Preservation Push: Historic Properties Commission Amps Up Efforts to Preserve Gilbert & Bennett Bldg., Town Hall and More, as Public Outcry Over G&B Grows

Wilton’s Historic District & Historic Properties Commission (HDHP) is taking steps to ensure its voice is heard in the public discourse about the fate of Wilton’s historic buildings.

Three such properties have recently been at the forefront of HDHP’s attention:

• Town Hall (238 Danbury Rd.), which needs numerous repairs but is also being studied for expansion as part of a larger overhaul of Town Hall Campus facilities
• The Gilbert & Bennett School building (49 New St.), which was deemed unsafe by the Health Department on Aug. 29, and Town officials told tenants of the G&B Cultural Center they had to vacate the property. The Georgetown Community Association (GCA), which installed the G&B Cultural Center, continues to criticize the Town for lack of transparency in its actions and plans for the property.
• 232 Danbury Rd., a property owned in the 1800s by John C. Walley, a former enslaved man, which more recently was acquired by the Wilton Volunteer Ambulance Corps (WVAC) with plans for a new headquarters on the site

Proposed Ordinance Changes

HDHP has limited tools at its disposal for protecting historic properties. In addition to overseeing a design review process for any building renovation plans within Wilton’s historic districts, the commission also reviews demolition applications — whether or not a building is in a historic district — and has the authority, in some cases, to delay demolitions for 90 days to provide time for salvaging opportunities or other alternatives.

HDHP Chair Lori Fusco attended the Dec. 17 Board of Selectmen meeting to seek feedback about possible changes to the Town ordinance pertaining to the commission’s demolition delay authority.

The proposed ordinance change could extend a stay from 90 days up to 180 days. It would also extend the time for the commission to respond to a demolition application from 10 days to 35 days. HDHP is also proposing changes to “intent to demolish” signage to more clearly identify properties slated for demolition which have historical significance.

Fusco said the changes were “long overdue”, consistent with the Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) recommendations, and modeled after Westport‘s revised demolition delay ordinance.

The selectmen seemed receptive to the proposed changes and inclined to bring the matter to a public hearing, as would be required for any ordinance change.

Fusco told the selectmen that the commission rarely exercises the delay to demolish. At the Dec. 10 HDHP meeting, she also noted she is hopeful that the Walley house will be saved from plans to demolish it, with the Wilton Historical Society investigating the possibility of relocating the house.

Reminder about Town Hall’s Historic Value: Wilton’s “Identity, History and Future”

Fusco also took action recently to improve Town officials’ understanding of the “historic” significance of Town Hall. The building’s long list of needed repairs and space constraints have been the subject of much discussion by the BOS and its advisory committee, the Town and School Needs Assessment Priorities Committee (TSNAP).

TSNAP has been exploring possible alternatives for renovating and expanding Town Hall, with one option that includes a complete teardown of the building. On behalf of HDHP, Fusco sent a letter to the TSNAP committee explaining Town Hall’s historic value.

GOOD Morning Wilton obtained a copy of the letter, which states that “preserving the original historic portions of Wilton’s Town Hall is vital for maintaining the town’s cultural identity, honoring its heritage, and supporting the goals outlined in the Wilton [Plan of Conservation and Development].”

The letter goes on to say that preservation is “not merely a practical decision but a commitment to honoring the town’s heritage, aligning with its [Plan of Conservation and Development] strategies, and fostering sustainable development. This is not just a dollars-and-cents decision; it is about preserving the community’s identity, history, and future.”

The letter also reveals that HDHP commissioners are opposed to the notion of “replicating” the building’s facade with new construction.

“Replication cannot replace the authenticity and integrity of the original structure. The charm and historic significance of Town Hall cannot be reproduced, as replication lacks the craftsmanship, materials, and historical context of the original building.”

TSNAP Committee Chair Patti Temple told GMW that TSNAP is unlikely to discuss the letter before the committee delves further into Town Hall discussions, which may not be until March. [More on TSNAP’s future mission will be reported in a separate story on Dec. 19.]

Gilbert & Bennett

The agenda for the Tuesday, Dec. 17 Board of Selectmen meeting included an executive session for a confidential discussion about the potential sale or lease of the Gilber & Bennett building.

As it turned out, G&B became a major focus of the meeting, when multiple people — including two members of the Georgetown Community Association and their attorney — appeared in person to speak during the public comment portion of the meeting, imploring the BOS to preserve and repair the Gilbert & Bennett building, and to ensure it remains available for community use.

Three members from one family (a mother with her young daughter and son, residents of Sunset Hill Rd.) spoke to the selectmen about their experiences at the building. The mother described it as “a rare gem… a symbol of our past and a cornerstone of our present” and “a vital space where our neighbors come together, find joy and create lasting memories in this community.” The children added their pleas for the selectmen to ensure their beloved neighborhood facility remained.

Lynn Van Wagner, a New St. Terrace resident who described herself as a longtime member of the GCA, read a lengthy prepared statement that made several claims alleging poor communications by the Town with G&B tenants, a lack of shared documentation about the building’s recent condition, and a lack of transparency about the potential sale of the building.

Resident Sara Curtis echoed the desire for greater transparency from town officials and urged the selectmen to stop holding further executive sessions about the G&B building until the public has the opportunity to learn more about what the BOS might be contemplating for the building.

“I do not have confidence or trust in what discussion may take place behind closed doors. These doors have been closed for at least a year, from what I can tell,” Curtis said.

Maryann Rossi, who identified herself as a Georgetown resident, also addressed the BOS with a prepared statement. [Editor’s note: GMW interviewed Rossi in September. At that time, she identified herself as president of the GCA.]

“The town is using their own massive and deliberate neglect of the building as an excuse to keep us out,” Rossi claimed about the town’s order for tenants to vacate the building. “We no longer have confidence in Wilton’s ability to maintain and appreciate the building.”

Rossi called for the building to be placed in a land trust that would preserve and properly maintain the building for future community use.

Van Wagner and Rossi also spoke at the Dec. 10 HDHP meeting, expressing the same criticism and frustration with the Town. Both mentioned contentious interactions with First Selectman Toni Boucher.

Underlying their comments is their belief that the GCA still has an agreement in place with the Town. During the BOS meeting, Boucher insisted there is no active agreement in place.

[Editor’s note: GMW‘s previous investigation revealed that a 2011 agreement with the GCA was updated under former First Selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice as a month-to-month arrangement.]

GMW also reached out to the attorney for the GCA, Bob Jewell, with the law firm Donnelly, McNamara & Gustafson. Jewell maintained that the agreement between the GCA and the Town was never terminated, and he asserted that without any notice to terminate from the Town, the lease agreement would remain valid under Connecticut law.

The G&B Cultural Center — whose connections to the GCA became somewhat murky over time — continued to operate over the years, paying for heat and other expenses under the terms of the agreement, right up until the Cultural Center’s director, Pat Hegnauer, was informed by the Town in August that tenants needed to vacate. [GMW reached out to Town officials for further clarification about the agreement being terminated. Town Administrator Matt Knickerbocker responded by email, reiterating the position that the agreement expired in 2016 but offering no additional information.]

[UPDATE: After this story was published, former first selectwoman Lynne Vanderslice submitted a comment about Gilbert & Bennett leases: “To clarify, in 2016, most of the leases were changed to month-to’-month as the BOS had decided to take a comprehensive look at rental properties. Otherwise, the terms of the leases didn’t change except for those not rented for a $1, which experienced increases in their monthly rent.

A Committee was appointed to study and make recommendations. The committee released a report, which is still available on the town website. The report was presented at a regular BOS meeting and very well received by the board, though at the time our focus was finalizing a proposal for the police headquarters. The BOS particularly liked the recommendation that the Historical Society, not DPW manage historical town-owned rental properties. The then co-executive director of the Historical Society was in attendance and did indicated there was uncertainty as to whether they had the manpower.

Later in the meeting, Knickerbocker kindly thanked the various speakers, but addressed what he said was “misinformation … that sometimes spins into things that aren’t true” about the “emotionally charged topic.”

Contrary to statements made by Van Wagner and Rossi, Knickerbocker assured residents that the Town is pursuing insurance claims for damages to the G&B building from the August rainfall event, but final costs and repairs are still being tallied.

He also reported that an environmental firm had been consulted “immediately” after the Health Dept. deemed the building unsafe. Mold testing reports are expected “any day.”

Knickerbocker specifically responded to the charge that the GCA has not been properly informed by the Town about the developments following the August storm.

“We tried very hard to find them,” Knickerbocker said. “We were told it had been disbanded.” [Editor’s note: at GMW‘s request, Jewell verified the GCA’s status as a registered entity with proper tax filings. A State of Connecticut business entity search reveals its “active” status with a mailing address of 4 New St. It is not listed as a nonprofit.]

UPDATE: after this story was published, Boucher responded to additional follow-up questions from  GMW. Like Knickerbocker, she reiterated that the lease agreement expired in 2016, with no mention of the subsequent month-to-month agreement. However, in providing a copy of the 2011 agreement, she noted that it was signed by Pat Hegnauer, the director of the G&B Cultural Center installed by the GCA.

UPDATE: after this story was published, Boucher responded to additional follow-up questions from  GMW. Like Knickerbocker, she reiterated that the lease agreement expired in 2016, with no mention of the subsequent month-to-month agreement. However, in providing a copy of the 2011 agreement, she noted that it was signed by Pat Hegnauer, the director of the G&B Cultural Center.

“There has been no lease on this building by anyone since [2016]… We [gave] notice back in September 2024 to Pat Hegnauer who signed the lease with the town in 2011,” Boucher wrote in an email to GMW.

Boucher also offered assurance that preservation was a “primary concern” for any plans for the building.

“I would bring any official offer on the building to the BOS if we get one,” Boucher continued. “But we do not have a money offer to date, just a notice that there is interest to buy it from two sources. My primary concern is that whoever is interested would need to preserve the historic character of the building and have the funds to fix it.”

Van Wagner, Rossi and Jewell also referred to a FOIA request that had been submitted to the Town, which Knickerbocker acknowledged receiving.

In yet another twist in the G&B story, GCA attorney Jewell told the selectmen that not only had he been in contact with the Town about the FOIA request in mid-October, but he had formally approached the Town to discuss the GCA’s interest in purchasing the property.

“I just wanted the public to know that this offer is out there, that these public-minded folks in Georgetown would like the opportunity to purchase this building, raise some funds and fix it up, and turn it into the community center that Gilbert & Bennett had actually intended,” Jewell said.

Boucher and Knickerbocker reacted to Jewell’s remarks with a sidebar conversation that could not be discerned. [GMW reached out to both of them for comment.]

Jewell provided GMW a copy of the letter — dated Oct. 16 and addressed to the Board of Selectmen — which clearly identifies the GCA as his client.

“Our clients are offering to purchase the premises in order to prevent the further deterioration of this important, historical and cultural resource,” Jewell wrote, also requesting a response from the Town “to discuss this urgent matter.”