Comstock-Ferre Barn

[cruzrt]

There are reports that Comstock-Ferre will tear down their barn and replace it with some type of office building. Who knows what's going on? Is this going to fit in Old Wethersfield?

[standish]

I have not heard anyone say they were opposed to another venture at the Comstock & Ferre location. However, I have heard considerable concern that the very symbol used on the "Historic Wethersfield" bus graphic, and a centerpiece to the oldest continuously operated seed company in the country, would be demolished and replaced by a 'countrified' strip mall. This out-of-scale, distorted streetscape and intensified use is out of step with the town's historic center.

Furthermore, a proposed zone change to the bottom end of Church Street would jeopardize homeowners' quality of life and their investments thereon. Nor would traffic flow and entry/egress be optimized for an already dangerous intersection. This combined retail, commercial and residential development project may be over the edge.

Let's see whether the town's paid staff and development boards are more concerned about increasing the base through any higher-taxed property than protecting the public interest through its Historic District Commission and zoning ordinances. Too many see tourism and development in Old Wethersfield as the cash cow to underwrite the town's burgeoning budgets... especially those who live elsewhere.

[cruzrt]

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.

[oldetowne]

I think it's still at the historic district commission. It isn't listed in the public hearing notice for PZC for April 4.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Golden Goose's Head on Chopping Block

Are the Hands of Politics Holding the
HDC's and PZC'S Hands
on the Ax Handle?

In another venue I had written:

I received a flyer in the mail (from the Town) about a Community Forum (regarding the Preserve America planner's effort to gather INPUT from Old Wethersfield and the Other Wethersfield, for the purpose of arriving at a Master Plan for Historic Wethersfield.

To which a kindred spirit responded:

Please do not be lulled into a sense of complacency regarding something nebulous like master planning. As a planner, I can tell you that the city of New London prevailed in court over the homeowners in the Kelo eminent domain case because the town had supported its actions for taking those homes in its MASTER PLAN-- in other words it was written down somewhere and supported for a judge to see, smell, taste and then vote in favor of the city as a result. Judges take master plans seriously, hence so should we. Again, I am not sure how the Preserve America planning effort interfaces with the town's own Plan of Conservation and Development, but it could not hurt to voice our concerns over the direction the town is moving in the Comstock proposal. In my opinion it is both arbitrary and capricious that the Historic District Commission should hold homeowners hostage over changes to historic and non-historic single family homes within the district and then give a GREAT BIG PASS to developers seeking to demolish a 170 year old barn. Why the heck does the HDC exist if it can't save my town's historic buildings?!

[SyZyGy]

Well, it finally happened, according to the Hartford Courant; the "historic district commission" has turned its back on the historic district:

"courant.com
www.courant.com/news/local/hr/hc-wetbarn0613.artjun13,0,6807883.story

Commission Backs Comstock Plan

By ANN MARIE SOMMA
Courant Staff Writer

June 13 2007

WETHERSFIELD -- The historic district commission approved a proposal Tuesday that would convert buildings on the property of Comstock, Ferre & Co., the oldest continuouslyoperating seed company in the country, into a residential and retail development.

Developer Thomas Coccomo's proposal calls for demolishing a red wooden barn on the property, a fixture at Comstock, Ferre, and replacing it with a retail and residential building, and building a second mixed-use structure on Church Street.

The proposal now goes before the planning and zoning commission.

A group of Old Wethersfield residents packed the meeting Tuesday to implore the commission to deny the controversial proposal. They said they believe that the proposed development does not blend in with the aesthetics of Old Wethersfield, the largest historic district in the state.

"The historic district commission has decided to build the grand list," said Howard Willard, an Old Wethersfield resident. "This is the heart of our historic district and they are introducing a strip mall."

Many residents have spoken out against the traffic and on-street parking that the development would add.

Plans submitted by Coccomo with CP Equity Holding of Berlin do not alter the main Comstock, Ferre building, which is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Coccomo, of Berlin, 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.

Many residents feel that the red barn on the property, which dates to the 18th century, does not need to be demolished and could be integrated into the development.

"I'm in favor of development; however, there is a beautiful barn on that place and it would be a crying shame to tear it down," said resident Douglas Buck.

"It's an appropriate use for this piece of property, and the commission wishes the developer well in his future endeavors," commission member Jennifer Wolf said.

Contact Ann Marie Somma at [e-mail].
Copyright 2007, Hartford Courant"

[oldetowne]

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 [e-mail].
Copyright (c) 2007, The Hartford Courant <http://www.courant.com/>

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

At the Hartford Courant's website, I found this comment posted by someone referring to him/herself as "The 9th Guardian"

If the four, pro-demolition members of the Wethersfield Historic District Commission were in the military they would be court-martialed for dereliction of duty. They have failed Old Wethersfield and thus the Town as a whole.

The prime directive of the HDC is to preserve the essence and aesthetics of the historic district. In this they have abysmally failed -intentionally.

The HDC members were inveigled by Town Hall, both overtly and covertly. They succumbed to siren call to "build the grand list" by increasing business density in historic old Wethersfield.

Mayor Andy Adil has been beating the drums: "We are very, very, very business friendly." Obviously the WHD commissioners have been impacted and influenced by the drone of drums.

Rather than protecting and encouraging a predominantly single-family dwelling neighborhood, the HDC is out to help the Town put a few pennies in the tax coffers and to put more than few dollars in the cash boxes of old Wethersfield businesses, both now and in the future.

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.

The town itself has not for years and years redeveloped the bland and under-performing Silas Deane Highway, though it is now cranking up for a first-round,$10 million referendum to do so.
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.

And, these unruly, four horsemen of the eclipse of the Historic District must be reined in - if not unseated.

[RGarrey]

{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.

[oldetowne]

Rick - I can appreciate a lot of the points that you're making, but I think there are a couple of things to bear in mind.

First and foremost, the Historic District Commission has a limited scope of jurisdiction and a defined purpose - preservation of the historic character of buildings and structures within the district. The HDC is not intended or permitted to fill the roles of the Redevelopment Agency, the Economic Development and Improvement Commission, the Tourism Committee, the blight committee, the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Chamber of Commerce. Its decisions are not meant to be driven by economic benefits to commercial enterprises - lord knows that it hasn't had that same motivation for the residents and taxpayers when they apply to do things to their homes (just ask the 5 or 10 of them who have been sued by the HDC over the past few years). Remember that this is the same HDC that would not allow Charlie Moller to tear down his gutted burned out house after the fire, would not allow the Town to take down the Olsen House (which you know only too well is another structure with big issues), and micromanages every visible aspect of the homes within its jurisdiction.

That issue aside, I think one of the things that has particularly rankled the cranky Yankees and others in OW is the fact that among the only advocates of this project who spoke at the hearings were Betty Rosania (chairman of the Economic Development and Improvement Commission), Christine Traczyk (vice chairman of the Tourism Commission), and Mayor Andy Adil.

Second, Old Wethersfield IS different in a lot of ways - it is a village with homes and businesses in very close proximity, as was the case in the distant past - and that difference is something that the town (and the HDC) need to recognize as they go forward.

Finally, I am not sure if anyone has taken a poll or whether it's a case of a very vocal minority, but it does appear that at least a large handful of residents down there do not see tourism as the panacea and, other than some of the shopkeepers, don't want the attention, time, energy and tax dollars that have been devoted to creating a destination resort on Main Street.

[standish]

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.

[cruzrt]

Chairperson Wolff of the Historic District Commission is resigning her position effective immediately, although she still has 2 years remaining on her term. Who knows what's going on? Is she moving out of town? Is she forced out by some town powers? Is she trying to avoid legal actions? The timing of the resignation is very suspicious.

[standish]

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.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Rick, I have been following the thread of comments at the Hartford Courant about the "Plan For Historic District Spurs Lawsuit". "The 9th Guardian" made the first post of that thread and that is the post which I ported over to this venue. I thought that you might like to take notice of a more recent message which "9G" (as someone else there had dubbed him) made. As before I copy it verbatim:

"Saturday Jul 7

[Please don't confuse the ambivalent, powerless Wethersfield Historical Society with the antics of the empowered Wethersfield "Hysterical" District Commission (HDC).]

Wow, a lot of water has spilled over the dam and a lot of "refuse" has been flushed down the crapper since I first commented!

Say what you will about the Wethersfield Historic District Commission. Just imagine what the developers and their attorneys (with the aid of the Town Councils) would have done to the land east of the tracks over the past 45 years!

Frankly, I suspect that good sense still prevails among the private homeowners of the historic district. I suspect that without the control of the HDC there would have been more pronounced changes, but, I suspect that those changes would have been, by and large, more organic in nature. In an un-HDC-controlled village, steady habits would have prevailed, by and by, more often than not. But this all is conjectural.

We have a Historic District Commission, I would say, for the better than for the worse.

Is the most recent HDC (prior to July 1, 2007), of a high quality, conscientious and administratively sound: absolutely NOT! If left to its own devices and persisting under pervasive unchanged political and municipal (Town Hall) pressures, will the to be newly configured HDC going to be any better (after the Council meeting of 7/16/2007): I don't think so!

Do I feel that substantial, tangible benefits have accrued to current and past members of the HDC for performing "on command" to forces and powers conveniently hidden: a qualified no. Have some used their prior positions on the HDC advantageously at other times: a qualified yes. Are they any different than those U.S. Congressmen using the revolving doors between the U.S. Capitol and lucrative, lobbyists' jobs in "free enterprise?"

Is the controlled, qualified corruption of the political and municipal processes going to be easily changed: not easily. Will the change come from within or only in response to pressures from without: from without. (Self-delusion, alliances, and sullied ethics prevent it from happening from within.)

What will it take to effectively and meaningfully redevelop, renew, restore, revitalize and redirect the HDC to its true calling: a lot of very angry, very focused, very dedicated and very persistent citizens - not only of Old Wethersfield but also of the Other Wethersfield.

I have no doubt that the Town politicians and administrators would like nothing more than the demise of the WHDC. Pull out the chocks and watch the whole shebang roll downhill.

I urge those who love Wethersfield, and especially Old Wethersfield, to recognize that complacency will not save the essence and aesthetics of the historic district.

Fight for what you love. Fight those who would deprive you of your love. It takes an entire village to raise a town. It takes a town to nurture a village to be all that it was meant to be, a loving home for its residents and the pride of the town at large. "

[cruzrt]

Do any of the posters know if there's a site on the web where we can actually read the text of the lawsuit?