Officials, Residents Push Back On Major Greenwich Avenue Redevelopment Proposal

GREENWICH, CT — Residents and elected officials are pushing back on a proposal they say could erase a piece of Greenwich history and change the gateway to Greenwich Avenue.

The Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday held a pre-application review for a proposal that involves 2 and 10 Greenwich Ave. and 10-12 W. Putnam Ave. from Greenwich Avenue Properties LLC and MBMB Greenwich LLC.

A pre-application review allows commissioners to provide initial feedback before a formal application is submitted.

The current proposal calls for the demolition of the three existing structures at those addresses, the consolidation of the three contiguous parcels into one unified site totaling 5,267 square feet, and the construction of a new, four-story mixed-use building containing ground-floor (2,283 square feet) and below-grade (4,276 square feet) retail spaces, along with 14 residential apartments and a rooftop deck with a 975-square-foot outdoor terrace and a 913-square-foot amenity space.

Due to multiple renovations and alterations over more than a century at 2 Greenwich Ave., also known as the Isaac L. Mead Building, a rehabilitation is "impractical and inadequate for long-term durability," making a full rebuild the only option, the project narrative says.

The building, which is listed as a contributing structure in the Greenwich Avenue Historic District and dates back to the 1800s, would be "faithfully reconstructed to celebrate and perpetuate its historic Tudor character," according to materials associated with the application. The buildings on either side of the corner structure would feature a complementary contemporary design.

Jonathan Marcus of New England Investment Partners, which owns the iconic corner building at 2 Greenwich Ave., appeared before the Planning & Zoning Commission on Tuesday.

"The building is a special building. The historical nature of it is very important to us. The concept we came up with with taking it down and rebuilding it in kind, that was something we felt helped maintain the historical nature," Marcus told the Commission.

"In order to do it in a really nice way and elegant way, is tearing all the buildings down and kind of rebuilding 2 Greenwich Ave. That's kind of what our idea was - to preserve it in kind, but with obviously new bricks, new windows, make it look historical to give it that feel."

Marcus said he wanted to start a dialogue with the community about the property and future plans, and he noted his team is "not against trying to figure out a way to save" the building at 2 Greenwich Ave. He noted the adjacent buildings have "systemic problems" such as low ceiling heights and accessibility issues.

The Commission expressed a desire for more information before another pre-application review session.

Planning & Zoning Chair Margarita Alban asked Marcus for a civil engineering report on what cannot be saved at the site, and why. She also said the Commission would be open to a site visit.

"The next thing that gave us pause was your statement that demolishing and reproducing the building was historic preservation. If that's your position, we'd like you to hire a historic preservation expert to say that in an official report, because that gave us, as we discussed yesterday [in the briefing meeting], that did give us all pause," Alban said.

"To us, historic preservation is keeping the structure itself and not demolishing it. When you talk about reproducing it in the spirit, you kind of lose us on that being preservation at this point. If you want to make that case, we want to see you make it very fully."

Alban mentioned the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) gives a guideline to the Commission. The act can prevent the "unreasonable demolition" of historic structures on the National Register.

"The first piece of dialogue with us is, is this a reasonable or unreasonable demolition? That's the first question we're asking you, because under state law, that is one of the mandates to us," Alban told Marcus. "We are not in the business of denying demolitions, but we are in the business of following state law, and is this an unreasonable demolition?"

Referring to renderings of the proposal, Commissioner Mary Jenkins said she was concerned the adjacent, contemporary structures "are really overwhelming the very look of the corner structure that creates its historical value."

"The building that's there now has sky and space and air around it. And frankly, with two very distinct, very contemporary taller buildings, it looks to me like a Tudor sandwich," she said. "Even if you were to continue on this proposal and demolish and restore it, you're restoring it at a much more trivial level than it exists now."

Several residents, including elected officials, spoke during the public comment portion of the pre-application review.

First Selectman Fred Camillo last week submitted a letter to the State Historic Preservation Office and the Office of Connecticut’s Attorney General, urging their involvement.

The two offices have powers when it comes to the demolition of a historic or culturally significant structure.

"This is a beautiful building. There are so many other venues and buildings in town to make money and to redo, but when you start tearing down things or considerably altering them to have it look like it was, you've basically torn down and did away with the history that is associated with that building," Camillo said, referencing the old Pickwick Arms Hotel that was torn down several decades ago. "The people of Greenwich do not want to see this altered in any way. It is a beautiful landmark."

State Rep. Tina Courpas (R-149) said she has initiated dialogue on the town's behalf with relevant state officials.

"It's not clear what we'll gain by demolishing this historic building, but it is very clear we have a lot to lose," Courpas said, noting "the less destructive options appear to have been discarded."

"Connecticut, because it's such an old state, is a steward of American and state history, and decisions like this one to protect or demolish add up building by building and determine whether our history will live for future generations, or whether it will die. It's our responsibility to keep it alive and flourishing," Courpas added.

Greenwich Historical Society Executive Director Carol Cadou said decisions like this "shape the long-term character" of the town.

She noted the building at 2 Greenwich Ave. is a "significant part of Greenwich's cultural memory," and spoke about items in the Historical Society archives related to the building and the people who built it.

"2 Greenwich Ave. and the adjacent contributing historic buildings are far more than old buildings. They are part of the cultural memory and fabric of Greenwich that serves as the gateway to understanding our early commerce and community," Cadou said.

"Historic buildings can be restored, they can be adapted, they can serve new purposes. But once demolished, authenticity cannot be rebuilt. And historic context cannot be reconstructed. Demolition is permanent. That is why today's decision requires careful consideration."

Cadou urged the Commission to consider ways to preserve 2 Greenwich Ave. and the adjacent buildings, "and to guide this proposal toward a solution that balances responsible redevelopment with the protection of Greenwich's historic character."

"Every generation is entrusted with decisions that cannot be reversed," Cadou said. "The buildings we preserve become the legacy that we leave. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration as you weigh our legacy."