Comstock-Ferre Barn

What's the status of the changes that Comstock requested of the Historic District Commission and P&Z? I hear it's been Standing Room Only at their meetings.

The latest.......

Courant.com
Plan For Historic District Spurs Lawsuit By ANN MARIE SOMMA Courant Staff Writer July 3, 2007 WETHERSFIELD

Eight residents of the town's historic district have sued the historic district commission for approving a plan for residential and retail development at the site of Comstock, Ferre & Co., the oldest continuously operating seed company in the country.

The lawsuit filed in Hartford Superior Court last week alleges that the project will diminish the residents' property values, diminish the quality of life protected by the commission, and undermine the integrity of the historic district.

Last month, the commission gave a "certificate of appropriateness" to developer Thomas Coccomo's application to demolish several buildings on the property, including a historic red wood barn. The large red barn would be replaced by a retail and residential building, and a second mixed-use structure would be constructed on Church Street.

Coccomo, with C-P Equity Holdings of Berlin, does not plan to alter the main Comstock, Ferre building, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

The project now must be approved by the planning and zoning commission.

The lawsuit also claims the Historic District Commission used a dual standard for judging residential and commercial applications and that commission members never made a site visit to the Comstock property, which includes several barns and buildings of varying sizes and dates, before approving the project.

"The lawsuit speaks for itself," said Wethersfield attorney Barbara J. Ruhe, who represents the residents. "We are hoping that the court will indeed find that the historic district acted inappropriately and that the certificate of appropriateness was wrongly issued and that it will be reversed."

Commission members could not be reached for comment Monday.

The commission is made up of a panel of political appointees who oversee exterior changes in the state's oldest historic district. It has faced numerous lawsuits in the past by residents who claim it arbitrarily enforces its own rules, mainly on vinyl replacement windows.

Ruhe said homeowners are "nitpicked" and that the commission scrutinizes the minutia of minor home improvements, but the Comstock, Ferre redevelopment proposal was handled loosely.

The lawsuit states that at a public hearing last month, residents urged the commission to spare the red barn on the property, which dates to the 18th century. Residents also questioned why a civil engineer, hired by the developer, provided only a limited, visual inspection of the barn.

The plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are Robert Smart, Carol Szymanski, Leigh Standish, Kathleen Ahearn Williams, Debra Cohen, Howard Willard, Pamela Molochko, and Paul Langdon. They form a grass-roots group called the Guardians of Old Wethersfield.

Coccomo revised his initial proposal to respond to residents' concerns. He scaled back the design for the large building and revised traffic patterns for Church Street.

Contact Ann Marie Somma at asomma@courant.com.
Copyright (c) 2007, The Hartford Courant <http://www.courant.com/>

{The Town needs to keep its political zoning plans out of Old Wethersfield. There is enough for the town to "fix" in the "other" Wethersfield just west across the tracks.}

Wow, what arrogant elitist talk from a residents of "Old Wethersfield". As a resident of the "Other Wethersfield", I take offense to the notion that "political zoning plans" are okay in our Wethersfield but not yours. If you check your history you will see that "Old Wethersfield" has had a business district for a lot longer than the "other Wethersfield". Yes that part of Main St. is a business district, not a "predominantly single-family dwelling neighborhood".

When this controversy over the barn began I went down to Comstock to look at the barn. Yes in all my years in town I had never seen the barn or really even knew it existed. The barn is barely visible from the road and is a mess. Decades of renovations, alterations and neglect have left it an eyesore and a hazard. If I lived near the barn I would be thrilled to see it come down and replaced with a building of similar size yet architecturally similar to the existing. Maybe even with some nice shops that I could walk to. In my opinion that would greatly increase the value of the properties in the neighborhood.

The reality of the situation is that that property is commercial. The current owner is losing money. If he can't make the property profitable he will leave. If any perspective new owners are told they cannot remove the barn they too will find the property to be a bad business investment. If that property becomes vacant you will end up with another Masonic Temple, graffiti ,broken windows and a place on the blight list. I have heard the argument that there is a different standard for this barn because it is a commercial property not residential. Well yeah! If it was in someones back yard they could do minimal repairs or none. As a commercial building it must be brought up to meet building codes, fire codes and ADA accessibility standards.

In my opinion the HDC made a good decision that will enhance the neighborhood not devalue it. Sometimes you must cut out the diseased part to save the whole. If we want to see the historically significant Comstock Buildings saved I believe we must let the barn go if need be.

And as far as the town not redeveloping the Silas Deane, towns don't redevelop, private developers and investors look at properties and decide whether they are good investments, whether the demographics, location and cost are suitable to make a profit. Right now those underdeveloped properties must not meet the criteria. Old Wethersfield has many of the things that make it desirable for a business owner. The town has tried to get in the development business and has failed. Look at the small business loan program. In place for years and from what I understand only one loan and that one almost went to court.

As a resident of the "other Wethersfield" I support this decision and hope that this development will bring in some more nice shops and maybe with the new apartments offer some of our younger residents a place to live as they enter the workforce and want to stay in town.

I'm on a roll so I guess I will make one more comment. The writer of the last editorial says:

"The field of dreams of the four Commissioners is about to become the nightmare for neighborhood residents. If you build it, the tourists will come, whether of not the neighbors of Old Wethersfield want them."

Suddenly no one wants tourists. For many years the Tourism Commission has spent tens of thousands of our tax dollars to promote tourism with flyers, posters, ads and Wethersfield Weekends. We now have a tourism bus to bring people to Old Wethersfield. The town is spending money to install an elevator in the Standish house so a restaurant will be able to survive and bring in patrons from out of town. Soon we will have a state funded horse and buggy riding around town, we could do a forum just on that waste of tax dollars. Why didn't anyone stand up and fight against those attempts to bring in tourism? Why now is tourism not wanted? Or is it just a very small group fighting to keep change from their back yards. Change happens all over town and we must accept it sometimes. In Old Wethersfield you are fortunate enough to have an HDC that will make sure that the change is appropriate and meets all the requirements of the Historic neighborhood. Us in the "other Wethersfield" unfortunately aren't so lucky.

Rick-
I generally agree with your thoughtful positions on issues related to our town. In this instance, there are a few points with which I disagree:

1) The position of those opposed to the HDC decision is the antithesis of elitist arrogance. It is the special treatment afforded the developer, against what is demanded of little grey-haired old ladies on fixed incomes, that is insider arrogance. Our position is populist.

2) I agree that "political zoning plans" are undeserved anywhere in town. My suspicion is that the referenced author misused terms and it was not his intent to suggest that political fixes anywhere were real fixes.

3) Business along Main Street existed before "districts" were even created. They are grandfathered when non-conforming. However, Church Street is zoned "B-Residential". That is the area to which, I assume, the author refers. The previous zoning regs. for Main ST would not have permitted the proposed Comstock development. Furthermore, it is the new "Village Zoning" that is at play here. Most people don't realize that a new set of regulations was passed very recently to give the "not-so-smart growth" planners latitude to take liberties with the existing mix of properties and permitted uses.

4) The Masonic Temple would not be blighted were it not for town planners: The owner had plans for the building, but was blocked by the aforementioned planners, who want retail on the first floor. Such is not required by our regulations. However, it is demanded of private owners in order to enable "critical mass" for commercial development.

5) Read the history of the series of barns at Comstock. You will see that the facility is an organically evolved example of agrarian/commercial enterprise of the 19th & 20th century, of more historical significance than the garages HDC has prevented from demolition because they have a couple of old beams.

6) Commercial property in the Historic District is subject to the same guidebook as residential. Scale, mass, rhythm, streetscape, materials, et al, must conform. They were given a pass on the largest project ever reviewed by HDC, with the most significant impact to the heart of the district. Lax reviews, reports, lists of materials, drawings/photos, deadlines for submission, extensions for reports, etc., all appeared to be permitted. Given the fact that this project so drastically alters the village, proper diligence was not afforded. Porch renovations have required more stringent review.

7) Building codes, fire codes, ADA, etc., are all under the auspices of separate town, State and Federal agencies, who should act in the public interest as they rule on this project. HDC and town officials' advocacy for Comstock have nothing to do with any of the above, except to acquiesce when those agencies' authority take precedence.

8) There is no need to "let the barn go". Adaptive re-use was urged by countless speakers and professionals (CT Trust for Historic Preservation; Willard Restorations; others). Nobody is opposed to properly scaled commerce, respectful of existing zoning, Historic District, environmental, safety, disability and other regulations designed to protect the public interest. We would welcome and support same.

I am normally on the side of less government regulation or intervention. However, when a public interest has been established and followed by all others who play by the rules, a fast-track development designed to spot-zone and bend rules for one developer, in order to bail out a single businessman, who's doing quite well with his other ventures, should not happen.

Scuttlebutt has it that she had planned to leave HDC prior to Comstock. As the only lawyer on the board, she was asked to stay and chair during that application (perhaps to inoculate against legal challenges?). Now that the approval's temporarily granted (until the appeal is heard), she may have chosen to get while the getting's good. This is hear-say, and should be taken as same.