GREENWICH — Public sentiment has come out strongly in favor of preserving the row of buildings at the top of Greenwich Avenue, which is facing the prospect of demolition by their owners.

Over a dozen speakers at a recent Planning & Zoning Commission meeting expressed support for preserving the Tudor-style building at 2 Greenwich Ave. and the other two structures that flank it. Some 70 letters have been received by the Planning Department in favor of preservation, the commissioners were told. 

The plan submitted by the property-owner would demolish the main building and two adjoining structures and replace them with two new four-story buildings with ground-floor retail space and 14 residential units above. 

The property is owned by New England Investment Partners and executive Jonathan Marcus, who spoke at the meeting. He noted he had been doing real-estate business in Greenwich for over a decade, noting he was "not a developer."

"We want to build something special," Marcus said, adding he understood the importance of the structures. 

The property-owner said he was looking for a dialogue with town leaders and the public, and the preliminary application was aimed at gaining feedback. "We need to have the back and forth," he said.

Marcus said the buildings has structural problems and defects, particularly the two buildings on the sides of 2 Greenwich Ave., 12 West Putnam and 10 Greenwich Ave.

"There are systemic problems with those buildings," he said, and they have very low ceilings, fire-safety issues and handicap accessibility problems. Marcus said the concept was to maintain a historic sensibility with new construction that adapted features of the current Tudor-revival style. "Our idea was to preserve it 'in kind,' with new bricks, new windows, make it look historical, to give that feel," he said.

Planning & Zoning Commission Chairwoman Margarita Alban said the buildings were of major significance.

"It anchors the Avenue. ... It has an enormous amount of vitality, and we want to preserve that. It's a draw. It puts us on the map," she said. "We want to do the right thing for Greenwich."

Several speakers and public officials said they disapproved of the property-owners' concept and opposed any teardown of 2 Greenwich Ave.  

First Selectman Fred Camillo said he was opposed to the demolition plan.

"The people of Greenwich do not want to see this altered in any way," he said. "It is a beautiful landmark. ... We are 100 percent in favor of keeping this building as is." 

Carol Cadou, executive director of the Greenwich Historical Society, said, "2 Greenwich Avenue and the adjacent contributing historic buildings are far more than old buildings, they are part of the cultural memory and fabric of Greenwich."

Jane Schnitzer, a local resident who said her family owned the property until the 1960s, said the structures were "a grand dame" in the community. 

"It's always been beloved, admired and respected," Schnitzer said. "It set a standard of taste and style, and it embodied a cosmopolitanism which would come to be the future of Greenwich. Its fall would be irrevocable."

Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission also expressed some skepticism about the preliminary concept, noting it was still in the discussion phase.

Commissioner Mary Jenkins said she had concerns about "the scale and the architectural weight" of the proposed new structures, calling them "overwhelming."

Commissioner Arnold Welles said the proposed structures on Putnam Avenue that would replace the current ones "seem out of place."

Under Connecticut law, local land-use agencies like a planning commission have no specific authority to stop the demolition of private property. A state 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 an inspection is planned by the office later this summer.

Alban told the property owner that the commission would like specific information from an engineer on the deficiencies that would stand in the way of renovation and reconstruction.

"Why are you saying the building can't be saved?" she asked. "Can you explain the engineering why you can't do restoration?"

The possibility of carrying out a full-scale interior demolition, while preserving the exterior, was also raised as a question for the property owner to answer.

A formal application has not yet been filed, and discussions will be ongoing, the commission stated.

July 23, 2026