An almost 200-year-old piece of Westport’s heritage is facing demolition. Westport building officials have received an application for a permit to demolish the home at 20 Woodside Ave. in the Old Hill area. Built in 1810, the 2,288-square-foot house is located on a .6-acre lot. The Historic District Commission must review the application because the house is more than 60 years old. The HDC can vote to delay demolition for 90 days. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
Sponsors
41 thoughts on “WestportNow Teardown of the Day: 20 Woodside Ave.”
Leave a Reply
Subscribe
Enter your email address to get WestportNow.com delivered to your inbox:
Powered by FeedBlitz
Of Interest
Support a classroom.
Build a future.
What's inside
Property Transfers
Arts & Leisure
Business
Community
Health & Fitness
Education
Politics
Real Estate
Sports
COVID-19 Info
Westport Info
Westport Weather
Westport Traffic
Of Interest
Westport YouTube
Social Media
Westport-Area Blogs
Suggest a Westport-area blog by sending email to: editor@westportnow.com
What are we about, anyway? Why not put a not so attractive addition on it – at least it might be here another generation or two. It was here well before the Civil War, it was here while Lincoln campaigned. It was here when Lindbergh was a twinkle.
It was built to last, and so far, it has!
If this is a concern shared by most of Westport I think we, as a town, need to consider ways to encourage the preservation of historic homes such as this. At present, it is financially unnattractive for someone to buy or keep a parcel such as this and restore the home / update the systems; in every case it is much less expensive to simply tear the old home down and build a new one. If the town is serious about preserving its inventory of old homes, it needs to consider making it financially attractive for people to restore and preserve them, such providing property tax credits, adjusting the mill rate, etc. for properties that have been renovated and preserved.
Unfortunately, all the HDC can do is buy some time (90 days), during which the owners of the site can be encouraged to chose a more expensive (or, in the case of builders, less financially-rewarding) path.
There has been a wonderfully civil conversation going on in the comments about the 100 year old tear-down on Woody Lane (in WestportNow on 10/13/07) with Westporters sharing ideas without attacking each other. I hope that the P&Z can see that good article in the Architectural Record that Jack Whittle shared. http://www.archrecord.construction.com/news/daily/archives/071010downsize.asp
I’m hoping that for historic homes they can change the zoning to allow changes on the inside but make sure most of the outside is preserved. That way owners would be free to update a house without the push to just tear it down instead. (If you want totally new construction, then you wouldn’t buy a historic property.)
Homeowners have mentioned in public meetings that it is harder to renovate (with all the regulations and problems involved) than it is to raze and put up new construction. We need to change this inequity with some zoning changes or tax incentives!
And Barbara Britt’s idea of taking the lovely old barn on Woody Lane and incorporating it into new construction is great. Architect David Austin in Southport is known for winning prizes for renovating houses in a way that makes the new sections “look as if they have always been there”.
We can’t lose hope that Westport will retain its charm. (And as much as you love your new large house, would you say that it is making Westport look “more charming”?) We welcome everyone to town, but let’s work for a solution together with new zoning regulations. It will work.
Tax incentives may be the answer. If it is a Town priority to preserve structures of historical or architectural merit, the RTM could adopt an ordinance providing for property tax abatement (in whole or in part). The text of the state enabling legislation (CGS Section 12-127a) is copied below.
Members of the Historic District Commission and the Architectural Review Board might want to discuss the possibility of tax abatement and make a recommendation to the First Selectman and the RTM. If there is interest and support, the Town Attorney
This same conversation has occurred innumerable times. How do we go about making the owning and restoration/renovation of an older home less onerous? How do we change regs to make tearing it down less of a choice?
One of the reasons folks move here is the charm and “small town” character of Westport. I beleve we are losing that more and more, one demolition at a time. All older homes are not charming or noteworth, but man are. How do we make it more of a choice to own and maintain them?
Talking and writing alone won’t make it do. The comments preceding mine have important information to help get the job done.
The charming 1920’s Cape-style house next to this house was also a Teardown of the Day a while back…..and someone came to their senses and decided instead to renovate it. It looks amazing.
Whomever owns this house—I hope you will reconsider what you are doing and keep up with the next door Jones-es, so to speak. Woodside Avenue is still (generally) hanging in there with the quaint houses and that hilly Connecticut feeling—don’t wreck it with what will undoubtedly be built there.
Let me say one more time, we spent 4x of what was normal to add on and keep our 1886 home historic (Orlando Allen) home period because we love it and bought it for its historicl significance. The regulations, restrictions, roadblocks that were thrown at us were killers, many just plain STUPID.
With understanding, special incentives or just plain common sense on the part of Westport regulators with historic housing treasures here, there may have some hope. As it stands I can only see the destruction of our town’s rich legacy being wiped out.
These are great comments. Let the town boards know how you feel. You have to send comments and show up at town meetings. Look at what the Gorham Neighbors have done and continue to do, organize your neighborhoods. Westport doesn’t have to be doomed. The current P&Z, ZBA and HDC have been working together and separately to ensure Westport moves into the future intact. Vote for candidates who share your views this election.
By the way, looks to me that the tree in front could very well be as old if not older than the home. A copper beech, an incredible tree.
Nice to know that the current owner is behind in their taxes to the town:
http://tinyurl.com/2dy8ru
Wait a minute. We’re supposed to vote on issues? I thought we were supposed to vote based on the amount of signs posted around town.
At least one party waited to post signs one month before Election Day whereas the other couldn’t wait to get their signs up.
>>>Nancy Stewart posted:
Vote for candidates who share your views this election. <<<
why is that nice to know?
Forget about political parties! That’s one of the biggest things responsible for destroying this town -the fight between the Dems and the GOP.
Pay attention to the individual candidates and it will be obvious who is pro-preservation, pro-environmental protection, pro-open space, and anti-urban sprawl. It’s also obvious who is pro-development, pro-Downtown Merchants Association, and pro- sprawl.
There are some really committed and passionate candidates running for office who are determined to take back our town. I said it’s going to take a revolution. Well, there are some revolutionaries running for office.
Watch the debates, attend public meetings, follow the P&Z work sessions on the 2007 Town Plan. It will be very clear who’s who in this town.
This is an off-off year election, and we have to get out the vote for the sensible and sensitive candidates!
There are so many HUGE land use issues facing Westport right now – affordable housing, Gordon’s plan to develop every inch of town-owned property, the Y building their leviathan at Camp Mahackeno, developing Kowalsky Farm, the list goes on. We cannot let our quality of life be further sacrificed for vanity and greed of a few. So pay attention for whom you vote!
Email this article and blog to all the candidates. Let them know you’re outraged.
Samuel Adams wrote: “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds.”
Don’t just complain. Do something! Start setting some brush fires.
And if then all else fails, you can vote with your feet.
sarcasm
Not an attack. The info was pulled from the town website. I had gone their looking for the ownership details (since someone else slammed SIR Development). I found it ironic that someone can afford to tear down this antique home, but cannot fulfill the tax obligations to the town (to the point that the town has to file a lien).
Personally, I would not put a lot of faith in a web site like realtytrac that generates pop-ups and a portion of their page(s) are purchased advertising. More than likely they pull the info from dated resources.
Now I really AM sick! For all of my 19 years in Westport, this is one house that’s made me smile every time I pass it. It is sweet and dear, and every bit a treasure. And so is that fine old tree in front of it!
This town had better get serious about incenting people to preserve historic properties, and beating back the teardown tide that is completely out of control. Once every ounce of uniqueness and character has been beaten out of Westport, it won’t be such a desirable place to live, will it? And the property values of all the big new construction spec houses will crumble along with it.
Thank you, Alice Shelton, for your excellent recommendation and information. I will be happy to pursue your suggestion in the RTM, and am sure John McCarthy and many others will join me.
The main reason I decided to run for the RTM is because I can no longer stand the direction Westport is going. And I know that a great many people feel the same way, because I hear it all the time.
I believe we are at the tipping point of no return. The assault on our neighborhoods, the overdevelopment, the overscaled houses, the traffic congestion and the abject disregard for our history and small town character in pursuit of the almighty buck have collectively just about destroyed this town. The lovely town I moved to 19 years ago is no more.
The question is: Can we save what little remains of it? It’s going to take a revolution, folks.
Amy Ancel
RTM Candidate District 3
Here’s a little real estate data for everyone to digest:
Currently, there are 287 homes on the market in Westport. The average list price is just shy of $2.4M. (Who says Westport is unaffordable?!)
Of those 287 houses for sale, 89 of them (or 31%) were built between 2000 and 2008 (the latter being proposed or under construction.)
Of those 89 new/newer construction homes, 67 of them – a full 75% – have been built in the last two years, between 2006 and 2008.
This is a runaway train, people.
Do we really need to sacrifice this lovely little house just to add the 68th spec house to our already bloated inventory? I think not.
I hope the owners will tune in and rethink the demolition of this charming little peach. Think empty nesters, aging boomers, weekend home, income property, affordable housing rental?
Think renovation!
Think something for the common good.
I drove by 20 Woodside this morning. There are not one but two huge and very old beech trees in front of the house. The caliper on one of them must be 4 feet. The other almost as big. They are old growth trees and magnificent. Even if they weren’t cut down, I doubt they could survive having their roots destroyed by excavating the site.
The demolition permittee is Robert and Julie Haroun of SIR Development. Rob is an attorney and Julie a real estate broker. Her brokerage is Westport Residential. They live in Old Hill on Broadview. You might want to contact them and let them know how you feel about their plans to teardown this house, and any other antique or vintage properties. Public pressure can’t hurt.
Also, the public hearing on this demolition permit is Nov. 13th. Call Morley Boyd for more info.
If you really care about what’s happening to the antique homes in Westport, you need to take action. Show up at meetings, speak your mind and participate.
FYI, Ms. Haroun is also an attorney. After all their many productions, I doubt they will receptive to doing the “right thing” this time around.
In the name of disclosure, both Ms. Ancel and I are Realtors
what other projects has SIR done? Other historic teardowns?
There is really no hope for Fairfield County. It’s too close to New York, too tied up in money. Those who are ourraged by such a thing are are better off leaving for New Hampshire or Maine. We are besieged by idots here, with no reverence for our archictectural heritage. I hate this town, and intend to leave soon. Something will go up here that resemebles that McMunster McHorror at #46 Woodside, further ruining the character of that lovely lane. Westport is doomed. I still wish I could do something about it, but it seems hopeless.
Jack,
Westport is very fortunate to have a very active HDC that does much beyond “buying some time” for demolition delays. A few examples of the pro-active steps they have recently taken to promote the cause of historic preservation in our town:
—The HDC was instrumental in the establishment last year of the Gorham Avenue Historic District and the ongoing expansion of the district.
—The HDC is responsible for overseeing our 4 local historic districts: Kings Highway North Historic District, the Jesup Road Historic District, the Violet Lane Historic District and the Gorham Avenue Historic District. The establishment of a local historic district is one of the strongest tool that exists for the preservation of an historic neighborhood.
—The HDC is leading the fantastic work that is being done at the Emily McLaury House.
—Together with the P&Z, the HDC helped draft the Residential Historic Structures amendment to our town zoning regulations. This text amendment 574 would “allow the Planning and Zoning Commission to grant a Special Permit to authorize setback, height and coverage incentives to principle or accessory structures, and to authorize customary home occupations and accessory apartments in accessory structures, in those circumstances where applicable zoning regulations have the practical effect of discouraging the preservation of historic buildings and historic accessory structures.” This is a very important tool for encouraging people to preserve their historic residences and the P&Z and HDC should be commended. If passed, this amendment will have a lasting and positive impact on historic preservation in Westport.
If you are interested in learning more about how the HDC can help you and your neighbors establish an Historic District or to learn more about the HDC, please visit:
http://www.westportct.gov/government/boards/hdc.htm
As a side note, Westport has earned the dubious distinction of being one of the nation’s leaders in teardowns. The National Trust for Historic Preservation features a photo of a Westport teardown (taken by WestportNow’s Dave Matlow) on its Teardown page.
To quote from that page, which can be found here
http://www.nationaltrust.org/teardowns/index.html
“Across the nation a teardown epidemic is wiping out historic neighborhoods one house at a time. As older homes are demolished and replaced with dramatically larger, out-of-scale new structures, the historic character of the existing neighborhood is changed forever. Neighborhood livability is diminished as trees are removed, backyards are eliminated, and sunlight is blocked by towering new structures built up to the property lines. Community economic and social diversity is reduced as new mansions replace affordable homes. House by house, neighborhoods are losing a part of their historic fabric and much of their character.”
John D. McCarthy
Candidate for RTM District 9
and resident of the
Gorham Avenue Historic District
johndmc@optonline.net
this is getting mean spirited. If it wasn’t SIR it would be someone else.The HDC needs more power than just a 90 day delay and there needs to be incentives to restore and renovate old houses. Just getting permits is such a headache, it seems easier to tear down for some people. Individual houses outside the Hisoric district need protection.
This SIR website is a real revelation! I was struck by how all the houses look exactly the same. If you scan the “Properties”, it is so hard to tell the difference between one on Woody Lane and one on Broadview and one on …. And I hear everyone saying here that the bottom line is that we need incentives to restore old houses and have a solution to all the permits and regulations for people who don’t really want to tear down a house. And yes, we aren’t against tearing down some 50s houses, but at this point any house (even a barn that is 100 years old or a 200 year old house) is “fair game”.
I got a call from Morley Boyd saying that Text Amendment 574 is slated for review on November 8th. Can anyone tell us where we can all show up to show support for preservation? Ken and I will be there.
And we can call Carol Leahy at the Wspt. Historic District Commission for more information (341-1184).
And the hearing for the demolition permit is November 13th. Please just give us all dates and times when we can listen to the arguments and show support. Thanks. The WHDC has been working so hard for us, and some people on the P&Z want to find solutions, too, so let’s put our bodies where our mouths are—and get out to support them.
A personal appeal to the Harouns:
It seems clear from your web site that you and SIR Development have prospered from the work you have done in Westport. This letter is not meant to criticize the homes that you have built. Apparently there is a market for such homes and you have every right to run your business in the manner which is most profitable to you.
However, this is a plea on behalf of the Town of Westport to not destroy historic homes in Westport. These homes, such as the nearly 200 year old one featured in this article in Westportnow, are not replaceable. As others have said, these historic homes are living art for our citizens. To destroy these homes and replace them with modern large houses destroys a part of the character of our town.
Instead of destroying this home and other historic homes, we respectfully ask you to consider restoring this home. Restored historic properties are in demand. I have been told that many many people stopped by during the recently completed renovation of the McLaury House to ask if it was for sale or for rent.
Nobody is denynig your right to run your business in the way that you deem appropriate. And certainly there are many homes in Westport and Fairfield County which should be replaced. But rather than destroy historic properties, we think that you would greatly increase the public sentiment toward your company by preserving this house.
We hope the comments on this site and this letter assist you in understanding the opportunity that exists to benefit yourselves as well as the Town of Westport by preserving not destroying historic properties.
Respectfully,
Michael and Kim Ronemus
Amen, and amen. Well said, Michael and Kim. Thank you.
According to the MLS records, they’ve built 37 spec houses in Westport. It appears they sold their first house in 1997 – which is the time when new construction really started to take off and ballooned from there. Their homes sell like hotcakes too – so it’s a function of supply and demand. They’ve simply been in the right place at the right time and capitalized on it. That’s the free market.
Nevertheless, it’s still a lot of teardowns and a lot of McMansions in a small town. And it’s a whole lot more when you combine the SIR inventory with that of all the other spec builders in town, of which there are many, and voila – you have the new Westport which so many people now hate.
How many of the teardowns have been antique or vintage homes, I can’t tell you offhand. The HDC certainly can though, as they keep all the records.
This is what’s happened in all the tony towns of Fairfield County, but Westport seems to be the worst in wasting properties of every kind, and in every kind of neighborhood – high end, low end, old, new to make room for more spec McMansions. Hence, our dubious distinction at the top of national teardown heap.
A lot of the houses that have come down over the years have no marketability whatsoever, and should be replaced (although not necessarily with McMansions.) New homes more befitting a particular neighborhood would have been preferable to many, myself included.
However, there is ALWAYS a market for antique and vintage homes – character homes as we call them – and while it may be a smaller market, it’s always there. That’s why I think it’s criminal to tear them down when they could be renovated into wonderful and highly prized little jewels.
Many other towns, politicians and P&Zs have had the courage to impose strict building regulations in an effort to maintain their towns’ character. Westport has not. Which is why whom you vote for really matters!
It is a sad state of affairs if the current trend is to snatch up antique and vintage houses just to get one’s hands on any lot greater of 1/2 acre or more to build something new. The building boom and the real estate boom are over, so you’d think we could lay off destroying any more houses for awhile.
I’d like to see the majority of the 67 new construction spec houses that are currently bloating our inventory get sold before one more demolition permit and spec house building permit is issued. Do we need another spec house or another McMansion to drive Westport’s real estate market? Hardly!
But…history has taught us time and again that sensibility, restraint and prudence rarely prevail when it comes to making a buck.
Wow, just went to their web site which has portfolio of homes. I have to bite my tongue to not comment on the portfolio. But welcome to the new Westport nightmare.
The web site is:
http://sirdev.com/contact.html
and the contact info including emails is:
95 Post Road West
Westport, CT 06880
Office: (203) 227-6616 | Fax: (203) 222-7007
Robert Haroun
rob@sirdev.com
Julie Haroun
julie@sirdev.com
Wow, this thread has really taken off since I last posted to it, and great posts and comments have been shared by all.
As for the accomplishments (?) of SIR, they seem to be making money at what they do, which tells me if it wasn’t them it would be someone else, and to be sure they aren’t the only ones doing historic teardowns in Westport. But there is nothing wrong with identifying what they have been doing and reaching out to them, the court of public opinion has some value.
Coming back to my point on making it financially more attractive to preserve-restore (perhaps through tax credits or abatement), I see that has been expanded on nicely, and I also appreciate that, to be trully effective, one needs a comprehensive approach that includes:
(1) financial incentives to make preservation-restoration of “historic” homes more attractive (see Chip’s post on how expensive this path can be) in the nature of tax abatement or credits consistent with C.G.S. 12-127a (nice work, Alice!);
(2) relief from current building code requirements for preservation-restoration efforts for “historic” homes (the “if you touch it you have to make it 2007-compliant” issue) and sim relief from Zoning Regs (text amendment 574 is a GREAT start); and
(3) restrictions-moratoriums-surcharges on demolition permits involving “historic” homes.
Unfortunately, only item (3) will significantly impede the financially-attractive practice of buying neglected historic homes, tearing them down, and building a new home in its place; although (1) and (2) would encourage owners and individual purchasers of historic homes to preserve and restore, and thus reduce the numbers of such homes falling into the same fate as 20 Woodside.
And Vote – put those who share these concerns into office – many of them are posting to this thread.
OK, I’m not current on a lot of things. Jack (or others), would you please identify WHO are the people running for office (RTM, other Boards, ?) who are posting to this thread? This would be just factual, not an endorsement of them, but if someone could tell me who is running, I would appreciate it. Thanks.
Hi Linda,
It’s your old friend, Amy Ancel. I’m one of the people running for the RTM who’s posted on this blog, but I’m not in your district. You’re in 6 and I’m in 3.
For District 6, you have the stellar RTM candidates of Cathy Talmadge and Ron Malone, both of whom are on the same page where these issues are concerned. I like Joyce Colburn too. She’s new running for the RTM in your district… as is Cathy.
John McCarthy is running in District 9. He’s posted here. John has led the charge for the Gorham Neighbors Historic District and fought hard to keep a giant condo complex literally out of his, and many other residents’, back yards. This guy puts his money, his time and his heart where his mouth is.
There are a lot of other candidates I’m crazy about -the “good guy list” – but won’t go into the whole list here, unless people want me to. You can call or email me if you like for more details. I’m not shy about endorsing the people who REALLY care about Westport’s future and preserving what little is left of its character, natural resources and quality of life.
For everyone, if you want a big clue as to where your RTM candidates stand on these issues of overdevelopment, big houses, historic preservation, environmental protection, suburban sprawl, catering to special interests and commercial encroachment into residential neighborhoods, just take a look at who on the RTM voted to overturn the Conservation Commission’s approval of the Y at Camp Mahackeno, and who voted to uphold it last summer. That vote speaks volumes!!!
It’s a matter of public record, so look it up! Or ask moderator Alice Shelton to post the vote.
As for P&Z, the women are where it’s at on these issues. Ellie Lownestein and Helen Block. There are some very pro-development, pro-commercial commissioners on P&Z, so pay attention to what the candidates have to say!
Everyone needs to be very discerning in this election, because Westport’s future hangs in the balance on HUGE, FOREVER ALTERING land use issues that all these people will be voting on in the very near future.
Attend the debates, ask the tough questions, hold the candidates’ feet to the fire, go to public hearings. The people have to start taking real notice and real action – because we are teetering on the point of no return.
To Amy Ancel. I hope you win the election because of your strong support of historic preservation. But perhaps the comments related to this article should be limited to that issue. I think the Y and the proposed development near the train station are much more complicated and there are many forums where those issues are being debated. There are good and dedicated people on both sides of the Y debate. And the developers ability to potentially develop condos in Saugatuck like they are trying to do at Gorham complicates the choices regarding those projects.
But on this issue of SIR replacing a 200 year old house there are clear right and wrong sides. The Harouns have the right to run their development business as they wish. But we have the right to speak and act to prevent them from destroying piece by piece the character of our town.
I emailed the same letter to the Harouns that I posted above. Their emails are listed above. Maybe letters to them and to newspapers and a strong turnout at November 13th HDC meeting will encourage them to save this house which would benefit both the Harouns and the town. The rest of the town that does not read this web site (probably 95% or more) needs to be made aware of this proposed teardown. And thanks to Dave Matow for his continuing teardown photos so these issues get noticed
The RTM vote on the Mahakeno Conservation Commission is NOT a good litmus test for a member’s stand on old buildings, sprawl, environment, etc…
That vote was supposed to be a vote on whether the Commission acted appropriately and with due diligence, not whether the Commission made a decision that was agreeable to the Representatives.
You’re exactly right… “supposed to be” is the operative phrase here.
The majority of the RTM did NOT actually believe the Conservation Commission weighed the evidence appropriately or applied the regulations with due diligence – yet the majority of the RTM caved in to pressure from the Y and supported a special interest and their own self interest.
They didn’t support the factual evidence, they didn’t support protecting the environment, and they didn’t support the people who elected them. They supported their pals and the false promises of their pals.
If that vote doesn’t speak to how these people feel about overdevelopment, environmental protection, commercial encroachment, sprawl and the like, I don’t know what does. These important land use issues that affect all Westporters took a back seat to the interests of a select group – in this case, the Y.
The Mahackeno vote is precisely the litmus test for the Representatives’ stand on Westport’s critical land use issues – because, lipservice aside, it reveals that for many members, they matter not.
It was made abundantly clear to the RTM how fundamentally flawed the Conservation Commission’s approval is. And given each vote, it becomes just as clear who stands for favoritism, protecting special interests, grandstanding and cowtowing to political pressure, and who doesn’t.
This is the best exchange of comments and ideas yet in reaction to a teardown, barring my own idle rant the other morning at 4a.m., complete with angry mispellings…although outrage is the seedbed from which countervailing efforts develop. Few if any issues ever elicit thirty-two or more comments on this website in the space of two days, all in agreement, and this is encouraging. As Westport is the most conspicuous teardown town in the nation, it would seem only apt that an organized backlash against this tragic trend take root here. The Ronemus’ appeal is heartfelt and sensible, and the suggestions of others that financial incentives and zoning restrictions are the key to this are right on the money. Attendance at town meetings and proper voting are the means. I viewed the (sickening) SIR portfolio yesterday and,
sadly, it reminds one of a Sunday drive through certain sections of Westport turned depressing…let’s cut it off and kill it before it spreads and isolates those four tiny districts, and erases what is left of the historic character of this old Connecticut town.
Loffredo, you’re a pistol. Good to hear you chime in all the time.
I would love to see Amy Ancell’s “good guys list” (I’m in District 8) but if she is reluctant to publish it here I will attempt to contact her by phone or e-mail as she suggests.
The number of comments generated by this photo and caption may be an all time record for WestportNow. More important though are the number of thoughtful ideas and suggestions that have been advanced in these comments which have been exchanged in a courteous and constructive manner.
In an attempt to make the broader community aware of this teardown in particular and the broader issue of historic preservation, those ideas should be distilled into forceful letters to the editor, opinion columns, editorials, and advertisements.
Perhaps 20 Woodside Avenue is the final straw and the start of a community backlash that turns the tide on the destruction of Westport’s history. Perhaps we have the makings here of an ad hoc “Preserve Westport’s History” committee or organization?
Voting for candidates who support historic preservation and attending the Nov. 8th and 13th meetings are a great start, but building community awareness and support will be a longer term effort.
My Husband and I live in the Gorham Avenue Historic District. We worked very closely with our neighbors in helping them to understand what local historic district designation would mean both to our neighborhood and to their homes. It pains me to read some of the comments here and discover the lack of understanding that exists regarding local historic district/property designation in the Town.
I am referring specifically to an earlier post by Linda Smith (“I
Mr Braun:
You said: “The only way to truly protect our quickly disappearing architecturally significant properties, is to designate more local historic districts/properties.”
While I sincerely appreciate your efforts and those that went into the designation of the Gorham Ave HD (and any other efforts to create HDs in town), historic homes are sprinkled all over town and, especially where they are just one of a few left in that area (we are too late, you might say), HD designation is simply not going to happen. HD designation is but ONE TOOL (and I am all for it), but we also need to address the historic tear down problem in other ways too, such as many have posited above.
I am curious, are there any other neighborhoods in town considering HD designation that could use some support?
If you knew Grayson Braun you would not call her Mr.
Took a guess, and was wrong. Apologies to Ms. Braun.
Mr. Whittle,
Local historic designation exists for individual properties as well as for districts. In fact, several properties in Westport have recently been designated because the owners wanted to preserve them in perpetuity.
While there were several great ideas listed in the preceding conversation, the only existing mechanism for preservation is local historic designation. I would support financial incentives to make preservation more attractive, however, there is nothing like this currently in the works.
In terms of restoration of a historic property, local historic designation actually lessens the burden on the homeowner as the designation allows them some wiggle room with code issues.
Finally, no apology necessary on the “Mr.” thing. With a first name like mine, it happens all the time (thanks for pointing it out Michael).
Ms. Braun – I think we all seem to be working toward the same goal, so we are on the same team here, so to speak. I merely pointed out, in my first response to your post, that Historic District designation (or historic designation for a particular property) is not, as you suggested, the only way to achieve the goal (which here would seem to be thwarting the tide of teardowns of historic properties.) In fact, it would be unfortunate if your post had the effect of dampening the enthusiasm shown here for undertaking a number of initiatives to restrict the ability of developers to undertake historic teardowns, and [financially] attract owners to preserve and restore their older homes rather than tear them down or sell out to a builder who would then tear it down.
As for the historic designation of individual homes, it is certainly true that such is already available, in accordance with C.G.S. Section 7-147a et seq. (http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/pub/Chap097a.htm); the fact that we continue to see teardowns of historic homes in Westport tells me that this alone is certainly not the answer, at least not the sole piece of a comprehensive plan one needs to undertake as part of an effort to maintain the town’s inventory of historic homes, assuming that is the will of the town.
Perhaps we will find that the majority of voters in town really do prefer new, larger homes to sometimes quaint, architecturally and historically-significant older homes. Certainly the marketplace (what sells in Westport, and what people are willing to pay) might seem to support that view, unfortunately.