|
Home >
Preservation News >
A Cautionary Tale
It looked as though Milford had scored another preservation victory with the David Merwin house, built around 1790 overlooking Gulf Pond, an inlet off Long Island Sound. In recent years the pressure to replace the house and its surrounding farmland with new housing had grown intense. In February of last year the City of Milford bought the property, which had already been divided into five building lots. Two lots were retained as open space and the remaining three sold to developer Westwood Ranches LLC. The lot containing the Merwin house sold for only $200,000 because the city added deed restrictions requiring that the house’s exterior appearance be preserved.
Milford has an admirable record for preserving historic properties. More than any other municipality in the state, it has been willing to buy endangered buildings with public funds and re-sell them with preservation restrictions. The process began when a developer announced plans to demolish the John Downs house, an 18th-century structure in a National Register district (see CPN, September/October 1999). The city obtained a state grant to buy the house and has partially restored it with plans for resale. Milford since has bought and preserved two other houses, the Treat house on Gulf Street and the Stow farm at Walnut Beach, and work is currently progressing on a third, the William S. Pond house, also on Gulf Street. Richard Platt, the city historian and a leading local preservationist, praises the city’s commitment to preserving these buildings. 
With this record, Platt understandably wasn’t very worried when an anonymous city employee telephoned last fall to say that Westwood wanted to take down the Merwin house. Not only was there the preservation restriction, but Milford also has a delay of demolition ordinance requiring that Platt, as city historian, be informed of any proposals to demolish historic buildings in the city, a provision that allows time for preservationists to try to find alternatives to demolition.
But on December 3, Platt heard that workers had in fact begun taking down the house. Within a few days nothing remained but piles of timbers and stones. Westwood’s plan, it turned out, was to re-erect the house on the same lot, only farther from the road, and turned 90 degrees to face the view. The house would look just the same, Platt was assured.
Platt and Benjamin Blake, chairman of Milford’s Board of Aldermen, were furious. Blake said that the developer had “betrayed” the city, and ought to be forced to pay damages.
What happened?
A review of the preservation restriction reveals several flaws in the process. First, the easement agreement isn’t clear about what could and couldn’t be done to the house. It talks is language about preserving the house’s “historical, architectural, and cultural qualities”—which could be interpreted as referring to actual historic material—and also about preserving its “appearance”—which doesn’t necessarily require preserving historic building materials. Preservationists, focused on the first phrase, have decried the loss of so much historic material. The developer and mayor, concentrating on the second, emphasize the preservation of what the public sees.
Further, the document seems to contradict itself about what specific alterations are to be permitted. On one hand, “the exterior location of windows, doors, porches, chimneys and rooflines may be altered, moved, removed or otherwise changed.” On the other, “the exterior architectural features of the existing structure shall remain as closely as possible to the present configuration.”
Another problem is that enforcement of the easement is put into the hands of the mayor. While the current mayor, James Richetelli, is interested in historic preservation, there is no guarantee that his successors will share that interest, much less that he or they will have any expertise in dealing with historic properties. When asked, Richetelli says no one ever thought to include the Historic District Commission even in an advisory role. In fact, an alternative to an easement would have been to designate the property a local historic property under the jurisdiction of the HDC, without creating the new mechanism of an easement. Again, the mayor says the city never thought of this possibility.
According to Richetelli, the city’s efforts to craft an effective agreement were limited by the difficulty of negotiating with the owners, who had no attachment to the house and merely wanted to sell the property as quickly as possible, for as much money as possible. “We cut the best deal that we could to stop demolition,” Richetelli said. “If we had pushed harder, the house would have been demolished.”
While the agreement specifically allows the house to be moved, what has happened is actually something different: the building has been taken entirely apart. Some parts have reportedly been saved, but a vast amount has been disposed of, including plaster, lath, and perhaps interior trim. Is this demolition or disassembly for eventual re-assembly?
Richetelli insists that it is disassembly, not demolition, citing a letter written in August on behalf of Westwoods by Grosso Custom Builders LLC, of Stratford and saying, “…we intend to dismantle the house located at 72 Old Field Lane. A new house will be built on the property using the post and beam structure, and other various items from the dismantled house, and as per the guidelines set forth in the Historic Preservation Covenant…” The mayor justifies the disassembly on the grounds that extensive rot and mold made it impossible to move the structure intact.
The preservationists insist that what has happened is demolition. Platt says that, while observing the process, he noted random piles of building materials, not the neat stacks required for reassembly. None of the framing members appeared to be marked so that builders would know how they fit together. “This isn’t going to be the Merwin house,” he argues. “It’s going to be an entirely new house with a few old beams stuck on for atmosphere.”
Demolition or disassembly? What seems like a semantic squabble actually has deeper meaning for preservationists. Connecticut state law regulates demolition more closely than disassembly; there are requirements that hazardous materials be removed and utilities be cut off. There are requirements for licensing, to ensure workers safety by requiring that only qualified contractors may demolish buildings. However, there is no licensing requirement for contractors disassembling historic buildings for reassembly.
In addition, towns can enact waiting periods for the demolition of historic buildings, to allow consideration of alternatives. Milford has such a delay ordinance, which mandates a 45-day waiting period before demolishing any structure constructed before 1902, unless the both the building inspector and the city historian waive the delay. The delay was never invoked for the Merwin house, and Platt was never informed of the pending demolition, because officials judged that no demolition was taking place.
In fact, nowhere does Connecticut law define ‘demolition.’ This lack has led to numerous tales of developers who left only a few sticks of an old house standing in order to circumvent stiffer regulations on new construction, and it could conceivably offer unscrupulous developers a way around preservation laws.
Dismantling a building entails as much risk of injury as demolishing one, so it seems logical that a permit ought to be required in either case. Similarly, delay of demolition periods ought to apply to the dismantling of historic buildings, which always entails the loss of historic material, as well as of historic setting and context, not to mention the possibility that the promised reconstruction could never take place. The Connecticut Trust is exploring the possibility of working with legislators to correct this lack.
The sorest point of the Merwin house’s story has been the lack of involvement by Milford preservationists. While it may be a simple oversight, it smacks of a deliberate effort to exclude them from the process. Richetelli has told newspapers that he knew from the start of the developer’s intention to dismantle the Merwin house, but the preservation community never got the message.
Whatever the reason, the result has been unfortunate. Had preservationists been involved, might have been able to draw on additional resources to strengthen and clarify the easement, or to suggest the alternative of local historic property status. They might have been able to evaluate the house’s structural integrity and provide leads to experienced restorers who could reinforce the structure without taking it apart. And their involvement would certainly have forestalled the public rancor and the loss of trust that have besmirched Milford’s real accomplishments.
—Christopher Wigren
The preservation restriction, dated August 27, 2007, can be found in the Milford land records at volume 3193, page 673
Update: The Trust is currently working with Connecticut officials and legislature to clarify demolition regulations and create a model demolition delay ordinance. Recent incidents, including Milford, have exposed a flaw in exising preservation ordinances statewide. The definition of demolition is vague and free to be interpreted by local building officials and property owners resulting in sometimes devasting outcomes. There is also confusion over what is exempt from regulations and what is not.
State regulations require the used of a licensed demolition contractor for all demolition except disassembling, transporting and reconstructing historic buildings; demolition of farm buildings; renovation, alteration or reconstruction of a single-family home; or demolition of a single family home less than 30 ft high. This does not exempt any of the above work from a Demolition Delay Ordinance. Regardless of whether a registered contractor is required, if your municipality has a demolition delay ordinance, the ordinance must be adhered to. The Trust feels it is important to have clear definition of demolition that be used statewide and is working to that end. The Trust has also drafted a model demolition delay ordinance which can be viewed below.
|
