The town’s last remaining Colonial saltbox house was demolished over the weekend, taking local historic preservationists by surprise.
The house, built by Ephraim Smith in 1757 and known as the Smith-Tomlinson House, is owned by Tony Mavuli, and sat next to Mavuli’s Villa Bianca Inn, a banquet facility on Route 34.
Mavuli had planned to convert the old house into a restaurant. He received approval from the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals.
Mavuli had repeatedly said he would not tear the old house down.
However, Mavuli said his plans changed once architects got a good look at the entire. The building was structurally unsound, Mavuli said, and would not be able to support what he wanted to do there.
Mavuli said the decision to tear it down came within the last three months. He will still move forward with his plan to build a restaurant.
Readers on the Valley Indy’s Facebook page were disappointed with the decision — as was Marian O’Keefe, curator of the Seymour Historical Society.
She questioned why Mavuli didn’t reach out to them, considering the house was the last genuine saltbox in Seymour.
“There aren’t that many around. They should have made some effort for us to study it, photograph it, possibly have it moved by someone who wants to restore it,” O’Keefe said. “To not tell us they were going to tear it down, to not give us the opportunity to see if something could be structurally saved, it bothers me.”
The house was not on the National Register of Historic Places or state’s Register, so there were no legal covenants to protect it, O’Keefe said.
The Valley Indy asked Mavuli why he did not contact preservationists about his decision.
“I can’t answer that, it never came to my mind,” Mavuli said. “I never wanted to ever take the house down. I did try to make it possible in every shape and form to save the house.”
He plans to save the lumber from the interior to somehow incorporate into the new building that will replace it.
“I always wanted to save it, it almost never came to my mind (that it could not be saved.). I thought I could fix it with extra effort to try to save it,” he said.
Michael Horbal, a planner hired by Mavuli’s Sunlite Realty, said Mavuli agonized over the decision. Two structural engineers said the building could not be saved, Horbal said.
Mavuli said the structural engineers were brought in after Seymour gave him the green light for the project.
“It never came to my mind,” Mavlui said, when asked why he hadn’t had structural examinations performed several years ago, before the long approval process for the restaurant.
The Smith-Tomlinson House was a stagecoach stop and an inn for travelers, on what was to eventually become Route 34.
It’s a shame it had to be torn down, but there were no other apparent options, said First Selectman Paul Roy.
He was philosophical about the project.
“He’s willing to invest his money for a new restaurant that people want, and that’s good,” Roy said.
It leaves more than a few regrets.
Fred Weller of Oxford, who visited the house numerous times years ago when his uncle, Joe Weller, lived in it, was sorry to see it is gone.
“I think it should have been restored if possible,” Weller said.
Another Joe Weller relative, Suzie Stevenson of Seymour, said she was sickened by the sight of the house being torn down.
“I think it’s horrible. He claimed he was going to keep it as best as he could, and I went by there and it was gone. It literally made me sick to my stomach. I felt ill,” Stevenson said.
Mavuli will not have to return to get new approvals for his proposed restaurant, other than a building permit, Seymour officials said Tuesday. Mavuli had a valid permit for the demo work.
I am very sad!!!!
Maybe Seymour should consider enacting a preservation ordinance similar to the one Oxford has. At least the Oxford Historical Society has sufficient time to get into an historic home before it is demolished in order to do just what Ms. O’Keefe wished Seymour’s could do: study, photograph and possibly salvage. Seymour: step up and look into this! Signed: A lover of old historic homes.
The correct name of the Oxford ordinance is the “Stay of Demolition Ordinance”, which can delay demolition of structures more than 100 years old up to a maximum of 90-days, offering a window of opportunity for the examination and documentation of the structure prior to it being torn down.
I don’t buy the claims by the owner that the Ephraim Smith house was so structurally unsound that it had to be destroyed outright. Two PEs evaluate a 254 year old home based on design values for a modern, commercial public-use structure, and find it’s not up to this new job. Well, is it really any surprise that an ancient home might not pass an evaluation based on the requirements of modern commercial building codes? Yet the Smith house had survived 254 years as a vintage, private residence, just fine.
This house was destroyed, in my opinion, because it just no longer fit the plan, a plan that it never realistically could have been expected to satisfy in the first place. And as far as I’m concerned, the owner made no substantial effort save this home as a non-commercial, historic property. There were plenty of alternatives to destroying it. Demolition was just the least costly and quickest alternative, in the end. What a needless loss.
What a shame! What a shame! The people of the valley should boycott whatever restaurant gets built on the space. The owner’s argument for destroying an irreplaceable piece of valley history is illogical – he is quoted as saying “it never came to mind to contact preservationists” to save the house but yet he says in the same breath “I did try to make it possible in every shape and form to save the house.” I’d like to know exactly what and how he tried to save the house because this article does not indicate a single thing he did to save the house. Actions speak louder than words.
And Paul Roy totally misses the point with his comments…who cares if the owner is willing to invest money in a new restaurant? Whatever measly tax revenue this new restaurant does bring into the town will pale in comparison to the cultural loss of losing this historic home.
I understand that sometimes historic homes are beyond repair and demolition becomes necessary but this just was not the case with this home. The owner should be ashamed.