Victory in Norwalk

Advocates of preserving the Grumman-St. John house scored a victory on February 6, when state Superior Court Judge Thomas Nadeau granted a temporary injunction against demolition of the house. The judge found that there were “prudent and feasible alternatives” to tearing down the 200-plus year old structure, a contributing resource to the Norwalk Green National Register district. In 2006 the Connecticut Trust listed the house as one of the Most Important Threatened Historic Places in Connecticut.             

Chris Handrinos, owner of the neighboring Norwalk Inn and Conference Center, bought the house in 2001 in order to raze it and expand his inn. After resolving a dispute with a neighbor, Handrinos obtained a demolition permit in December, 2006. Demolition was opposed by the Norwalk Preservation Trust, which brought suit under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act. This law allows suits to prevent the unreasonable destruction of historic resources. The Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism later joined the suit, and the Connecticut Trust and the National Trust for Historic Preservation filed a joint Friend of the Court brief.  

At a hearing held in January, 2007, the preservationists called two preservation architects, one also a developer, who presented several alternatives that either converted the house to part of the inn or else expanded the inn on its present site and allowed the house to be sold for other purposes.

While none of these alternatives provided the full number of rooms that Handrinos wished to build, Judge Nadeau concluded that they had the potential to provide a reasonable return. “It is true that all of the alternatives represent fewer new rooms than defendant sought,” Nadeau wrote in his decision. “This factor alone cannot serve to drop alternatives out of the feasible and prudent atmosphere…. Were it otherwise, an applicant could claim unrealistically high needs in order to brand most posed alternatives imprudent.”             

Lawsuits under CEPA have been rare and often unsuccessful, so this decision is welcome to preservationists, particularly because Judge Nadeau refused to consider an argument that has been deciding factor in other CEPA cases: the significance of the house. The law, he says, merely requires that a building be listed on the National Register. If property owners believe that a building does not properly qualify for the Register, they must ask the Keeper of the Register, at the National Park Service, to de-list it. Unfortunately, judges in other cases have taken it on themselves to deny protection to National Register buildings based on their own determination that the buildings lacked historic significance. 

Part of the difficulty, as Judge Nadeau noted, is the lack of a clear indication of what the law considers “unreasonable” demolition or what constitutes a “prudent and feasible” alternative. This lack can be remedied either by rewriting the law to outline specific criteria or, as is frequently the case in our legal system, by building a body of decisions that set precedents to guide future decisions.

In the Grumman-St. John case, Judge Nadeau set a good precedent by his decision that “prudent and feasible” alternatives to demolition must merely show a reasonable return on investment, rather than the maximum return. Another good precedent was the judge’s willingness to look at Handrinos’ ability to meet his expansion goals on the inn property itself, effectively lessening the development pressure on the historic house.

However, the process itself has confirmed a bad precedent already seen in the case of the Micheels house in Westport (see CPN March/April 2007) requiring lengthy hearings before imposing even a temporary injunction; in the case of the Grumman-St. John house the delay lasted more than a year. This drawn-out process has left time for the building to deteriorate. It has also increased the parties’ legal costs, a factor that could discourage other organizations from taking on such lawsuits. It would be better, when a case is filed, to impose an injunction immediately if the plaintiffs appear to have any case at all. Then the judge could review the injunction and move the case to a trial, or else lift the injunction as seems most appropriate.            

The injunction prohibiting demolition of the Grumman-St. John house is, however, only temporary. Judge Nadeau has found that it seems likely that realistic alternatives to demolition exist, but the parties still must hold a trial—unless, of course, Handrinos decides to rehab or sell the house.                       

In the meantime, the decision does not require that the house be maintained, and so it continues to deteriorate. The porch is collapsing, trim is falling off, and windows stand open, allowing the elements in. The preservationists are considering filing a motion requiring some upkeep until a final decision can be reached. Otherwise, Handrinos just might accomplish his demolition after all.