YourCT.com header image 2

Norwalk: Ruling on 93 East Ave.


by turfgrrl


February 8th, 2008 · 30 Comments

The Battle of Gruman Hill: 93 East Ave. Survives Another Day

Norwalk preservationists have won a temporary injunction against the demolition of 93 East ave. That’s the easy part to understand after reading the actual ruling. But the world needs to keep lawyers employed, so the actual ruling is 11 pages because it has footnotes. Footnotes!

So let’s see if I can pry out the important stuff from the legal wordsmith.

The injunction was granted because the Seargent Schultz defense I know nuthin’ would really set bad precedent because then developers across the land could claim ignorance as they destructed buildings will-nilly. Why any legal eagle would even bother pursuing this line in court is a bit odd, considering how courts since the dawn of time have always said ignorance is not a valid excuse for breaking the law. Or those state troopers in Georgia nailing you for blowing through a 35 mph speed limit zone that is clearly erroneously in a 65 mph suggested minimum zone, but let’s not get off track here.

The next part of the ruling focused on feasibility. The feasibility of alternatives to the demolition, the feasibility of the hotel business, the feasibility that the judge would navigate all the expert testimony. Lots of feasibility verbiage, cross referenced in triplicate on carbon copies.

The judge was further feasibly troubled by the building itself. He said, “Additionally, the decision to deny demolition is not rendered any easier by the fact 93 East Ave. is probably closer to the say, undistinguished end of the historic spectrum. Is appearance today is forlorn and no great historic event or person is tied to it.”

Not looking so good for our forlorn building there. But wait, the judge hasn’t considered, this is living history. This poor old building not only survived the burning of Norwalk, but is now fighting the metaphysical burning in the courts. Like Paris Hilton, it could be famous for being famous itself. Mysterious powers — and we’ve all seen them as the porch bends and twists into new shapes every single day – could prevent the wrecking ball from doing anything but glancing futile blows. Gloria Gaynor could sing I Will Survive atop the roof. Ahem.

The temporary injunction just sets the stage for more legal wrangling. And nothing ever good comes out of legal wrangling. You can almost read the silent plea in judge Nadeau’s words for the parties to think out of the burning box and figure out how to incorporate the Norwalk Inn and a village/historic/green district with the building into something. The tip off? The language where he opines that there’s a legally interesting argument about whether the courts can consider the surrounding land, whether owned by the defendant or not, as part of a viable alternative to the demolition. Makes you wonder where we could have been if the Norwalk Inn had embraced our colonial history instead.

The actual legal ruling

Tags: Norwalk

30 Responses so far “Norwalk: Ruling on 93 East Ave.”



  • 1 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 1:36 pm

    Handrinos is the one who set the burning box on fire in the first place. He will insure that the demolition by neglect (insert “then” and “now” photos here) continues because he is not interested in compromise. He is akin to the psychotic spurned lover who, rejected, decides that nobody will have his beloved if he can’t and so offs her. The problem that Handrinos doesn’t seem to get is that by following this course he also does himself in.

  • 2 Great news! // Feb 8, 2008 at 1:40 pm

    GREAT NEWS, for now. The dream of Norwalk as a history-themed destination is one step closer.

    Wish the Handrinos family would see the benefit. They are sitting on a tourist income goldmine with a restored 93 East Ave and they don’t seem to know it yet.

    Maybe they will come around. This contest of wills is getting boring. Is there anybody at the Norwalk Inn with a vision beyond next year’s profit margin? You would think a family with that much time and money invested in Norwalk would understand the community and where its heading. We’re not in the tacky 1960’s and 70’s anymore when progress was just knock it down and build new.

    93 East Ave. is a gem to be restored and adapted for potential huge profits for the Inn and the huge benefit to the community.

    PLEASE let’s hear a supporting statement from the owners. They would lose no friends and gain many.

  • 3 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 2:15 pm

    Great. We get to look at that eyesore for another year or two while it falls down.

  • 4 Preservation-my-a** // Feb 8, 2008 at 2:29 pm

    93 East Avenue is a dump, a hazard, an eye sore, a blight, a less-than marginally historic former drug den and flop house, a City embarrassment, a financial burden on the innocent owner and now a political football. If the socialist, business- hating arts-farts want to preserve the place for the good of humanity, there’s nothing they can do except come up with the cash to do it; and they won’t. I applaud the owner for standing his ground. Time will reveal that he wins this battle and the eyesore will come down one way or another-when a Constitutionally protected class member gets killed or raped in there, when some homeless squatter sets it ablaze or when it collapses. My money is on the last possibility, and if the first one occurs, I hope that the individual members of the Trust are sued into bankruptcy and jailed.

  • 5 anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 3:26 pm

    Hey #4, I’d rather look at 93 East Avenue than that “trailer-park” looking house you live in!

  • 6 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    TG you are off base here.

  • 7 Inn like Flint // Feb 8, 2008 at 4:19 pm

    anon 6, would you say the same if the Inn were ignoring environmental conservation law instead of ignoring historic preservation law?

  • 8 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 4:26 pm

    #4 seems to forget that the Republicans, including our prezzydent, have used the Constitution as their own personal toilet paper for the last eight years. What a hypocrite.

    You can bet that if the City condemned 93 East Avenue Handrinos would jump for joy, which is why he’s letting it “deteriorate” - with a little assistance, no doubt. I’ll bet he loves the outcome of Kelo vs. New London, where the city took private property by eminent domain to line the pockets of property developers.

    But when it comes to protecting a property that is on the National Historic Register, all we hear is whining about “property rights.”

    93 East Avenue was in need of some cosmetic updating before all this started, but was nowhere near the state that My Preservation Assh*le would have us believe. If a homeless squatter or crackhead torches the place, it will be because Handrinos paid him to or is looking the other way.

  • 9 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Blow it out your a$$ #8. Your comments about our President and constitution are ridiculous and Stupid as the socialist vermon that said it.

    The House is an old dump. If you like it so much, than buy it you left wing kook.

  • 10 anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    If anything destructive like a fire or collapse happens to 93 East Ave, you can bet all eyes and detectives will be on Handrinos, no matter what connections he has to Moccia. Besides landing Handrinos or members of his family in jail and financially ruined, it would be a major political embarrassment and setback for Norwalk Republicans. Sounds like its time the mayor and the town party step in and clean this mess up before they go down with the building.

    If Handrinos loves his family, he’d protect that building now. Otherwise he leaves them with a legacy and financial ruin they will never recover from.
    Blumenthal is watching…..

  • 11 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 5:48 pm

    detectives a loose term in Norwalk nowadays

  • 12 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 7:14 pm

    Maybe he should have used the term “Dick”…

  • 13 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 7:46 pm

    #10, what crimes or fines would be involved if the building collapses?

  • 14 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 7:56 pm

    #13

    only if it falls on someone important can it be called a public service.

    If someone breaks in and gets hurt its probably liability.

    If it collaspes it not worth as much anymore so you can call it debris and probably get permit money for that removal.

    #12 I won’t touch that with a 10 foot republican poll

  • 15 Evidence is there // Feb 8, 2008 at 9:43 pm

    Don’t worry, #13, there is a big pile of dated photos and statements that show intentional neglect, with unrepaired broken windows letting in rain and the collapsing porch that miraculously collapsed just weeks after the Norwalk Inn employees moved out.

    The entire city is aware of this game the owner is playing, and no one is amused.

    Funny how claims are made that the building is so far gone yet the Norwalk Inn employees lived in it with their families up until last year.

  • 16 Annemarie DeVille // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:03 pm

    Hmm #4, I lived there for four years from 1997-2002 and never saw drugs or druggies living there. Where did you get that information? It’s a bit offensive.
    I am happy for the decision. It IS worth saving. It IS historical. Much of the detail that you would find inside a historical home of this age has been preserved over the years and was quite apparent while I was living there. Between the original ornate solid oak main staircase, ornate marble fireplaces, crown mouldings and beveled glass windows on the main floor (to say the least), one can see the beauty this old house still has left in it. Let’s not look at the deteriorated outside so much as the beautiful detail on the inside. Before that goes though, we cannot wait any longer to save this important HISTORICAL piece of property.
    I painted this beautiful home while I was living there;
    http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=89803&l=30046&id=658631355

  • 17 Anonymous // Feb 8, 2008 at 11:15 pm

    Finally, testimony from someone who has lived there. Thanks! The Norwalk Preservation Trust can use help from folks like you!

  • 18 Annemarie DeVille // Feb 9, 2008 at 2:18 pm

    I would love to help from afar in any way I can.

  • 19 turfgrrl // Feb 9, 2008 at 4:25 pm

    By popular request;

  • 20 Anonymous // Feb 9, 2008 at 11:49 pm

    while we are talking the past I hope Fat Cat Pie stays in Norwalk, once again the Ct Post has run another story touching Norwalk.I wonder how they feel about Norwalk?

    Citytrust Bank, awash in red ink, closed its doors for good in August 1991.
    For the next 16 years, the vacant 11-story granite ediface lorded over the heart of downtown, struggling to make a comeback. For most of this time, the historic Art Deco building, bounded by Main, John and Bank streets, did little more than mock these efforts, serving only as a pedestal for a peeling Chase Bank billboard.

    To the casual passer-by, there’s little that might seem different with the 11-story building that was built in 1929. But looks are deceiving; it’s been a beehive of construction and restoration activity over the last two years.

    The development company, Urban Green Builders, has converted the bank into a mixed-use structure,

    Gregor Bertram prepared dinner in the kitchen of his new apartment in the Citytrust building in downtown Bridgeport. (Tracy Deer-Mirek/Connecticut Post )with 117 trendy apartments. Shops, restaurants and offices will be on the ground floor in what was once the grand lobby.
    And now that ground floor work is under way, even casual observers will soon notice the changes. About 80 of the studio, one- and two-bedroom apartments are already occupied. A typical monthly rent for a two-bedroom unit is about $1,300. Most of the tenants moved in last October, after several months of delays.

    “When I saw that ceiling, I knew I had to have this project,” said Darren Cosgrave, Urban Green’s project superintendent, while looking up at soaring, ornate bank lobby ceiling that will grace the Fat Cat Pie Co., a Norwalk-based pizza restaurant. “My father was a plasterer by trade in Ireland.”

    the rest of the article is online at the Post the sister paper to the Advocate. New breed of reporting seems to be the pace for Bridgeport too bad the Hour can’t get it together.

  • 21 Anonymous // Feb 10, 2008 at 10:37 am

    Annemarie: loved your painting. I could see it on a “Save 93 East Avenue” t-shirt. Do you have any other views of the house?

  • 22 high road // Feb 10, 2008 at 11:19 am

    Oh Annemarie, it would break your heart to see what has been allowed to happen to this grand old house…

  • 23 house hugger // Feb 10, 2008 at 11:24 am

    If you want to find out more about 93 East Avenue, contact the Norwalk Preservation Trust; the website is not fully up yet but here is a link:

    http://norwalkpreservation.org/

  • 24 Anonymous // Feb 11, 2008 at 2:24 am

    This fight has dragged out far
    too long. There should be no permanent
    injunction issued and
    demolition should be allowed to
    proceed

    The Hour has spoken in todays editorial page.

    here is a paper that can’t report the news on time, can’t maintain their website and has former personal still on its pages . Too bad they never took the news seriously.

  • 25 Anonymous // Feb 11, 2008 at 8:22 am

    John Reilly is a dinosaur. He still can’t tell the difference between the NPT, NHC, and NHS. The Hour is on record as being anti-preservation, all the way back to the early days of SONO.

    Too bad we have to subscribe to the Hour just to see what they’re screwing up. Otherwise I’d drop my subscription.

  • 26 Anonymous // Feb 11, 2008 at 8:51 am

    Sneak inside and you will see that much of the interior has been destroyed by exposure to the weather and vandalism over the past two years.

  • 27 anon // Feb 11, 2008 at 8:56 am

    Nice post Turfgrrl on #19!! Was that Disco ball really the wrecking ball?

  • 28 Anonymous // Feb 11, 2008 at 9:00 am

    Why doesn’t the Preservation Trust just come up with the money to buy and renovate the the place?

  • 29 house hugger // Feb 11, 2008 at 9:16 am

    It’s a shame the interior is gone because a year ago it was pretty much intact…marble mantles, crystal chandeliers, nice woodwork. But, realistically, any reuse would tear out the interior and reconfigure it anyway. The porch would have to be rebuilt no matter what. Now if only the Inn would put the house on the market, and build any of the 6 feasible alternate plans, everything would be settled.

  • 30 Annemarie DeVille // Feb 11, 2008 at 1:08 pm

    Unfortunately I don’t have any other views or paintings of the house. I have saved this painting over the years, refusing to sell it :)

    What a shame about this house. I was home for the holidays and actually took pictures of the outside. I wanted to sneak in, but there was no discreet way to do so as everything was boarded up, except for a backdoor, facing the Inn of course. What a shame to hear about the inside though, what a shame. That front oak stair case was big and solid as a rock, not a creak or movement to be heard or felt when using them. I felt as if the entire house was mine. It had such a grand feeling to it in that front foyer. Yes, it is true everything inside and out would have to be completely redone. AT LEAST, at least, Stamford House Wrecking should take a look at that inside, if Handrinos would allow, and take all that can be salvaged from it. I wouldn’t feel half as bad if at least that was done.

    Thank you for the Preservation Trust website, I have bookmarked it.

Leave a Reply