Past can get in way of future

The preservation of historic resources is laudable. But as observers have noted, such efforts often conflict with equally laudable efforts to address the need for an adequate housing supply, and ultimately the availability of housing that is affordable to persons of moderate and low income. There's always the danger that historic preservation can become an exclusionary tool.

The Greenwich Preservation Network, dedicated to preserving the town's historic resources, is circulating a petition against demolition of seven houses in Greenwich's Fourth Ward Historic District. This district, placed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2000, was nominated for this recognition because of its historical significance as the town's oldest major urban settlement that developed as a neighborhood of moderate-income households. The town's immigrant Irish population, its first Roman Catholic Church, and its African American population are significant factors in this historic designation.

“The Fourth Ward is a prime example of that kind of affordable housing which is increasingly under siege in the town, the protection of which is important if the town's origins are to remain visible,” was the rationale in a 1998 evaluation of the Fourth Ward as eligible for the National Register.

In addition to a seven-story residential building at 20 Church St. built in 1949, the Fourth Ward historically consisted of single-, two-, and three-family homes that were affordable to persons of modest means. However, over the last two decades since historic designation, it has ceased to be that originally affordable neighborhood.

Since historic designation, many once affordable homes have been demolished (18 by one count), and others significantly altered through redevelopment into luxury housing. The Fourth Ward is becoming increasingly unaffordable to persons with incomes below $200,000. This transformation of the district, including demolitions, did not meet with any significant opposition, not until now.

Although there have been no applications for demolition of the seven houses named in the Greenwich Preservation Network petition, the Network's opposition efforts have already gone beyond the petition. On March 25, demolition opponents brought these properties to the attention of the State Historic Preservation Review Board, which is a state board that plays a role in evaluating properties on the National Register that face demolition.

With these actions, the Greenwich Preservation Network has entered into battle as one of the fierce combatants in Greenwich's raging war against 8-30g of the Connecticut General Statutes, legislation that's successfully created thousands of affordable units in the state.

It's doubtful anyone would have singled out these particular seven houses for preservation if a proposed 192-unit apartment building on two acres between Church Street and Sherwood Place did not require their demolition to provide housing units affordable to low- and moderate-income persons.

This 35 Church St. development is the same height as the sevenstory 20 Church St. residential building across the street and comparable in height to seven residential buildings within a half mile. It's being proposed under 8-30g, the provisions of which allow developers to submit applications that do not comply with existing zoning regulations if 30 percent of the units are deed restricted as affordable to low and moderate income persons for 40 years. This Church Street proposal includes 58 affordable units.

Should a municipality's regulatory agency deny an 8-30g application, the burden of proof on appeal is on that agency to demonstrate that, based upon record evidence, “(1) (A) the decision is necessary to protect substantial public interests in health, safety or other matters which the commission may legally consider; (B) such public interests clearly outweigh the need for affordable housing; and (C) such public interests cannot be protected by reasonable changes to the affordable housing development ...”

It's intended that such public interests be limited to serious health and safety concerns. Efforts to include historic preservation as a public interest have little to draw upon beyond a 1994 ruling in United Progress V. Stonington P.Z.C., which upheld historic grounds for denial of an 8-30g application, a decision of questionable relevance to the Fourth Ward. And resting on uncharted legal ground is the Preservation Network's effort to invoke the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act through the State Historic Preservation Review Board.

Wouldn't it be more constructive, in keeping with Fourth Ward history, to welcome 58 new affordable units?