#Middlebury
Winter sun shines down on the Peck-Nichols house. The Colonial farm house, built in the 1780s, is one of very few remaining in Connecticut. (Marjorie Needham photo)
By MARJORIE NEEDHAM
The Middlebury Land Trust has offered to purchase the town’s 134-acre Nichols Road property for $225,000. Town attorney Dana D’Angelo presented the proposed contract to the Board of Selectmen at their Jan. 22 meeting.
Following an executive session, the Board of Selectmen chose not to vote on the contract pending modifications to it. The draft, with the purchase price of $225,000, called in paragraph 8 for $25,000 of that amount to be credited to the buyer and held in an unrestricted fund, “for the purpose of evaluating, maintaining and/or preserving the historic homestead and the subject property.”
D’Angelo said in a telephone interview Tuesday that the following sentence was added to paragraph 8, “Such evaluation/engineering report shall be completed within one year after transfer of the title.”
Middlebury Land Trust President Scott Peterson sent us an email noting the Land Trust has a conservation easement over most of this preserve and is excited about owning and utilizing this beautiful property for preservation-consistent uses that will be enjoyed by all the townspeople.
He wrote, “At this point we have not yet determined the exact nature of such uses and will be seeking input from the community in due course. We have, however, already communicated with Middlebury dog lovers and hope to make at least some part of this property accessible to our town’s canine residents. There are already existing trails which can likely be improved and there is additionally much of historical interest to be found there.”
He encouraged residents with ideas and suggestions for the property to forward them to the Land Trust by email (middleburylandtrust@gmail.com) or regular mail (P. O. Box 193, Middlebury, CT 06762).
The historic homestead for which the $25,000 is to be reserved is the Peck-Nichols house, a Colonial-era house whose existence has been threatened more than once. An undated letter to the editor of “The Republican,” estimated by the Middlebury Historical Society to be from 1985, said the house was about to be demolished two months earlier, but was granted a “stay of execution” by the owners at the time, the Connecticut Water Company, when the Land Trust, the Historical Society and the Connecticut Historical Commission expressed deep concern about the demolition.
The Water Company had leased the house, and when the town was given the property in 2001, the tenant came with it. After the tenant, Fredrick Lawton, died in late 2008, the house remained unoccupied. Following his death, then First Selectman Thomas Gormley began exploring options for the house. In April 2009, Building Official Thomas O’Loskey offered three suggestions: offer it to the Land Trust or Historical Society, get bids from antique house wreckers for any items of value, or offer it to the fire department as a training exercise. In June 2011, it was slated to be burned in a fire training exercise.
That’s when the Historical Society and Land Trust again came to its rescue, forming “Save Historic Middlebury” an affiliate of the Historical Society that aims to preserve the house. Historical Society President Dr. Robert L. Rafford said in a telephone interview, “It is one of the very few vernacular farm houses from that time remaining in Connecticut. It’s the kind of house people had in the 1780s.”
Rafford said they had taken on entire financial responsibility for boarding up the house, repairing holes and installing a new electrical panel and installing and paying for both the electricity and the monthly fee for the security system. They also spent $2,000 for a land search and application for the house to be on the Connecticut Register of Historical Places, which it has been since 2013. “We’ve raised thousands towards the house over the years,” Rafford said.
He said of the Land Trust’s proposal, “It sounds like a good conclusion. The Land trust has been good stewards of their properties and those on which they have an easement. In this case, they would hold the easement and the land.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.