wood door that once served as the rear entrance to the house, but now provides access to the rear additions. Near the north end of the hall on the east and west walls are single-leaf, six-panel wood doors with original hardware, each allowing access to their respective parlors. The fifth door is a six-panel wood door with original hardware on the east wall beneath the staircase, and allows interior access to the basement.
Accessible from the central hall, the dining room is a large room occupying the entire west end of the first floor.The walls and ceiling in this room have been replaced with drywall, but retain their historic wood-paneled wainscoting, baseboards, and crown molding. The west wall is dominated by a brick fireplace and hearth which includes what appears to be an original wood mantel and mantelshelf. The mantel is an excellent example of modest Federal-style vernacular detailing with its thin lines and formality. The sides of the mantel include pilasters with a stylized pedestal, stylized column shafts with channeling, a plain mantelpiece with central block and architrave detailing, and a molded cornice with implied capitals on which the mantelshelf rests.
Like the dining room, the east parlor occupies the entire east side of the original I-house. Partial renovations in 1959 of this room included laying a new floor, replacing the plaster walls with drywall (historic baseboards, and crown molding were retained), replacing the hearth on the east wall fireplace (the mantel, which matches the mantel in the dining room, was retained), the partial enclosure of the firebox opening, and the installation of a cabinet built into the wainscoting for firewood storage. The firebox opening has been fitted with a wood-burning stove insert, which does not compromise the historical fabric. Historic wood-paneled wainscoting, less formal than the hall and dining room, surrounds the room. There are five openings in the east parlor; the six-panel wood door leading from the central hall on the north end of the west wall, two windows on the north wall, a single window north of the fireplace on the east wall, and a cased opening on the east end of the south wall leading to the kitchen.
The stair from the first floor runs north along the eastern wall and reaches a landing along the northern wall of the interior. The landing has historic wood floorboards, simple square wood balusters, turned wood corner posts, and a simple wood handrail. The stair then turns south and runs along the western wall of the well to reach the second floor hall. The hall is confined to the southern end of the second floor, while a bedroom occupies the northern end of the central portion of the house on the second floor. The second floor hall retains historic tongue-and-groove wood flooring, simple baseboards, and plaster walls. Unlike the first floor hall, this hall does not include wainscoting. The southern end of the central hall consists of the stairs on the west and an open well on the east. The stairs and the open well retain a historic balustrade like that of the landing. A secondary, modem wood railing has been added along the western wall of the stair for additional support. Three openings are located in the second floor hall: a non-cased opening on the west wall into a modem hallway and west bedroom; a historic six-panel wood door on the north wall leading into the north bedroom; and a historic six-panel wood door on the east wall that leads to the east bedroom. The two historic doors match the other interior doors of the 1834 house and retain simple molded surrounds.
Directly across from the stairs, is a small bedroom accessed through an historic six-panel wood door. The room retains the other shared features of the second floor, though its plaster has been replaced with drywall. The west wall has been altered to include a c. 1950 built-in closet and drawers with plain fronts and plain button drawer pulls. A window is centered on the north wall. This window is smaller than all others on the 1834 house suggesting that it is not original to the house and may have been replaced at some point during the building’s history.
The second floor central hall leads west into a modem area altered c. 1960 to accommodate a second-floor half bath. A non-cased opening where the door to the west bedroom was originally located leads into the modem section. This section is composed of a small secondary hall to the north and a small half bath to the south. The secondary hall has vinyl floor tiles over the original hardwood, drywall walls, and a drywall ceiling. Plain built-in wood cabinets are located on the north wall of the secondary hall. On the south wall of the secondary hall is a plain wood door within a simple wood surround. This door leads into a small half bath composed of vinyl floors, and drywall walls and ceiling. A small window is located on the south wall of the bath. On the west wall of the secondary hall is a historic six-panel wood door set within a simple wood surround that leads into the west bedroom. The c. 1960 addition made the west bedroom smaller, but the door and surround were moved from the original location.
The west bedroom occupies the remainder of this end of the original house. It retains its historic wood flooring, but the walls are a combination of plaster and drywall. It retains a decorative milled chair rail, eight-inch baseboards, and has a drywall ceiling. There are four windows in this room: two on the north wall, one on the west wall south of the fireplace, and one on the south wall. The north section of the east wall has been fitted with a c. 1950 built-in closet with sliding doors and a pair of cabinets above. The west wall is dominated by a brick fireplace with a brick hearth and a simpler version of the mantelpiece and mantelshelf from the first floors-the details are the same, though smaller and there is no central block on the frieze.
The east bedroom occupies the east end of the original house and retains its historic floorboards, baseboards, chair rail, molding, and plaster walls and ceiling. The room is accessed via its original door on the west wall from the upstairs hall. There are three windows: two on the north wall, and one south of the chimney on the east wall. There is a c. 1950 closet built into the room in the southwest comer. This closet matches the one built into the west bedroom, and this bedroom features a fireplace and mantel on the east wall that matches the one in the west bedroom. There is no evidence to suggest that there were ever windows on the south wall of this room, likely because the gable end ell (which was later removed when then shed roof addition was made c. 1945/1946) prevented the addition of windows on this side of the house.
1945-1946 Additions: South and East Elevations
In 1945-1946, a shed roof addition was added to the south elevation of the house. A mudroom addition was made at the same time extending from the east elevation of the house and the south addition. The south elevation shed room addition introduced the first indoor plumbing to the home, and at the same time, electricity was added throughout the home. The south addition created a kitchen, an open area currently used as an office, a hallway with closets, and a full bathroom. Unless otherwise noted, these spaces have hardwood floors, drywall walls, plain four-inch baseboards, architrave trim on the window and doorframes, and crown molding.
The kitchen occupies the east end of the south addition.It has a vinyl-covered floor. The north and east walls are clad in vertical tongue-and-groove plank. The room has three doors, all located on the north end. The north wall has had the door removed between the kitchen and the east parlor. A doorway on the west wall opens into the office space. A six-light, wood-glazed door on the east wall opens onto the mudroom addition. The west wall includes cabinets, the refrigerator, and the original ceramic sink with stainless trim where it meets the countertop. A peninsula with open cabinets projects to the east on the south end of the west wall cabinets to form a separate breakfast nook at the south end of the kitchen. There are four windows on the kitchen’s south end: one on each the east and west ends of the breakfast nook, and a double window on the south wall. The kitchen cabinets date to c. 1960, and are solid wood with bevel detail and original hardware. A soffit fills the gap between the top of the cabinets and the ceiling, and the countertops are c. 1960 plastic laminate. The cabinets and stove occupy the north two-thirds of the east wall. There are additional built-in cabinets along the lower portion of the north wall, with open shelving up to the soffit level.
The space being used as an office has two doorways: one on the north end of the east wall, and one on the north end of the west wall. It has a cased opening with architrave trim on the east wall, which occupies the space above the kitchen sink. There are two windows on the south wall. An open closet with architrave trim is built into the south end of the west wall.
A short hall runs lengthwise along the north end of the addition from the office space to the west end of the addition. The hall has five openings: the open doorway separating the office and the hall, the original door connecting the addition to the central hall of the 1834 house on the north wall, a modern closet door on the west end of the hall, and two six-panel wood doors on the south wall. The door on the east end of the south wall opens to a storage closet. The door on the west end of the south wall opens into the bathroom.
The downstairs bathroom occupies the southwest corner of the addition. The bathroom was updated c. 1950, and has a vinyl floor, ceramic tile and drywall walls, and a drywall ceiling. The room is accessed via a door on the north side, and has a window on the south wall. Another six-panel wood door on the north end of the west wall opens to a storage cabinet. The south end of the west wall is occupied by a bathtub with shower and ceramic tile, all c. 1950. The north end of the east wall includes the c. 1950 cabinetry with laminate countertop and ceramic sink with stainless steel trim. The cabinets feature decorative trim and retain their original hardware. A half-wall separates the cabinets from the contemporary replacement toilet at the south end of the east wall.
The mudroom addition extending from the east elevation shares the exterior walls of the original 1834 house and the 1945-1946 kitchen addition. The mudroom has a linoleum floor, drywall walls, with the exception of the west wall, which reflects the exterior siding of the main house and rear addition. The mudroom features a drywall ceiling. It is accessed from the exterior of the house via a contemporary glass storm door on the north end of the east wall. Interior access is through a wood-glazed door opening to the kitchen on the north end of the west wall. There are four windows in the mudroom: one on the south wall, one on the north wall, and a pair of windows on the east wall. A small utility closet with a five-panel wood door is built onto the south end of the west wall. A small ceramic utility sink sits below the window on the south wall, which speaks to the room’s function as a transitional space to keep the dirt and mess of farm life out of the house.
The original, 1834 I-house section of the Taylor House includes a basement, which is currently used for storage. Interior access is via a set of wooden stairs below the central stair on the main floor. The basement walls are the brick of the foundation, with some evidence of plastering or whitewashing. The ceiling is the exposed rafters and floorboards of the first floor. The space under the west end of the house is largely open except for brick support piers. The east section is divided by a brick wall with a four-panel wood door with plain trim on the north end. The east quarter of this space was converted into a farm office by Maclin, Jr. and has a plywood partition and vertical plank door with plain trim. The office also has a door leading to an enclosed stairwell. The door is a single-light wood-glazed door that has been sawed off on the bottom portion to accommodate the non-standard height of the doorframe. The floor of the basement was dirt until 1956, when Maclin had concrete poured. There are two fireplaces (one on the east exterior wall, one on the west exterior wall) in the basement that appear to feature stucco or concrete over brick with a plain hearth. Neither feature mantels (the mantel on the east fireplace is not attached and not original to the house).
Second Residence (1979, Non-Contributing building due to age)
The second dwelling on the Oak Hill property is a west-facing brick-veneer, frame Colonial Revival two story house. It sits on a brick foundation and features an asphalt-shingle roofing. The house is divided into three sections: the side-gabled, two-story building with a two-story, full-width colonnade; and two front-gabled wings connected to the principal massing by side-gable hyphens. The centered, two-story massing consists of three bays. The central bay includes the main entry on the lower level and a French door opening onto a balcony with a wrought-iron balustrade on the second floor. The flanking bays feature two six-over-six, double-hung, vinyl sash windows with fixed louvered shutters. Each front-gabled wing includes two of these same windows. A rear, external brick chimney is visible above the roofline.
Barn (1959, Contributing building)
The barn was built in 1959 and is situated just north of east to the main house. The wood structure is built directly into the ground following a pole barn construction technique, and the center section has a raised-seam metal gable roof running east to west with lean-to sections on the north and south sides. The walls are board-and-batten, and the barn has a packed dirt floor. The structure is supported by creosote treated telephone poles and was built to accommodate Lance Maclin, Jr.’s growing dairy operation. He described the space as a “loafing barn” where his dairy cattle waited to be milked twice a day. The interior space has been modified to include pens on the south end to accommodate the current residents’ hog operation. The wood fencing that served as chutes to move the cattle into the attached dairy parlor are still extant. The west end of the barn includes a covered hyphen connecting it to the dairy parlor where cows were milked.
Dairy Parlor (1948, Contributing building)
The one-story dairy parlor was built in 1948 and is situated slightly northeast of the main house. It is attached to the barn via a connecting gabled roof hyphen, which would have been gated to feed the cows from the barn into the milking area. It sits on a poured concrete and concrete block foundation. The lower portion of the walls are brick, and the upper portion are board-and-batten. A raised seam metal gable roof extends from the barn west over the hyphen. Within the gable breezeway/hyphen are a series of wood chutes that allowed the cattle to move from the barn into the dairy parlor for milking. The dairy parlor is a center aisle structure with elevated concrete stalls where the cows stood to be milked, and the metal milking apparatuses remain. The north and south walls feature screened openings to allow light to enter the building. At the west end of the center aisle, a wood glazed door allows access to the storage area where the milk was kept until it could be transported for sale.
Hog House (1944, Non-Contributing building)
The hog house is situated in a field southeast of the main house and well south of the barn. It is a rectangular building on a concrete block foundation, clad in vertical wood planking, with a corrugated metal gable roof. The interior is visible through windows and the structure still contains some of the fencing and pens associated with hog-keeping. The building no longer retains its integrity of design, workmanship, or materials.
Keeling House (1950, Contributing building)
The Keeling House was originally located in the town of Keeling and its date of construction appears to be c. 1920. It was relocated to Oak Hill Farm c. 1950. It is situated southeast of the main house, and south of the barns. It is a rectangular, frame, one-story structure on a concrete block pier foundation with board-and-batten siding and a raised-seam metal gable end roof. There is a shed roof extending from the south elevation with square wood colµmns to support it, and the house is accessible by a wood door on the west elevation. The house itself is used for storage, and the shed roof projection provides shelter for the hogs whose field surrounds the house.
Granary (1956, Contributing building)
The granary was built in 1956 and is situated directly east of the house. This one-and-one-half story structure has a raised-seam metal, side gable roof that runs east-west, and it has shed roofs with square wooden post supports situated along the north and south sides. This board-and-batten structure has large double wood doors centered on the east and west elevations. Three window openings are located in the half story on both the east and west gable ends. Board-and-batten panels shelter these openings. A wood attic vent is located in each of the gable ends. The interior includes a center aisle, dirt floor, and mesh and wood structures originally built to hold feed. The building is now used primarily for storage. This building was constructed according to plans provided by the University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service.
Smoke House (c. 1920, Contributing building)
The one-story smoke house is situated east of the house between the barn and the granary. It sits on concrete block piers, is clad in board-and-batten, and has a corrugated metal gable front roof. The roof features overhanging eaves with exposed rafter tails. The vertical plank wooden door has a wide wood lintel and is located on the west elevation beneath the gable. Interior wood flooring appears to be tongue-and-groove. This structure is currently used for storage.
Well House (c. 1960, Contributing building)
The well house is situated east of the main house and west of the smokehouse, between the barn and the granary. The well house is a small square building on a concrete block foundation with asbestos cladding and a corrugated metal shed roof that pitches down to the east. It is accessed by a vertical wood plank door on the north elevation. A concrete block addition is located on the south end of the well house and features a flat metal roof and screened walls. This building includes a set of narrow wood troughs arranged to form shelves. Each trough originally contained charcoal, and this system was used to filter the well water.
Tenant House 1 (c. 1834 and c. 1945, Contributing building)
This tenant house was historically the rear ell of the main house built at the same time as, or shortly after, the original construction in 1834. It was removed from the main house in 1945-1946 and moved to its present location south of the main house to serve as a tenant house. The sill beams on the tenant house match those found on the main house, and the faryade retains one of its earliest windows, a twelve-over-twelve, double hung, wood sash window. The faryade windows also retain louvered wood shutters, which match those found on the main house. The boxed cornice on the tenant house also matches that found on the main house.
This tenant house is a plain, one-story, frame, side-gabled structure. It sits on a concrete block foundation, is clad in weatherboard on the faryade with asbestos siding on the south, east, and north elevations, and has an asphalt shingle roof. An interior brick chimney is centered on the roofline. The west faryade has three bays: a central multi-light wood-glazed door under a shed-roof awning porch supported by decorative wrought-iron columns. Single windows occupy the outer bays. The window on the south end is the original window, while the one on the north end is twelve-over-one (the glass on the bottom sash has been replaced). The east elevation is obscured by shed roof porch additions that have been incorporated into the house.
The removal of this ell from the main house and its use as a tenant structure reflects the changing demands of farming during the early- to mid-20th century. Not only was housing needed for tenant farmers or farmhands, but the removal of the addition allowed for much-needed modernization of the Taylor House.
Tenant House 2/Mr. New’s House (c. 1940, Non-contributing building)
Mr. New’s House (so called for its last resident) is located in the woods to the south of the main house and farm complex. It is a vernacular, one-story rectangular house on a concrete block foundation. The structure is frame and clad in a variety of forms of wood (board-and-batten being the most common) and has a corrugated metal side gable roof. Small internal end brick chimneys are visible at the peak of the roofline. The rear of the house includes a gable addition and an enclosed shed roof porch. The west-facing faryade includes a central five-panel wood door with a four-over-four, double-hung, wood window to the north and an enclosed porch to the south. It is worth noting that this house has access to running water and electricity.
Though the house no longer retains its integrity of design, workmanship, or materials, its location is notable as it reflects the patterns of tenant-based agriculture on the farm.
Tenant House 3/Albert’s House (c. 1920, Non-contributing building, due to condition)
Albert’s House (so called for its last resident) is located in the woods east of the Taylor House and barn. It is a one-story building that appears to follow a gable-front-and-wing pattern, but this is difficult to confirm because of its advanced state of deterioration. The foundation is indiscernible, but the building is frame and clad in board-and-batten with a corrugated metal roof.
Though the house lacks sufficient integrity to be contributing to the district, its location is notable as it reflects the patterns of tenant-based agriculture on the farm.
Machine Shed (1976, Non-contributing building, due to date of construction)
The large metal machine shed was built in 1976 to house farm equipment and replace a wooden machine shed that was no longer adequate (not extant). The machine shed is located south of the Taylor House. It sits on a concrete slab foundation, and the metal walls are pitched inward to the low-sloped front gabled roof. The shed is accessed via a large set of sliding metal doors below the gables on the east and west elevations.
Chicken House (c. 1952, Contributing building)
The chicken house is situated just south of the main house. It is a single-story shed-roof building on a concrete slab foundation. It is clad in board-and-batten siding with a raised seam metal roof. The shed roof slopes down toward the north. A wood door on the south end of the east elevation allows access to the interior. The chicken house opens to the chicken yard from the west wall. The fenced-off coop portion of the interior occupies the northwest comer of the chicken house. Two screened windows on the south elevation provide light.
Pond (c. 1956, Contributing structure)
The cow pond, located north of the house across the driveway, was created by 1950.10 The pond was filled by taking advantage of a spring that served as the farm’s original water source until a well was successfully dug around the tum of the 20th century.” The construction of the pond speaks to the conversion of the agricultural landscape to dairy farming, as such a pond would be unnecessary or even a hindrance to row cropping. The man-made nature of the pond is clearly visible from the levee running along the north end.
Agricultural Landscape (c. 1918-1963, Contributing site)
In addition to the built resources of Oak Hill Farm, the associated landscape elements of both the domestic and agricultural complexes add to its significance and setting. These features include the historic gravel driveway, fields, pastures, tree lines, fences, gates, and farm roads throughout the property. The domestic complex is accessed via a gravel drive extending from Keeling Road. The driveway, which is cut deep into the hillside to accommodate the elevation change between the road and the farm, extends east and turns south to divide the house from the agricultural buildings to the east. In the early part of the 20th century, the driveway split and turned, passing close to the front of the house. This was most likely altered when the 1946 east addition was constructed and the family began using the east mudroom as the primary access point for the house, rather than the front door. Mature trees flank the driveway at Keeling Road, and the post-and-rail fencing flanks the driveway.
The driveway currently extends east past the agricultural complex, where it become a dirt road following the tree line to the Haywood County portions of the property, and bending to the south. The driveway appears to follow the historic pattern, but the date of its construction is unknown. The Taylor House sits on the highest point of the property and overlooks the surrounding agricultural space. Mature trees dot the landscape, including some that appear to date to the settlement period. Other wooded spaces are much younger, having been used throughout the property’s history to supply construction material and firewood.
The agricultural landscape includes the fields surrounding the built complexes. The fields on the west, north, and east section of the house have been in agricultural production since the farm was first settled in 1834. However, the agricultural fields from the early settlement period that were used for row-cropping were altered during the early- to mid-20th century to accommodate for changing agricultural patterns and practices. Field fencing is primarily barbed wire, indicating that they likely date to the dairy farming period. This fencing is situated both along windbreaks and in wooded areas near the tenant farms.12 There is likely more fencing, but a more extensive foot survey would be required to locate it.
In addition to large mature trees, the pond, the driveway and farm road, and fencing, the fields have also been terraced and re-terraced repeatedly since Lance Maclin, Jr.’s tenure starting in 1941. The combination of terracing and general soil renovation means that there is little left of the 19th century landscape, aside from mature trees and the historic driveway.
Statement of Significance Summary Paragraph
Settled during the 1830s, Oak Hill Farm is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for its significant associations with the early settlement of Tipton and Haywood counties, and for its local significance in agriculture between c. 1918 to the fifty-year marker of 1963. Not only has the district been continuously farmed since its early settlement, its present agricultural-related resources reflect significant agricultural trends of family farms during this period, including tenantry, or sharecropping, and the transformation of crops and production. Two distinct periods of agricultural development are seen at Oak Hill Farm, innovation and progressive agriculture from 1918-1940 and postwar agricultural innovation from 1941-1963. Intact agriculture-related buildings dating largely from the postwar period especially demonstrate the impact of the Plant-to-Prosper program sponsored for the Mid-South region by the Memphis Commercial Appeal and agricultural organizations in the late 1950s. The Taylor House at Oak Hill Farm is also significant under Criterion C as an excellent example of a vernacular Federal-style I-house built in West Tennessee in 1834.
Oak Hill Farm is significant at the local level for its contributions to the early settlement of Tipton County. The Taylor family established the property as a cotton plantation within the first ten years of the county’s history. Tipton County was established in 1823, and Covington was made the county seat in 1825, but settlement in the 1820s was slow as the Chickasaw Indians left the area. Settlement took off in the 1830s and the arrival of the Taylor family coincided with this boom.
The first Taylor to arrive in West Tennessee was Major William Anderson Taylor, who arrived in 1833 with a slave to claim a land grant. The majority of the Taylor family followed him between 1833 and 1834. William’s brother, Captain John “Jack” Taylor (1773-1847), began purchasing the land that would become the Oak Hill Farm in 1833, and began building the main house at Oak Hill as a wedding present to his daughter, Lucy Lyne Taylor (1820-1869), who was engaged to a cousin, Drury Smith Taylor (1805-1838), and married around Christmas in 1835. The Oak Hill house was completed by 1834, making it one of the oldest extant dwellings in the county.
The Taylors, like many other Virginia/North Carolina tobacco farmers, moved westward in the early 1800s in search of new land, having exhausted the soil at their plantation in Mecklenburg County, Virginia. The Taylors’ arrival was part of a broader trend of increasing cash crop production in Tennessee. West Tennessee soil yielded an average of 1,000 pounds of seed cotton per acre, and land cost between $2.00-$5.00 per acre, a high yield and low cost ratio compared to the weakened soil in Virginia and North Carolina. From 1827 to the mid-1830s, cotton prices rose from eight cents to fifteen and sometimes twenty cents a pound. The combination of promising land and rising cotton prices proved an irresistible lure to planter families like the Taylors.
Drury Smith Taylor took ill in 1838, and Dr. James Bullock Maclin (1805-1860), a family friend from Granville, North Carolina, was called in to treat him to no avail. Dr. Maclin married Lucy Lyne Taylor Taylor the following year, in 1839. The Maclins had twelve children, ten of whom survived to adulthood. The family was well-off, with most of their money invested in slaves and other property as to be expected for a wealthy cotton-planting family. In the years preceding the Civil War, much of the family moved further west, however, Dr. Maclin remained and received an additional 400 acres when the rest of the family left. Captain Taylor, Lucy’s father and owner of the estate, died in 1847, leaving his roughly 1,000 acres to Lucy and Dr. Maclin. Dr. Maclin continued to expand his property holdings, adding acreage to the Tipton and Haywood County property and adding a property in Fayette County. When Dr. Maclin died in 1860, only 46 other planters in Tennessee owned more than 100 slaves. He owned 164 slaves in three counties (32 in Tipton, 33 in Haywood, and 99 in Fayette County) and nearly 5,000 acres of land (the Tipton and Haywood properties were 3,500 acres). There is a badly deteriorated ledger that seems to indicate that the Fayette County property, referred to as the “Maclin Quarter” near Belmont (or Bellemonte), engaged much of its slave population in outside work, leasing skilled enslaved workers to nearby plantations.
Lucy Lyne Maclin died in 1869, and the estate was divided among eight children who drew lots, breaking up a property that by then consisted of approximately 3,500 acres.
The farm was primarily a cotton plantation from its founding in 1833 to 1918, a long pattern of agriculture practice that was common in the cotton South. Historian Pete Daniel points out in his book, Breaking the Land: The Transformation of Cotton, Tobacco, and Rice Cultures since 1880, that the “annual work cycle persisted from the late eighteenth century well into the twentieth,” meaning that “cultivation practices changed little for a century and a half.”‘ What changed significantly was labor as slavery gave way to tenant farming. At Oak Hill Farm, like many in the cotton South, the second major transformation came with the impact of the boll weevil plague, which began to impact West Tennessee farms c. 1908-1910. It was at that time, in 1910, when Lancelot Minor Maclin, Sr. began to operate a 220-acre section of the original family farm.IS
Innovation and Progressive Agriculture at Oak Hill Farm, 1918-1940
The 1910s were years of agriculture innovation and change aligned with the Progressive Era in American politics which stretch from the tum of the century to the Great Depression. Congress approved the Smith Hughes Act (1916), which spread agricultural extension programs, placed more agriculture specialists in rural communities, and gave increased impetus to new agricultural techniques. As Pete Daniel summarizes, “the long arm of government reached into the recesses of the southern hinterland. In many respects these government institutions encouraged social engineering as they wrenched farmers from dependence on a single poorly cultivated crop and led them into diversification and the utilization of machines, chemicals, and ledger books.”
L. M. Maclin is a good example of this trend as he turned the farm from cotton into dairy production, a significant trend in Tennessee agriculture as discussed in the Historic Family Farms in Middle Tennessee, 1780 to 1955 MPN. He introduced for-profit dairy farming to the property with the purchase of Jersey cattle in 1918. According to Glenn Minor Maclin (Lance Maclin Sr.’s grandson), Lance Maclin, Sr. sold the cream from the cows to a creamery in Louisville, Kentucky where it was made into butter. The cream was shipped from the railroad depot at Keeling in Tipton County. Maclin, Sr.’s decision to introduce dairy farming took place in the context of Progressive Era efforts to encourage rural reform and agricultural diversification. Dairy offered more potential for profit than cotton, and the extra income subsidized the cotton Maclin, Sr. and most West Tennessee farmers continued to grow on land exhausted by nearly a century of cotton production.20 In an effort to increase cotton production, Maclin, Sr. also purchased a two-row planter c. 1925, which was one of the first in the county, according to a photograph in the Maclin family collection. The mechanization movement was another key strategy in the progressive agriculture approach. Historian Paul K. Conkin of Vanderbilt University has observed that most farmers did not tum to such new machinery until after 1930; therefore, the family oral tradition is probably correct for Tipton and Haywood counties.
Maclin, Sr. expanded the family’s business in other ways. He owned a cotton gin and store in Keeling, which failed during the Depression and were repossessed by creditors who also attempted to seize the house and farm. Oral tradition from the family indicates that Maclin, Sr. was able to save the property through a loan from the Farmers Home Administration (FmHA), but the FmHa did not exist until after the Depression. It is most likely that Maclin, Sr.’s original loan was either part of the Standard Rural Rehabilitation Loan Program, which was the forerunner to the FmHA’s farm loan programs, or was held by a private lender and modified according to another Farm Security Administration (FSA) program called Debt Adjustment and Tenure Improvement. The latter program involved the intervention of an FSA county supervisor who would work with the farmers and their creditors to arbitrate agreements and prevent foreclosure. 22 Whichever program was utilized, Lance Maclin, Sr. was able to retain the property until 1941, when he was killed and his wife seriously injured in a vehicle collision on Highway 70 near the property.
Postwar Agricultural Innovation, 1941-1963
Historian Paul K. Conkin documents that “From 1950 to 1970, American agriculture grew at an astonishing rate.”24 Political historian Dewey Grantham also recognized how this period of transformation affected the post-war rural South. Grantham emphasizes:
Revolutionary changes in agriculture made up a significant part of the South’s postwar economic transformation. Within a generation the structure of the region’s agriculture was profoundly reshaped. The number of farmers in the South plummeted, the number of farms declined sharply while the average size of those that remained steadily increased, the production of cotton and other traditional crops gave way to new farm commodities, and faming became more capital-intensive, more centralized in operation, more mechanized and scientific, and more efficient and productive.
In 1941, Lance Maclin, Jr. guided Oak Hill Farm in the postwar era of agriculture (1941-1963). Lance Maclin, Jr. had been living in Houston, Texas as a factory foreman at the time of the accident that took his father’s life and moved home to care for his mother and take over the family farm upon his father’s death. He did not inherit the property until his mother passed, but took over the farming operation. Maclin, Jr. expanded the farm’s commercial dairy operations, switching to Grade A dairy around 1948. The family continued to retain other livestock such as hogs and chickens and produced basic crops for their own use and to feed the cattle. At the time Maclin, Jr. inherited the property, there was little beyond the house that remained. Maclin, Jr. was able to restore the farm to 213 acres during the mid-20th century, and it was under his tenure that the farm transformed into a large-scale dairy operation using modem farming techniques.
The only building, aside from the Taylor House, dating to Maclin, Sr.’s tenure is the c. 1920 smokehouse. The rest of the farm structures were added during Maclin, Jr.’s era, and the dates are easily determined because the farm records include account books listing all of the buildings, livestock, and acreage use. In many cases, the farm’s files also include the plans from the University of Tennessee Agricultural Extension Service, which contain advice not only on construction, but on location as well. The placement of these secondary structures (granary, chicken house, hog house, dairy parlor, well house, and cow pond) follows the general guidelines and suggestions offered by the Agricultural Extension Service. Maclin, Jr.’s commitment to following the best advice available from the most professional and scientifically advanced sources available, as well as the extensive nature_ of records he kept, reflects the attitudinal and practical shift noted by Grantham.
The landscape of the farm today is a direct reflection of Maclin, Jr.’s commitment to postwar agricultural innovation. He entered contests like the Save/Enrich Our Soil Contest, a regional competition run by the Memphis Press-Scimitar and the Plant-to-Prosper Program, a regional competition run by the Memphis Commercial Appeal. Maclin, Jr. was also an active member of the Associated Milk Producers, Inc., and appeared before Congressional committees as a representative of that organization. Lance Maclin, Jr. took farming seriously and used every advantage he could find to improve the quality of the land and his technique. The farm’s archives include soil conservation materials dating to 1945, when Maclin began an aggressive campaign to improve the quality of soil at Oak Hill, which included extensive terracing of the fields. Remnants of the terracing are evident today. Maclin administered this project with guidance from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). SCS agents came to the farm over a period of years, and issued Maclin advice on how to work with his soil. The farm records also include several years’ worth of books with testing results from when Maclin sent soil samples out to the SCS for analysis.
In 1956, Maclin entered the Save-enrich Our Soil Contest run by the Memphis Press-Scimitar and won first place for Tipton County in the farm operator division. The prize was a trip to the Smoky Mountains, which the Maclins took in 1957. The Maclins’ victory was written up in local newspapers, and the Tipton County Soil Conservation District Board of Supervisors sponsored an open house to see “The Farm That Won a Vacation.” P.A. Turner, the President of the West Tennessee Industrial Association appeared and spoke on agriculture and industry.
The SOS campaign helped Maclin focus on improving the land in order to produce enough forage for his dairy herd. Maclin also produced his own silage using in-ground pits built according to plans sent by the Agricultural Extension. These pits are no longer extant, but can be seen in an aerial photograph of the farm most likely taken in the 1960s. The SOS contest articles also reference the cow pond Maclin built to water his dairy herd. The pond was filled by a natural spring that, according to family lore, was the reason the location was originally chosen in the 1830s.
In 1959, Maclin entered the Plant-to-Prosper Program, organized by the Memphis Commercial Appeal newspaper. The Appeal contest was designed to encourage farmers to move away from the one-crop farming that was typical in the South and left farmers at the mercy of a fluctuating market. The contest included divisions for landowners of different scales, as well as sharecroppers and tenants, and was divided by race. The idea for the competition was prompted by the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act, and in 1934, the Commercial Appeal launched the first contest for farmers in West Tennessee, northern Arkansas, and the boot heel of Missouri. The Agricultural Committee of the Memphis Chamber of Commerce added a cash prize, and the contest became extremely popular. The idea behind it was that even if a farmer did not win the prize, he and his family would benefit from improved techniques and find greater prosperity. Farmers were recruited by county extension agents, who helped farmers create plans to improve their soil, diversify their stock, and increase their yield. Along with farm improvement, another goal of the contest was to promote the live-at-home ideal by assigning marks in part on the ability to produce as much as possible on the farm (and reduce grocery shopping), and improving the home itself. In 1942, extension agents and their Farm Security Administration supervisors reported that Plant-to-Prosper brought $28.5 million dollars into the 229 counties covered by the competition, and the production of hogs, cattle, poultry, soybeans, and dairy went up between 18-30 percent. Plant-to-Prosper prided itself on its ability to help poor farmers pull themselves up by their bootstraps and become debt-free landowners. Its continued success during the mid-20th century further emphasizes the importance of innovation in farming technology.
In 1959, Maclin tied for second place in the Plant-to-Prosper White Landowner Division. In addition to testifying to Maclin’s improvements on the farm, the handbook he filled out gives an excellent snapshot of life on a farm during the model farming period. During 1959, the Maclins made a number of improvements to the house at Oak Hill, including laying a new floor over the original in what is now the living room; adding electric outlets to heat the living room with electricity; cosmetic repairs; and weather-stripping of the windows. They also replaced the linoleum in the kitchen, which was also renovated during the 1950s, and bought a “new automatic washing machine, with plans to buy a dryer by the end of the year, along with a television.” These sorts of improvements were part of the broader quest of modern agricultural innovation to elevate the quality of life for farmers, and making material improvements to the house was as important as improving the land the farm itself. As historian Ronald R. Kline notes, rural farmers were as much a part of the postwar efforts to increase consumption as suburban dwellers. The introduction of electricity to the home, rather than just the barn, meant that rural families could use the same electricity-dependent appliances as the rest of the postwar community. The Maclins were very much a part of this movement, having received electricity through the Rural Electrification Act (established c.1936), as demonstrated by a photograph of the Maclins with their “Electrofarm” sign, in addition to Lance Maclin, Jr.’s interest in purchasing modern appliances.
The competition was not the start of Maclin, Jr.’s efforts to improve the farm. A gable end addition was wheeled off the main house in 1945 and Maclin used that opportunity to add a modern addition to the rear. This addition included a modern kitchen and bathroom that added indoor plumbing to the house for the first time. At the same time, Maclin installed electricity throughout the home. It is worth noting that the house was continually inhabited since its construction, so this was truly the first introduction of modern conveniences to the Taylor House. He also added a mudroom to the east elevation to allow more direct access from the farm structures to the main house. The mudroom cut down on the amount of dirt that the family tracked into the house, which would not have been an issue in the 19th century when most farm labor would have been done by slave or later paid laborers who did not live in Taylor House.
The year 1959 also saw the construction of the barn using materials Maclin accumulated over two years, including creosote-treated telephone poles purchased from the local electrical co-operative. The barn was attached to the dairy parlor to improve the efficiency of the milking process. It was in this year that Maclin also converted to bulk milk handling from cans by purchasing a 335-gallon bulk tank and bought a new wash vat for the dairy barn.
One section of the 1959 entry book asks what the competition has meant to the farmer and his family. Maclin states that one of the main advantages of the program has been the encouragement to balance improvements to the farm with improvements to the home. While Maclin had made improvements to the house prior to 1959, he continued this at a more accelerated pace after the competition, remodeling the kitchen and downstairs bathroom in the early 1960s.
Maclin’s commitment to dairy farming in Tennessee was also demonstrated through his activism with Associated Milk Producers, Inc (AMPI), on whose behalf he testified before Congress in 1973. The farm continued to operate the dairy until 1987 when small-scale dairy production became unprofitable due to competition from large commercial dairy operations. After dispersing the dairy herd, the farm switched to commercial cow-calf production. Glenn Minor Maclin, Lance Maclin, Jr’s older son, joined the operation in 1976 and took over until the mid-1990s, when Lance Maclin, Jr. retired and Glenn left the farming business. The row crop and hay fields were rented to neighbors, and a portion was kept in the Conservation Reserve Program. The current residents of the Taylor House, Ted and Elizabeth Maclin, continue to operate a small scale sustainable family farm, raising hogs and chickens and maintaining a vegetable garden and fruit trees.
The central hall form is one of the two most common house plans (the other being the hall and parlor) in early Tennessee. The most common central hall plan is the I-house, a plan found in Tennessee from the early-19th to early-20th centuries that was generally one room deep with either three or five symmetrical bays and a gable end chimneys.31 The choice of a central hall plan reflects the values of the Taylors as they moved westward and sought to expand their social and economic horizons. As Clifton Coxe Ellis points out,
In general, the central passage house is associated with newfound wealth based on a growing antebellum economy and a desire on the owner’s part to present a facade to the world that announced his success and place in society.
As such, the house speaks to family’s social aspirations as much as it does their stylistic preferences. The house is a statement regarding the wealth and associated status of the Taylor family at the time of its construction, which is reflected in the formal, symmetrical exterior and extensive intact interior detailing. Wainscoting, crown molding, and elegant mantelpieces testify to the impressive impression the owners hoped to convey.
The Taylor House follows the I-house plan, and originally had a gabled ell at the rear of the house. As Ellis points out:
Central passage houses often had a wing, or ell, built perpendicularly to the main house giving the entire plan the appearance of an Lor Tin shape. These wings often contained kitchens and other service rooms. Scholars continue to investigate the significance of these ells, but it appears they were built in an effort to accommodate the presence of slaves as they served the household. The ell allowed the master to observe the coming and going of slaves even as he maintained a segregation and hierarchy of both space and race.
The Taylor House was certainly designed to accommodate the lifestyle Ellis describes, as Dr. Maclin (who took over the household after marrying Lucy Lyne Taylor not long after its construction) was among the largest owners of slaves in the state. Other aspects of the house, including the existence of fireplaces in the basement, which had a dirt floor and the unheated room at the north end of the upstairs hall, suggest that these may have been slave spaces that remain extant in the structure.
In addition to architectural form, the Taylor House is an excellent surviving example of Federal-style architecture. As a Federal-style home, character-defining elements include the formal, symmetrical, five-bay facade, a centered entry door with elliptical fanlight and sidelights; and elegant, formal mantels. Although the Craftsman-influenced porch is a later addition, the Federal-style configuration and elements remain clearly evident.
The frame construction also speaks to the vernacular aspects of the Federal style, in which the builders used the most readily available material: wood. Brick produced on site (according to oral history and some above ground archaeological evidence) was used for the construction of the basement and chimneys. As Stager points out:
In addition to the use of design elements that mimicked academic styles, vernacular house styles adapted to such regional variations as the local landscape, available building materials, and the skills of local craftsmen or builders.
In addition to these qualities, the Taylor House is a rare surviving example of frame Federal-style houses in Tennessee. Though the I-house layout is not uncommon in Tipton County, a recent survey of Tipton County architecture makes no mention of Federal-style architecture. This same source recommends Oak Hill as “a notable example of 19th century, two-story I-House” and points out that “few of these dwellings remain extant in the county.”
The original core of the I-house remains largely intact, but the adaptations of the mid-20th century are also significant. These adaptations, including the front porch (early to mid-20th century) and rear additions (1945-46), occurred during periods of progressive and modern agricultural reform, which emphasized improvements to domestic life alongside advances in agriculture. The replacement of the original rear ell with a fully modern addition with a kitchen and bath added both indoor plumbing and electricity for the first time. It is a testament to the great pride that the Maclin family has taken in the integrity of the house for generations that these alterations are minimally invasive to the house itself. Vernacular architecture is remarkable for its ability to reflect the changing needs of the residents of a space, and Taylor House reflects this. The upstairs half-bathroom was added when a relative came to live with the family and needed greater privacy than the single shared downstairs bathroom permitted. This notion of private space in the mid-20th century is a very different idea than what James Maclin would have considered necessary. At the same time, these changes were made with great sensitivity to the integrity of the original house, and preserved as much of the original materials as possible. As a result, despite being a private residence continually inhabited since its construction, Taylor House retains a tremendous degree of integrity of craftsmanship, workmanship, and feeling.
With its intact 1834 Federal-style I-house, eleven contributing agriculture-related resources, and 20th century agricultural landscape, Oak Hill Farm retains a high degree of integrity as it relates to its establishment in 1834 and its agricultural development throughout the early to mid-20th century. The 1834 I-house remains largely intact and also includes later mid-20th century additions that contributed to the modernization of the domestic sphere with the addition of indoor plumbing. The field patterns of the agricultural landscape reflect the changing nature of the farm as the owners shifted focus to dairy cattle during the progressive agriculture era. Most of the surviving outbuildings date to the post World War II period and represent further emphasis on diary and the full modernization and commercialization of the farm. The landscape itself retains several contributing features in both the domestic complex and the agricultural landscape that include the historic driveway and mature trees from the early settlement period and farm roads, tree lines, fences, gates, fields, and pastures from its 20th century development. Together, the contributing built features and landscape elements represent early settlement architecture as well as the modernization of agricultural practices in the 20th century. The property continues to be actively farmed, and, as a result, its agricultural setting remains substantially intact.