Fair Haven’s fine 19th century gateway building will likely not have its roof raised three feet, after neighbors and historic preservationists rallied against the idea at another impassioned hearing over the fate of One Grand Ave.
Developer and owner David Vieau had planned to raise the roof of One Grand Ave in order to accommodate six condos in the historic structure at Grand and Front Streets. Vieau said, during an impassioned, agonizingly detailed four-hour meeting of the Historic District Commission (HDC), that he must have a third floor in order to make the project viable. Still the commissioners, such as Eric O’Brien (pictured above) helped him find a better direction that would also preserve the historic character of the building: windows.
Vieau (on the right), with his lawyer Timothy Lee, were appearing before the commission on Wednesday night at the behest of the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). In May, the BZA had approved the condominium plan provided the plan relinquishes some of the condo area for community-benefiting retail space on the Grand Avenue side of the building. Among other conditions the BZA attached was that Vieau appear before the HDC and “consult” with them so that all the renovation plans would be compatible with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standard for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings.
The consultation wasn’t in any sense binding, but Vieau did want to leave the meeting with a sense of approval for his direction before going the next step to the City Plan Department. Problem was that even though Vieau asserted that “this is the way they would have raised the building in the 19th century,” the proposed third floor added to the building was immediately controversial as were the spatial relations achieved, or not, with the new windows. The renovation proposed from the front facade, the Grand Avenue commercial space, with tall windows, and the historic doors preserved and left off center, engendered least resistance.
Also muddying the waters was a lack of clarity about what precisely the Secretary of the Interior standards were. As one commissioner, O’Brien, read them, whatever changes are added have to be differentiated from what is original, and that must be noticeable generations hence.
Robert Grzywacz (pictured above surrounding by his studying fellow commissioners) said he thought that might be too strict an interpretation.
Vieau and his architect Bob Mangino were at pains to say as they read the standards, there was nothing prohibiting adding a third floor as long as the spatial relationships are maintained, as well as appropriate materials be used. They said that for the commercial space, they had followed the model of the former Cheney Building, kitty corner from One Grand, which is the oldest commercial building in New Haven, Vieau suggested.
Other commissioners indicated that in their experience this was not the best model. Pictures of historic commercial structures from as far away as 19th century Telluride were passed around, and the architects, generally a genial as well as argumentative lot, talked heatedly among themselves about whether features left on One Grand were in fact add-ons and might be dispensed with.
“Was the preservation of the doors that important to the community?” Gryzwacz asked Commissioner Allyx Schiavone. After a long pause of thought, she said, “No, they’re not critical.”
And Commissioner Trina Learned (in the photo, seated between Schiavone and Gryzwacz) was concerned that the level of detail provided in the drawings was insufficient. “We haven’t seen any of the facades except for Grand Avenue,” she said.
“We should have at least as much information as if you were applying for a certificate of appropriateness,” said O’Brien.
“But we’re not,” said attorney Lee. “This is a consultative process.”
“You mean you don’t want anything from us?” asked Learned. “You know City Plan is going to ask us what we think.”
“Of course,” said Lee, “but my client has been working on this for a year and a half. We need to get on with it.”
“I mean we’re not making any money on this,” said Vieau. “All we want to do is make this building work in compliance with the standards, make it good for the community, so it doesn’t stand there and fall apart into the water.”
Commissioner George Knight (not pictured) thought the middle of the facade ungainly and suggested the windows be raised. “Also, the commercial face is architecturally rational but not historically accurate.”
When the focus of objections came to the raising of the building a floor, Vieau said, “It just won’t work without the third floor. It’s done all over the world on historic buildings. We’ve already given up a condo on the first floor. We’re trying to please everyone. I won’t raise the roof, but will you give me back the retail space? No. We really need some direction here.”
After hours of architectural wrangling, a consensus was reached by the commissioners that Vieau would simply not be abiding by the standards if the building were raised. That pleased critics such as Anstress Farwell and Chris Ozyck. Farwell said, “The only question here is whether the historic character of the Warner Building is being preserved.”
And the consensus was that transforming a building with two floors and an attic into a three-floor building would violate the Secretary of the Interior Standards.
“Since we’re not going to allow the raising of the roof,” the chairman said, “let’s give the applicant some help here, some direction.” Windows seemed to be the answer. Would smaller transom-like windows work?”
No, answered the architect and developer. “People buying these condos want to be able to look out at water views, not look through little transoms.”
“I can’t believe,” said Gryzwacz, “that there isn’t a solution, some magic-sized windows, maybe a three-by-three, so that it would come up maybe chest high, and offer views. You could even break the cornice for your windows, so you would not have to come down so far. You could lower your floor, have smaller windows, leave the building its height. It could work.”
“Yes,” said Mangino, “and we could put in skylights too in the roof to add the additional light due to the smaller window.”
“All right, “ said Gryzwacz, “as long as your rebuilt roof as a structural entity goes back exactly where it is now.”
And so a consensus was reached. The One Grand owners were admonished to come back on September 11th, the next meeting of the commission, with detailed drawings down to size of the windows, where the relation of sash to mullion is clear. “If you do that, and follow along the lines that have been suggested here, I hope you sense that you will be favorably heard.”
Several of the commissioners, including Allyx Schiavone and Trina Learned, made clear that next month’s meeting was not going to be a cakewalk, although everyone ardently hoped it would be of less duration and less contentious. “I can’t tell you that you can count on approval, “ Learned said, “but there are opportunities. Just do all the detail work, the due diligence.”
Afterwards, Ozyck said that he and Farwell and other activists in the community still had questions, that the devil would be in further architectural details. Still the fact that there was now commercial space, however it was going to be reconfigured, and the building would not be raised in height, that this was definitely progress. For his part, lawyer Lee said he thought progress had also been made in the commissioners reaching consensus, although his client, David Vieau, would have wanted a decision tonight. Stay tuned to September.
In another ongoing contentious Fair Haven matter before the commission, an application by Gateway Terminal (represented by attorney Marjorie Shansky, pictured) for a certificate of appropriateness for a chain link fence along the perimeter of its property at 430 and 466 Quinnipiac Avenue was met by impassioned opposition from the community, including calls for contempt of the commission due to non-compliance with previous directives. Amid accusations that a chain link fence would make the neighborhood look like a prison, not enhance the historic character, as well as provide little security, and that an ornamental iron fence, six or perhaps eight feet high with set back would far better meet all the needs, Shansky asked for an extension of the hearing until the next meeting for her to discuss the matter with her client.
On the upbeat news side of the ledger – and there was some — the most recent drawings that architect Gary DeWolfe (pictured) presented of the proposed Oyster Shores condominiums, a structure of 8 units on the Quinnipiac River between Oxford and Aner Streets, generally met approval. Built to 27 feet high (beneath the allowable 35 feet), and reversing of some roof directions, the project, DeWolfe said, would have generous public walkways down to the water, and would also preserve most, if not all water views for residences across the avenue, which issue had been sounded off on. Several homeowners, such as Pat Boozer (pictured above) on the avenue said they were still distressed; one said he had bought his house for the unobstructed view and might now consider selling. Nevertheless, the commissioners said they were impressed with DeWolfe’s work, especially its providing relief to the more massive forms he had previously presented. A formal request for a certificate of appropriateness will be made at the HDC’s next meeting, September 11th.
When you buy a house in an area that is not fully developed, you have to expect that your views might not last forever. That comment isn't even worth reporting on, NHI folks.