GOOD Morning Wilton has received several letters to the editor about preserving the Gilbert & Bennett school building in Georgetown. All letters we have received to date are complied in this single article. Some of the submissions have specifically referenced an earlier letter from the principals of Twelve Gods Brewery and Restaurant, the organization that has approached the Town of Wilton about purchasing the site with plans it says will include steps to preserve, conserve and steward the historic building as part of a larger proposal to open a commercial brewing operation and restaurant at the location, in conjunction with the Wilton Land Trust.
Georgetown Community Association Offers Alternative Solution for Preserving Gilbert & Bennett School and Grounds
To the Editor:
The Georgetown Community Association (GCA) offers an alternative solution for preserving the Gilbert & Bennett School and grounds. Founded in 1934, the GCA’s purpose is to promote, preserve, and enhance the historic, residential and commercial character of Georgetown while fostering strong community ties. The GCA stands ready to take over the G&B School, to restore it as a cultural center, and to preserve the playing fields and surrounding open spaces. All of this can be done without violating the express interests and wishes of the people of Georgetown, who are united against the proposal of Twelve Gods Brewery. The GCA’s offer is on file with the Town of Wilton and we are awaiting a response.
In their recent letter to the editor of GOOD Morning Wilton, Twelve Gods cautioned that we must not wait for the perfect idea. But there is no need to wait. Given ownership, the GCA would obtain state and federal grants as well as private funding to restore the building to its intended function as a community and cultural center for the people of Georgetown. By taking on the building the GCA would relieve the Town of a massive repair bill and significant ongoing maintenance and management costs. On top of this, the GCA would preserve the land as public open space and would maintain the playing fields. This would respect the historical agreements between the Town of Wilton and the people of Georgetown. This would be a win-win for the people of Georgetown and the Town of Wilton.
Twelve Gods Brewery warns that their interest will wane if the timeline is too long. Yet they should not look askance at a few months’ delay to allow the Town of Wilton to do basic due diligence by completing conditions assessment and feasibility studies funded by State Historic Preservation Office grants, especially when First Selectman Toni Boucher has publicly conceded that the people are “in favor” of doing so. Certainly the GCA supports both the conditions assessment and feasibility studies. Is Twelve Gods worried that these studies may conclude that a brewery in a residential neighborhood — especially when a zoning change would be required to make it happen — is simply not the best or most appropriate use of the property? Do they fear that the public will worry that a zoning change to make way for a brewery increases the risk of further zoning changes elsewhere, unexpectedly changing the character of formerly peaceful neighborhoods across Wilton?
Is Twelve Gods afraid of what the public might conclude if they examine the brewery’s case too closely? They threaten that, if the public does not agree to their plans, Wilton might be forced to accept other proposals that “maximize buildout and minimize sensitivity to neighborhood character.” But this is a fallacy. No one is forcing the Town to sell the building and, if the building is not sold to a developer in the first place, then no apartment complexes or anything else can be built on it. In fact, if Wilton sells to Twelve Gods, and Twelve Gods decides at some point in the future to move on, at that point the danger of development would be far greater. Rather than selling to a business now, the best way to safeguard the G&B School and grounds is to deliver the property over to a non-profit, to be placed in an irrevocable trust. This is the GCA’s plan.
Rather than fearmongering, Twelve Gods should reexamine the feasibility of their own plans. If they fully understood the significance of the property’s inclusion in local Historic District #6, a status that safeguards both the school and its grounds from historically inappropriate exterior alterations, they would realize that their planned beer garden may be impossible. Surely Wilton’s Historic District and Historic Property Commission would find a beer garden inconsistent with both the residential character of Historic District #6 and, more specifically, with the historical exterior appearance of the G&B School’s building and grounds. A playground would be historically appropriate. But a beer garden? What will Twelve Gods do if the commission refuses to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness? Additional parking would also be needed on the site to support brewery operations. Would a Certificate of Appropriateness be forthcoming for that, either?
What is truly in danger is not the already protected exterior appearance of the G&B School, but its function within the Georgetown community. Imagine going from having a cultural center across the street, offering painting lessons, art shows, tag sales, canine obedience classes and studio rentals, to having a business on the scale of Nod Hill Brewery, the activities of which regularly bring Rte. 7 to a halt on summer evenings? The scale of disruption to the lives and property values of the school’s neighbors appears immense. The loss of services and value to the surrounding community are equally vast. The GCA’s plan will preserve the building and grounds while enhancing quality of life, not by sacrificing it.
Also at risk is the historic interior of the school, which is not protected by the building’s inclusion in the local historic district. Preliminary drawings from Twelve Gods suggest that they will gut the building and irrevocably erase the interior character and history of the school. The GCA will preserve the school’s interior, with its unique classrooms and auditorium, to the same standards that apply to the exterior. The classrooms, with their own water supply and private entrances, are particularly suited to renting out to small businesses, something the GCA has a strong track record of doing at the G&B School and intends to continue in the future.
Twelve Gods assures us that they are willing to work with the community. While intended future collaboration with the Wilton Historical Society is laudable, where is the effort to collaborate with Georgetown’s own historical and cultural organizations? Has any attempt been made to reach out to the GCA? No. To Georgetown Village Restoration, Inc.? No. Surely the people of Georgetown, who have been keepers of their own history, maintain their own archives, and put on their own programming separate from Wilton, should have precedence in any plans on how their history will be preserved and how their stories will be told. With the GCA, solutions will emerge from the community rather than being imposed from outside.
A rushed, fear-driven sale to Twelve Gods is not in the best interests of Georgetown or of the larger Wilton community. Whatever decisions are ultimately made by the Town about the future of this historic property, they should be the result of careful and considered, evidence-driven analysis. Our elected officials should not allow themselves to be pressured into hasty action. Conditions assessment and feasibility studies, which can be done at no cost to the Town whatsoever, are a step in the right direction and a sign to the people of Wilton that the Town is taking this problem seriously, and not mismanaging a valuable resource.
Melanie Jarvis
Secretary
Georgetown Community Association
Preservation Means Protecting Purpose, Not Just Walls
To the Editor:
The future of the Gilbert & Bennett Building deserves serious discussion, and we appreciate any group willing to invest time and energy into Georgetown. But this conversation must begin with an important truth: preservation is not simply about restoring bricks and beams. It is about honoring the purpose and promise tied to a place.
When this property came into the Town’s hands, it was widely understood that it would remain accessible to the residents of Georgetown — a community asset, not a commercial destination. The idea was that it would serve as a cultural and civic space reflective of Georgetown’s history and character. That intention matters. The spirit of that understanding matters.
Placing a brewery and restaurant — regardless of how thoughtfully presented — in the center of a residential neighborhood is not aligned with that original purpose. This is not a question of being anti-business or anti-progress. It is a question of fit.
Georgetown is not a commercial corridor. It is a neighborhood of families, children, and long-time residents. The hillside behind the building is where children sled in the winter. The surrounding streets are quiet and residential. Introducing a regional destination restaurant and brewery would permanently alter the scale and rhythm of daily life in this area. Increased traffic, parking demands, late-night activity, and delivery logistics are not theoretical concerns — they are inherent to this type of venture.
We must also address the repeated characterization of the building as “crumbling” or in severe deterioration. That language creates urgency where there may not be one. The building is not a collapsing ruin on the brink of disappearance. It has stood for generations. While like any historic structure it requires maintenance and planning, describing it in a way that suggests imminent failure feels more like rhetorical pressure than objective assessment.
The argument that we must act now or risk losing everything sets up a false choice: brewery or decay. Those are not the only options. Thoughtful communities take the time to explore adaptive reuse that aligns with both preservation and neighborhood compatibility. Slowing down to conduct a transparent feasibility study is not obstruction — it is responsible governance.
The most concerning element of this proposal is not the investment itself, but the shift in purpose. A privately operated brewery and restaurant, even one that includes historical exhibits, is still fundamentally a commercial enterprise. It is not the same as a community cultural center. It is not neutral in its impact on surrounding homes. And it is not the type of venture a town should anchor in the middle of a residential neighborhood.
Georgetown deserves preservation that protects both the building and the character of the community around it. Stewardship includes protecting children who sled on that hillside, protecting neighbors who chose a residential street, and protecting the understanding under which this property was entrusted to the Town.
We should not be rushed into a decision framed by fear of deterioration or hypothetical future developers. We should insist on transparency, feasibility analysis, and solutions that reflect the original intent: accessibility, cultural enrichment, and neighborhood harmony.
Preservation means more than saving a structure. It means safeguarding the integrity of the place it calls home.
Merima Peterkin
Response to Twelve Gods Letter to the Editor
To the Editor and fellow citizens of Wilton:
This is my response to [Tuesday’s Letter to the Editor in] GOOD Morning Wilton about the proposal to turn the historic Georgetown school building into a bar.
I’m writing not as a politician or a developer — but as a neighbor who lives just 30 feet from that building.
This is the last historic school on our street. It was meant to serve the community. Turning it from a school into a bar feels wrong. From history to nightlife — that’s not preservation.
To some, it may just be an old building.
But to those of us in Georgetown, it’s part of who we are. It may not be Yellowstone to the rest of the world — but to us, it carries that kind of meaning. It represents our history, our children, our quiet street, our sense of place.
Wilton already has bars and restaurants. What we don’t have enough of are community spaces, safe fields for kids, cultural programs or places for special needs adults. That building could be something meaningful for everyone.
My husband and I leave our home at 5 a.m. every morning for work. We chose this street because it’s residential and peaceful. We’re not against business — we’re asking for balance, respect and thoughtful use of a historic space.
Please see us not as opposition, but as neighbors who love this building and don’t want to see our history and peace replaced with another bar.
We need your support.
Leyla Zangieva
Concerned Georgetown Neighbor
In Support of Georgetown Community Association
To the Editor:
The narrative being presented by Twelve Gods Brewery suggests that the community faces a stark choice: act now on one specific proposal or watch the building decay beyond hope. That framing is misleading and shifts responsibility in a way that deserves clarification.
No one is advocating for “deliberate delay” or for allowing the Gilbert & Bennett Schoolhouse to deteriorate. Residents who ask questions, request transparency or encourage a thorough public process are not promoting inaction — they are promoting responsible stewardship of a historic public asset.
It is also important to acknowledge an uncomfortable reality: the building’s current condition did not happen overnight, nor did it result from public discussion over the last few months. Years of deferred maintenance and municipal neglect have contributed to its deterioration. That context matters. It is not reasonable to attribute the building’s challenges solely to the pace of the current conversation, especially when maintenance decisions over time played a significant role in where things stand today.
Importantly, this is not a building sitting in limbo without direction. There is a grant-funded conditions assessment and a feasibility study specifically designed to evaluate the structural realities, rehabilitation needs and adaptive reuse options for this historic property in the middle of a residential historic district. That process exists precisely so decisions are grounded in professional data and analysis rather than urgency-based narratives and pressure. Using those findings to guide next steps is not “dragging things out” — it is the disciplined approach preservation projects require. Allowing that process to inform next steps is not delay — it is due diligence.
We can also look nearby for an example of how historic revitalization is being handled thoughtfully. In Redding, the Revitalize Georgetown initiative for the former Gilbert & Bennett Wire Mill site has followed a structured process that includes securing state and federal grants, hiring consultants through a competitive selection process, conducting formal feasibility analyses, and engaging in extensive public outreach — including input from residents of surrounding towns. That process includes workshops, surveys and professional planning work — not because Redding wants delay, but because complex historic properties require disciplined evaluation before long-term commitments are made.
That is what responsible municipalities do when dealing with legacy historic sites:
- They gather data.
- They engage the public.
- They evaluate financial realities.
- They avoid false binaries.
Preservation and revitalization are shared goals. A brewery and restaurant may be one adaptive reuse option — but it is not synonymous with “saving” the building, nor is it the only conceivable path. True stewardship requires fully understanding the financial structure, long-term operational sustainability, historic integrity considerations, neighborhood impacts, land preservation commitments and taxpayer exposure before making a decades-long decision.
The suggestion that time automatically eliminates options assumes that immediate acceptance of one proposal is the only viable path. In reality, informed evaluation strengthens outcomes. Preservation projects demand careful financial modeling, historic review, land-use analysis, and long-term operational planning. A rushed agreement on a decades-long outcome carries far more risk than a measured review guided by expert findings.
It is also misleading to suggest that this is the only team with “real capital” or serious interest. It’s not. A transparent, competitive process protects both the building and the taxpayers. Urgency should not be used to bypass transparency and due diligence.
The repeated implication that, without this proposal, the building will inevitably become a boarded-up ruin or fall victim to insensitive large-scale development is speculative and creates a false binary. The community retains agency. Public assets do not default to worst-case outcomes simply because residents insist on transparency and informed decision-making.
The community is not choosing between action and decay. It is choosing whether to let a structured, grant-supported evaluation process do its job before making a decision that will shape Georgetown for decades.
The Gilbert & Bennett School property deserves a solution shaped by professional assessment, transparent process, and broad community confidence — not by pressure tied to artificial timelines.
This building has shaped and will continue to shape Georgetown for decades, and taking the time to correct past neglect, rely on expert evaluation, and secure the right long-term outcome is not obstruction.
It is responsibility.
Thank you,
Kevin Hickey
Editor’s note: The article has been updated to include additional letters received or accepted through editorial review after it was published.