YourCT.com header image 2

93 East Ave and the Argonauts


by turfgrrl


May 15th, 2008 · 215 Comments

Yesterday it was Dante today it is Sophocles and our allegorical tale picks up with the latest in greek tragedy:

The owners of the 267-year-old Grumman-St. John house have filed a tax assessment appeal disputing the city’s valuation of the 93 East Ave. property.

The appeal was filed Tuesday in state Superior Court in Stamford.

Owner Chris Handrinos wants to knock down the house to expand his property at the Norwalk Inn, while preservationists want to save the home.

A temporary injunction granted to the Norwalk Preservation Trust and the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism in February prevented demolition.

“We think the court will be sympathetic to us because we cannot use our property. How can you pay taxes for something you cannot control?” Handrinos said. “We can’t even sell it. We’ve approached brokers, and they won’t even consider it because of the condition of the building and the restraints.”

City officials declined to comment on the appeal.

In an October 2007 revaluation, the tax assessor determined the fair market value of the property at $694,300, for an assessment of $486,010. Properties are assessed at 70 percent of market value.

After he contested the assessment with the Board of Assessment Appeals last month, it was dropped to $416,010, but that is not low enough, Handrinos said.

The appeal requests that the property taxes be reduced to 70 percent of the real value, which is “zero,” Handrinos said.

“There is no value, because we cannot touch the building, we cannot use the building, we cannot sell the building,” Handrinos said.

The allegory that springs to mind here is Sisyphus, but instead of rolling a boulder up the hill, Handrinos just keeps paying lawyers. Lawyers, boulders, hrmmm, I’ll come back to that another day. Then there’s the odd tactic of fighting city hall in the news. Or the other odd part about not being able to sell the building, because of the self inflicted condition no less. There’s a joke in there somewhere, like the boy who kills his parents and asks the judge for leniency because he’s an orphan. Okay, Sophocles didn’t write that. Where is Tiresias when you need him?

So here we are in the thick of the modern version of Antigone. Creon is still at it, questioning laws and ignoring society. Or really about a third floor.

In ongoing meetings mediated by Mayor Richard Moccia, Handrinos, Norwalk Preservation Trust members and Attorney General Richard Blumenthal are discussing possible resolutions.

Handrinos offered to sell the property to the Norwalk Preservation Trust for $1 after he gains a variance to build a third story on the Norwalk Inn, on the condition that the trust help him win the support of neighbors for the variance and restore the building to its original condition, estimated to cost $3 million.

The trust has not responded to his month-old offer, Handrinos said. Tod Bryant, head of the trust, said there is nothing the group can do to guarantee the variance.

“That’s a very generous offer, but we can’t control the Zoning Board. That’s a zoning issue and an issue for the neighbors,” Bryant said. “What he’s asking us to do is something we can’t do.”

The battle over the building began in September 2006, when Handrinos and inn co-owner George Katsaros were issued a permit to raze the building.

The Norwalk Preservation Trust requested a 90-day delay and worked with Blumenthal and the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism to get a temporary injunction to block demolition.

Blumenthal said the building is protected under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act, which forced the owners to prove there are no “feasible” alternatives to demolition.

Only time will tell if this Creon gets his anagnorisis.

source: Advocate, Historic home owners appeal valuation, By Alexandra Fenwick, 05/15/2008

Tags: History · Norwalk

215 Responses so far “93 East Ave and the Argonauts”


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All



  • 1 Deus ex machina // May 15, 2008 at 10:43 am

    Handrinosis trying for a “golden fleecing” of the city. (It had to be said..)Where is the “deus ex machina” that releases us all from this overwrought saga? I’m ready to torch the place myself just to get it over with…

  • 2 Anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 11:24 am

    More like Douche ex Machina. Handrinos must be a latent masochist.

  • 3 SICK OF THE WHOLE THING // May 15, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    I have to tell you, I don’t know this Handrinosis guy from the man in the moon, but I do know that that building is an eyesore that should be torn down, before someone gets hurt inside of it. It’s time to spend or Historical money and time on something that is worth saving. Let’s cut our loses here and give the friggin guy back his land.

    If anyone gets off 95 and looks at that building all they can think about Norwalk is that it is some dump.

  • 4 old timer // May 15, 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Hendrinos now knows it was a mistake to buy the place. He can’t demolish it. He can’t use it, without a big investment. He can’t sell it. Yet the City collects taxes on it. He won’t fence it in. Could he restore it as hotel rooms and add to it ?
    In most cases, developers can only be delayed for a few months. I’m sure he was expecting a short delay and never dreamed the State could get involved. He needs better lawyers.

  • 5 anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 1:11 pm

    You can’t save ‘em all. Let it go already.

  • 6 Deus ex machina // May 15, 2008 at 1:45 pm

    You can only save the ones that are protected under CT Environmental Protection Act — which this one is. I assume, then, that you are advocating for the Norwalk Inn to ignore State law and pretend that a Court ordered injunction doesn’t exist since it gets in the way of what they want. Gee, wouldn’t that make life simple for all of us. Obey only the laws that you like. That would really simplify life for businesses and allow them to ignore all those other pesky environemental laws — like clean air and clean water. Nothing in those laws to profit a business owner. Like the Norwalk Inn, they shoud dbe able to ignore it if they don’t like it, right?

  • 7 Anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 1:47 pm

    I live on Buckingham and over my dead body will I ever agree to allow the Inn to construct a third story! NO VARIANCES! He needs to modify his buildings and comply with existing zoning, like everyone else!

  • 8 anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 3:02 pm

    Tear the deathtrap down.

  • 9 very old timer // May 15, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    If he looked, he might find considerable help is available to restore that building as a historical site, and use it as up-scale hotel, and museum. He might even find a way to expand the existing hotel building to connect to the old house.
    Can the true age of the house be verified ? Did it survive the burning of Norwalk(1779) ? There was a house at the foot of Grummon’s Hill that belonged to a Mrs St John, that was burned by the British. Hard to believe they missed this one.

  • 10 anon // May 15, 2008 at 4:02 pm

    it wouldn’t be a deathtrap if handrinos hadn’t destroyed it in the last 2 years. it was in great shape then. knocking the columns out that support the porch in the middle of the night is not a cool thing to do. It’s also illegal to let your property collapse.

  • 11 anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 4:43 pm

    It did not pre-date the burning of norwalk. And it is not illegal to let the building collapse. The courts have created this potential collapse because a demolition permit had been issued and it would have been torn down by now if there was no injunction. It has been said here many times that it is only a vocal minority that cares whether this house is torn dowm. The vast majority don’t even care.

  • 12 Ronald Karas // May 15, 2008 at 4:49 pm

    Well then maybe he should cut his losses. When Reed Putnam is done with their big hotel etc, he may be put out of business. If I was him, before the Reed Putnam is finished and after property values start to go back up, I would sell the Inn for low rent housing and incorporate the property 93 East ave as a homeless shelter. He might lose a little money, but he will get this whole thing off his mind. I bet if it was POKO or Segilson, that house would have been history 5 years ago, with the cities blessing. Not only that but with 93 EA a homeless shelter, the state and federal government might just foot a portion of the bill.

  • 13 Deus ex machina // May 15, 2008 at 4:55 pm

    If the Inn were smart, they wuld realize that there are tax credits available to help in the rehab of commercial historic structures. If they were smart, they wuld also realize that one of thier neighbors stands ready to purchase the building and rehab it for offices. If they were smart, that is….

  • 14 anon // May 15, 2008 at 4:57 pm

    Is that true, #13? Otherwise, I am totally perplexed as to how this works. At this point, it must cost a fortune to restore this house. How can anyone make the owner cough up such an expense? I think he may have planned to make that piece of land turn over expenditures, as all businesses do, but it didn’t turn out that way. Out of curiousity, what is Handrinos’ alternatives now? Can he abandon the building and hand it over to the city? Why would anyone pay taxes on a building he can no longer afford to keep?

  • 15 Lindsay // May 15, 2008 at 4:58 pm

    Ronald-great idea, youre probably right..maybe not a homeless shelter per se, but a place where recovering homeless can live while they find work and piece together their lives. Theres a beautiful old victorian I saw in Maine which was used this way. The people who live there actually maintain the whole thing inside an out. It wouldnt be worth 3 million to restore the house to its original splendor, but at least make it habitable again.

    Wait..whats that noise I hear? it sounds like people crying NIMBY ;)

  • 16 grumpy // May 15, 2008 at 6:06 pm

    What’s the problem ? Can’t he find the contractor that “saved the facade” of that old building right across from city hall ? What is the worst they could do if he tore it down ? At this point, he could probably sue the preservationists for unlawful taking of his property. They won’t buy it. He owns it and a demolition permit, how can they stop him ? They need to leave him alone.

  • 17 Anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 6:33 pm

    Another winter and that property is toast.

  • 18 fed up // May 15, 2008 at 8:28 pm

    how does the environmental protection act apply to this wreck of a building? Let this guy tear down the building and let’s move on.

  • 19 anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 8:43 pm

    He should turn the water back on and let it float away

  • 20 Anonymous // May 15, 2008 at 10:35 pm

    Handrinos bought 93 East Ave. knowing that it was a historic house in a historic district. We have laws both City and State laws about historic properties and or historic districts.

    Oh, I forgot “we don’t need no stinking laws in Norwalk, only fascism. Despite all of Handrinos’ trying, it goes to show you that they don’t make houses like that anymore. A house made today or any building would certainly have come down after years of free drinks for the “wrecking crew”.

  • 21 grumpy // May 15, 2008 at 10:46 pm

    Norwalk law would not delay anything for this long. He got a Norwalk permit to tear it down after the usual “historic building” delay. He didn’t act on that permit fast enough and others got involved and got the State to interfere. All perfectly legal and forseeable, if he hired the right lawyers. Sometimes, trying to save a few dollars can be terribly expensive. Should have had the contractor who was going to tear it down ready to move the same day he got the permit.

  • 22 Anonymous // May 16, 2008 at 1:27 am

    When I drive to Stew’s, that is such an eyesore. Reminiscent of the worst of Bridgeport. The preservationists and Blumenthal don’t care about the image of our City; witness the Merritt interchange where they’re willing to trash Silvermine for political gain, not to mention wrecking the City’s image with years of rock-pile trash during the litigation.

  • 23 anony // May 16, 2008 at 5:46 am

    I’d rather see them let him tear it down now rather than have to look at that mess for the next few years. It is.a disgrace how it makes Norwalk appear to visitors.

  • 24 post // May 16, 2008 at 5:57 am

    Maybe the preservationists could spend thousands of dollars having the shack dismantled and find out the house isn’t as old as they think, and then put is in a trailer for posterity. Didn’t they do that once already?

  • 25 True preservationist // May 16, 2008 at 7:27 am

    As I was driving by 93 East Av. The other day, I couldn’t help but wonder what the original builders would think if they saw that property today. I imagined them being at Handrinos for what he is doing and how he is letting their home fall apart. A home that they worked and fought so hard to create.

    But the more I thought about how the original owners would feel about a governement official way up in Hartford deciding that a property owner in Norwalk could not do what he wished with his own building. Something that was approved by his duly elected local government. The original owner probably likened this to what the British attempted to do to force upon him around the time his home was built. He probably fought and worked hard against this intrusion on his property rights. He probably felt that preservation was not about a physical structure, but preservation was more about the intrinsic rights of man to be free from unwarranted intrusion.

    I wonder what the original owner would have felt if a politician in Hartford at the time told him that he could not tear down the shed on his property, or cut down the trees on his land to clear the way to build that house on his property.

    No, the original owner would not be angry with Mr. Andrinos for wanting to tear down his home. He would be angry with his own state government for not being true preservationists and realizing that what really needs to be preserved are individual rights, not the rights of an inanimate object.

  • 26 The fall of Troy // May 16, 2008 at 8:38 am

    Look! Up on that Trojan Horse! It’s Chris Handrinos!! Fighting for his right to say “screw you” and spit on laws and judge’s decisions. As well as have the City reward him for the destruction of a historic piece of the Green by giving him tax breaks. “Law? I don’t need no stinkin’ law; I just need to make it as ugly as possible and hold the City hostage until I get my way. Yee-haw!! I don’t have to listen to those stupid preservationists and their logical alternatives that let me expand and still save the house. I don’t WANT to save the house. I WANT it to fall down. I DON”T CARE what the history is. I DON’t CARE who built it. I DON’t CARE that my property sits on a historic site.”

    By the way, the variance granted to the Norwalk Inn to expand was illegal — and is still in Court. In fact, all the variances granted to the Inn in its entire history have been found illegal. The Inn exists only through legal machinations and crafty lawyering. So, the Inn uses the law when it works for them and ignores it when they so choose. Nice model for good citizenship. I think the Grummans (who lie buried in Mill Hill) and teh St. John’s (who line buried in St. Paul’s) would not think so highly of a schemer like Handrinos. Their bones lie within sight of his wilful destruction of the home they built and tended with pride. #25, I do not agree that his actions represent the best in American values. I do not believe his is a fight for individual rights; his is a fight for his way or no way. He is a foolish, selfish, arrogant old man — frightened now the he might not get what he wants. He is not a role model; he is pathetic. It is “pathos” that is going on here. Or maybe “bathos”.

  • 27 Nostradamus ll // May 16, 2008 at 9:12 am

    HELLO! #26 This just in from the Associated Press

    I believe that the preservationists have just turned up a document on 93 East Avenue that said that Jesus actually held the last supper there with his apostles. It was also noted that walking through this house, can make the blind see and the lame walk.

    More interesting facts to come.

  • 28 Anonymous // May 16, 2008 at 9:17 am

    You forgot “raise the dead”…Get a conjure woman to walk around the Inn a few times counter-clockwise and see if she can rouse some angry spirits from the site. Maybe Tryon will come back and finish what he started.

  • 29 Anonymous // May 16, 2008 at 9:35 am

    Too bad the original owners didn’t have to abide by zoning laws, True Preservationist. But they probably would have respected the fact that they’re needed to keep property owners from doing whatever they like with their properties.

    If a municipal government intrudes upon the rights of a property owner (through zoning laws), does that mean it’s trampling the rights of that person?

    My understanding is that the people who founded this country did so in order to establish a nation of laws that were created by a body of representatives who were speaking for the citizenry - like a state legislature - rather than being subject to unjust laws established by a monarchy.

    Just like the laws that say 93 East Avenue is part of an historic district, and like the law that Handrinos doesn’t seem to feel like he is subject to, given the history of his willful destruction of the property despite the court’s injunction, and despite the history of illegal variances that have allowed the motel to exist on that site in the first place.

    The so-called “property rights” advocates who are whining on this blog would be the first to take advantage of eminent domain by government, I’m sure, if it meant they would benefit economically. What a bunch of hypocrites.

  • 30 True preservationist // May 16, 2008 at 10:04 am

    No, I am not a fan of eminent domain either. And I believe the elected representatives of the local governmen, who truly represent the people of Norwalk, should be making the decisions regarding his property rights, not some Satae officials. In the paraphrased words of the Great Ronald Reagan, Mr. Handrinos, tear down that shack.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 » Show All

Leave a Reply