August 12, 2010 9:46 pm

Norwalk Inn Saves Historic Landmark

from a press release:

SEN. DUFF & REP. CAFERO DETAIL COMPROMISE AGREEMENT TO EXPAND

NORWALK INN, PRESERVE HISTORIC LANDMARK

Plan would provide economic opportunity while restoring piece of local history

Norwalk - After several years of lengthy hearings and court actions, an agreement has been reached that will provide for the expansion of the Norwalk Inn and Conference Center and the restoration of the historic Grumman-St. John House on East Avenue in Norwalk.

At a news conference at the inn this morning, state Senator Bob Duff (D-Norwalk) and Representative Lawrence Cafero (R-Norwalk)—the two legislators directly involved in the crafting of the compromise plan—were joined by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, Norwalk Mayor Richard Moccia and representatives from both the Norwalk Inn and the Norwalk Preservation Trust to detail the noteworthy agreement.

“This was truly a situation where, by getting everyone to sit down together, we were able to work out a plan that is mutually beneficial to everyone involved,” Senator Duff said. “I’m so proud of how everyone stepped up to the plate to end the years of disagreement and come up with a viable, realistic and, ultimately, ideal solution for Norwalk, for the neighborhood, for a local business and community partner and for a city landmark. The links that we have to our past are priceless, and I think this agreement marks a great way to keep that past alive while building toward our future at the same time.”

“All parties involved—the state, city of Norwalk and the Norwalk Inn—worked together for this tremendously positive outcome, said Representative Cafero. “The agreement reached here today represents a road mark linking Norwalk’s rich history to its continuing economic vitality and future. All parties share an equal stake in this common-sense approach to solving a dispute over this historic property that had remained unsettled for far too long.’

Under the compromise plan, the Grumman-St. John House will be renovated and restored and very likely used as additional hotel rooms for long-term stays at the inn. The Norwalk Inn would expand upward, adding a third story above the existing building that would approximately hold 40 additional hotel rooms.

“I am pleased that my office assisted in preserving the Grumman St. John House and also enabling the Norwalk Inn to expand,” Attorney General Blumenthal said. “This historic home is regarded by preservation experts as a storehouse of state history — a vital reminder of our heritage that the law required to be protected. Norwalk Inn and others are to be praised and thanked for reaching an agreement that saves the structure and serves our common goals.”

“This agreement represents the best of our neighborhood spirit of collaboration, and I am particularly happy that all parties have worked things out,” said Mayor Moccia. “I especially wish to commend the work done by Representative Cafero and Senator Duff to bring the fellow citizens together to find a solution that serves all interests so well. The result will be a healthier and more beautiful vicinity.”

“Our plan for the Norwalk Inn expansion and rehabilitation of 93 East Avenue has been the product of a successful, year-long negotiation process—one initiated and coordinated by state Representative Larry Cafero and state Senator Bob Duff,” said Chris Handrinos and George Katsaros, managers of the Norwalk Inn. “Representative Cafero and Senator Duff helped find a solution to this problem. In dozens of meetings, they worked to clarify the issues, identify areas of common ground, point out possible compromises and set out step-by-step plans. In time, we formulated a plan that can deliver sorely needed economic growth and a landmark renovation project, not to mention a significant neighborhood improvement plan.”

“Senator Duff and Representative Cafero demonstrated that diligence and sincere commitment can yield a solution that works for everyone—the neighbors, the inn, NPT, the preservation community and Norwalk as a whole,” said Tod Bryant of the Norwalk Preservation Trust. “The Norwalk Preservation Trust is also grateful to the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, the National Trust for Historic Preservation and the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation for their unwavering support. And, of course, we wouldn’t be here without the support of the people who believed that it was worth it to save this piece of Norwalk’s past. The Grumman-St. John House will not only be saved, it will be returned to useful economic life and contribute to economic growth in the city.”

“The National Trust for Historic Preservation is grateful to the many people who have worked diligently for so long to bring about a successful agreement to restore the Grumman-St. John House. The leadership of Senator Duff and Representative Cafero in facilitating this win-win agreement between the Norwalk Preservation Trust and the Norwalk Inn is remarkable,” said Alicia Leuba, director of programs for the National Trust for Historic Preservation. “This is a powerful example of an alliance between economic development and historic preservation, giving new life to an important historic building while providing economic development opportunities and increased buffering for the residential neighborhood.”

“The Commission on Culture & Tourism is pleased at the resolution of this matter and commends everyone involved for working together to come up with a solution which has resulted in the preservation of 93 East Avenue and also meets the need of the owners of the Norwalk Inn and the neighbors,” said Karen Senich, executive director and state historic preservation officer of the Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism. “The preservation of this important National Register property serves as a model for the future when our invaluable historic resources in Connecticut are threatened.”

The Grumman-St. John House dates back to the Revolutionary War and was built by Samuel Grumman. It was severely damaged in the burning of Norwalk by the British in 1779 and was rebuilt in the 1780s. The house was expanded and its current roof was added in the 1870s. It has been listed in the National Register of Historic Places since 1986 as part of the Norwalk Green Historic District. The Norwalk Inn purchased the historic property in 2001.

nwlknative

Back in 05/06, when the Inn was seeking zoning approval for their addition, I believe a third story was desired/discussed at length and there were all kinds of problems, i.e., parking, encroachment on the neighborhood, prior deed restrictions, etc. Too bad the third floor wasn’t allowed then – it sure would have saved a lot in legal costs. All of a sudden, there are no problems with parking restrictions, no problem with the neighbors, etc. Go figure.
http://Yahoo Just Me

Does anyone SERIOUSLY think that dump can be restored/renovated at this stage. It’s an eyesore to put it mildly and a disgrace to the city to have it be one of the first things visitors see if they drive down East Avenue after getting off Exit 16. Some enterprising person should have slipped a match in there one night.
Secondhand Rose

“The Grumman-St. John House dates back to the Revolutionary War and was built by Samuel Grumman.”

No it does NOT. The land it sits on does, but the house that is there right this very minute that all the argument is over didn’t even exist in 1779.

“It was severely damaged in the burning of Norwalk by the British in 1779 and was rebuilt in the 1780s.”

The *original* house – which the current house is NOT – was indeed damaged in 1779. But the house we are discussing in 2010 is NOT the *original* house, having been built in the early 1800s.

Once again the pro-93 East Avenue people are lying through their teeth and disseminating false and inaccurate information. But oh my goodness, THAT’S perfectly fine!

Just the Facts

And how do you know this – were you there in 1800?
househugger

I’d like to see your sources for this. Do you have land records or any other documentation that supports your claim?

Just the Facts

I agree househugger – let’s see secondhand’s sources. I have no idea whether or not the house dates back to the Revolutionary War or not – The Hour keeps repeating that story. That being said, the state’s leading architectural historian examined the structure and said that the core of the house pre-dates 1800. I’ll take his word over someone with no credentials other than working part-time for a couple of years at the Norwalk Museum.

Kathy Soutos

Now that Blumenthal is running for senator has found a solution to the problem for Norwalk Inn, Too bad after the Inn spend hundreds of thousands of dollars got their wish. They could of used the money to restore the Building 5-6 years ago. But Mr. Blumenthal was fighting them
Suzanne

I’m appalled that all the previous comments are so wrong minded. And so what if the current structure only dates to the early 1800s? That 200 years of Norwalk history you’re spitting on!
This house was left in a disgraceful condition and virtually held hostage so that the Norwalk Inn could get their way. These people should have been slapped into submission with fines. If it were my neighborhood and a poor person who couldn’t fix up their place let it go like that the city wouldn’t have batted an eye to condemn that person out of their home as a health hazard even if it put that person on the street. But these guys play Norwalk politics, donate to the powers that be and they get their way.
I’m glad it will be repaired but will it be repaired to any semblance of historically accurate original quality or just slapped together with discount Depot remnants? Is anyone from Norwalk Historical going to supervise the mess they make? These people obviously have no taste and no class for doing that to an historic landmark and letting it sit there like that next to their business for so many years and I doubt they care what materials or style this bulding gets done in.

Just the Facts

I think the Norwalk Preservation Trust is requiring that 93 be restored following the US Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Historic Preservation, which should result in a nice building that is true to its period.

Glad It’s Over

The ongoing law suits and counter suits have been enough of a blight on Norwalk. I am glad that an end to this fiasco is finally here. To the people who supported the Inn’s property rights and to the people who supported the preservationists please take a cue from your respective sides. It’s over. For Norwalk we get a Norwalk Inn with a historic building. The Inn can now add room and also stay a part of our history. It’s too bad this took so long. It’s a shame that we’ve had to look at a collapsing veranda. But let’s look forward at what can be if we all learned the value of working together.
OLD TIMER

Secondhand Rose’s source is easy. City official Tax assesor’s records show current structure built in 1820. It may well have been built on the site of an earlier structure, destroyed by fire, while Gen Tryon watched from the hill behind it.
just asking

Old Timer — tax assessor records are a start; the real story requires looking into deeds and estate records. Here’s the researched data on the Grumman St. John house:

http://www.norwalkpreservation.org/pages/news/current.html
Secondhand Rose

What’s my resource? Why, the Norwalk Historic Resources Inventory, written by the illustrious “treasure of Norwalk”, Mr. Ralph Bloom.

You can find this book in the Resource Room of the Norwalk Public Library and at the Norwalk Museum. It’s also well documented in the Norwalk Land Records at the City Clerk’s office in City Hall.
OLD TIMER

I was not there, but the accounts I read say the original house was burned down. The present structure, even the preservationist don’t claim is the original house. They claim it was “expanded and updated” in 1870, but they are understandably vague on when or if, it was rebuilt after the burning in 1779, when they admit it may have been “completely or partially burned”. City records list the present house as built in 1820. In those days it was not unusual to re-use salvageable parts of other buildings when building a house, so there well may be bits and pieces of the original house that were not completely destroyed and later used to build, or rebuild, on the site. There were other houses at 95 and 97, on the same property, at one time. We will never know for certain, but it is a fact that there was little or no fire-fighting the day the British torched the town, as everybody had fled North to “the rocks” and beyond. If the house was torched, as reported, it probably burned to the ground.
Either way, it has now been recognized as historically significant and there are plans to restore it. I predicted here, a long time ago, that no judge wanted any part of deciding this, and it would only be resolved if the parties reached some out-of-court agreement. I disagree with the results and I would want some guarantee of support for the addition to the Inn before I put another dime into that house, if I was one of the owners. Will they be able not to get building permits for the addition right away, or are there more strings attached ?
The HOUR keeps referring to the house as having survived the burning, but they never cite a source for that opinion, and it is the HOUR. I heard there was a phoenix symbol somewhere in the house honoring the “rising from the ashes” history when it was rebuilt.
REGULAR VOTER

Let’s be clear of the facts–
The NPT was organized by private citizens with a particular agenda (you can agree with most it, but the fact remains they have a very particular agenda). Sure, now it’s a “public charity”. But, that doesn’t mean that we (as citizens) necessarily have any right to demand that they do our will- their mission is to advance their own credo.
The NPT was the prime mover in the suit. How do some posters rely upon their nebulous history of the building. That is not really going to an impartial source.
If you do read the NPT site about the house, you’ll find that it is just not clear that the present house survived the burning of Norwalk.
Finally, the house isn’t listed on the National Register of Historic Places (http://nrhp.focus.nps.gov/). So, as amazing as the architecture is, how great it is to have something that reprsents the mid-1800′s, the fact remains that this entirely local issue became a great election year ploy by some in our state delegation for the past few election cycles.

just asking

Regular voter —
1)The house is listed on the National Register as part of the Norwalk Green Historic District.
2) As such, it has protection from “unreasonable demoltion” under the CT Environmental Protection Act.
4)AG Blumenthal represented the State in the action. His participation was rquested by the CT Council on History and Tourism.
5) Please check your facts. You appear to be laboring udder some misconceptions.

OLD TIMER

Tax assessor’s record now says “CONVERTED building built about 1840″ It is pretty clear nobody knows for sure exactly when the present building was built, as a single family residence, or when it was converted to an apartment house.
just asking

Old Timer, you must thinking of the part in Selleck where he describes another St. John house — one that was on the site where Morgan Avenue now joins East Avenue. Selleck states that that house was burned. But he celarly identifies it as being NEXT DOOR to 93 East Avenue (the Grumman house). He does not say that the Grumman hosue was burned. (To be fair, neither does he say it wasn’t burned.)

But there are other interesting clues for history detectives.

In another citation, (Selleck’s address at the centenary of St. Paul’s church in 1886), he mentions the current 93 East Avnue as the home of Mrs. James Hoyt (daughter of Stephen Buckinmgham St. John and his second wife Charlotte ne Bush) who “has succeeded to the ownership of the historic Grumman’s Hill property.” (page 57) And, on page 39, mentions the Grumman property as being of a style that pre-dates the “spoilation” — the burning of 1779. (page 38). If the Grumman house had been destroyed and the St. John’s built new when they acqyuiredthe property in 1802, the house would not be referred to (100 years later in 1886) as “the Grumman property.” Especially since the Grumman’s have all but disappeared from the social history of Norwalk and the St. John’s remain quite prominent.

There must have been something quite significant about this house to make people in Norwalk remember it as “Grumman”. Might it be that it survived the burning? Sicne he commanded from the hill, might he have used the house as a staging point? Might it have been one of the last ones torched and thus not burned completely? Thoams Grumman does put in a significant claim for damages from the burning…but it’s not clear whether the house was destroyed. Hmmm….questions remain.

Experts in 18th century building styles who have looked at the construction suggest that the interior construction could be late 1700s. But, as with all epxerts, it’s always a bit of a guesstimate.

Will be interesting when reconstruction starts to see some of the “bones” of the buidling and maybe get a clearer idea of the dating from the structural elements.

Whatever it’s age, this property was at the heart of one of the most significant Revolutionary War events in CT history and certainly that of Norwalk. That should not be in any way minimized or dismissed.

Secondhand Rose

The reason this *property* is significant is because, where the Norwalk Inn now stands there used to be a very large hill, atop which General Tryon sat as he planned the assault on The Rocks and could see the progress of his troops as they marched along West Street from the Flax Hill fight. In 1779 from this vantage point he could see all the way down the river to the harbor, as Norwalk at that time was almost devoid of trees.

The *house* in question, other than being a bad representation of a particular style of architecture (and even that is called into question due to extensive and multiple remodelings) has virtually no historical relevance at all.

More importantly it has ZERO relevance as to the Battle and Burning of Norwalk since it didn’t even exist at the time.

Why this lie is continually perpetuated is beyond my understanding.

OLD TIMER

I am aware of houses north of 93, but I was talking about two south of 93 that were there “at one time”, and I don’t pretend to know when they were built, but they were listed in census reports, with the occupants. I don’t recall now how far back I found them in census reports, but they were there, and I think, from the names, they were occupied by relatives of the family at 93. The grumman property was a big piece of land, and probably included a lot more area than we now see as Inn property. I’m guessing that Buckingham place was taken out of the original property.
just asking

At one point (and I can’t remember the source) I read that a house was moved from the site where the “hotel/motel corpooration” was to build what is now the Norwalk Inn. It was moved from (I think) East AVnue to the “rear of the property.” I can’t find any further information. Perhaps someone who was around in the 50s can remember if there was another house on East Ave between Morgan and Buckingham. Maybe where the Chamber of Commerce now is? If so, where did it go? Whast did it look like?

From the 1928 photo of 93 East Avenue, there is nothing but a big empty gravel pit visible behind it. The gravel pit was the remains of Grumman Hill which (from early topographic maps) may have been a glacial drumlin. I leave that to the geologists….
OLD TIMER

I am looking at an image of an 1899 bird’s eye view map of Norwalk published by Landis and Hughes that clearly shows five buildings on the East side of East Ave, south of Morgan Ave, all fairly close together. I believe 93 is the third from Morgan. I can zoom in and move around on the image. The road we now call Bettswood is called Springwood. There is no Buckingham Place, But there is a Hubbell’s lane, Lockwood Lane, and an Old town Hall. Seaview ave is called Riverview, and Goldstein Place is called Kaiser Ave. I found this image at http://www.wardmaps.com.
OLD TIMER

TG:
How did my post,above, end up with the name “VICTORIA” on it ?

turfgrrl

Must be a new spamming trick. I’m removing it as well as another one that looks “spammy.”

http://www.terrazzofloorrestoration.net Terrazzo Floor Polishing

Norwalk Inn Saves Historic Landmark