Historic Preservation and Demolition Wait Times Discussed at BOS — with New Public Hearing Scheduled

Though a public noticing error essentially made the scheduled public hearing moot, the Board of Selectmen still took time on Tuesday, May 20, to get some feedback on an ordinance amendment that would double the wait time on historic building demolition.

BOS members appeared split on the proposal to extend the wait time for demolition, some in favor and some more skeptical. Several other town officials also weighed in, speaking for and against the change.

The purpose, as stated in the original Demolition of Buildings ordinance, is “to provide public notice of the intent to demolish a building, structure or part thereof, more than 50 years old, or in other ways significant.” The code, Chapter 10B, states that this is so “consideration may be given to the documentation and preservation of historical, architectural or culturally significant buildings in the Town of Wilton.”

The key proposed change asks that the waiting period before demolition go from 90 days to 180 days. 

The BOS had scheduled the public hearing as an opportunity for the public to weigh in on the proposed change.

First Selectman Toni Boucher explained that, in giving notice about the public hearing, a section of the proposed document change was omitted, thus requiring that officials delay any action. A new public hearing has been scheduled for the Tuesday, June 24 BOS meeting.

“In the process of posting this, there was a formatting issue and that particular section is not in this particular language, but … we can change it after the public hearing and probably schedule another public hearing with that change, because it appeared to have been a very important component of this,” Boucher told the BOS.

Lori Fusco, chair of the Historic District and Historic Property Commission (HDHP), explained that the state decided to extend the required wait period from 90 to 180 days back in 2007.

“That was done for a reason because as far back as 2007 they realized that these type of efforts don’t happen overnight,” she said, indicating Wilton was behind the times.

Fusco said that over the past 10 years there have only been three or four buildings to which her commission applied this ordinance. Citing Wilton’s Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD), she said that Wiltonians are in strong favor of trying to preserve historic buildings in town, and that this additional wait time is aimed at helping in that process.

“It’s a very, very small amount that it’s been actually applied to … It’s very rare that we actually implement the delay,” she said, explaining it was still important to have the option.

Selectman Joshua Cole and Selectwoman Kim Healy shared their fears that, since the decision was made at the discretion of the HDHP, there was no way of knowing whether future commissioners wouldn’t abuse the chance to put delays on demolition for many more houses.

“The next group could be completely unreasonable and just literally say every single property … We sit here where things turn sour very quickly and we have to plan for those,” Healy said.

Fusco, however, took umbrage and sought to salve their concerns.

“It just seems very cynical (and) I find it almost insulting, because that’s not the point of the commission,” Fusco said. “The Board of Selectmen picks the people to be on the commission. We’re appointed. We’re not elected … It’s really in your hands.” 

During the meeting’s public comment period, Planning and Zoning Commission Chair Rick Tomasetti spoke out against changing the ordinance, stating he was appearing as a private citizen and local architect.

“I oppose the change to 180 days,” he said. “I think it’s onerous on property owners.”

“I think individuals should have the full authority over their property,” Tomasetti said. “I think the current 90-day delay for structures 50 years or older already limits certain freedoms.”

Extending the delay, he said, “imposes significant burdens,” including potential increased costs and delays.

“I don’t believe that we’ve had the inventory of historic homes being torn down that this is an issue,” Tomasetti said.

Fusco countered that the commission was under pressure to adequately do their due diligence.

“Ninety days isn’t enough,” she said. “It just isn’t.”

She cited the John C. Wally House at 232 Danbury Rd., which the Wilton Volunteer Ambulance Corps. purchased with the intent to raze the existing structure and build a new building as the site for its new headquarters. Fusco said it took close to a year to get answers about the building’s historic relevance and to see what partial preservation efforts could be made, even with cooperation from the owner.

Healy asked about the flexibility for property owners with regard to financial hardship. Fusco said that those are considerations the commission can make in good faith on a case-by-case basis, but emphasized that they didn’t necessarily have to use the whole 180 days if it were possible to get things figured out sooner.

“This isn’t about taking away things from people,” Fusco said. “This is about making thoughtful preservation efforts.”

The BOS plans to revisit the question during a fresh public hearing on Tuesday, June 24, with a possible vote on the ordinance amendment to follow that same evening.