Today’s coverage includes a three-part GOOD Morning Wilton series stemming from recent Wilton Capital Planning Committee discussions. The stories examine questions about the committee’s scope, whether historic value is being adequately reflected in its capital planning framework, and how those issues intersect with the future of a highly visible town-owned historic property — the Yellow House at Ambler Farm. PLUS, we have a bonus feature about potential interest by a ‘mystery’ party interested in buying the Gilbert & Bennett property.
With several options still available for exactly how the town wants to handle it, the “Yellow House” at Ambler Farm was the subject of discussion at the Wilton Capital Planning Committee on Wednesday, Jan. 7. The WCPC is currently evaluating which proposed capital projects it will recommend to the Board of Selectmen for bonding consideration in FY 2027.
A presentation by Jeff Pardo, assistant director with the Department of Public Works, currently estimates that restoration of the historic house, which is in dire need of repair as well as lead abatement, will cost $1,367,749.
Pardo said the original estimate was from 2023 and there was no way of knowing when it would go forward, so he added 24% escalation to the estimate, along with some additional items to be considered.
“I added some work in that was not in the original estimate,” Pardo said. “I threw in some money for septic system. I don’t know if it’s ever been checked but I think it’s a good idea to have some funds in for that … There’s some structural work which the architect did not include in his original schematic documents.”
He said that in the attic the rafters were spray-foamed for insulation, which he believes needs to be taken out to keep the wood healthier.
Pardo emphasized that there was no real way of knowing what the final cost would be until the project was underway, but that the final result would be a modern house constructed within the envelope of what would remain the historic structure.
First Selectman Toni Boucher has led the way in advocating for the project, which she said is geared toward rehabilitating the living space for a farmer and his family, who would work and reside there. She has expressed strong feelings that someone related to — and vetted by — the Friends of Ambler Farm should occupy the house, citing the close proximity of many children that utilize the farm and concerns about safety should the house be rented to someone else.
“Just as feedback,” Boucher said, “I have heard back from the majority on the Board of Selectmen that the Yellow House is something they want to put in their priority list, from what I understand. There’s a new majority on the Board of Selectmen and I listened very carefully to some of their suggestions to bring it forward, and it happens to coincide with one of my priorities too, so it’s kind of nice when both sides of the aisle agree.”
While the WCPC is not expressing any objections to the concept of refurbishing the house — it does not favor its demolition, according to WCPC Chair Jeff Rutishauser — some members still have questions they want answered, including a clearer picture of what the finished product will be worth to the town.
“Is this farmer tenant gonna pay rent?” Board of Finance member Kari Roberts asked. “They’re getting a four-bedroom, two-bathroom house that’s very state-of-the-art and lovely (and) because we have to rank this at some point, even though it’s not our business — the economics of it — it might be more compelling for higher ranking.”
Roberts referred to the upcoming plan of the WCPC to rank a priority order for various bondable projects that the town potentially has before it, which will then constitute its recommendation to the BOS.
Roberts also broached the idea of creating a duplex within the Yellow House in order to augment its use.
“Did anyone look at two apartments instead of just one? … It might compel people to give it a better ranking,” Roberts said, noting that perhaps two different farm — or possibly town — employees could then occupy it. This, she said again, might make it a more attractive project for town bonding, as it would potentially increase revenue.
WCPC member Rich Santosky agreed it could be influential in the committee’s ranking and the BOS’s choices.
“It just may be a different vote if it’s a two-family or three-family place … That would be a different recommendation to the Board of Selectmen,” Santosky said.
The WCPC bantered informally about different ideas that could be considered for the house, including the option of demolishing it and either rebuilding a new house or leaving the space open.
“We could tear it down and then we just add more garden space or play space or activity space,” Boucher suggested.
In regard to Roberts’ idea, Boucher also noted, “This is what’s so value about this committee, because ideas have come up that hadn’t been thought of before. It’s something else for us to consider.”
Pardo expanded on different issues related to renovating the current house, including those related to lead paint and its impact on the surrounding soil.
With regard to cost considerations, for a long time now the town has been offered — but has yet to accept — a $55,000 lead abatement grant from the State Historic Preservation Office, which the town will then have to match.
Lori Fusco, chair of the Historic District and Historic Properties Commission, has expressed frustration that the town has not moved forward in accepting the grant, but Pardo explained several restrictions that the SHPO will place on the property and the town if it chooses to accept it.
He said that if the town accepts the grant, the SHPO then gets a blanket approval authority regarding aspects of any historic structure on the property for 15 years, along with ongoing approval of any additional work done on the Yellow House. There are also restrictions in how the lead is remediated, with requirements to have paint stripped rather than boards and inside molding completely replaced.
Other restrictions include a proviso that people are permitted at any time to walk around the structure up close and scrutinize the building — something he said would be potentially awkward for the people living there.
“Do you know how many people walk away from SHPO grants?” Rutishauser asked rhetorically in light of Pardo’s summary.
Pardo said he doesn’t see the grant being worth the restrictions that would then saddle the town.
“The big sticking point is the historic windows,” Pardo said. “These windows are from the 18th century. They don’t operate well. You’d have to restore them. If this was a museum I’d say that was no big deal, but a family is gonna have to live here. They’re gonna want to open and close these windows and they’re not easily operable, plus they’re single-pane window. They’re very energy-inefficient. The rooms are gonna be cold.”
Pardo said he could have the windows replaced with insulating double-pane glass that would be close to identical, but acceptance of the grant would make this alternative unacceptable.
“It’s not my decision to make,” he said. “I’m just giving you my opinion … That’s a Board of Selectmen decision.”
Preservation advocates in Wilton would hope officials consider the flip side. In an interview with GMW following the WCPC meeting, Fusco referred to discussions about the nuisance or burden posed by the work needed at the Yellow House and other historic properties, and wondered why officials wouldn’t take the view that historic properties as assets, not cost centers, and the needed investment to maintain and repair them is a responsibility, not an option.
“Stop trying to frame this idea that historical assets are a negative,” she said. “This is what we have in our town of Wilton that makes it special. Why are we not taking care of it and keeping it and highlighting it? Why are always looking at it like it’s an impediment?”
In addition, Fusco told GMW that her conversations with SHPO have gone differently, and that accepting the grant would not place undue burdens on the Town when it comes to issues like functional windows. “They want the project to be successful,“ she said.
She added that accepting the grant opens up more possibilities for additional grants, but if the town does not accepted it — one that she said was “highly competitive,” used Town employees’ time to apply for, and was approved by the BOS with matching funds — she fears the town will be less likely to be awarded future grants.
Regarding funding, the idea of possibly getting the farm a 30-year mortgage through the town was mentioned, as was the possibly of Ambler Farm doing its own fundraising to cover some of the restoration costs.
“We’re open to anything,” Boucher said, but cautioned that according the proposed lease between the Town and Friends of Ambler Farm (that will be voted on at the next Annual Town Meeting), if the nonprofit gets involved with fundraising, it then gains increased levels of authority over the property.
“I’ve said this repeatedly … Right now they don’t have any say over that property. If they were to be engaged in fundraising then they would have a say over the disposition of how to use that property,” Boucher said.
Over the course of the next few WCPC meetings, committee members will narrow down their choices of recommended capital projects for a final report to be presented to the Board of Selectmen. All WCPC meetings are noticed on the Town website and include opportunity for public comment, both in person and via Zoom.
When so many buildings are “ boxes, little boxes all made out of ticky-tacky and they all look just the same,” (song by Malvina Reynolds 1962). The Yellow House at Ambler Farm is a true delight and respite to behold. It would be a shame to destroy its place in Wilton’s history.