P&Z Denies Historic Overlay for 49 Sherwood in Fourth Ward: “We’re not seeing enough preservation”

At their last meeting, the Greenwich Planning & Zoning commission denied an application for a Historic Overlay proposed at 49 Sherwood Place in the historic Fourth Ward, which is in the R6 zone, downtown.

The vote to approve the application failed, 4-1.

The next day the demolition crews set about razing the structure.

The Fourth Ward achieved placement on the National Register of Historic Places in 1986.

The house at 49 Sherwood was originally constructed in 1860. Over the years it endured renovations and additions including closing in of the iconic front porch.

Before the demo crews arrived, there was a house, cottage and 3-car garage on about 1/3 acre.

The applicant wanted to convert the single-family home into a two-family, which abides the underlying R6 zone. But they also wanted to build a third detached residence at the back of the property.

In total, the proposal was for three residences, which exceeds the underlying R6 zone. That’s where the incentives would have come into play in exchange for preservation in perpetuity.

But the commissioners had concerns about how much was actually being preserved.

The applicant was JH Builders, LLC, represented by S.E. Minor & Co’s Gigi Ma and Rachael Orsi and architect Louis Contadino.

The Historic District Commission, who are advisory to P&Z, had voted to approve the Historic Overlay, but their vote was not unanimous. Their vote was 5 yes to 2 no.

P&Z written public comment in support of the proposal included an email from HDC member Jenny Larkin who said the restoration would involve removing the enclosure on the porch to open it again, followed by preserving anything that could be saved.

“The proportions, windows, and I believe is the sense of place is preserved in this streetscape even if the materials are new,” Larkin wrote to P&Z.

She also testified during the P&Z meeting about the necessity of using of modern materials in a restoration, a point of contention with the commission.

Gigi Ma from S.E. Minor & Co pointed to a restoration underway of the Samuel Ferris House (circa 1760) at 1 Cary Rd, which is the oldest house in Riverside and one of the few remaining 18th century buildings on Putnam Avenue.

“At 1 Cary Rd, in order to restore the historical home and keep it standing for the next decade, you have to use modern materials,” Ms Ma said.

“I’m having some doubts about this,” P&Z commission chair Margarita Alban said.

“My house is 100 years old and I restored the old part without using modern materials. Either you’re respectful of the history or you’re not.”

Alban said the examples of historic restoration the applicant shared did not have Historic Overlays, including 1 Cary Rd.

Historic Overlays give an applicant incentives such as additional FAR, in exchange for preserving in perpetuity.

More than one commissioner was concerned that the applicant did not know what the house at 49 Sherwood had originally looked like.

“I stand by the troublesome aspect of having to create something in order to preserve it,” said commissioner Peter Lowe. “It’s all new.”

Commissioner Mary Jenkins said that while she admired that the applicant’s sensitivity to the Fourth Ward, and that 49 Sherwood was likely the only house on the east side of the street yet to be restored, she struggled with the application.

“Like Madame Chair, I live in a house built in 1881, so I know all about old houses,” Jenkins said.

“The point is that the regulation puts the burden on the applicant to prove that there is something of historical value, not just location or resemblance, but something of historical value is being preserved and protected,” Jenkins said.

“I would point out that in one of your earlier narratives, the statement was made, ‘Little information is known about the original architecture of the main residence,'” Jenkins added.

“Further, the narrative said elements of architecture from neighboring properties were used as reference to restore the building back to what was ‘most likely historically accurate’ – not known.”

“Normally, with an HO, we have something that is an absolute pearl, and the only way it can be protected and preserved is to give the owner an incentive to protect it by possibly not only restoring it, but having an additional building added to it,” Jenkins continued. “It’s a beautiful design, but it’s not what was there.”

“It was a small, single-family house,” Jenkins continued. “You are reconstructing a look. You are turning a single-family house into a two-family house – which is consistent to the neighborhood – but this was not previously a two-family house.”

As for the new structure at the back, Jenkins said it was really big.

At more than one of the previous meetings the commissioners had asked that the new structure be reduced.

“It’s supposed to be clearly a secondary structure,” she said. “In support of something of historical value. Your accessory structure is 58% of the primary structure, and 116% of the individual units in your two-family house.”

Gigi Ma from S.E. Minor & Co said the house had been identified as a contributing structure in the Fourth Ward.

“Just because plans are lost doesn’t make a structure less contributing,” Ms Ma said.

Commissioner Jenkins disagreed.

“It may be appropriate. It may be attractive. It may be consistent with a style, but to the extent it’s an HO we’re looking for, I’m struggling with it,” Jenkins said.

Commissioner Dennis Yeskey asked how the applicant had determined 40% of the original structure was going being saved.

Architect Lou Contadino said they would save 40% of the original structure, not the additions from the 50s and 60s.

According to the applicant’s presentation (page 7) the porch was enclosed in 1953, the addition to the rear of residence dated back to 1957 and the addition to the south side of residence dated back 1962.

“It’s the shell and the structure with the timber that was wrought in place in the mid 1800’s. It’s the porch, and the first 5-1/2 feet of the original structure,” Contadino explained. “It’s the forensics. When you walk into the building it is obvious where the original house was and where all the interventions are. It’s obvious.”

As to the comment questioning whether there was “enough to preserve,” Ms Larkin said that was disputable.

Ms Alban disagreed.

“You’re hearing that we’re not seeing enough preservation,” Alban said. “We believe the Fourth Ward is important.”

Larkin said the Historic Overlay zone regulation had been explained to the applicant at their first meeting with the HDC when the applicant initially proposed to demolish the house and build a new structure that would appear historic.

“The chair said something to the effect of ‘Disneyland,’ and ‘we’re not trying to recreate something like a Disleyland house or street,” Larkin said. “That was the first meeting.”

She explained the applicant then developed a plan to preserve some of the original structure.

Ms Alban noted the HDC’s vote was not unanimous and that Ms Larkin was speaking on her own behalf.

Alban read an email from HDC member Phillip James Dodd that is part of public record, where he described the disagreement among the HDC members, and said he felt the project was a “non starter,” and “should not have been endorsed by the HDC.”

Mr. Dodd said he and HDC member Martin Kagan had both voted no.

“I cannot speak for Martin, but for myself, as none of this historic structure was being saved, it did not pass the bare minimum to be considered for an HO.

“If this was just an application to replace one structure with another in a historic district, I would have looked upon this more favorably. As they did make an effort to design the new structure to fit the vocabulary of the streetscape. However, that was not the application,” Dodd wrote. “The application was for an HO in an effort to have the second structure constructed at the rear of the property. For that to have been a realistic ask, then a historic structure of a significant architectural and historical merit would have had to have been saved, restored and upkept in perpetuity.”

“As that was not offered, for me this project was a non-starter,” Dodd said. “I personally feel this project should not have been endorsed by the HDC.”

Ms Alban said at the previous meeting the commission asked that the size of the proposed rear building be reduced, but it hadn’t.

“The regulation does ask that the rear building be clearly ‘secondary and complimentary,'” Alban said.

Ms Ma said the applicant had reduced the height of the secondary structure by 1-1/2 ft, removed a bedroom and a dormer, but there were practical constraints that prevented further reductions.

After the application was closed, the commission voted 4-1 to deny the HO. Mr. Macri voted yes. Alban, Lowe, Yeskey and Jenkins all voted no.

As for the final site plan and special permit the commission voted 5-0 to deny.

The day after the P&Z commission hearing, the applicant demolished all the structures on the property.