 |
Town of Old Lyme Open Space Committee Meeting
Old Lyme Town Hall
Minutes: October 10, 2008
Chairman Diana Atwood Johnson opened the meeting at 08:40 with OSC members Amanda Blair, Peter Cable, Robert DePianta, Judi Glover, George James, and OLCT liaison Christina Clayton in attendance. Also in attendance, starting at 09:00, were Steve Patton, Nathan Froeling and Sarah Pellegrino, from The Nature Conservancy, Tom Geser from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Jeff Anderson from Florence Griswold Museum. The guests at the meeting were present to discuss issues associated with the entire Roger Tory Peterson estate property and plans for its future.
Subject to a correction by Christina, who noted that she is not an official member of OSC but rather a liaison to OSC from OLCT, on motion by George, second by Robert, the minutes of the September 12, 2008 meeting were approved by unanimous vote.
Peterson Property Background
As prelude to the Peterson property discussion, Diana provided background for the scheduled discussion of issues concerning disposition of the Peterson estate and plans for the parts of the estate still owned by the Peterson heirs. She noted that the morning’s discussion was to focus on issues concerning Peterson estate property not contained in the Peterson preserve but containing Peterson’s studio, where he did his artwork, and York House, a small guesthouse used as an office by Roger and Virginia Peterson. She noted that the sale of the Peterson preserve by The Nature Conservancy to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would result in recovery by Old Lyme of the Town’s contribution of $140k to the original purchase of the preserve. Diana also observed that establishment of a Federal park by Fish and Wildlife in Old Lyme (as
part of the Silvio O. Conti National Fish and Wildlife Refuge) should have Town acceptance and input, but that Fish and Wildlife had made no efforts to publicly inform the Town of its plans. She noted that prior conservation easements on the preservation property would constrain Fish and Wildlife in any plans for incorporating new trails and signage on the preserve. Amanda questioned whether Fish and Wildlife might also have to comply with local zoning ordnances. In discussion of the buildings on the property, Christina noted the pristine condition of the studio – in the sense of being as Roger Peterson had used it – and of the consequent enhanced value for its preservation.
Peterson Property Discussion with Guests
Steve Patton reported that The Nature Conservancy does not have a specific interest in purchase of the Peterson studio. He suggested that there might exist potential funding through the CT Commission on Culture and Tourism for purchase of the property and buildings by the Town or OLCT. Though the studio is on a parcel of ground separate from the main house and guesthouse, it is not clear whether the studio might be sold separately by the Peterson heirs.
Jeff Anderson spoke of interest by the Florence Griswold Museum in preservation of the studio because of Peterson’s seminal role as a 20th century conservation-oriented artist, and he noted that the Museum had examined the possibility of preserving the studio as a satellite operation, but that the prohibitive cost had obviated that possibility. The Florence Griswold Museum had pursued idea of preservation of the Peterson studio with the Roger Tory Peterson Institute in New York, but that the idea had not gained traction.
Diana inquired whether Audubon Connecticut might have interest in supporting purchase of the Peterson studio. Jeff Anderson answered that he had spoken with Audubon Connecticut and reported that they had no direct interest or capability to support purchase of the studio.
There was discussion of Town purchase of the Peterson property, consisting of two parcels containing, on the first parcel, the main house and guesthouse on 4.47 acres, and, on the second parcel, the studio on 2,70 acres. Such a purchase would be considered as a means to preserve the studio given the Peterson heirs stated intent to sell both parcels together and not separately. To meet the asking price for the estate, local interest in the Town would have to be sufficient to approve purchase of both parcels, assuming that the $70k from Gateway Commission and $140k from the Town, recovered from sale of the Peterson preserve to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, could be used for purchase of the two Peterson property parcels. This would leave the Town with the task of selling the parcel containing the main house and guesthouse; it was clear that
the much better course would be if the Peterson heirs would agree to sell the studio parcel separately from the parcel containing the two houses.
There was extended discussion of alternative strategies for preserving the Peterson studio. This resulted in an agreed upon approach that built upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Exchange Program, described by Tom Geser, which allows for a Bargain Sale purchase of property for exchange with another property of interest to the Service. It was noted that purchase under this approach was at least one budget year in the future, because appropriations for such a purchase would need to be authorized. George identified CT River islands owned by OLCT that, Tom Geser agreed, might be of direct interest to Fish and Wildlife. The steps agreed to in this approach consist of: (1) OSC pursue with Mimi Westervelt the possibility of sale of the studio alone for $400k; (2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will explore the possibility of a Bargain
Sale purchase of the Peterson studio parcel for exchange with another property, as identified by George; (3) in addition to the $140k recovered from the Peterson preserve sale, the Town, possibly with contribution from OLCT, add an additional $260k and purchase the Peterson studio parcel; (4) Fish and Wildlife purchase for $400k the studio from the Town for future exchange (under the Exchange Program). Near term actions to be taken to follow this approach include OSC (Diana) to meet with Andy French from Fish and Wildlife to work through the details of this approach, and OSC must obtain appraisals of the properties involved to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service standards. Following the departure of the guests, George noted that OLCT should identify the property to be traded if the exchange option is followed.
At 11:45, on a motion by Peter second by Judi, it was voted to adjourn the meeting. The planned walk of the Ames Preserve following the meeting was deferred.
Respectfully submitted,
Peter Cable
| |
