An application for a permit is in process to demolish the house at 8 Mayflower Parkway in the Compo Road South area. Built in 1926, the two-story custom colonial shingle-style home has 6,584 square feet and is situated on a one-acre property. Because the house was built more than 60 years ago, the application must be reviewed by the Historic District Commission. The current house is listed for sale at nearly $2.4 million, but a 5,200-square-feet replacement house, scheduled to be built in 2009, is also listed for sale at nearly $3.7 million. A rendering can be found here . (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com

Comment Policy

This is totally pathetic….I am giving up on Westport!!!!

I know this house and how grand it is.

Why in the world would you want to knock down this beautiful stately home?

Another magnificent piece of Westport history being destroyed. Will there be no end to the destruction of this New England town? Sad….sad….sad.

Rhoda Berke

rhoda berke on November 23, 2008 at 02:26 PM |



Posted byon November 23, 2008 at 02:26 PM | #

And it just continues. I hope the HDC uses its 180 day stay of demolition power so that there is time to find a buyer for this gem of a house. Really a neat house inside. Family friends with 2 past owners. Helped the first move into this house 30+ years ago.

Could someone who understands economics of home building explain why someone would EITHER sell an existing house for $2.4 million OR build an new one to sell for $3.7 million. Should one assume that the builder thinks they can build the new 5,200 square foot house for $1.3 million? Or is that too simplistic a way to look at this?

John McCarthy on November 23, 2008 at 03:53 PM |



Posted byon November 23, 2008 at 03:53 PM | #

My math has gotten me to the same conclusion. So, between materials, labor, permits, landscaping, carrying charges on a building loan and taxes, and more, you can still make a profit with a margin of 1.3 million?? I can only assume that the quality of the materials of the new, will not compare favorably with the existing house. Why not an addition of a couple of thousand feet, IF you want a house that large?

mary ruggiero on November 23, 2008 at 04:30 PM |



Posted byon November 23, 2008 at 04:30 PM | #

Most of these new monster houses seem to be slapped together

very quickly and you can bet that whatever will replace this beautiful house isn’t going to last for half the years that his one has been standing.

Janet Beasley

Janet Beasley on November 23, 2008 at 05:02 PM |



Posted byon November 23, 2008 at 05:02 PM | #

Just exactly what is the purpose of the Historic District Commission if the teardowns here in Westport seem to be eventually approved??? This seems to be a formality, and the REALITY is these beautiful homes, whether large or small, will be demolished. Why bother with the applications? If there are homes that were saved by the HDC reviews, I would love to see a list.

Perhaps the HDC would like to address what the surrounding neighbors have to contend with regarding tresspassing, the noise ordinance, placement of construction equipment, and personal property damage. Or perhaps Planning and Zoning would like to put a sub-committee together to hear residents concerns. Wishfull thinking on my part?

I have had to contend with the above mentioned for 10 years, due to demolition and construction surrounding my home. I am sure all who read this commentary will see I am not too impressed and not too pleased.

I have been a resident for 40 years. Westport, and all it has to offer, continues to be a wonderful place to live. However, the teardown/build big situation also breaks my heart.

Lauren Ann Grosner on November 23, 2008 at 09:03 PM |



Posted byon November 23, 2008 at 09:03 PM | #

FYI-Check out the Connecticut section of today’s Sunday Times-GREAT front page article referencing teardowns.

Lauren Ann Grosner on November 24, 2008 at 02:13 AM |



Posted byon November 24, 2008 at 02:13 AM | #

Maybe it’s time to go through the processes to give the HDC more tools to work with! Anyone (John, who’s on the RTM?) know how other towns have put in regulations that help P&Z;to stop these teardowns? I think what we would hear are residents saying that “I can do with my house what I want” and I’m not sure how one answers that. But in the meantime the overall good of the town (retaining gorgeous homes like this) is trashed. I’m not savvy enough to know how one would start the process, but I believe that there are Westport-lovers out there who would support it.

Longtime Westporter on November 24, 2008 at 03:19 PM |



Posted byon November 24, 2008 at 03:19 PM | #

One of the tools would be a further percentage and/or height limitation on new homes. Perhaps others would be higher permit costs for tearing down and tax incentives for houses deemed historic. Builders are having a field day in our town to the detriment of those who still live here.

mary ruggiero on November 24, 2008 at 03:51 PM |



Posted byon November 24, 2008 at 03:51 PM | #

In addition to the 180 Day stay of demolition which is the most allowed by state law which the RTM approved this year (increased from 90 days) the Local Historic District Designation is the other major tool the town and its citizens have for protecting historic properties.

If any neighborhood is really serious about this matter, the Historic District Commission can help neighbors get started with the process of being designated a Local Historic District. In the past 4 years 3 downtown area neighborhoods (Violet Lane, Gorham Avenue, Evergreen Avenue) and the Greens Farms Cemetery and at least one single residence have gone through the process. I live in the Gorham Avenue Historic District. A teardown of a house that is in one of the town’s Local Historic District would be difficult.

So the HDC has historically done a good job of promoting Local Historic Districts. Better than in most towns in the State. So, if one is really interested in preventing teardowns in Westport and Historic Preservation and live in a house that is over 50 years old, ask yourself “Why haven’t I made my house part of a Local Historic District?” Until then any criticism of someone else knocking down an historic house or of the HDC rings hollow.

I know the RTM is very interested in seeing other applicants for Local Historic District designation. Why not your house and neighborhood?

John McCarthy on November 24, 2008 at 03:54 PM |



Posted byon November 24, 2008 at 03:54 PM | #

Great suggestions, John. And if someone gets a single historic house designation, the only restriction on someone buying it would be that the “streetscape” must remain the same (so we can all look at lovely homes as we drive around town) but (as suggested for this Mayflower Pwy home) someone can still add on more room and additions on the back. A win-win situation.

Longtime Westporter on November 24, 2008 at 03:58 PM |



Posted byon November 24, 2008 at 03:58 PM | #

Well, I certainly am for preserving the character of the town.

However, I am NOT in faovr of excessively dictating what a homeowner can do with his property beyond legitimate zoning regulations and building codes, especially if this moves into the area of subjective taste. There are many subdvisions with highly restrictive deed covenants for those who wish to live in a homogenized community setting.

We already have dwelling coverage and total coverage limitations in the zoning regs, and these vary by zone to accomadate higher density zones. We also have building height limitations in the zoning regs. Many of the older homes in town that are so cherished do not even comply with the maximum height and number of stories requirements found i the current regs.

Even if you tighten up the coverage limitations (house and total) and the height and number of stories limitations, that will NOT address the phenomena of people finding it MUCH cheaper to scrape the historic home off the property and build a brand new one, rather than renovate and restore. In my opinion, the most successful way to address this problem is to offer tax incentives and relaxed building and zoning regs to those who are restoring historic dwellings, so that it become at least financially less burdensome to renovate and restore vs demolish and build new.

Ask anyone who has restored an old home about the costs to do so (and the building code issues that drove the cost even higher) vs. how much it would have cost to simply scrape it off and build brand new.

Further tightening up the coverage and height limitations in the zoning regs is not the answer, and will not address the issue you are concerned about.

Jack Whittle on November 24, 2008 at 04:51 PM |



Posted byon November 24, 2008 at 04:51 PM | #

thanks, Jack, for some thoughtful feedback. So where does one start to get “tax incentives and relaxed bldg & zoing regs for restoring historic dwellings”? I know that Michael Ronemus has urged the same things from their perspective of restoring the house and outbuildings on Cross Highway.

Longtime Westporter on November 24, 2008 at 05:30 PM |



Posted byon November 24, 2008 at 05:30 PM | #

I find that very sad too. I totally agree with Rhoda Berke. Soon there will be no traces of the past left. This house is so more beautiful than most “modern” ones.

Marie Rivet on November 25, 2008 at 06:12 AM |



Posted byon November 25, 2008 at 06:12 AM | #

I don’t see the problem in Westport being so much about what’s being torn down, as what is being built. It is true that Westport has many charming antiques, but most are made of wood and, without a couple centuries of excellent upkeep, are destined to not be here forever. And much of their charm has to do with the beautiful trees that grace the property. That said, the vast majority of houses in this town are 50’s and 60’s style contractor houses of no particular architectural distinction or worth. Whether in a historic district or not, when these modest homes are torn down—the lot clear cut of old growth trees—and replaced with an out-sized structure with minimal landscaping, the resulting assault on the senses is what is truly destroying this community’s charming appeal. A perfect example of this is a foursome of new homes on the Cross Highway between North and Bayberry. What Westport needs is not more preservation, but a bona fide architectural review board that makes sure what replaces old homes (of any vintage or value) does not distract from the neighborhood charm. How hard could that be? I will gladly host the first meeting at my own house.

Eric Wright on November 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM |



Posted byon November 25, 2008 at 10:46 PM | #

Why would someone not want to renovate this in lieu of demolition. Crazy, unimaginative, wasteful as well as financially irresponsible. This is a magnificent home with tremendous architectural scale and proportion for it’s size. John McCarthy’s posting says it all. Let’s face it…local Historic Districts help tp preserve streetscapes and neighborhoods. The Gorham Avenue Historic District, which both the McCarthy’s and my wife Grayson and I live in, are examples of just how effective such designations can be, and still accommodate the needs of modern day society without being excessively and unreasonably restrictive. This owner and/or builder developer would be well served to reassess this demolition application.

Jamie Walsh on November 26, 2008 at 03:22 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 03:22 PM | #

Jamie - you asked “Why would someone not want to renovate this in lieu of demolition?” There is a very simple answer - it is a case of simple dollars and cents. Renovating an old home and updating the systems, while being sensistive to the architectural details of the home, and also complying with modern building codes, simply costs a great deal more than demolishing the home and building new.

The profit opportunity is a very simple driver of this phenomena of tear-downs by builders in Westport - a builder can buy a neglected, smaller older home on a 1 acre lot for $850,000 (for example), demolish it and replace it with a 6,000 sf “McMansion” (at a cost to him of $750,000, for example) and sell that new home for $2,250,000 - he then clears $650,000 (ignoring many details in this simple math.) If, on the other hand, Mr. Builder plowed every bit of that $750,000 into renovating that older, smaller home he bought for $850,000, he’d still be hard-pressed to sell it for $1.75 million (clearing just $150,000 in that example). I can’t really fault the builders for taking the profitable path, but the result is a depletion of the historic home inventory.

Alternatively, consider the plight of the family that occupies an old home, or has just purchased an old home to “fix it up”. It is damn hard to spend the kind of money that is required to renovate an old home knowing full well that you cannot even hope to get that investment back out of the home should you decide (or your heirs decide) to sell it. It can only be described as a labor of love. Chip Stephens has posted his experience with this on this forum.

Such is why I tend to post with suggestions of tax incentives (property tax credits, etc.) and relaxation of building codes for historic restorations (to further minimize the cost) as a way to address this problem.

Jack Whittle on November 26, 2008 at 05:03 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 05:03 PM | #

I do agree with you, Jack, that depending on the structures condition it can cost more, but my experience suggests that this is on a case by case basis and this home is in pretty good shape. I am a contractor and have worked extensively over the past 23 years, primarily,on commercial construction and have a few landmark structures under my belt already. I do understand the economics, however it is not always cost prohibitive. Also, building codes tend to relax for historic structures. This is already in effect for home with Historic Designations and homes within Historic Districts, This however, does not mean that one compromises safety for the benefit of architectural integrity. Your math, works if we were talking about this 1 or 2 years ago. Less is more now and we have an abundance of housing stock in the 3000 - 6000 sq foot arena that just is not moving. Spec builders purchasing 1 acre lots to erect 6000 ft square homes is just a bad model that is destine to put them out of business. Renovating smaller structures is now a more profitable model. Remember, “pigs get fat and hogs get slaughtered”. Better to be alive then on some banks “dinner table”. I agree with you that tax incentives can be an additional “arrow in the quiver” for owners and builder developers alike.

Jamie Walsh on November 26, 2008 at 05:38 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 05:38 PM | #

If we’re all agreed that tax incentives and relaxed building codes is a good avenue to explore, how are we going to get in touch with Eric Wright who said that we could have a discussion at his home (after the holidays, I presume)? If he’s the one who lives at 17 Hockanum Road, we can all call him to say that we’re interested in an exploratory meeting. Perhaps a couple of the wonderful people from the HDC and our First Selectman, Gordon Joseloff, would come to give us the history and what our possibilities would be to effect change. Any thoughts from Rhoda, John, Mary, Janet, Lauren, Jack, Marie and Jamie? And of course any other interested people would be welcome. I didn’t want to ignore Eric’s generous offer to get the ball rolling!

Longtime Westporter on November 26, 2008 at 05:43 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 05:43 PM | #

Whatever I can contribute to the discussion, just tell me where and when to show up!

mary ruggiero on November 26, 2008 at 06:23 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 06:23 PM | #

The offer is sincere (quite sincere, actually) and open. The address is 17 Hockanum Road, and I nominate Linda Smith to figure out how to get the first meeting scheduled. Who will second? My cell number is 203.858.3351. Let’s not miss this opportunity to rally before the next horrid round of McMansions get off their drawing boards!

Eric Wright on November 26, 2008 at 08:17 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 08:17 PM | #

Count me in. My cell # is 203.247.0081. Feel free to contact me anytime.

Lauren Ann Grosner on November 26, 2008 at 08:58 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 08:58 PM | #

Thanks, Lauren. I will collect phone numbers for this group and make a few calls after Thanksgiving. Any others? Feel free to leave them on my voice mail if you don’t want to put it up here. That number is above.

Eric Wright on November 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 11:05 PM | #

I would certainly be happy to help but I am ‘just’ a French visitor to this beautiful town. I am going to mention this to my American friends. Good luck!

Marie Rivet on November 26, 2008 at 11:14 PM |



Posted byon November 26, 2008 at 11:14 PM | #

HDC is meeting on Tuesday December 9, @ 7:00pm and this is item #7. “To take such action as the meeting may determine to waive the balance of delay for a demolition permit application at 8 Mayflower Parkway, c 1926, identified on the 2008 Historic Resources Inventory”. I would encourage everyone above who is concerned about this property to attend and encourage HDC to enforce the current 180 day demolition delay. This send a clear message to those interested in tearing down our historic resources that Westport is no longer a pushover place to build more “characterless” structures.

Jamie Walsh on December 04, 2008 at 01:13 AM |



Posted byon December 04, 2008 at 01:13 AM | #

I’ll be there on Dec. 9th. Question: where is the HDC meeting for those of us who don’t know?

Also, I never followed through with Eric Wright’s nice invitation above, and yes, I’d be glad to be the organizer to get us all together at his house. I’ll call the people who left their phone numbers, but anyone else can call Eric’s cell phone (203-858-3351) and leave their contact info (phone, address) and I’ll be glad to call them back to find a night we can all meet in early January. OK? (Sounds like Eric was thinking of sooner, in December, but if we can plan ahead and hold a date in January, I think people won’t be so over-scheduled.)

Please ask friends if they’d like to come to an information-gathering get-together, too. And, Marie Rivet, you AND your American friends are welcome, of course. You have a lot to add to the discussion.

Longtime Westporter on December 04, 2008 at 04:47 AM |



Posted byon December 04, 2008 at 04:47 AM | #

I’m not sure if I can devote as much time as I’d like to this very worthy cause, but I will call and leave my contact info.

Let’s finally go further than the written word to action!

mary ruggiero on December 04, 2008 at 10:49 AM |



Posted byon December 04, 2008 at 10:49 AM | #

Unfortunately, I no longer live in Westport after living there for almost 30 years. My heart is still very much there. The very first thing I do in the morning is to check on what’s happening in town on westportnow.com. I live in Florida but if anyone would like to fly me up and put me up, I would be delighted to do anything to save the town!!!!!

When I lived in Westport, I was extremely involved in the Partrick Road ARS fight along with other causes that were dear to my heart.

Good luck in the preservation of the most beautiful town in the world.

rhoda berke on December 04, 2008 at 02:24 PM |



Posted byon December 04, 2008 at 02:24 PM | #

I am unable to attend the Dec 9th HDC meeting (unfortunately, since I am interested in how that process works) but for those who will be attending the meeting, you should familiarize yourselves with the new (since Aug 08) ordinace relating to demolition permits for historic dwellings, it is linked on the ToW website, Building Dept. section, and here is a direct link to it (I apologize to the webmaster for not being able to shorten the link for you):

http://www.westportct.gov/NR/rdonlyres/43F3464C-9106-4BC4-B2AC-9F0ADC42B172/0/DemoOrdinance080508RTMAPPROVED.pdf

Jack Whittle on December 04, 2008 at 02:36 PM |



Posted byon December 04, 2008 at 02:36 PM | #

The HDC meeting is held at Town Hall. Look at the information board located in the main entrance foyer for the room number assigned that evening as it tends to change month to month.

Jamie Walsh on December 04, 2008 at 03:07 PM |



Posted byon December 04, 2008 at 03:07 PM | #

To all those who planned on attending the demolition delay hearing at the HDC meeting tonight, pleased be advised that Coastal Development (the applicant) has withdrawn the demolition permit. This item has been dropped from tonight’s HDC agenda altogether.

Jamie Walsh on December 09, 2008 at 06:38 PM |



Posted byon December 09, 2008 at 06:38 PM | #

Again, please forgive my grammatical error…That would be “please be advised”.

Jamie Walsh on December 09, 2008 at 06:42 PM |



Posted byon December 09, 2008 at 06:42 PM | #

Ken and I were going, so thanks so much, Jamie, for the update. Saves us a drive down there. And will you please let us know if it’s back on another agenda? Thx.

Longtime Westporter on December 09, 2008 at 06:43 PM |



Posted byon December 09, 2008 at 06:43 PM | #

As I understand it, the meeting is cancelled, right? I was going to attend and incidentally I would have been happy to tell Linda some old friends of hers from Westport were saying hello to her (the Berger family, who is “my American family” :-)))

Marie Rivet

[email protected]

Marie Rivet on December 09, 2008 at 07:11 PM |



Posted byon December 09, 2008 at 07:11 PM | #

Will do Linda! Thanks for your support and thank you Marie and all the rest who have voiced their opinion on this and other important resource tear downs.

Jamie Walsh on December 09, 2008 at 08:15 PM |



Posted byon December 09, 2008 at 08:15 PM | #

Does anyone know any details for the withdrawal of the permit application? It might be placed back on later…or perhaps they decided the current economic climate didn’t justify that type of expense.