Norwalk Preservationists Celebrate Saturday

Please join the Norwalk Preservation Trust to celebrate
National Preservation Month and historic preservation in Norwalk
 
Saturday, May 16th 2009   4 PM to 6:30 PM
 
The Manice deForest Lockwood Mansion at St. Philip Church
 23 France Street, Norwalk.
 
The Manice deForest Lockwood Mansion, owned by St. Philip Church, is being restored and provides a look into the elegance that defined the Lockwoods inNorwalk. Currently, the mansion houses artists’ studios, many of which will be open for you to meet the artists and view their works.
 
Please join us to enjoy this beautiful part of Norwalk’s rich heritage.
The Preservation Trust will also be presenting the third annual
Valle Fay Preservation Leadership Awards.
 
The afternoon is a benefit for the Norwalk Preservation Trust. Suggested donation – $35 per person or $60 per couple (nonmembers). $30 per person or $50 per couple for NPT members. You may join the NPT at the event. 
To RSVP by email, please contact  info@norwalkpreservation.org or telephone 203 853.7495.
 
Please let us know if you will attend by May 6, 2009.
Wine, beverages, and hors d’oevres will be served.

Newer Comments →
  • Anonymous

    I’ll be sure to attend, give them money and give them a nice big fat wet smooch to thank them for creating the three worst eyesores that make Norwalk look like the South Bronx: 93 East Avenue, Fodor Farm and the rock pile at the Merritt Parkway. That’s what I call good work.

  • Anonymous

    Don’t forget to thank the people who were responsible for letting those properties become what they are while you’re at it…

  • Anonymous

    Don’t forget to thank the people who were responsible for letting those properties become what they are while you’re at it…

  • nwlknative

    Another home that was elegant in its day and owned by one of the Lockwoods is located at 41 High Street. Parquet floors, floor to ceiling windows, marble baths, beautiful wood trim throughout. My uncle was the chauffeur for the family and his wife was one of the maids.

  • anon again

    Is that the one that is now in the middle of an illegal contractor’s yard?

  • nwlknative

    It is the first house on the right facing High Street and I believe there is a a contractor’s yard in the back. The house across the street, which belonged to Professor Edward Simms, longtime (over 75 years) organist of Trinity Church in South Norwalk. That house, too, should be listed as historical.

  • Old Timer

    Wasn’t a very old house moved to Morgan Ave from East Ave (#95 ?) when the Inn was built ? Anybody know which house that was ? It may have been moved to Colonial Place. It was part of the parcel owned by Nagy Bros and may have been the original home on the property.

  • NPT member

    No house on the property in a 1925 photo except 93 East Avenue. Nothing but a big gravel pit in the background. Did you know that Grumman Hill was a glacial morain (or more likely a Kame), deposited there aeons ago when the receding glacier stopping in Norwalk? That’s why the hil was mostly gravel (which the Nagy’s sold off).

  • Old Timer

    On March 12th I posted a picture of a section of a 1899 Landis & Hughes “bird’s eye view” map showing 5 buildings close together south of Morgan ave. The third is probably the present 93 East, leaving two others, at that time, further south, but not much.
    The picture appeared on the 93 East ave decision thread. It is possible 93 East is the fourth, but that still leaves one south of it.
    You can look at the map at Historic map works, online, it is item #US 40927 There is a fee to zoom in or print, but it is not much.
    There is still some of that hill left behind the Inn, but Nagy bros. did sell a lot of gravel out of there. Can you imagine doing that today ?

  • Old Timer

    Most recent motion filed in 93 East Ave case on May 15, by the Inn.
    motion for dismissal
    (non-suit) n. application by a defendant in a lawsuit or criminal prosecution asking the judge to rule that the plaintiff (the party who filed the lawsuit) or the prosecution has not and cannot prove its case.
    If motion is granted, case goes out the window, and NPT will be liable to the Inn for a lot of expense money.

  • anon

    When is the judge making his decision?

  • Old Timer

    He isn’t. He is waiting for the NPT or the INN to blink, and work out something that gets him off the hook so he doesn’t have to make a decision.
    Most recent action was a motion by NPT to strike on may 21. I believe that is a response to the Inn’s motion for non-suit the week before.

  • Old Timer

    There are records showing another house on the Grumman-St John property next door to 93 and listed as 95, in the 1900 US census. It is probably the one that was moved or demolished when Nagy opened a gravel bank on the property, and may well have been the more historic. It seems to be in earlier census records, too, when 93 was occupied by a St John family. It was apparently owned by whoever owned the land, and 93, and was passed down through generations until it was moved away or demolished.

  • anon

    OT…bogus thory. Land deeds and legal records trace a clear line from present 93 East Avenue to same house, on same property quite definitvely back to at least 1800. So, nice try but no cigar. 93 was owned by Stephen Buckinham St. John who purchased the property from Grumman. Check the land records yourself, if you don;t believe me.

    There may have been a 95…but it is not the Grumman St. John house. Unless of course you don’t believe the land records. Your choice….

  • Old Timer

    The Grumman-St John property apparently had more than one building. That property, with all improvements (buildings) passed down through generations. The property is significantly historic mostly because there seems to be agreement the British General watched the burning of norwalk from the top of Grumman’s hill. The original house on the property was burned. Others were built later. How do we know which is on the same site as the original and may contain elements of it ? We have one still standing (barely) and one gone. Why should we think the one standing is the more historic ?
    It was not unusual for wealthy people to build homes for their children on their property. It is doubtful the record trace the building at 93 back to 1800. Even the advocates for preserving it admit it was built in 1820. They believe it was built on the site of the original. It may have been, but there is also the possibility it was the second building, built close by and a bit north of the site of the original.

  • anon

    The point is actually moot. The law is focused only on whether the house is listed in the National Regsiter. Clearly, it is and has been. Federal documentation proves it. So your theory is really quite irrlevant and not worht arguing.

    Are you sure you’re not Lou Ciccarello? It’s the same kind of deliberate (and toatlly whacked out) confusion that he seems to spin….

  • Old Timer

    Yeah, I’m pretty sure I am not Lou Ciccarello. I’m not as sure the listing for 93 East is valid, but proving that is something somebody else is probably being paid for. Don’t the property owners have to agree to being listed ? Shouldn’t that be documented somewhere ?
    The fact that something shows on a federal list may only prove that mistakes were made. It happens. What happens if false information was submitted to get the listing, by people now involved in the suit ?

  • anon

    OT…listing goes back to the 1980s. At the time, property owners did not have to agree to a district listing. Now, district requires getting agreement of majority.

    National Register listing was attested to by the keeper of the National Register under oath.

    Face it: 93 East Avenue is legitimately listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Norwalk Green Historic District and as such is subject to the CT EPA statute to prevent “unreasonable demolition.” End of story. It doesn’t matter whether it survived the burning or when it was built. It was good enough to get listed and it’s good enough to protect.

  • Mrs. Peacock

    Honest question: Isn’t the area where the Norwalk Motor Inn sits the general area where General Tryon supposedly sat upon a chair (stolen from a patriot’s home) to watch Norwalk burn in July of 1779? If this is the Grumman Hill area where Tryon perched his throne, how could the house at 93 still exist – unless of course, it belonged to a British loyalist? Does anyone have the detailed history of this house? By the way, my question does not reflect an opinion in the ongoing 93 East Avenue saga.

  • Mrs. Peacock

    Whoops, my bad, Old Timer. Figures I don’t read before shooting my mouth off. I just now see a previous comment in this thread which answers my question. I applaud your extensive knowledge bank, O.T.

  • EH

    I hear they are tearing down a historic single story merchant building on South Main next to the Police Station to put on an 8 story Hotel.
    Seems a bit out of character since the area was declared a Historic District and the purpose was to preserve and showcase all the buildings an South Main and Washington Street.
    I hear they need rule changes to make it happen.
    Stamford here we come!

  • Old Timer

    Now we will see if NPT is the real thing, or NIMBY in disguise.

    The testimony of the keeper of the National Register, under oath only proves it is on their records. It says nothing about the legitimacy of the process that got it and the failed Norwalk Green Historic District on their records. I gather you are now conceding the owners of the property may not have agreed to being listed, but were anyway ?
    If NPT, as some suspect, is really only motivated when it comes to the Inn, they will have no objection to a competing hotel business on South Main.

  • anon

    You can certainly question the legitimacy of the National Register process. That would certainly bring a lot of National Register Districts around the coutnry into question. Feel free to file suit with the National Park Service that their process in the 80′s negates all districts formed in that time period. The Green could be precedent to a whole cascade of suits against the Park Service. Be my guest.

  • Old Timer

    I wouldn’t blame the National Park service. I would be more interested in who represented what to them without permission/approval of the property owners.

  • anon

    The National Park Service process at the time was to NOT need permission/approval from owners. So your argument is with them. Plus, if you don’t like that historic resources are part of the CT Environmental Protection Act, blame Joe Lieberman. He got the protection added when he was CT AG. So, take it national, OT, that’s where you seem to be having the disconnect. Locally, everything was done/is done by the book when it comes to historic preservation.

  • Steward

    #25, That is a scary response.

  • Old Timer

    Scary response indeed. But what would you expect from scary people ? They were so sure the Green Historic District was a done deal that they sent the information that resulted in the listing and then never told the park service they had jumped the gun and there was no historic district because a majority of the property owners were against it.
    I have no quarrel with anybody who wants to delay demolition of what they believe is a historic building for a reasonable time so feasible alternatives can be explored, but taking a business to court seeking a permanent injunction against demolition, and letting that drag out for a long time while the adjacent business is affected, and planned business expansion is delayed, is a form of extortion, and should be illegal. No wonder developers rush to tear down before suits can be filed.
    Locallly, it is all done by the book ? That explains why we never hear from the NPT except when they go to court, for the second time, against the Inn. What book are they reading ? Legal harassment 101 ?
    Of course, the law has protection against frivlous lawsuits in the name of historic preservation. The plaintiff (NPT) is liable for a lot of money if they fail to make a prima facie case. But when the plaintiff is a corporation, formed for the purpose of the suit, with no assets, that protection means nothing. The defendent (INN) is forced into the expense of defending the suit, maintaining, insuring, and paying taxes on a derelict building with no chance of collecting anything from the plaintiff, while competitors spring up all over the place.
    It is not Town land records I question, it is your interpretation of them. The fact that 93 was part of a property that passed through generations to the man who sold it to the Inn does not prove another house on the same property, that you won’t admit existed, wasn’t more historic and built on the foundation of the original house.

  • Secondhand Rose

    Let’s also not forget the lies that were told to the public in order to convince them that these “historic” buildings were actually older than, and more historically relevant, than they actually proved to be. The Rogers-Ritch-Merritt house is a prime example. The minute it was decided to keep that house, the BS started flowing about how the RRM dated back to the Revolution. Same BS has been flowing about 93 East Avenue. It doesn’t seem to matter that it has been proven that neither house is as old or as historically relevant as originally claimed; funds were still sought from the City and held in escrow to rebuild the RRM on Mill Hill (funds that COULD have gone to help maintain the buildings the City already owned), and money is STILL being wasted on the court case(s) for 93 East Avenue. When will the lying be taken to task?

  • anon

    Repeat when necessary: the defunct local district is not a prerequisite for a National Register District. Never was. Isn’t now. Was never the basis for the listing. Has nothing to do with the listing. Is irrlevant to the case against demolition. Is a red herring. Is not the basis for the State getting involved. Was not offerred as the basis for the listing. Was not EVER mentioend by the NPT as the case for saving the house. NEVER. Not once. Not even suggested. etc. etc. etc.

    Please stop posting false information.

  • Old Timer

    What false information ?
    Quoting you, at post # 18, where you said :
    “Face it: 93 East Avenue is legitimately listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Norwalk Green Historic District”
    Are you lying now, or were you lying then ?
    Never mentioned ? Why is it listed on the national register website if it was never mentioned ? See listing pasted below. note boundary is Morgan Ave.
    7 CT Fairfield Norwalk Green Historic District Roughly bounded by Smith & Park Sts., Boston Post Rd., East, & Morgan Aves. Norwalk 1987-12-14

    They count on never being taken to task, Rose, they hide behind the corporate veil, assuming they can’t be held accountable. Didn’t one of judges on this case pierce that corporate veil to hold the INN responsible for 93 East even though it is owned in a different corporate name ?

  • anon

    I give up…the information is so wrong that I can’t even begin to comment. Froth on, OT and SHR. Keep talking to yourselves.

  • anon

    One more, OT…call the Natinal Trust and have them send you a copy of the National Register listing for teh Norwalk Green Historic District. It has a map showing the boundaries. I think the map was posted on the blog at one point. I simply don’t have the energy to go through this again…

  • Secondhand Rose

    Yes the map was posted. It was posted by, I believe, Old Timer. And it showed the boundary at Morgan Avenue – NOT at the Norwalk Inn. Which makes 93 East Avenue OUTSIDE the boundary by at least 3 lots.

  • anon

    http://www.yourct.com/new/2007/04/norwalk-93-east-ave-in-historic-district/

    The facts were posted by TG. Second Hand Rose and Old Timer are, quite simply, completely wrong. See above link to April 11, 2007 post.

  • Old Timer

    It was posted and it includes 93 East. I don’t argue that. ( I did, a while back, but I was mistaken) I maintain the process in which it was included without the permission/approval of the owners was flawed. The non-existent Norwalk Green historic district was proposed and debated and boundaries were negotiated with the final boundaries not extending south of Morgan ave, on that side of East ave. It failed because of too many votes against it, but that went to court over the issue of wether Condo owners were entitled to a vote, While all this was in progress, some advocate for the district submitted the Norwalk Green Historic District, as if it had been approved at the local level , through channels that eventually resulted in a federal listing for a non-existent local district, . Nobody ever bothered to cancel the listing as opposed to the interests of the property owners and it was promptly forgotten by all but a few people. Those people are now using that listing and a CT law, to make a case against demolition of the building. The owners of the building also own the INN and are fighting the lawsuit.
    There is some doubt in my mind of the historical signifigance of the present building at 93 East and I question if the adjacent building at 95 might not have been the more significant one. Some of the true believers on the NPT side deny there ever was another building on the site. Anon’s comments speak for themselves, but not consistently. Anon has suggested we don’t know what we are talking about. We’ll see.
    Somebody should explain to anon that there is no CT EPA. EPA is a federal agency. Anon is confused again. The law is part of the section regulating the DEP . DEP is a state agency in CT. The commissioner of the DEP, Gina McCarthy, is being appointed to a position in the EPA.

  • Secondhand Rose

    Gee, that’s funny, because the map in the NHRI shows the boundary at Morgan Avenue.

  • anon

    Yawn…I have an idea. Since no one else cares, why don’t the 3 of us…Old Timer, Second Hand Rose, and me…just meet at Penny’s Diner…documentation in hand…and I can explain the facts. Really…this is just goign over well-trod ground and not moving anything forward. It is a big bore.

  • Urbanist

    Would you all agree that the current situation is ridiculous?

  • Secondhand Rose

    I do agree, particularly from the viewpoint of Mr. Handrinos, who is being prevented from using his own property and who is being forced to pay taxes on it while he is also being prevented from using it.

  • anon

    Handrinos is not prevented from using the building. He can repair it. He can renovate it. He can turn it into a part of the hotel. He can use it as the hotel lobby. He can run it as a restuarant. He can fix it up and rent it as apaatments (as it was before it started – ahem – “deteriorating”.) He can sell it as is. He can paint it. He can renovate it for condos. He could fix it up and use it as a pied d’ terre tfor himself to be close to his business. There are an almost infinite number of ways he can use that house that would be both proftiable and an asset to the area. Handrinos only has a single use in mind, unfortunately – total destruction.

  • Secondhand Rose

    I never said he was prevented from using the “building”. What I said was, he is being prevented from using his **property**, there is a vast difference. He cannot build as he would like on the land that he rightfully, legally owns, and is being forced to pay property tax on it while also being prevented from using it.

    And that house should be destroyed; it’s a firetrap and a health hazard. Not to mention being a blight to the area.

    Since you have so many wonderful ideas as to how the house ought to be utilized, why don’t you make Mr. Handrinos an offer and purchase the house yourself? Then you can move it to wherever you wish and do whatever you want with it.

  • anon

    But, Rose, my darling, none of use can build on our “property” as we like. There are all sorts of restrictions that one must adhere to based on the zone you’re in. Handrinos “property” happens to be in a historic “zone” which – by State law – prevents unreasonable destruction if there are feasible alternatives. I’m surprised that you can’t recognize this simple fact. But I do agree that the situation is truly ridiculous. Why would a man keep wasting money on lawsuits when he could have put that into renovation, market his place as a historic hotel, and make money — plus be a hero for “saving” an endangered historic resource?

  • 93 vs the canon

    Maybe someone can load the cannon on the green swivel it around and level 93 East Ave.

  • #42

    That is like spending $15,000 on rebuilding a Yugo.

  • Secondhand Rose

    Because, Anon, there is nothing remotely “historic” about the Norwalk Inn & Conference Center.

  • A patriot

    The house is architecturally significant and an excellent example of its style. The interior had crystal chandeliers, parquet floors, marble fireplaces — alll significant elements of that period as adpated and used in America in the propserity that followed the Civil War. The house was owned and lived in for most of its life by one of Norwalk’s founding families. In it’s position, it is visually integral to the view of a remarkably intact New Engalnd Green as you come down East Avenue. The house sets the aestehtic tone for the entire District and it’s loss to a commercial structure will irrevocably diminish the New England aesthatics of the area. The house is structurally sound — no sags of roofline or windows — and repairable. The wounds are “self-inflicted” and not fatal. Your arguments are an attempt to diminish its importance and support Mr. Handrinos in his effort to undermine the history of the area around the Green. Sure, it’s not the Acropolis — and 200 or 300 years is a drop in the bucket when you compare it to the depth and value of Greek history. But that’s no reason to spit on our American history. You’d think Handrinos was channeling Tryon…back to finish the job he started in 1779.

  • Old Timer

    Anon;
    By feasible alternatives you mean something other than demolition of the house and use of the land for an already permitted addition to the hotel, that won’t cost a great deal more ? Something where there will be some reasonable return on investment for any money he puts into the old house ? He has offered to donate the house to the NPT so they can restore it, if they support a feasible 3rd floor addition to the INN, and he is able to get permits for that. Isn’t that a win-win solution for both sides ? Or is any money dumped into restoration of that house wasted ? Are they serious about the historic signifigance of that old house, or just determined to delay expansion of the INN while other, newer, hotels siphon off the business ? Do they want the INN to go the way of the Silvermine Tavern ?
    For the record, that house was used as an apartment house for more then half the time since it was built.

  • Secondhand Rose

    Patriot – the house MAY have been “architecturally significant and an excellent example of its style” once, but it certainly isn’t now. Hasn’t been since it became an apartment/rooming house and was allowed to deteriorated significantly from that point in time.

    “In it’s position, it is visually integral to the view of a remarkably intact New Engalnd Green as you come down East Avenue” may have been true once, but your argument holds no water these days since the “remarkably intact New England Green” doesn’t even exist in Norwalk. Apparently you’ve forgotten about the apartment buildings, office buildings, and redesigned, remodeled and expanded buildings that now surround the Green.

    “The house sets the aestehtic tone for the entire District and it’s loss to a commercial structure will irrevocably diminish the New England aesthatics of the area.” There are no “New England aesthatics of the area” any longer. Your problem is, you’re still imagining the 1940s when those office and apartment buildings hadn’t been built yet.

    “The house is structurally sound — no sags of roofline or windows” – Apparently you’ve avoided looking at the porch for the past year or so…….

    Removing this house will not change the way the Green looks in any way, shape or form. It will look exactly the same as it does right this very minute, with the exception of a derelict house that’s a blight on the neighborhood, a fire trap, and a deteriorating vermin host. Just suppose for a second that this house is saved – are we to believe that the NPT has a plan to remove the apartment buildings, the office buildings, and force the other business owners to remove their remodeling, expansions and redesigns of their buildings so that we can take a blast to the past and return the Norwalk Green to the “pristine” state it was in at the turn of the 20th century?

    I didn’t think so.

    Oh, but let’s keep fooling ourselves and pretend that we’re still living in the past.

  • What about the house that

    sits behind Sonny’s restaurant? This house seems to have significant historic value. Are the developers and the historic committee looking into what will happen to this house?

  • some other issues

    49, that as well as the carriage house behind Currie’s Tire — in fact, the whole neighborhood — has been a point of continuing discusson with redevelopment and the developer. Some progress has been made in preserving some of the homes…but (since it’s not a historic district) it’s really all up to the developer and the redevelopment agency. NPT can advise and encourage plans that save siginificant buildings…but that’s it.

    Someone asked about the SoNo storefront. Complex issue. Building was included when district was extended but the significant buildings that were part of the extension are now gone — replaced by the police station parking. (Remember that battle to save them?) One of the buildings was moved and incorporated into Haviland Place. That leaves the storefront as not really connecting the streetscape to anything. NPT is talking to the State Historic Preservation Office (as well as the developer) to see what is reasonable in this situation.

Newer Comments →