Objection Filed in Planned Demolition of Ca.-1928 House at Weed and Elm 

More

The town’s chief building official last week received a formal letter objecting to the proposed demolition of an approximately 95-year-old house that sits on a widely discussed lot at Weed and Elm Streets.

The 1928-built Colonial at 751 Weed St. Assessor photo

The 10,000-square-foot home at 751 Weed St.—a 3.1-acre parcel where a 120-unit residential development is planned, under a state affordable housing statute—was built by an “an important resident in New Canaan,” according to Mimi Findlay’s letter.

Selinger had been president of the New Canaan Historical Society and he “fund-raised to purchase the Hanford Silliman House to provide a new headquarters for the Historical Society and Library space for the books being housed at the Historical Society headquarters in the New Canaan Library,” according to Finidlay’s letter, filed June 14 with Chief Building Official Brian Platz.

“Along with Judge Stanley Mead he then studied the buildings around the Church Hill area and proposed a Local Historic District be established there, serving as it first Chairman for several years,” Findlay’s letter continues. “He was followed by Richard Bergmann as Chair and noted in 1979, when the Bergmanns were leaving New Canaan to move to Florida, ‘Because of the excellent persuasive ability of Dick Bergmann, the Red Cross decided not to encase their vintage house in vinyl or aluminum, it Is now being painted.’ The history of the property was reknowned [sic] and respected, although Selinger demolished the existing Victorian residence, which had replaced the original 1781 house of Peter Weed.”

Under Section 12A-9 of the Town Code, if the Town Building Official “receives a pertinent written objection to the application within 15 days following publication of the [demolition] notice, then the Building Official shall promptly refer such objection to the Historical Review Committee.” 

It’s unclear whether or when the Committee will take up Findlay’s objection. According to the town calendar, the appointed body hasn’t scheduled a meeting to discuss the planned demolition.

Under the Code, the Historical Review Committee “shall review and decide all pertinent objections within 15 days of receipt of the objection by the Building Official. If the Committee fails to notify the Building Official of its decision within such fifteen-day period, or if the Committee makes a written finding that the structure is not of an age, style, condition or character that is of historical, architectural or cultural significance to the Town of New Canaan, then the Building Official shall issue the demolition permit, provided the time for filing objections has passed, and provided that all other requirements of the State Demolition Code have been satisfied.”

The Committee also may find that “that the structure is of historical, architectural or cultural significance” to the town, and delay demolition by up to 90 days.

Asked about the objection letter, Karp said in an email that “clearly Mimi’s objection is regarding a past owner of the house— not the structure or the house  itself.”

“There is no historical significance to the house and we are happy to provide a tour to the proper authorities to prove that,” Karp told NewCanaanite.com. “Mimi continues to think that every house is significant to the town— however this house has been renovated by every owner and has nothing of significance. Not liking our application for multi family housing has nothing to do with historical significance.”

As long expected, the Planning & Zoning Commission in March voted unanimously to deny a reworked application for the 8-30g affordable housing development at 751 Weed St. Also as expected, Karp is appealing the town’s decision under 8-30g, and the matter is now before the court in Hartford. Regarding the appeal, Karp said in an email, “The town has certainly failed to prove any health or safety issues to the required 830g state standards. The first selectman continues to ignore the town’s current or future need for housing.”

The town is seeking four years of relief from the state affordable housing law. It’s unclear whether the state will grant the relief via a “moratorium” from 8-30g. Last month, the Connecticut Department of Housing issued a ruling that bolsters its decision in October to deny the town’s application for the moratorium.

In the wake of P&Z’s denial in March, Karp filed a civil complaint in state Superior Court calling the decision “invalid,” “illegal” and out of compliance with the state’s affordable housing law. That lawsuit remains before the court. Most recently, on June 6, the court received a motion to intervene filed on behalf of several neighbors of 751 Weed St., namely Giacomo Landi and Elizabeth Fabian, Gregory and Elizabeth Moore, Trevor and Christina Bradley, Andrew and Maria Livesay, Sean and Bridget Kelley, Evelyn Irene Barrack, Kevin Sheridan and Constanze Scheidl, Robert and Erica Juneja, Sherri and Halvor Kielland, Tracy and Joseph Merrill and two companies, 6Rings LLC and Dirtywater LLC. (Town tax records list 6Rings LLC as the owner of 720 Weed St., though neither company is listed in Connecticut Secretary of the State records.) Attorneys for Karp last week filed an objection to the motion to intervene.

In her letter objecting to the planned demolition, which was publicly noticed June 1, Findlay said that Peter Weed—a prior owner of the property at Weed and Elm—was “the youngest son of Abraham Weed, and a soldier in the Revolution serving for the full duration of the war.  Returning to his family in 1781, he built the house on the corner, later owned by his son, Henry R Weed, who may have built the Victorian house, and lived there until he died in 1882.”

“Abraham Weed is credited with owning some 500 acres,” Findlay continued in her letter. “The land was described as lying along the Noroton River from lower Talmadge Hill north to West Road, all of it west of the Perambulation Line dividing the Norwalk from the Stamford side of Canaan Parish.”

Abraham Weed died in 1757, she said.

“This corner property was then owned by John Bliss, followed by Richard B. Kelley, a summer resident, in 1903,” Findlay said. Selinger purchased the Victorian house in 1936 and then hired an architect for the new house. 

“In 1952 it was purchased by Arthur K. ‘Dick’ Watson, son of Thomas Watson, founder of IBM,” she continued. “The same year he built his mother’s house on the property (Jeanette Watson). In 1962 he built a fall-out shelter in his basement, as required of all IBM officials. His sister, Jane Irwin, Iived across the street in what is now known as Irwin Park. Arthur Watson brought a global vision to IBM as president of IBM World Trade Corporation and the American Ambassador to France (1970-72). He died in 1974 and his widow later married Sen. Stuart Symington in the First Presbyterian Church of New Canaan.”

The house itself, “designed so carefully by a prominent architect that it was selected for a national publication within a year of completion, combined with the lives of its interesting owners following the introduction of summer residents who then became year-round residents and changed the make-up of the citizenry from shoe-makers and farmers to commuting bankers, brokers and lawyers, and the first female market research specialist for General Motors,” Findlay wrote in her objection letter.

It continued: “There is still much to learn about this architect and the sociological changes of this period in New Canaan. The present house at 751 Weed Street deserves to be preserved for its historical, architectural and cultural significance.”

15 thoughts on “Objection Filed in Planned Demolition of Ca.-1928 House at Weed and Elm 

  1. Wasn’t The View by Karp supposed to meet New Canaan’s affordable housing requirement – yet rents are not at a level that meets that limit. Why doesn’t the town enforce the requirements for The View to have sufficient affordable housing so Karp doesn’t continue to degrade our town?

    • Thank you for your concern regarding what you believe were requirements. However, even though work force housing was offered the town turned down our offer during the approval process for the Vue. Can you please explain how offering a variety of housing is “degrading”to the town?

    • Can you please elaborate on the historical value of the house “structure “ you seem so concerned about . The past owners of the house did not find it so historic to prevent numerous entire house renovations and numerous additions over the years

      • The current push for diversity of housing, people, cultures, etc., everywhere, ultimately results in diversity nowhere. Ironic, isn’t it?

          • By creating structures that are out of context, and out of character, in every small town, we are creating sameness, which is the opposite of so-called diversity.

          • If every country, state, corporation, and classroom has a prescribed quota of ethnicities, cultures, genders, income ranges, etc., which appears to be where we’re headed, then we no longer have diversity. The only unique thing remaining will be the land.

          • William – there is no push for quotas that you list. However, there has been some movement over a couple of generations toward dismantling barriers to the very diversity you seem to claim to support.

        • You are incorrect. The towns that have worked with the STATE law and private developers have moved the needle and created housing. Without 830g law none of the communities would do a thing. Any unit that gets built is a good thing for people who are housing challenged.

  2. Objecting to legal intervention by neighbors to 751 Weed by the developer of 751 Weed and the attorney representing said developer (who also previously represented the New Canaan Housing Authority as well as other 8-30g projects in town) is a strange position to take when it appears that the same developer and the same lawyer recently legally intervened on the Town of New Canaan regarding the recent moratorium issue before the State. Neither the developer nor the lawyer are residents of the town – but of course have economic interests in and before the town.

  3. The architecture firm Voorhees, Gmelin and Walker is listed for the house at 751 Weed St. A quick search unveils Ralph Thomas Walker being dubbed, “Architect of the Century”….seems worth noting to me.

    • Yes his art deco work seems of note—/ little to nothing on houses in his bios. Maybe you would like to move a piece to your back yard as a pool house or ADU

  4. What a joke. There would be no objections if the house was about to be renovated into another mcmansion rather than an apartment building with some affordable housing. We wouldn’t have to be dealing with 8-30g if town leaders had actually taken initiative and built more affordable housing than the absolute minimum required to get a moratorium. But apparently too many people in town being able to afford to live near where they work (the low income “people” might even have kids!!) was unacceptable.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *