BACK AT THE STARTING GATE
Effort for a South End historic district regrouping after some property owners balk
STAMFORD — More than two years after the Board of Representatives advanced the measure, preservationists’ efforts to create stricter guidelines for protecting properties in Stamford’s still-developing South End are back at the starting gate.
Since July 2021, a five-member committee has met monthly to explore establishing a Local Historic District in the South End. As of October, they had not convinced enough property owners in their target area that it’s the right thing to do. Now, they’re regrouping.
Historic districts are the strongest legal form of historic preservation available to towns and cities in Connecticut. Once established, a commission appointed by a local legislative body can regulate exterior changes to any building within the district. Stamford has only one other local historic district: the Old Long Ridge Village Historic District in North Stamford, near the city’s northern border with New York state.
Setting up a district requires buy-in on multiple levels, including two-thirds approval in a vote of the district’s property owners and a majority vote by the city or town’s legislative body. Both votes only happen after a study committee submits a report to local land use officials and the Connecticut Historical Commission explaining what buildings would be included and how the district is historically significant. After the report is submitted and before voting occurs, the committee must hold a public hearing.
The process has yet to make it that far.
As of Tuesday, the Land Use Bureau had received 78 letters from property owners in the district expressing opposition. A map of the proposed district, rendered by city officials using
data from the withdrawn report, contains 211 addresses.
The group withdrew its report Oct. 20, study committee Chairwoman Sue Halpern said. The report was submitted Sept. 2.
Halpern told the Board of Representatives Land Use-Urban Redevelopment Committee that the report was withdrawn “without prejudice” to allow more time for community outreach and tweaking the proposal.
The board's resolution initiating the study expired in November, but representatives could file a request to extend it for a third time.
Sheila Barney, a study committee member who lives in the district, called on board members to discontinue the group's work. She disagreed with how the group handled meetings and outreach to property owners, claiming that the group did not mail affected residents meeting notices or copies of the state's procedural handbook.
Barney, who is no longer active in the group, also said she did not previously realize the oversight power an LHD commission would hold in the district.
“I didn't know that the ordinance came with it. If you don't have information about the process, you don't know,” Barney said. “Early on during this process, when I saw that they were not reaching out to the community, that just turned me off. I felt like it was something that was being imposed on the property owners and not giving them the right information.”
‘You could have a legacy’
Multiple property owners who wrote officials expressing opposition to the Local Historic District told The Stamford Advocate that they worry such an ordinance would hurt the value of their lot.
John Wooten's wife owns a house on Stone Street. She bought it from her late mother, who purchased it with her husband in the 1950s. Wooten's mother-in-law was Black, so real estate agents wouldn't sell her a home in North Stamford.
“A lot of folks were forced to buy houses down here because they couldn't go anywhere else,” Wooten said.
Houses like the Wootens' have appreciated in value during the South End's redevelopment. The properties have become assets that families may redevelop themselves or sell to make a significant amount of money, he said.
"They have the potential to be duplexes, townhouses," Wooten said. "You could have a legacy for the next generation. But these folks want to stop it and preserve something that we weren't allowed to be a part of — buying property and (having) it appreciate in value.”
Wooten said some lots aren't currently in use, and they provide opportunities for small developers to
build apartments.
“A small developer may have some interest and want to do something, but they're going to walk away if it's restricted on what they can do,” Wooten said. “I'm not talking about high-rise buildings, but put something next to it that's more modern and fits in with the neighborhood.”
Regardless of her concerns about development, Doris Ganues, who also lives on Stone Street, said she doesn't want a commission providing oversight.
“I want to be independent and I want to be free. That's all I want. I don't want (any) arguments or conflicts with anyone and they're not gonna tell me what I can do and can't do, when they never helped me do (anything),” Ganues said.
Other dissenters include “absentee landlords,” Barney said.
“You think they're going to go for a historic district when they're trying to wait for the highest bidder?” Barney said.
A perceived lack of public outreach
During the Feb. 22 meeting, Mary Dunne, who works in the State Historic Preservation Office, said public outreach is “not required, but it's a good idea” for the study committee to prioritize early on.
“As we've also discussed, COVID and other circumstances really made that difficult in this situation,” Dunne said.
Those delays began in 2020, Halpern said, when city and state offices shut down for an extended period. Later on, the group had delays in hiring a historic preservation consultant, eventually employing Daryn Reyman-Lock. The consultant completed the study in July, but Halpern said the proposed map was not yet finalized, so the study committee did not immediately inform property owners of their plans.
“It wasn't that we had all this information and we weren't getting it out there,” Halpern said. “We wanted to make sure that before we sent out a postcard, we had all the properties.”
Additionally, at last month's meeting, Rep. Terry Adams, D-3, said some property owners have taken issue with the study committee's meetings being held at study committee member Barry Michelson's house. Michelson does not live in the South End.
Michelson said the meetings were hosted in his backyard due to COVID-19. He said he explored holding Zoom meetings, but he was told by city officials that he would not be reimbursed for the software.
"It wasn't for a lack of trying," Michelson said. "I had also spoken to the folks at the Secretary of the State's office, and by the way, people at the state weren't working either, so even getting feedback from them was a process."
Some supporters of the Local Historic District raised concerns about interference from businesses that profit from South End development.
Rep. Sean Boeger, D-15, suggested the letters were “form letters” that could have been distributed to property owners.
“I get very leery any time elected officials, community members, whatsoever, start moving in any manner, aggressively or behind the scenes, to shut down a process, especially when it's an organic process,” Boeger said at the meeting.
The Advocate reviewed correspondence — requested from the Land Use Bureau — from property owners representing 76 addresses within the proposed district. The letters are a mix of people and entities who own multiple properties and single-family home owners within the proposed district. A handful of letters appear to have similar formatting, but nearly every letter and email are worded differently.
At the meeting, Barney later refuted the suggestion.
“I don't have no personal knowledge of that. Everybody made their own decisions,” she said.
The study is in limbo
Ultimately, Halpern said the study committee would be willing to resubmit a scaled-down version of the district. Dunne said since the initial report was withdrawn, they are able to restart the process.
“At this point, we have to determine who's interested. If we can get even a small group of property owners that would be interested in this, we would send that in a report and see where it goes from there,” Halpern said.
Halpern and Elizabeth McCauley, a fellow South End historic preservationist, are starting to go door-todoor and speak with residents and property owners whose situations would be affected by a Local Historic District, they said. The commission, in practice, would not be as limiting as opposing property owners make it out to be, Halpern said.
“It's up to the commission. They could dissolve the historic district if they want. It's not something that can't be eliminated,” Halpern said.
“If we ever got to the point of having a commission, there would be bylaws or whatever initial intent would be written in ... and we would be working closely with the Historic Preservation Advisory Council,” McCauley said. “It wouldn't be like: ‘Hey, we want it this way, but now next time, somebody's going to want it another way.' It's a formal process governed by the state.”
Citing the opposition among property owners, however, Barney urged the Board of Representatives to call off the study.
“The Board of Reps has the authority to stop this crap, I would think,” Barney said. “You've got (78) property owners against it.”
Wooten, whose wife owns her parents' home on Stone Street, said he agrees.
“These are a bunch of folks, working people, who just don't want to be told anymore what to do with their property,” Wooten said.