Arguments in that legal sorta way, are winding down or up depending on your point of view over the fate of 93 East Ave, alternatively known as the Grumman-St. John House, or the house that’s falling apart on East Ave. The last three days offers insight into the court procedings. I’ll summarize.
Handrinos: I want to tear it down.
State of Connecticut: You are in technical violations of laws governing historic properties.
Handrinos: I don’t care.
Expert Witness For The Prosecution: Human hands destroyed the property and you failed to fix it back up.
Handrinos: I don’t care, maybe you did the vandalism, I want to tear it down.
Expert Witness For The Defense: Did anyone actually see anyone vandalize the property? Maybe ghosts did it.
Actual Quote By Handrinos: “You accused me of doing something that is not true, maybe you did that.”
State of Connecticut: You have to be kidding me.
In delightful irony, the cover of Preservation Magazine, a companion publication to Demolition Magazine, features: Historic Hotels: 3 Amazing Comebacks. Demolition magazine is featuring on its cover, recycling.
In many ways, legal arguments follow the natural form of arguments between parents and teens. I’ve think we’ve all been there at one point or another, on one end of another. I’ll summarize.
Parent: Take Out the garbage.
Teen: Okay.
next day …
Parent: What did you do today?
Teen: Nothing.
Parent: Did you take out the garbage?
Teen: shrugs.
Parent: If you don’t take out the garbage then I’m going to take away your allowance.
Teen: I don’t care. Stop bugging me.
Parent: You live in my house.
Teen: Later.
These arguments between parents and teens can go on, or escalate, and sometimes even get resolved. Just like the legal equivalents, that just formalize the process a bit with fines and court orders, that bear about as much weight as losing that allowance. You see if you’re a teen, you have all the time in the world to figure out how not to take out the garbage.
Love the analogy!
Maybe we should send over a copy of Preservation magazine for Handrinos. But he already has 3 options to his 45 room hotel addition which would be totally acceptible to preservationists. His plan looks more like a 1960′s architectural disaster. Great for a prison but not for anything in a national historic district in the middle of our most historic area.
And if you’re Handrinos, you can pretend that the law doesn’t apply to you. What a douchebag.
At least there is finally some entertainment value out of all of this. Thanks, TG.
I would like to renovate that house with a soda bottle filled with gasoline, a rag stuffed in the top, and a match.
A toddler analogy would be better.
#5 – Exactly! The city would be much better off without that POS 50′s-looking motel. The wrong kind of business for that neighborhood, plus hookers charge way too much for a room there. Probably the kickbacks that Handrinos makes them cough up.
Teen: I want to enter my 68 Camaro in your classic car show
Show: But it is all smashed up
Teen: But it is a historical car
Show: It is falling apart, it has a Firebird nose,the interior doesn’t match, the engine has different serial numbers, the wheels are from a ’70, the body is all rusted out. It isn’t worth $11
Teen: But the Attorney General said it is a classic.
Norwalker #2 – I’m not sure what plan you are referring to when you say his plan is an architectural disaster from the 60′s. The addition, as approved by the Zoning Comission, was very attractive and fit into the streetscape of the historic district. It certainly would be far more attractive than what is there now. You can’t blame the current owners for the design of the original hotel – that was built way before they owned it.
When are the *ssholes that want to “preserve” that shack get over it already!!!!
In case everyone has forgotten….Mr Handrinos had a VALID DEMOLISION PERMIT IN HAND before this whole saga began. If he had just buldozed that death trap into oblivion the day he recieved the permit, all this crap and the waste of money would never have taken place.
Hey #5, I’ve got an antique CocaCola bottle I’ve been saving for just such an occasion……..
#7 Anonymous sounds like he has first hand experience with hookers at the hotel.
First of all, the house was not and never will be a “historic hotel”. It was a boarding house. It was completely gutted in order to make it a boarding house. Before that, it was just a house -there is absolutely nothing “historic” about that building in any way, shape or form. Just because part of a wall supposedly remains from 1779 does not make the entire building, which has been extensively reworked and remodeled for decades a “historic” building. The entire building must date from 1779 for it to be classified as “historic”; otherwise, all it is is an old house.
Even in its heyday, it was not a particularly good-looking house either. There are far more attractive houses older than this one in Norwalk. Just take a drive down Gregory Boulevard – practically every house across the street from the Old Marvin School has more aesthetics than 93 East Avenue had when it was a brand-new rebuilt house after the first one burned.
Tear it down. Burn it down. Let it fall down. It was a piece of crap building when this brouhaha began, and it’s even more of a piece of crap today.
Handrinos is ready for the nuthouse, judging by his comments. But hey, if he wants to throw his money away…
Can’t he just retain the one wall that was saved from the original building and then just build around it?
Better yet, when Handrinos finally does tear the house down, he can donate that one original wall to the Historical Society and the Preservation Trust can create a shrine out of it and ensconce it over at Mill Hill with the rest of the not-so-original shrines to Norwalk’s misrepresented and continually misinterpreted history.
Next guy that gets a demolition permit will have a bulldozer ready at the site, the building will come down the same day the permit is issued, and no laws will be broken.
Is he paying taxes on the property all this time ?
He should have hired the demolition guy that took down the “historic” house across from City Hall. That guy works Sundays and he “saved the facade” for the preservationists.
I like your thinking #16………….
Hey 15 – so what is Norwalk’s real history? If eveything is misrepresented, tell us what you know. Enlighten us with your kniowledge.
Hey 15 – so what is Norwalk’s real history? If eveything is misrepresented, tell us what you know. Enlighten us with your knowledge.
I believe there are actually are houses in Norwalk that survived the burning of Norwalk. The preservationists should start their fundraising now, so that whrn they do come up for sale, they can purchase them and preserve them and decide the future of the buildings they actually own.
There 2 houses on Strawberry Hill Avenue that survived the burning of Norwalk. One is owned by the Kennedy family and is white; the other is owned by someone I don’t know and is red. They are virtually across the street from each other, just beyond the old Fitch School as you head towards Nathan Hale School. Can’t miss ‘em.
There is a very small number of buildings standing that survived the burning. Most survived because they were off the beaten path that was East Ave and West Ave. One is on Willow St and I think it was recently owned by the Morrow family.
There was an effort, some time ago, at making an inventory. I think Mr Bloom was involved and may have compiled a list.
There are next to NO houses that survived the burning, since ONLY SIX BUILDINGS were left untouched.
Once again, another example of Norwalk’s history that is continually misrepresented to the unknowing and ill-educated public.
what misrepresented ? There are a very few houses standing that survived the burning of the City. I don’t know how many, but the history books estimate about six. Nobody knows, for certain. Remember, Norwalk was once much bigger and included Darien, New Canaan, Wilton & Westport. Most of what was burned was on or very close to either side of the Norwalk River. The houses that were not burned were further away. Communication with anyone who lived miles away was difficult.
#24 – You are closest to correct.
The fact is that many houses survived the burning of Norwalk. If they were not burned, then they survived whether they were along the march or not. There are houses all over the city that go back to that period; it’s just that the British could not cover the whole city.
Sick of the BS says…”It was completely gutted in order to make it a boarding house.” Not true, Th3e building was nver gutted and orginal moldings, fireplaces, and details remained in 2001 when the Inn bought it.
Sick of the BS says…”Even in its heyday, it was not a particularly good-looking house either.” In fact, it’s a great representation of it’s style and it’s period.
Sick of the BS sats…”Tear it down. Burn it down. Let it fall down. It was a piece of crap building when this brouhaha began, and it’s even more of a piece of crap today.” I guess, then, that SOBS also think the other remaining houses around the Green are likewise pieces of crap and should be replaced with more buidlings that look like the Inn, the Park Ave condos, and the other modern “improvements” around the Green. Was SOBS possibly involved in those? Or maybe he was on Zoning when it allowed the destruction of the historic Genral Putnam?
How ignorant, arrogant, and anti-community can you get?
When a house is gutted, such things as moldings, fireplaces, et al, are not necessarily removed. What is removed are walls, stairs, windows, etc. Or they are added. In order to make a regular home into a boarding house, the rooms would have had to be made equal in size; fire escapes would have had to be added, necessitating cutting doors or extra windows into the walls; walls removed to enlarge rooms or walls added to make big rooms smaller, and so on.
I think it is pretty safe to say that if the house at 93 East Avenue went from being a normal family home to a boarding house, significant changes were made to the size of its rooms, number of rooms, and such. The poster who suggested that this house was gutted in order to change it from a home to a boarding house was probably more correct than you care to admit.
To “Respects History:”
Technically you are correct to say that “many homes survived the burning of Norwalk.”
However, this is because the majority of the homes that survived were located on the outskirts of the town and not in the central business district or along the Norwalk River, which is where Tryon concentrated his troops and did the most damage.
Not only homes were burned; businesses, ships, wharves, warehouses and storage buildings were also put to the torch. And at least one church was burned.
So instead of stating “only six HOMES remained”, Poster 23 should probably have said that “only six BUILDINGS remained” in what was at that time Norwalk’s central business district. And in that he/she is absolutely correct.
Rememeber also that even though the area of Norwalk in 1779 encompassed what we now know as Darien, Wilton and New Canaan, most of the buildings in those areas were farms.
In fact, the entire area of Norwalk from Calf Pasture Beach right up to the Green was nothing but fields. There were practically no trees in that area of Norwalk.
There are more trees in Norwalk today than there ever were in 1779. It was nothing but farm fields, stone walls and sea hay back in 1779. All the businesses and homes were congregated along the riverfront and in the lower Wall Street and Main Street areas (Main Street being “Pudding Lane” at that time.)
And to “Old Timer” –
The town of Westport was not part of Norwalk. And it was burned in 1777, not 1779.
Westport was burned when Tryon visited this area the first time, as he retreated from the battle and burning of Danbury and the battle of Ridgefield – battles in which many Norwalk men participated.
Connecticut towns burned in 1779 included New Haven, Fairfield and New London as well as Norwalk.
http://www.yourct.com/new/2007/06/04/guest-view-documenting-93-east-ave-in-2001/
Not gutted. Rooms intact. No fire escapes cut into it. Interior stairway and front hall intact. Original details. Exterior pretty much unchanged since mid-1800s — until the recent accelerated deterioration.
I know two of the houses that were not burned were used by Tryon’s troops as hospitals or headquarters and since both of these homes had dirt cellars, it is said that there were British soldiers buried in the cellars. Having known the former owners of these homes, I heard from both that the houses were haunted. One house is on Canon street and the other on William Street.
There also used to be a house on the corner of Cross and Main that was used as a hospital during the battle. However, the house was later torn down and a gas station put up in its place.
Westport wasn’t a seperate town when Norwalk was burned in 1779. Part of it was Norwalk, most of it was part of Fairfield. Fairfield was also burned by the British at a different time. Westport was not incorporated as a seperate town until 1835. Norwalk also included parts of what is now Darien and New Canaan, and Wilton. Darien became a seperate town in 1820, New Canaan in 1801. Wilton in 1802. They were parishes in Norwalk that later evolved into seperate towns.
Yeee- HaaaaWWWW There has to be a way that this will all go away. My head hurts from all this jabber. I proposed aquestion last week ” Where is the Incerto House and what have you not done with it. I am Very concerned about its ” Deteriorating condition” .Could there be an open window in the storage container, gosh I hope not
. I think that kid who torched the bands equippment was looking for the Incerto house instead. JETS just end the silliness
#16 – good point, IS he paying taxes or is his pal the mayor covering for him? How did this get to be such an issue? As several people, said, he had the demolition order, if he’d just gone ahead and done it, we’d all have something else to complain about – and given the state of this town, I’m sure we’d have found it.
Old Timer – check your history. Fairfield was burned during the same week as Norwalk was in 1779. Tryon made a trip down the coast, hitting New London, New Haven, Fairfield and then Norwalk in that order. I suggest you read a few books in the Norwalk Library Reference Room and acquaint yourself with the facts.
By the way, Westport was first settled in 1639 along the Saugatuck River, and NEVER was a part of Norwalk. According to the Westport Historical Society, they took land from Norwalk and Fairfield when they incorporated in 1835 but the actual town of Westport was NEVER “part” of Norwalk. Not ever. You know, those pesky FACTS again….
I found Lou Cicarello’s “Another View” load of tripe in this morning’s wHour amusing. Is Handrinos so illiterate that he can’t speak on his own behalf? Or is it that every time he opens his pie hole, he sticks his foot in it?
Anyway, Lou seems to be just as ignorant as Handrinos when he postulates that 93 East Avenue could be relocated to Mill Hill. Something like that would have to be approved by the Historical “Commission” if memory serves. Which was neutered by Moccia when he loaded it with his buttmonkeys, to insure that it wouldn’t be capable of stirring up trouble, such as when it started holding hearings on whether 93 East Avenue should be saved from the wrecking ball.
Am I detecting a whiff of GOP circle-jerkery here?
I would assume that at this point, they are paying taxes on the property, but commesurate with the reduced value of the property since it’s value is noting more than a building lot at this point.
#37 I believe that is another fight the owner is having with city as this very moment. They are calculating the taxes on this property INCLUDING the structure even though is should or has been condemed. The taxes for that property should be ONLY for the land. The mere fact that the owner is being forced to pay the taxes even though he can’t do anything with it is a travisty of justice.
no…it’s not that he can’t do ANYTHING with it; he can’t do what he wants. Before it was put into such deplorable shape (right after the temporary injunction), it was fully habitable. It could be rented, converted, or sold. This is a self-imposed hardship and the City should not let the Inn get away with not paying taxes.
Fully Habitable, by who Crack heads, homeless, runaways, dope pushers, child molesters, illegal aliens? If that place was considered habitable to you, you must live under the Strafalino Bridge.
I knew a kid when I was in grade school his name was Dave Betts, his family rented rooms in that house. That was 58 years ago and it was a dump inside then.
Gee, the lady who posted that she lived there up until 2001 must be quite surprised by your comments, #40.
Naughty,naughty. We know that you’re trying to cover up for what the Inn has done to destroy the house. Pretty transparent lies.
“what the Inn has done to destroy the house”
#41 that is a very strong and inflammatory accusation, and unless you have proof of it, you may want to be more careful with your choice of words.
If you’re trying to say the Inn hasn’t done anything to preserve the house, that is one thing. But quite another to claim they’ve done something to “destroy the house”.
I try to stay away from this silly blog because it is the Thanksgiving/Christmas Season. I don’t like to think bad thoughts during that time.
BUT my better side lost:-)
I second that #26! I lived in the house! Number 29, you are absolutely right. Original fireplaces were in many of the rooms. Staircase in front foyer, original! Doors, original! Windows, original double-hungs. Mouldings, original. The LEAST anyone can do for this house now is SALVAGE the original marble mantlepieces, glass doorknobs, ornate interior woodwook, four paneled interior doors, beveled glass, ornate staircase, etc. The worst thing that could come out of this is to demolish and haul away everything to the dump without at least saving as much as possible some of the beautiful detail this house still has left and recycle it for the renovation of another historical home.
One more thing…
So tired of people verbally trashing a building that was a home, including mine. For the 4 1/2 years I lived there, I did not live with drug dealers and prostitutes, not sure where people are getting their information. The 80 year old lady that lived down the hall from me was certainly not a drug dealer or prostitute. The Christian family that lived upstairs from me were certainly not drug dealers or prostitutes. The elderly (and sweet) Wiegand sisters who lived below me were not drug dealers or prostitutes. The handicapped couple who lived downstairs from me were not drug dealers or prostitutes. I certainly was not a drug dealer or prostitute, and neither were the friends I would invite once a month for a Christian doctrine study group drug dealers or prostitutes.
My point is, ok, so maybe now unfortunately it is beyond repair, I don’t know. I am not a structural engineer. But save the details that we can out of the building, recycle them to other historical building renovators, and let’s move on. Allowing this thing to drag on like it has is an awful slow death to a once-beautiful building and it is horrible to see it decay. If it can be saved somehow, so be it.
Don’t worry, lady. When they go to demolish this wreck of a house, Ralph Bloom will be there ahead of the wrecking ball, making deals with the contractors to haul away all the beveled glass, marble fireplaces, woodwork, doorknobs, and anything else of any remote value so he can sell it at auction houses and make a mint, just as he does with any “historical” building that is demolished in this city.
And if there’s anything left over that the auction houses couldn’t sell, it will find its way into the Friends of the Norwalk MuseumS’ junk shop, where unsuspecting fools will probably snap it up.
THE BEST IDEA IVE HEARD TO DATE IS TO “RECYCLE” THIS PLACE SOUNDS LILE A VIABLE SOLUTION. THE LATEST DEAL IS TO BUILD OUR NEW WING WING WITH A HISTORIC FACADE RESEMBELING THE CURRENT GEM. WHO COULD POSSIBLY ARGUE OVEER THAT. WHERE IS THE INCERTO HOUSE .I WANT TO START A FUND TO RESTORE IT.
When they demolishe 94 East Ave, they will find the body of Jimmy Hoffa. He accidentally went into the dump to take a dump, and got caught on a nail, and died of thirst.
His family is suing the city of Norwalk for not tearing down that building in a timely fashion.
This is obviously a Norwalk Blog. No respect for the past. If this house was in Westport, there would be no conversation at all. The house would have been restored to it’s orginal beauty and would stand proudly with all the other historic buildings in that town. Same for Darien, New Canaan, Fairfield, Southport, Wilton, you name it. Norwalk has a history of disrespect here. Remember the old West Avenue with all the beautiful Victorian Homes? If you are younger than 50, probably not, because they were all ripped down to put in the route 7 extension which helps all of our friends in Wilton, Ridgefield, Danbury, and Redding get home more quickly. (You’re welcome, people from these communities.)
What about the Lockwood-Matthews Mansion? If not for the efforts of Kathleen Morrow and many others, we’d be looking of that in pictures, as well! Some a-hole wanted to rip that down, too!
General Tryon would have made a perfect Norwalker! Sounds like Ralph Bloom may be his reincarnation. RR&P anyone? (That’s rape, pillage and plunder)
Straight Talk- thank’s for the link to those pictures. It was a beautiful house and this is a very sad statement on what is valued in Norwalk.
93 East Ave will be settled eventually and we should learn from this. The preservationists should identify the really historically significant properties, issue some kind of plaques, and file, on the property records, the fact that a property has been listed and is subject to some protection from demolition.
I don’t even know Hendrinos, but it sounds like he got ambushed after he bought that property.
There were a lot of very nice old houses around town that have been demolished, some may have had some really important history, but most probably did not. Anything still standing and worth protecting should be identified.
Westport has the same problem, preservationists can delay demolition, for a limited time, but cannot stop it without raising enough private money to buy a property.