Editor’s note: this letter is in response to one by Robert Haroun published on Aug. 15. (See WestportNow Aug. 15, 2016)
To the Editor:
The Historic District Commission (HDC) has worked successfully with Rob Haroun of SIR Development on a number of successful preservation efforts and he has been the recipient of Historic Preservation awards from our annual program.
This house at 21[-25] Center St. is scheduled for demolition. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
The HDC worked diligently with Mr. Haroun and his architect, Mr. William Achilles, to refine and encourage the adoption of their amendment No. 711 to Supplementary Use Regulation 32-18 intended to encourage the preservation of historic residential structures, to permit them to subdivide a non-conforming property to establish a third lot and to save one historic house.
Mr. Haroun has written a letter to the editor published in WestportNow that inaccurately describes the outcome of the latest review of his plan to redevelop the property at 21 Center St.
That review was conducted by the Joint Committee of the HDC and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) as required by the Zoning Ordinance, not the ARB alone. That Joint Committee is made up of three representatives of the ARB and three of the HDC.
The ARB never acted independently on this application. It should be noted that Mr. Haroun did not attend this meeting personally but had representatives in attendance and may have misinterpreted the actions of the Joint Committee.
In the review of the application for 21 Center St., the Joint Committee had one overriding concern. It was that the proposed project saved the historic component of the house to remain on the site, but did it by making it a small wing of a much larger house.
It was the unanimous opinion of the members of the committee that the character of the existing house was being overwhelmed by the size and form of the new construction.
The vote reflected the objection to the specific design proposal presented for the historic house, not to the terms of the amendment, not to the subdivision of the property or to the concept of development incentives to encourage preservation of significant historic houses.
There was a concern that acceptance of this application would set a precedent that would undermine the intent of the ordinance by allowing figurative preservation of a structure while destroying its integrity with inappropriate modifications.
The committee members were very clear in stating that they objected to the design proposed but encouraged the applicant to reconsider that design, to more sensitively respect the character of the existing historic house and return for further review.
Francis Henkels, chair,
Historic District Commission
Ward French, chair,
Architectural Review Board
Westport
Thank you for taking the time to explain the reason for your decision. Now it makes sense. With this additional information, I am grateful to the HDC/ARB for their careful review and prudent recommendation. I hope SIR Development will indeed honor their “good intentions” and propose another design where the additions do indeed preserve the historical integrity of the house. That was always everyones understanding of SIR Developments’ generous and thoughtful proposal in the first place.
We have come this far, and I sincerely hope, this house can be used as an example of smart growth along side creative preservation. A win win for everyone. Thanks to everyone for their time and patience.
First, we would like to thank the HDC Commission and specifically Francis Henkel and Carol Leahy for their professionalism and dedication to preserving older homes. I also realize that other Town authorities are also doing what they think is best for the Town.
Although I generally stand by my letter, I apologize for any inaccuracies and specifically that the ARB acted independently. I realize that it was a joint committee. I also did not intend on suggesting that the process is not worthwhile. We spent time and money refining the process as proof that we think it is.
The intent of our amendment to 32-18 was not to preserve a 500 sf house and create a museum relic, but to create a