In the wake of several recent controversies — including the 1756 home at 125 Riverside Avenue, whose demolition has been delayed for 6 months — there has been renewed interest in Westport’s Historic District Commission.
What is it? What does it do — and not do? Chair Grayson Braun and vice chair Scott Springer explain:
The Historic District Commission is an appointed group staffed by volunteers. We work to promote the interest of historic preservation throughout Westport, ensure that local historic districts and properties are preserved, and advise other town agencies in matters related to historic preservation.
We also review applications for demolition permit waivers for buildings that are 50 years or older, and over 500 square feet.
As a recent “06880” post illustrated, a quick glance at our monthly agenda illustrates the unfortunate fact that we spend too much of our time reviewing these demolition permit waiver applications. Demolition exacts an enormous toll on the environment, and on the historic architecture that makes older neighborhoods distinctive and viable.
Demolition permit at 125 Riverside Avenue. It’s been delayed for 180 days by the Historic District Commission. (Photo/Charlie Tirreno)
The 5th Amendment to the United States Constitution protects us from the seizure of private property. It enhances our freedom, provides us security and helps to protect our personal financial investments.
What it does not do is offer people the right to use their property in a way that harms the rights or welfare of others. Richard Moe, former president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, frequently talked about the devastation to communities that is caused by demolition.
He said, “Livability is diminished as trees are removed, backyards are eliminated and sunlight is blocked by bulky new structures built right up to the property lines. Economic and social diversity are reduced as costly new ‘faux chateaux’ replace more affordable houses.”
He explains that everyone should be able to enjoy attractive and livable environments, and that we all bear the responsibility to make sure we don’t act in a way that prevents our neighbors from doing this.
One of your readers recently asked what powers would assist the HDC in our preservation efforts. The answer to this question is easy: Local Historic Designation.
Kings Highway North is a Local Historic District.
It is the only available tool that enables us to exceed the 180-day delay, and stop demolition in perpetuity.
Local Historic Designation provides the most protection to historic properties, as buildings that are locally designated require that exterior alterations visible from a public way – which includes demolition — be granted a Certificate of Appropriateness by the HDC before any such work can take place.
Buildings that are not designated, regardless of their age or the presence of a plaque, can be demolished.
At present, there are only 7 Local Historic Districts and 22 Local Historic Properties in Westport (click here for a list). This means that fewer than 250 buildings are under our protection.
39 Cross Highway (the Chapman-Northrup House) is a Local Historic Property.
Westport also has 4 State Historic Districts and 10 National Historic Districts. However, these designations are largely honorary and do not prevent demolition, as evidenced by the destruction that regularly occurs in the Compo Owenoke National Register Historic District or the Bridge Street National Register Historic District.
Historic properties are resources important to the sustainable development of our community. They contribute to the aesthetic quality of our environment and our cultural heritage; their preservation establishes and reinforces a unique sense of community.
In addition, preservation aids in the retention and enhancement of property values by providing a stable market in which families can invest.
Bridge Street is a “National Register Historic District.” But that designation is honorary, and does not protect properties from demolition.
We are currently working on a Local Historic Property designation for Hillspoint Road, and are in the process of discussing Local Historic District Designation with a group of neighbors on Compo Road South.
But we can do better. We would love to have the “problem” of a flurry of Westporters seeking Local Historic Designation. Without it, the best we can offer is the 180-day demolition delay allowed by the state.
Anyone interested in learning more about local historic designation or the Historic Homes Rehabilitation Tax Credit available to owners of designated properties should contact Donna Douglass, HDC staff administrator: 203-341-1184; ddouglass@westportct.gov.
(Several times a day, “06880” shines a light on Westport: past, present and future. If you appreciate our work, please click here to make a tax-deductible contribution. Thank you!)
As a long time Westporter (1952), I applaud the efforts but this town is about money now. Big money. And in our capitalistic society, such shall prevail.
I agree with you 100 percent. 06880 is for sale. the USA governing policies are sale. one day orange is against Tik Tok. After getting large donations from big shots at tik tok Orange suddenly changes his view. You can buy a Supreme Court judge. 06880 is part of the national trend that the USA is for sale.
It does seem like properties’ values are strictly land and any structures on them are worth negative-the-cost-of-their-demolition.
I have a feeling that a “flurry of Westporters seeking LHD designation” don’t live in that sought designation.
If the Town (uh, that’s supposed to be…us) and HDC really want to preserve historic architecture, it (we) should provide significant economic incentives (carrots, not sticks) to do so.
Here’s a story near me: Before the 1950s I’m told there was a schoolhouse (?) which sat right where our (currently under CTDOT de-construction) Exit 17 Southbound “island” stands. When I-95 happened, the structure was moved to what became the Indian Hill Rd cul-de-sac and became 19 Indian Hill Rd, the Bradley residence.
Fast forward to 15 or so years ago, a developer buys up the Bradley estate’s property, and creates, naturally under 8-30g threat, what’s now Bradley Commons, a six-structure 19-unit low-rise condo.
Objectively, the Bradley house is by then well beyond it’s prime and not feasible to bring up to code. An agreement is reached to tear it down, but replace it with an essentially identical in appearance 4-“affordable”-unit structure which still stands but with a “Bradley Commons” Sunrise Rd address.
An example of perhaps not a perfect outcome, but certainly could’a-been-much-worse.
I’m grateful for the HDC’s work, but there’s certainly more to be done than punt to homeowners banding together to create historic districts. The town controls its zoning codes. It could tomorrow impose stronger incentives for preserving historic structures (those it has now are very weak) and disincentives for tearing them down (which are nonexistent at the time moment). HDC should be at the forefront of this. We could also pass architectural standards that, while not necessarily protecting historic homes, would put an end to the rapacious, cheap spec building that is ruining the town’s aesthetics (looking at you, SIR).
Kate, you raise an excellent point, however this is the exception, not the norm, most smaller houses are being replaced by large homes that, I personally feel ruin the charm and history of the neighborhoods. We need housing, CT has a lack of housing, it is a crisis for many people, so I agree tearing down an old, beyond repair home for apartments that allow for low or middle income is an excellent use of the land.
The question is who is in control, and who pays. If this is truly in the public interest, the public should be willing to vote to pay more taxes to compensate the specific historic homeowners for their increased costs/reduction in property flexibility. Or perhaps if one does want to modify an historic house against recommendation, the negative historic aspect could be estimated, and that money put into a fund for the town to buy properties that are historic ?
I live part time on Main Line Philly, and part time in Westport doing real estate and what I have seen is similar in both towns:
Regardless of historic designation or not, the zoning dept has essentially taken control of any changes to YOUR property from the curb to your house. The Tree dept has taken control of your ability to cut larger trees (as if a few trees are even a minor speed bump to global warming where developing countries are cutting down 1,500 old growth trees per SECOND).
The (unelected) Historical commissions want to add YOUR street or house to THEIR historical ‘Inventory’. ‘Inventory’ is the word they use, and it effectively alters your deed. They want to control the public’s view of the ‘Streetscape’ to YOUR property. I.E. the view of your house as seen by a random person driving down your street at 30 MPH may have more weight in Town Hall to control changes to your property than you do.
This materially affects your right to modify your home. (as if Westport residents 100 years ago never altered their homes).
The Historic folks have not sweated for 10, 20, 30 years to pay off your mortgage. They offer NO money to compensate for your inability to modify, or the requirements to pay for example solid wood windows instead of longer lasting alternatives, or your need to hire a law firm or other experts to justify making any changes. Their only goal is to put your house/street on ‘Their’ inventory, all at no cost to them.
Do I think Historical boards should play a knowledgeable advisory role to informally encourage historic features on new homes? Yes. Should they encourage and educate that historic features be maintained on beautiful old homes and commercial buildings? Yes. A lot of people don’t know what makes New England seaside historic architecture and woodwork special. It absolutely is special, and is ONE of MANY aspects that makes Fairfield county a good place to live.
If they want to put your street/house on an historic registry, should they offer you MONEY to compensate the property owner for the increased costs/reduced flexibility? Yes. Would offering compensation better ensure they’ve done ALL their due diligence to compensate for your loss of flexibility? Yes. Would offering such compensation be an incentive to own & maintain these historic gems better? Yes.
I am getting a little tired of a non-elected commission telling me what I can and can not do regarding the sale of my home.
Houses in National Register Historic Districts, such as the Bridge Street National Historic District, in fact, qualify for a 20% federal tax credit and an up to 30% state tax credit for expenditures related to rehabilitation.
Thank you, Mr. Liepolt, for reminding us that tax credits for historic preservation are not a free lunch, but an incentive to encourage preservation.
Our homes are still our castles from the point of view of state and federal laws that prevent a town from promulgating zoning regulations with mandates that go beyond the mere consideration of health and welfare.
The fact that esthetics can’t be defined in words, makes advisory authorities like the Architectural Review Board and the Historic District essential to the community, as it is beyond the scope of municipal powers to regulate taste.
As always, thank you Dan Woog, for shedding light on a subject not clearly understood by many of us.
P.S. As I recall, the creation of an Historic District requires the the agreement of all of the property owners — at least in Connecticut.
2/3 of the property owners must sign on. When we formed the Bridge Street National Historic District one home owner refused but otherwise ithe application was unanimous.
Yeah, tax credits are great but my extended family owns near twenty old Victorian homes in upstate VT. They are money pits as far as I am concerned, hardly a testament to historical architecture.
The statement in the article that “these designations are largely honorary and do not prevent demolition, as evidenced by the destruction that regularly occurs in the Compo Owenoke National Register Historic District or the Bridge Street National Register Historic District” is not accurate with regard to the Bridge Street National Historic District, to my knowledge.
True, new construction has gone up on several hitherto empty lots, but not one of the more than three dozen historically designated homes (and the historically designated former Saugatuck Elementary School—now The Saugatuck) has been demolished. All still wear their federal plaques proudly.