Comstock-Ferre Barn

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Cruzrt,

Thank-you for reminding me.

I am the administrator of the restricted-access GoggleGroup called "Guardians of Old Wethersfield" or just GoWeth. I have been meaning to post on that site a copy of the appeal which was actually "served" back in June.

I am in the process of preparing a copy for the GoWeth group's use. I plan to make a copy of it for this venue too. In a detailed and meticulous manner, the appeal lays out the "grievances" which have propelled this law suit. It will serve the public well to study it and ask a lot of hard questions of the WHDC and perhaps propel the newly constituted (sans Hock-Wolf and Miglus) WHDC to "play by the rules" in a truly apolitical manner.

The original appeal will be undergoing a slight technical modification in the not too distant future and when that is completed and accepted by the Superior Court, the updated version will be posted too.

If you are in a rush, you can pick up your own, pristine copy at the Superior Court in Hartford; it is public information and you don't have to invoke the FOI Act.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Cruzrt, et al.

I received a 17 page fax from Atty. Ruhe's office (will save your the trip and expense of getting it from Hartford). I tidied it up page by page; converted each page to TIFF image file; and, combined all 17 pages into a single ZIP file.

Recommendation:

• download the file to a separate subdirectory;
• extract the image files to that subdirectory;
• sort the directory by file name;
• print each page one at a time.
• Since the page numbers of the original fax are not consistently visible, I strongly suggest that you inscribe the number of each file as it is printed. The page number is the last two digits of an image's file name.

For now, this will have to do.

Download a copy of the appeal by clicking HERE

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Some have asked off-line what the GoWeth group is all about. I provide the following information from this restricted website, listserv, & bulletin board:

"

GUARDIANS of OLD WETHERSFIELD

is an email listserv and discussion group,
GoWeth in Google Groups,
which focuses on the preservation and promotion of
"the Most Auncient Towne of Connecticut"
Wethersfield, settled in 1634.
Its residents participate in
the history of Old Wethersfield
and are Guardians of its future.

[/size][/center]

Our group was formed following a meeting of concerned citizens on March 5, 2007. The primary concern at that meeting was and is a proposal by a developer to significantly alter one of the most iconic properties, structures and businesses in the very heart of Old Wethersfield, the privately held Comstock, Ferre & Co. and to effect zoning changes which, we feel, would be detrimental to the quality of life here. The intent of the meeting was to reach a consensus for possible actions to influence the outcome of the proposed redevelopment.

Old Wethersfield is home to the largest, official historic district in the State of Connecticut, and, as such, is also home to devoted residents, a cherished history and important, physical resources. These residents and friends of Old Wethersfield are active stewards of this history and resources. Membership in GOWeth is restricted to those other residents of Old Wethersfield, the town at large, and others who share the group's concerns for and are willing to actively work for the preservation of the essence of what makes Old Wethersfield unique and for only carefully considered and appropriate changes to static and dynamic elements of this old New England village.[/b]"[/blockquote][/quote]

[Jubashero]

“tearing down of some relic of our past”, Andrew Adil, From the Mayor’s Desk, Wethersfield Life, July 2007. I doubt they will be putting that quote on a Preserve America Banner.

I wasn’t going to post; it seems that “those in the know” have strong convictions, which is both a strength but also a curse. A curse because they do know how to listen to other points of view.

I personally don’t care whether or not the barn gets torn down. I think the process was flawed with the intervention of politics. I don’t agree with the filing of a lawsuit; however, I agree with some of their contentions. As a side note, it’s funny that those who claim to want less government are the first to file lawsuits. Also, I think one plaintiff’s claim of injury may be disingenuous based on her letter to Wethersfield Life. And, the Historic District Commission (HDC) is the guardian of Old Wethersfield, not some self-righteous group.

Should have the HDC considered the viability of Comstock? – no. If Comstock were the last Horse Buggy Whip Factory, should we as a town continue to support it. Other businesses in Old Wethersfield have failed (Whites Market, Getty, Main Street Drug, etc.)

Should have the HDC considered the economic situation of the owner – no. If he did his due diligence we he purchased the property he would have known about the condition of the barn and HDC.

Is the barn worth saving? I don’t know. But if it were, and the HDC wants to preserve it, why not move it to another property? If not, tear down the old relic of our past. In the name of tourism and economic development, I think the town should sell Broad Street Green to a small shopping strip developer, tear down all the trees and not worry about Comstock.

[standish]

Jubashero: Perhaps our mayor considers much of Wethersfield to be "some relic of our past" and would slash and burn as he arbitrarily deems fit. That seems to be his posture and even that of the HDC, which you claim to be the guardian of Old Wethersfield (not my choice of names... it does risk sounding self-righteous).

In regard to the curse of convictions, please give me someone with convictions any day, even those opposite to mine, as opposed to the double-minded person.

Lawsuits, or "suits in common law" are based upon the organic, collective jurisprudence of centuries of Anglo-Saxon relations, in lieu of more government. Let citizens in courts of their peers solve their differences in ways superior to arbitrary goverment interference. In fact, the suits to which I have been party are against abusive government power, with government as the named, opposing party.

I wish you weren't so reserved about tourism and development...

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

The CT Superior Court has spoken, via Judge Robert Hale on the bench, that the Town of Wethersfield's Historic District Commission did NOT play by the rules (my terminology, not his):

• He granted the plaintiffs' appeal against the actions of the WHDC in June, 2007, noting that there was a LACK OF NOTICE of the intended DEMOLITION of the main Comstock Ferre barn complex
• and that there was a LACK OF LEGAL NOTICE.

More information shall follow here from Attorney Barbara J. Ruhe, of Wethersfield, who successfully handled this citizens' appeal pro bono - for the good of the public.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Please note that the following exchanges. I have re-ordered the emails from the oldest down to the most recent for ease of reading; otherwise they are unedited!
Dr.Ken

#!-----Original Message-----
From: Therrien, Bonnie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 12:23 PM
To: John Bradley
Subject: Summary of HDC Case

Jack - Can you give me a summary of what transpiried today so I can share this with Council and HDC?? I know that the other side will be going to the press - probably calling them as we speak, so I want to make sure I have something today to share with the groups. I will tell them not to comment and all remarks should be made by you. Thanks!! We'll win this yet. Bonnie

#2 From: John Bradley [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 1:38 PM
To: Therrien, Bonnie
Subject: RE: Summary of HDC Case

We had oral argument of the appeal this morning. Judge Robert Hale presided. There was no testimony from any witnesses; rather, the argument was based upon the Briefs filed by the parties and upon the Record i.e., the exhibits that were submitted at the hearing, the transcripts, the legal notice and the application.

Following a short recess, the Judge issued an oral decision. He found that there was substantial evidence in the Record to support the Commission’s decision. He also found that there was no evidence that the Commission had acted arbitrarily or in abuse of its discretion. He also found that the public had been afforded ample opportunity to speak at the hearing and that the hearing was fair. However, he ruled that the published legal notice of hearing was defective because it did not state that the application involved demolition of the barn. He said that in his opinion, the public would not necessarily know, from the legal notice and the application itself, that the proposal involved demolition.

#3 From: Therrien, Bonnie [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 2:15 PM
To: Andrew Adil; [e-mail]; Walsh, Martin; Hemmann, Donna; Kotkin, Jeffrey R.; Forrest, Matthew; Roberts, Gerri; john cascio; Console, John J.
Cc: Stearley, Kristin; Gillespie, Peter
Subject: FW: Summary of HDC Case

Good Afternoon on this beautiful day!!
The Smart vs. HDC case was heard this morning and we did lose based on a technicality. Below please find the summary from Attorney Bradley on the proceedings today. In case you receive any calls from the newspapers, I would refer all comments to the Town Attorney. We now have to make a decision as to whether we will appeal or not. Let me know if you have any questions. Bonnie

[cruzrt]

Historic District Comm. was supposed to be holding a Hearing on the Comstock application this week. Haven't heard anything about the meeting. Does anybody know anything?

[standish]

HDC closed the hearing and tabled the decision. Maybe next time? Other comments?

[Jubashero]

I was a little disappointed.

I did not attend the first public hearings but read topics on this subject in the newspaper and on this message board, and viewed the tape of the final hearing session. I attended the new public hearing but the applicant did not present any discussions. His sole argument was that HDC had to accept the proposal based on legal precedent. The lack of any new discussion did not provide me or other neighbors who did not attend the first hearing with an opportunity to review or comment on the proposal. Personally, this type of “un-neighborly” behavior does not bode well for the immediate neighbors of Comstock should the applicant’s proposal become reality.

I plan on not buying anything from Comstock for the next year.

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

WFSB.com

Video: Trust Shows Little Support For Barn Project:
www.wfsb.com/news/16890546/detail.html

Plans To Replace Historic Barns Hit Snag
Trust Members Aiming For Changing Plan

POSTED: 3:13 pm EDT July 15, 2008
UPDATED: 7:32 pm EDT July 15, 2008

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

The motion was for approval of the Comstock / Coccomo application with the stipulation that the tall / center barn in back and its adjacent
(to east) Onion barn be adaptively reused under the guidance of th
Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation ( www.cttrust.org/ ).

A full WHDC is comprised of five active, voting members; there are three alternates (non-voting). Last night, he elected chair, the level headed Rob Garrey, was absent. Mark Raymond was absent. Apparently alternate Bette Botticello was "activated" (by whose designation was not clear!) to create a five-member HDC. New alternate Michael Rell (yes, the son of the Gov!) but could not vote (in-active as an alternate). Eric Hart assumed the role of acting chair, though it was hard to tell at time since member Sue O'Brien usually overshadowed him.

Oh, yes, in what I believe was a first, the Town Attorney Jack Bradley (handsomely paid by the Town/Taxpayers) was with the panel up front with the HDC, providing real-time advice to at least Sue O'Brien, or so it seemed.

A quorum, I believe, is a simple majority: 3.
Vote-empowered HDC members last night: 5.
Passage required a simple majority: 3.

The vote was:
Aye: 3
Nay: 1
Abstained: 1
-----------------
1,Non-voting alternate present
1,Non-voting alternate absent
1,Regular member,absent

The outcome:
Coccomo: overtly happy (?has yet to realize the probable unintended consequences.)
OWHT (the "opposition"), surprised, but hopeful
Vindicated: no one!
PZC: the next battle ground regarding the commercialization of the residential Church Street lot belonging to Comstock, et al.!

[cruzrt]

Does the Comstock issue now go to Planning & Zoning? That's what Dr. Ken's comments seem to say. And, just what kinds of jurisdiction would P&Z have on this?

[Dr.Ken Sokolowski]

Jul 25, 2008 15:37:04 GMT -5 cruzrt said:

Does the Comstock issue now go to Planning & Zoning? That's what Dr. Ken's comments seem to say. And, just what kinds of jurisdiction would P&Z have on this?

• Yes.
  
• Right.
  
• Zoning.

[standish]

The project fails to conform to existing zoning requirements in a number of ways, and also requires a zone change on Church Street to accommodate the proposed, new, quadruplex apartment building. That building is in addition to the hybrid adaptive reuse barn, apartment and retail mall.

Lighting, inadequate parking, traffic, landscaping and a range of other issues will be addressed, in addition to the requested zone change.