By Kerri Williams
WESTPORT – A text amendment that could preserve more historic homes in town will be up for a public hearing at Monday’s Planning & Zoning Commission meeting.
Text Amendment 859 would strengthen and clarify existing regulations applying to historic homes, making it easier for these owners to subdivide their property. The amendment, which was proposed by the Historic District Commission, will be discussed at Monday’s meeting that starts at 6 p.m.
The new text amendment would replace a zoning code adopted in 2008 that offers zoning incentives in exchange for preservation of historic homes in the town’s residential districts. Under these regulations, the P&Z may authorize use, setback, height, parking, landscaping, coverage and lot area and shape incentives when the zoning regulations discourage the preservation of historic buildings. In return for the zoning incentives, a preservation easement for the exterior of the structure is granted to the town.
In the proposal to the commission, Wendy Van Wie, a member of the historic commission, listed three examples where the existing regulations were used to help a homeowner preserve a historic building.
In one example, the owner of a historic mill house was able to use the lot area and shape incentives to carve out a lot to preserve the mill house on one side of the Aspetuck River, while creating a new building lot on the other side of the river. The existing regulations allowed the new lot to be smaller than otherwise permitted in that zone.
But Van Wie said the text in the current regulation, 32-18, is hard to read and understand, with the preservation standards not clearly spelled out. The new text amendment defines how a building is identified as historic and uses simple language “so that anyone can read it and understand what it offers the property owner.”
The text amendment goes further, allowing the P&Z to subdivide lots to save certain historic structures from demolition. “The HDC believes that in a real estate market in which $3-5 million homes are being built, the only way we will save some of our historic houses is by literally making space for them by carving out their own pieces of land,” the plan states. Van Wie said the proposal is consistent with the town’s 2017 Plan of Conservation and Development and the more recent Strategic Preservation Plan.
In October, P&Z commissioners denied an application at 125 Riverside Ave. that had many people concerned it would jeopardize one of the town’s oldest homes. During that meeting, Van Wie said that the developer, Lucien Vita, might want to take advantage of the proposed text amendment. She added that having a structure from 1756 still on the Saugatuck River is “remarkable.”
The town has received 28 special permit applications requesting zoning incentives under the existing regulation, according to a report by the P&Z Department. Of those, 24 special permits were granted, two were approved by a settlement, one was denied, and one was denied without prejudice.
Van Wie noted that the original regulation is a “crucial tool for furthering preservation in Westport” because aside from properties in the Local Historic Districts, including those on Kings Highway North, Gorham Avenue, Evergreen Avenue and Lincoln Street, all other historic structures in town “have no legal protections whatsoever.”
Included in the application was a list of 42 historic structures in the Westport Historic Resource Inventory that was last updated in 2023. Most of the homes listed were originally constructed in the 1700s.
Kerri Williams
Kerri Williams is an award-winning writer and journalist. She has worked as a reporter at the Norwalk Hour, as Living editor at the Darien News-Review, and managing editor for the Norwalk Citizen-News. For Westport Journal, she is a reporter as well as a gardening columnist, writing “Cultivating with Kerri.” She recently published her first children’s book – “Mabel’s Big Move,” based on her daughter with special needs.
I understand the thinking behind this proposed text amendment. When we drafted the original version of Sec. 32-18 many years ago, things in Westport weren’t as out of control, developmentally speaking, as they are now.
Of course, one of the unfortunate aspects of carving up historic properties is that the historic structure’s setting is inevitably degraded. And that, in turn, degrades the interpretive value of the historic resource. It’s sort of like moving the Cribari Bridge to a park. Sure, you’ve “saved” it. But what does that mean? The bridge’s historic relationship to the landscape has been lost. Admittedly, this is an extreme example and I’m only using it to make the point that a historic structure’s setting is a big part of the preservation challenge. If it’s hemmed in by massive new construction you’ve maybe saved it and sort of lost it too. Still, get it. This is what it’s come to.
On a related note, if it’s a Town priority to preserve structures of historic or architectural merit, the RTM could adopt an ordinance which would provide for property tax abatement (in whole or part) via CGS Sec.12-127a.
How about it, HDC?