The developers who want to tear down the 1878 Isaac Lewis Mead Building at 2 Greenwich Avenue will have to prove the structure cannot be saved before the Planning and Zoning Commission entertains a formal application.

ALSO SEE | Residents fight proposed demolition of historic Isaac Mead building in Greenwich

At a packed meeting on Tuesday, July 21, P&Z Chairperson Margarita T. Alban told the applicants' representative that she needed two things: a full civil engineering report detailing what can and cannot be preserved, and an assessment from a historic preservation expert. Alban also signaled the commission may hire its own independent structural engineer to verify the findings.

"Why say it can't be preserved? Why are you saying that? You say a reproduction is saving the building. Come back with more information," Alban told Jonathan Marcus, who represented Greenwich Avenue Properties LLC and MBMB Greenwich LLC at the pre-application hearing.

Marcus acknowledged he did not have an engineering report. Alban's response was pointed: "Then how do you know the building can't be saved?"

What the developers want

The applicants propose demolishing 2 Greenwich Ave., 10 Greenwich Ave., and 10 and 12 West Putnam Ave., consolidating the lots, and constructing a single mixed-use building with ground-floor retail and 14 apartments on upper floors. The proposed structure would rise to roughly 52 to 53 feet with a parapet, in a zone limited to three stories. The project requires special permit and variance approvals.

In a project narrative submitted to the commission, the applicants describe the work as "a story of stewardship" and say the corner building "will be faithfully reconstructed to celebrate and perpetuate its historic Tudor character." The narrative also states the result "will not be a facsimile" of the original.

Commissioner Mary Jenkins called the renderings "overwhelming," describing the proposed design as a "Tudor sandwich" that restores "at a much more trivial level." Commissioner Arn Welles questioned whether the parapet was too commercial for the setting.

Unanimous public opposition

Every public commenter at the July 21 meeting opposed the demolition, the replacement design, or both. More than 70 letters favoring preservation had been received by the Planning Department, and 80 viewers watched on Zoom.

First Selectman Fred Camillo told the commission he was "shocked this one has become a target" and compared the potential loss to the 1972 demolition of the nearby Pickwick Arms Hotel, which residents still lament. State Rep. Tina Courpas said, "It's not clear what we gain but very clear what we lose."

RTM District 1 Chairman Frederick Lee Jr. urged the commission to let no formal application proceed without the state's findings. Selectwoman Rachel Khanna and Greenwich Historical Society CEO Carol Cadou also spoke in opposition. Cadou told commissioners that the Greenwich Historical Society holds many papers connected to the building and that "preserved documents lose meaning without the building."

Jane Schnitzer, whose family owned the Isaac Mead building for decades, told the commission the proposed new structures would dwarf the nearby Presbyterian Church. Her grandfather had owned the Pickwick Arms.

Alban acknowledged at the outset that the commission lacks legal authority to deny a demolition permit outright. The building sits in the Greenwich Avenue Historic District and is on the National Register of Historic Places, but it carries no local Historic Overlay designation, meaning its federal listing provides no local protection.

The Historic District Commission can issue only a 90-day stay of demolition. Under Connecticut law, the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act can be applied to stop the "unreasonable destruction" of historic resources.

The State Historic Preservation Office has confirmed it will review the plans for 2 Greenwich Ave. and has scheduled an on-site inspection for later this summer. First Selectman Camillo has written to both SHPO and Connecticut Attorney General William Tong urging state intervention.

No formal application has been filed. The commission set no date for the applicant's return but made clear the engineering report and preservation assessment must come first. Residents who wish to weigh in can send comments to Todd Levine at the State Historic Preservation Office or to the office of Attorney General Tong, according to the First Selectman's office.