The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
Town regroups after failed referendum
LITCHFIELD — The failed referendum on a new town hall and the annex leaves the Greater Litchfield Preservation Trust, the Litchfield Housing Trust and the Board of Selectmen wondering what to do next.
The referendum asked voters to approve borrowing $7.6 million to renovate the old Litchfield County Courthouse on West Street for a new town hall and to sell the old Bantam School/Annex property to the housing trust for affordable housing. Voters Wednesday turned down both questions: 1,303 to 847 for the courthouse and 687 to 1,452 for the annex property.
Both sites were used for court facilities until two years ago, when the new courthouse opened in Torrington. The West Street building is now owned by the Greater Litchfield Preservation Trust, while the annex building is owned by the town.
Since early fall, the boards of selectmen and finance, and a Town Hall Review Committee, have gathered public comments and heard proposals for both sites. Litchfield’s town hall offices are housed in the center of town as well as in the annex.
First Selectman Leo Paul said Thursday he was disappointed the annex vote failed. He and other town officials will have to revisit both issues in the new year.
“The people in the community have spoken, and we’ll make it work as it relates to the town hall,” he said. “We’ll probably reactivate the Town Hall Review Committee and see what we can do. The Bantam School vote outcome was disappointing. Now the town will be responsible for the building’s upkeep, when two-thirds of it is empty. But somehow, we’ll make it work.”
Perley Grimes, president of the preservation trust, was also disappointed by the referendum results.
“We are obviously very disappointed in the result,” he said Thursday. “But we felt it was important to bring the issue to the voters, and they have
decided. We will move on.”
Grimes said the preservation trust has plenty of support, but not enough.
“Our effort to get the voters to speak was supported very strongly, by not only our all-volunteer board, but also by concerned citizens. We thank both our board and the citizens and voters who supported us,” he said.
The preservation trust is scheduled to meet in January to discuss the old courthouse’s future.
“With the holidays coming upon us, we’re going to take a break and reassemble after the first of the year to discuss options for this important building,” Grimes said. “We remain committed to preserving and protecting the courthouse as the most recognizable building in all of Litchfield County. We’ll look at various options and uses, and hope to find a use to protect and preserve it. The commercial block on West Street (where the courthouse building is located) deserves the best. We’ll find it.”
A developer in Litchfield who recently renovated another vintage building in town has expressed some interest in the building. Grimes said the trust is not interested in allowing the courthouse to become another commercial property.
“We’ve heard about some interest, but that has not been considered by us,” he said.
Some residents don’t want the Bantam Annex to go to the Litchfield Housing Trust. An anonymous flier was found in local mailboxes the day before the referendum urging residents to reject the proposals. The flier cited the annex’s value at $1.1 million, saying the annex and its 10 acres could be used by the town and should not be sold to anyone.
On Thursday, resident Paul Rosenberg filed a complaint with the State Elections Enforcement Commission in regards to the flier. In his complaint, Rosenberg said that because the flier was anonymous, with no attributing name or address identifying who was paying for it, it violates state election laws.
Another complaint is also expected to be filed with the SEEC this week, Rosenberg said.
Fliers from groups, organizations or businesses or political parties are required by law to identify themselves or whoever is paying for the mailing, also known as full disclosure. An individual can send anonymous fliers or letters, but if the cost of the mailing is more than $1,000, it must be filed with the town clerk, according to the SEEC.
“The law is pretty clear about referenda and elections materials,” attorney Joshua Foley, a spokesman for the SEEC, said earlier this week. “The commission fields a lot of complaints about fliers on referenda.”