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.
The Wilton Capital Planning Committee (WCPC) took yet a few more twists and turns at its Jan. 7 meeting, with a significant portion of the discussion devoted to voices from outside the committee. Notable among them were two historic preservation advocates — current and former Town officials — who are sparking a broader conversation about whether the Town’s capital planning process is adequately considering the value of historic Town-owned properties and the degree to which capital spending should help advance the Town’s explicit preservation goals.
WCPC Chair Jeff Rutishauser read three letters aloud during the meeting: one submitted by Second Selectman Ross Tartell, noting he was expressing his views as a resident and not in an official capacity; a second one submitted by Historic District and Historic Properties Commission (HDHPC) Chair Lori Fusco; and another by former HDHPC Chair Allison Gray Sanders, who is also a former co-director of the Wilton Historical Society.
All three raised concerns about the ratings framework that the WCPC has suggested it would use to evaluate and prioritize the numerous potential capital spending projects. Five criteria in the framework would give weight to a given project based on:
- Legal compliance
- Critical operational significance to the Town
- Use by most residents (including children)
- Urgency
- Adds to or maintains Town amenities
The WCPC is preparing to address the concerns that have been raised at its next meeting (Jan. 21) as it tackles the broader and lingering question about what the committee’s scope should be. [GMW is reporting on that issue in a separate story today.] Rutishauser noted that resolving those issues quickly — and with the input of the Board of Selectmen — is critical for the committee’s work to proceed.
Historic Significance Overlooked
Fusco and Gray expressed strong concerns that the criteria used by the WCPC omit historical significance entirely — an omission they say places Wilton’s most significant historic properties, such as the Ambler Farm Yellow House and the Gilbert & Bennett building, at a disadvantage.
“I am perturbed by the omission of a significant criteria, which is historic value,” Sanders wrote. “Without this perspective, the worth of the antique buildings owned by the town cannot be properly measured… Adding historic preservation criteria provides a way to acknowledge the value of [town-owned historic buildings] as they are clearly different from most municipal buildings.”
“These round pegs do not fit into the square boxes of the grid,” Sanders continued, an apparent reference to the WCPC’s draft spreadsheet with columns for the five evaluation criteria. “Another category is needed.”
Fusco echoed Sanders’ points, but went further in her critique of the WCPC approach, especially the “use by most residents” criterion. She believes it creates an “impossible standard” for historic buildings like the Yellow House and G&B which have been closed to the public precisely because they were not maintained.
“At present, the WCPC prioritization criteria do not adequately account for historically significant properties that have been decommissioned due to longterm neglect,” she wrote. “The heavy weighting of ‘use by most residents’ creates an impossible standard. These buildings cannot score well because they are currently unsafe and unusable. Yet they cannot be returned to service unless they are prioritized for investment.”
Fusco’s key message to the committee emphasized the historic properties as valuable assets.
“These are not simply aging buildings,” she wrote in her letter. “They are irreplaceable public assets that reflect Wilton’s history, identity, and values.”
A Missing Voice?
One of Fusco’s frustrations is the lack of advisory representation on the WCPC specifically focused on historic preservation. By comparison, the committee has multiple voices from the Board of Education who can advocate for school projects.
“Other priorities benefit from knowledgeable advocates who can explain context, risk, and longterm value,” Fusco wrote. “Historic properties deserve the same.”
Without a consistent voice at the table, Fusco says, preservation efforts are at a disadvantage.
She took particular note of Rutishauser’s characterization of certain town-owned historic buildings as “orphans”, a comment he made at the WCPC’s Nov. 12 meeting, which she found “telling.”
“The word carries an implication of abandonment and neglect, subtly framing historic properties as burdens rather than responsibilities,” she wrote, arguing that such framing can ultimately shape outcomes.
Fusco says she has observed similar hints in various discussions about the nuisance or burden posed by the work needed at the Yellow House or G&B, and hopes future discussions go in a new direction — framing the properties as assets, not cost centers; and the needed investment as a responsibility, not an option.
“Stop trying to frame this idea that historical assets are a negative,” she said in a recent conversation with GMW. “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?”
Language matters, she says, and the information is best delivered by someone knowledgeable about historic preservation so that there is an informed “dialogue about why things matter.”
“From the historic preservation piece of it, I think there’s so much that people don’t understand,” Fusco said. “[But] I think people are starting to wake up a little bit when it comes to realizing what’s happening — we own these great assets, and they don’t serve the town when they’re not in use.”
“We want a seat at the table,” she said. “It should be part of the dialogue… you don’t have somebody that’s representing or advocating [for historic structures].”
At the Tuesday, Jan. 13 HDHPC meeting, Fusco reported that she had just sent an email to Boucher with a “very clear and direct” request for a seat at the WCPC table. GMW will reach out to Boucher for comment about the email.
Fusco emphasizes that offering the WCPC a preservation perspective is intended to be collaborative and foster a deeper, common understanding of historic properties “so we can work together, we can work cohesively, so we can all just be a little bit more understanding.”
She also says she is open to decisions that may not favor preservation, as long as those decision are based on all the facts.
“I want to get over the objections,” she said “But at the end of the day, if it still doesn’t make sense, then I’m accepting of that 100%.”
Editor’s note: After this story was published, Fusco clarified that her comment was in the context of the Town’s decision whether to accept a $55,000 matching grant for lead remediation at the Yellow House. She is firmly “pro-preservation” on the Town’s obligation to conduct the work.
POCD as Touchstone
Sanders and Fusco also urged the WCPC members to meaningfully incorporate the Town’s 2019 Plan of Conservation and Development (POCD) into its evaluation process.
They specifically referred to the POCD’s stated goal “to preserve Wilton’s
rural character, historic resources, and cultural landscapes” and the related directive “to maintain town-owned historic structures in a state of good repair.”
Sanders recommended adding “advances historic preservation directives of the 2019 POCD” as one of the WCPC’s decision criteria.
Fusco concurred.
“I don’t understand why [the POCD] doesn’t seem to be carrying greater weight,” Fusco added. “It reflects years of professional analysis and extensive public input. It is
not merely aspirational. It is a community-informed guide that deserves meaningful weight in capital planning decisions.”
“To me, the bottom line is always ‘what did the town say they want’,” Fusco said. “And really, the POCD I feel [is] where you’ve got to start.”
For Fusco, it’s not about fringe ideals.
“I don’t want to sound like I’m this green tree-hugger,” she said. “There is a Plan of Conservation and Development that completely maps out what people in this town have expressed that they want to see and don’t want to see.”
Not Just Ambler and G&B
While the Yellow House and G&B have received much of the focus in WCPC discussions to date, Fusco noted the Town’s historic building inventory goes far beyond those two properties — and preservation matters will persist.
“Eventually you’re going to need a new roof on some of these other buildings that they own. They own Old Town Hall. They own that beautiful Marvin Tavern,” she cited as two examples. “There needs to be some thoughtful planning on how to not just maintain these, but let’s put them back into use.”
Fusco wants to see more vision by the Town.
“What’s the best use for some of these things? Why can’t historical preservation and use for our town coexist? Having these buildings that nobody lives in or uses is just the waste. The two buildings [31 New St. and 872 Danbury Rd.] that are up in Georgetown, adjacent to Gilbert & Bennett — vacant. Nothing’s happening there,” she said. “How is that helpful?”
First Selectman’s Take
GMW reached out to First Selectman Toni Boucher for comment about the concerns raised by Fusco and Sanders, that the WCPC is not properly reflecting “historic value” as a consideration for capital spending priorities. Boucher also serves as a WCPC member.
While she did not specifically address the WCPC’s approach, Boucher offered a reminder that the Board of Selectmen is the final arbiter of which projects are presented to voters each year as bonding proposals.
While the WCPC will make its recommendations, the prioritized projects will ultimately be determined by “the entire BOS and ultimately the voters at the Annual Town Meeting,” Boucher wrote in an email exchange.
All WCPC meetings are noticed on the Town website and include opportunity for public comment, both in person and via Zoom.
I note that the BOS meeting agenda for January 20 includes the appointment of two additional members of the Capital Planning Committee, neither of whom has expertise in historic preservation. This is simply not right. Informed discussion of all the proposed projects is necessary for decision-making – and that includes Gilbert & Bennett School and the Yellow House at Ambler Farm.
The Capital Planning Committee’s roster of members indicates seats for two “Community Members” – both of which are open.
At least one of the Community Member seats should be immediately filled by someone with experience and expertise regarding the town’s historic properties. There is plenty of room at the table for historic preservation.