Waterford ― The office of Attorney General William Tong announced Thursday that it will not prevent the owners of the historic Nichols Farmhouse/William H. Putnam house from demolishing the building.

Robert Marelli Jr., founder and president of Waterford-based sheet metal fabricators Seconn Fabrication, and his wife, Susan Marelli, filed for a demolition permit from the town in September to build a new house on the site.

They purchased the 3.7-acre property at 80 Shore Road in June for $1,275,000. The original Greek revival structure, which has had several additions over the years, was listed as a contributing structure to the Hartford Colony Historic District on the National Register of Historic Places in 2005.

On Thursday, the house and its additions were still standing, though many trees on the property have been cut down, making it easier to see the home from the road.

“My family is committed to building a home we can all be proud of that honors Waterford and this unique neighborhood,” Rob Marelli wrote in a text Thursday. “I am very grateful for the attorney general’s office and the outcome.”

He added, “I look forward to continuing my investment in the town that we live in, built our businesses and in, and love. It’s a great community.”

For the past three weeks, the attorney general’s office had been reviewing the demolition plan after members of the State Historic Preservation Council, spurred to action by neighbors and nonprofit Preservation Connecticut, had asked it to intervene.

On Thursday, the attorney general’s office said it would cease its involvement with the case.

“For reasons supported by the architectural assessments and the public record, the Office of the Attorney General will not seek an injunction to prevent the demolition of 80 Shore Road,” Elizabeth Benton, chief of communications and policy for the attorney general’s office, wrote Thursday.

Benton would not elaborate on the reasoning for the decision.

David Gosling, an historic architect who prepared a report for the State Historic Preservation Office, wrote that “nothing of the existing structure was found to be in such disrepair that would warrant demolition,” but that he did understand the owners’ desire to raze the as the home because it “has a very unorthodox arrangement given all the modifications and additions.”

Additions to the original 1850s home were made in the 1890s, 1940s and 1950s with a garage added in 2007.

Gosling’s final recommendation was that the owners demolish all the additions to the home, returning it back to its original 1850’s footprint.

“Removing these additions will achieve two things. It will remove all such distractions which will accentuate the house’s original historic and simple form. I view this as ‘addition by subtraction’ if you will. Removing the additions would also afford the owners a better opportunity to build a new addition that can be designed to better suit their needs,” he wrote.

Meanwhile, the engineering report prepared for the State Historic Preservation Office by structural engineer Elizabeth Acly, found the house to be generally structurally sound. Acly wrote the town building codes allow for the renovation of the home.

Todd Levine, an architectural historian with the State Historic Preservation Office, said Thursday he had not yet talked to the attorney general’s office regarding its decision.

d.drainville@theday.com