Guest View: Documenting 93 East Ave. In 2001

by turfgrrl

June 4th, 2007 · 20 Comments

This is part of an ongoing series of guest posts about issues in Norwalk. yourCT.com is a non-partisan site dedicated to airing all sides of an issue. That can’t happen without valuable contributions from our readers.

By Indiga

This is the condition of the Grumman St.John House in 2001 when the Inn bought it. While it could certainly have used some cosmetic work, it was nowhere near the condition it is now. Even the Inn’s lack of maintenance over 5 years was not destructive enough and — over the past few months — “someone” has resorted to breaking windows and removing porch columns in an attempt to make it look as bad as possible. I think moving the viewing stand to the Norwalk Inn may have been a ploy by the Inn’s owners to point and say “look how bad this is.” Just conjecture based on my innate suspicious nature…

Click on Each Image For a Larger View

Tags: Local · Norwalk

20 Responses so far ↓ “Guest View: Documenting 93 East Ave. In 2001”

• 1 anonymous // Jun 4, 2007 at 10:26 pm

  What a shame, this is a beautiful house. Regardless of its history, it is an amazing piece of beautiful Victorian Architecture that adds to the character of the Town Green Area.

  I certainly understand the Norwalk Inn’s desire to expand their business - it is just too bad there isn’t another solution than demo-ing this building by neglect and possible willful destruction.

• 2 itsridiculous // Jun 4, 2007 at 10:48 pm

  There was and is one other solution: allow a zoning exception or variance (or whatever it’s called) to allow the inn to add a third floor. Problem solved. Inn expands and beautiful old house is saved. Inn thrives and old house becomes restored museum. Even better, inn offers overnight guests free passes to the restored museum and visitors to museum get a 10% discount on lunch at the inn’s restaurant.
  I may just be an old peace-loving flower child, but I really think this could work. Let’s hear from zoning guys and gals and historic preservation folks on why this CAN’T work, and I’ll show you a town that doesn’t care about preserving history OR promoting private business growth. Instead of all the “won’t work” excuses, let’s hear how to make it work.
  Well, I can almost see Tod Bryant and Chris Handrinos frolicking among the heirloon flower garden and sipping lemonade on the stately dame’s porch.

• 3 anon // Jun 5, 2007 at 3:58 am

  #2 makes so good points and I don’t understand why our town leaders/common council aren’t working harder to get to some kind of resolution that can save the house and give some kind of compromise solution to the Inn. It’s this kind of building that makes Norwalk so interesting to the Hollywood types that are beginning to love Connecticut due to that 30% tax credit idea. They are filming in Stamford becuase it looks so much like LA; thank God Norwalk doesn’t look like LA, Norwalk has history and dimension–this house, right next to the Green, how can it be destroyed? Hello Mayor Moccia—common council—-anyone—-this is in the heart of our city—find a solution!

• 4 indiga // Jun 5, 2007 at 7:15 am

  Agree with all posters on this. Inn has been presented with not just one but three options devised by local preservation minded architects that give the Inn the expansion they want and either use the house as part of the Inn or sell it. It’s not that Mr. Handrinos is being asked to operate a B and B; the options are as much hotel as the current inn. But he has greeted all solutions as “ridiculous” and rejected them without discussion.

  Third story is an option that would work for preservationists if the Inn would garuantee sale of the house or restoration. Worst case would be Inn gets the zone change AND lets the house rot until it falls down anyway.

  Problem is that third story has been discussed with abutting neighbors and is not greeted with any great enthusiasm. Since the Inn has not abided by any of the screening or “impact” restrictions required by the deed restrictions, abutting neighbors fear that the zone change might have “unintended consequences.” Right now, the entire Inn building sits in Residential B zone. The Grumman St john house, the font lawn and parking are restricted business zone and Village District. However, sinnce the variances fpr the Inn were granted before Village District, the Inn would not have to adhere to the Village DIstrict guidelines for their expansion forward into this zone. Confused yet? It’s not a simple issue — and its made worse by the “politics” swirling around the Inn.

  This all could be worked out through reasonable discussion — something that has been lacking as the process drags on. And it’s not for want of trying on the part of the preservation community.

• 5 indiga // Jun 5, 2007 at 7:18 am

  To #3, I think I read that the folks from “Laws of Motion” (filming right now on Morgan Avenue) are using Norwalk primarily because of its historic look and feel. Folks, we have an asset here if we’d only wake up and USE it.

• 6 Anonymous // Jun 5, 2007 at 7:21 am

  My understanding is that the neighbors behind the Inn are against adding a third floor. Besides the aesthetic reasons, the Inn has a long history of zoning ordinance violations from what I’ve been told, even before Handrinos bought it.

  Handrinos has been approached by the NPT with any number of possible solutions but will not accept any of them. Why? Those who are bent on discrediting the NPT will say that there has been little done to accommodate Handrinos with respect to compromise solutions, which is simply not true.

  Not only that, certain members of the Common Council and Land Use Committee have gone out of their way to issue statements which indicate they have an agenda to pursue on behalf of the Inn’s owner. They should shut their mouths and recuse themselves from anything to do with this matter.

  Indiga, I think your posting of these photos is overdue and shows just what kind of damage the owner has inflicted on his own property out of spite.

• 7 Anonymous // Jun 5, 2007 at 7:42 am

  Can we see some pictures of the house as it is now?

• 8 indiga // Jun 5, 2007 at 8:43 am

  I will see if I can get some photos from January when the State Office of Culture, History, and Tourism (or whatever they’re calling it now) did their walkthrough. Obviously, the Inn has not allowed any preservationists into the building since then so no way to know what the inside looks like now. Will post some external shots of current condition also.

• 9 anonymous // Jun 5, 2007 at 6:48 pm

  I’m a Republican and city taxes are just too much, a big concern of mine but, if a fiscal conservative Democrat, hey, anything’s possible, comes along around election time, I would vote against Moccia for his stand, or lack thereof, on 93 East Avenue–He has abondoned this issue and the town’s rightful concern—

• 10 anonymous // Jun 5, 2007 at 7:59 pm

  How does one offer help in fixing the old house? Can any one start a movement to get it repaired and up to code? How about any of our High Schools helping out with restoration work? I would donate time to help.

• 11 Anonymous // Jun 5, 2007 at 8:36 pm

  #10 - Offer to volunteer with the Norwalk Preservation Trust. Since the house at 93 East Avenue is privately owned and the owner quite hostile to those who would like to see it saved, the NPT is the next best thing. Indiga can help you contact the NPT, I believe.

• 12 indiga // Jun 5, 2007 at 9:50 pm

  Wouldn’t it be incredible to go in there with an Americares sort of thing, fix it up (respecting the history and architecture, of course) and have it be affordable apartments or senior housing or something like that. But it’s privately owned and — even if it isn’t torn down — will likely remain private. Best hope is that someone uses it for professional offices like the other great old houses along East Avenue. No, actually the best hope is that Mr. Handrinos has an epiphany and realizes that he can use the building as the focal point of the Norwalk “Historic District” Inn…wouldn’t that be great?

• 13 anonymous // Jun 6, 2007 at 8:50 am

  This is a tough battle. The inn’s owner apparently even has The Hour in his pocket. Every article and editorial they’ve published in the past year is in support of demolishing 93 East Ave. What gives with the Hour - you’d think they’d try to be a little more balanced in their coverage?

• 14 define balance // Jun 6, 2007 at 10:33 pm

  #13- Take your pick - it’s The Half-Hour or The Abdicate. The weekly Citizen Snooze is not half bad, though. Some very good writing and seems balanced.

• 15 Anon // Jun 6, 2007 at 11:19 pm

  I wonder if there is a law that states a person has to keep up their property. It is a disgrace! The house could have been renovated at some point and used for a doctor’s office or an attorney’s office. But now, it looks like it could be used as a haunted house in one of the upcoming movies being filmed in town.

  #8 just drive by - you can’t miss it. It looks like someone used the windows for target practice. Some of the other windows are boarded up and the porch roof is sinking (for lack of a better description).

• 16 Mad as hell // Jun 7, 2007 at 7:41 am

  Hey, Indiga - any luck with the photos from the state? I really would like to see what the interior looked like when they did their walk-through.

  Part of the problem, #15, from what I understand, is that Norwalk lacks a “demolition by neglect” ordinance and so the Norwalk Inn can let the structure deteriorate to their heart’s content without being liable. Can you imagine if every property owner decided to let their buildings fall apart? Wouldn’t reflect very well on the town, would it?

  The irony here is that the owner of the Inn is best buds with our mayor, Big Dick and one of the council members, Nicky “The Tongue” Kydes, who were expected to do his bidding since the Inn is the defacto GOP clubhouse.

  It really is ironic when our public officials think it’s ok for certain property owners to let their buildings fall apart without holding them liable.

  If I owned one of the other old houses on East Ave. that serves as an office building and let it go to pieces, the City would have quite a bit to say about that.

• 17 indiga // Jun 7, 2007 at 11:02 am

  Just sent some photos taken December 2006. When TG gets a break from those pesky paying clients, I’m sure she will upload.

• 18 turfgrrl // Jun 7, 2007 at 2:37 pm

  indiga: Got them, and will get them up later this early evening. You are right about those paying clients, but they are fortunately not at all pesky.

• 19 anonymous // Jun 7, 2007 at 8:10 pm

  #10 & #12, don’t know if it would work but organizing a groundswell of support for that beautiful old house from a grass roots level might at least stir the powers that be into working with the owner to figure out an agreeable alternative to destruction. I’m guessing that the owner won’t want the bad press of having lots of townspeople who care about this issue peacefully picketing the place, from a legal distance, children, high schoolers, old, young, Norwalkers—it would ingrain in the town’s memory the fact that this owner, this hotel, destroyed our history–Destroying 93 East Ave. would become a bad business decision. Any good organizers out there?

• 20 L'arlequino // Jun 7, 2007 at 8:29 pm

  Hm. Good ideas, how about yourself? Just let Indiga know you would like to work with the NPT.

  The owner of the Inn has already generated tons of bad press but is determined to do anything to have his way. The problem is, just how many people care? And with the Hour bashing historical organizations whenever they speak up, there’s no support there.