Greenwich Time, Greenwich, Connecticut
To the editor:
After returning from the warm sunshine and benevolence skies and seas of Australia, I read in my stack of papers with the distress about the demise and cold destruction of the Gilbert Peck House, built in 1763. I take this time to correct an error which appears in the article "Developer explains demolition."
The article states: "Flyer said he, too, supports the delay of demolition proposal and said that he is sympathetic to preserving historic sites and structures. In 1986, he said, he paid $40,000 for a 1/8-acre plot of land in Tomac Cemetery, the town's oldest surviving cemetery, and to restore headstones there, in connection with a nearby four-lot subdivision he is developing along Tomac Avenue."
This reference to Tomac Cemetery is in fact not true at all.
In a plan submitted to and unanimously turned down several years ago by the Planning and Zoning Commission, the First Congregational Church agreed to convey a rear portion of the old cemetery to him. In a situation reminiscent of a shell game, the developer and turn would have used this part of the cemetery to satisfy the open space requirements. The developer then, upon receiving approval from P&Z, would have conveyed back to the Church the portion of the cemetery he "borrowed" with $40,000.
There were several concerns that led to denial of the plan. The first Congregational Church in fact is no clear ownership deed for Tomac Cemetery. There were concerns about the precedent this would have had for other cemeteries in town. The Connecticut Historical Commission, which has legal responsibilities over such cemeteries, voiced concerns about violation of Connecticut State Statute section 19a–315a, which stipulates that "no municipality shall alienate or appropriate any ancient burial place to use other than that of burial ground." But the details of the plan and P&Z's unanimous denial of the plan were featured in previous issues of the paper. Mr. Flyer has not paid, as the article states, $40,000 for the acreage in Tomac nor for the restoration of headstones.
After denial of the plan, a fund-raiser coordinated by the First Congregational Church involving individuals and organizations, including the Historical Society, collected $15,000. These funds were paid, as I have been told, from the Church to Mr. Flyer who agreed to cooperate with the removal of large trees in the rear section of Tomac Cemetery in conjunction with tree clearing on the site of his develop development next to the cemetery site for a limited amount of time.
I and other advocates of the restoration and preservation of Greenwich's burying grounds would be thoroughly delighted to see $40,000 for the restoration of the headstones at Tomac. The above mentioned facts are true and honestly stated. In my view there should be no misunderstanding about the intentions of the developer.
In light of the continued neglected at Tomac Cemetery and our current commemoration of our 350th founding this year, the need exists for an autonomous historic association to properly care for and restore this historically significant site. The city of Hartford has one; I can't see why you can't be done here. Let us hope wisdom rather than egotism an absolute territoriality totally prevails.
Jeffrey Bingham Mead
President, The Historic Mead Family
Burying Grounds Association
No comments:
Post a Comment