FARMINGTON – The Board of Selectmen approved proceeding with the possible purchase of property near the downtown Tuesday evening, with the intent of utilizing it to create a parking lot.
The board voted unanimously, with one member absent, to sign an option to purchase 112 Church Street, which is located at the intersection of Church and Cony Street. The property, which includes a four-unit apartment building and attached barn, would be purchased by expending $79,000 from the Downtown Tax Increment Financing district reserve account. The property was listed as being for sale through Harris Realty.
Such a purchase would be contingent upon a town meeting vote. That proceeding had not been scheduled as of Wednesday evening.
According to Town Manager Richard Davis, the apartment building would be demolished and replaced with a parking lot. The lot would be positioned on Church Street, and accessible to Main Street through the alley between Reny’s and the Homestead Bakery. It would provide space for 26-28 vehicles.
Selectman Matthew Smith moved to sign an option to purchase the property, with Selectman Andrew Buckland seconding. A public hearing on the proposal would need to precede a special town meeting to approve the purchase.
Excellent..
Many Thanks.
This will help lot.
Finally , it is really needed !!
Wow! The town will gain….maybe 10 spaces. And lose another taxable property.
No Students! NONE! Zero!!! No overnights! And NO TIME LIMIT DURING THE
DAY!
This is just like umf taking more of our taxable property.It is getting pretty painful for us senior citizens trying to get enough money a head each year for property taxes.
Tearing down a regionally typical house does not enhance our downtown area.
Norton’s Music Store!
Is there anything wrong with this house? I understand that parking is an issue in-town, but to demolish the house if there is nothing wrong with it? Another “historical” piece of Farmington, gone. Park and walk. There are plenty of parking lots around.
I agree with those commenting against this purchase. A flat, open parking lot has to be the least productive and most inefficient use of land in the downtown core.
The building there is an 1866 classic New Englander that adds more than $3,000 to the tax base ($3,375 as of 2013 from the MLS info sheet available at Harris Real Estate’s website). This also houses four (4) rental units which will no longer be available to the public. Perhaps you might say these are “student rentals” and “who cares” about losing that. Well, this property is walking distance to many local businesses. Downtown residents do shop within walking distance. Losing 4 rental units means a corresponding incremental loss of business to Tranten’s, Java Joes, DD, and the list goes on.
I also agree with those commenting that finding parking when you need it (peak hours) can be problematic. However, that has never stopped me from finding a parking space. It just means you walk 100 feet more than you planned or circle the block once.
Long term thinking would be to turn the existing parking in town into something more useful for that purpose. For example, the current lot behind the post office could be easily accommodate a multi-level garage building without being an eyesore to the community. The town could even lease ($) long term (overnight) parking to those downtown residents that don’t have on site parking at their residence in some “snow free” spots. WIth this train of thought, I fail to understand why the cramped parking lot was built on Front Street with the treacherous staircase with sharp edges leading to “uptown.” It seems that a multi-level garage there would have served so many more purposes including a covered set of stairs (rather than a heated set…now that’s wasteful!).
Just my humble opinions.
It does seem crazy to tear down a perfectly good building (and nice looking to boot) that has the potential to bring in steady income like this one does. What a tremendous waste. It would be another story if it was a dilapidated place, but it’s far from that. It will be too bad.
Old houses don’t last forever.
Maybe this thing needs $100K worth of safety upgrades required.
Let’s move on.
Let it go.
If this place is torn down I hope someone at least will save any parts of it that could be re-used. So many older homes have beautiful old woodwork, moldings, fireplaces, etc. We are losing so much of our past.
I hate to see a perfectly good house demolished for no good reason. I’m still tiffed by Rite Aid going in where there was an old (still good) house only to leave that spot and build another just up the road! I like these old houses with all their character.
Tourists visit Farmington, and complain that there isn’t enough parking in town. If we want our beloved town to make it in this world, we need our tourists. Farmington will never last with just its local residents. I’m assuming that this house needs tons of work, seems though it’s quite large, and wasn’t worth much money. I don’t believe that our selectmen would decide to tear down a “perfectly good building”, if it WAS a perfectly good building. It’s always sad to see another part of history torn down, but that’s also part of life. Buildings get old, and they have to be torn down, usually for safety reasons. With that said, if a parking lot can bring even just 10 more parking spaces to this town, it would be much cheaper to do this, than it would be to fix this house up. People tend to only see a very small part of these situations, instead of the whole big picture. Also, Dennis, a parking garage would cost the town of Farmington way too much money, at this point. It’s better and wiser to start small, and then see where it goes from there. Imagine how much more money we, as the taxpayers, would be paying, if we had a parking garage? Let’s lower the taxes, instead of raising them.
The town believes the lot would provide 26 to 28 spaces.
As concerned already said, the value of this property indicates it’s not the “palace” you may be imagining.
Anyone up to speed on renovation costs these days?
It’s ridiculously expensive to bring these old building up to code,,,etc etc etc.
I love the old buildings too.
Especially the Big Old Barns!!!
Anyone wanna venture a guess why so many of them are just left to collapse..(It’s $$$$$,,lots of it to save them).
It is sad to see the old buildings go but everything has it’s season.
26 parking spots is huge.
I think it makes sense.
Yes that was a lovely home in its “hay-day” (Norton’s Music Shop / White, Anne, and his mother Maude) but basic repairs and upkeep have not been done for many years, thus the heirs of Jim could not sell it. Also a new owner would have to make many changes to bring it up to code. Only one of the 4 apts has a 2nd means of egress. Bedrooms on the 3rd floor with only one way out was very dangerous. There are roof and foundation issues which are obvious if you walk by and take a look. Initially listed at 179,000, the 79,000 is a good price. Saying that, I wish that the town did not feel they needed the parking there, but certainly a well done parking lot is better than a falling down house. Of the 4 apts, 3 are currently occupied and only one of the 3 with UMF students.
I have so many different memories of that property that I can’t imagine it gone. Do we really need even more paved surfaces? I for one have never not been able to find a place to park.
It was built in 1866, doesn’t that make it a historical building? That makes it what 149 years old, how old is our old court house?
How many buildings need to be torn down in the name of progress? How many times are people who could care less about history going to be allowed to do as they please in the name of progress.
And, where will the displaced tenants find affordable housing?
There is an abundance of apartments in town suitable for students, and some high end apartments, but apartments for single people who have a low income, but not low enough for subsidized housing are terribly scarce. (I too have never found parking difficult downtown, regardless of the day or time of day.)
Um ,,,students are often low income but don’t qualify for subsidized housing.
What’s your point really?
You saying the students should be subsidized?
Ok so the building is 400 years old..
What’s your actual point there?
Are you volunteering to fund the renovation to keep it livable?
If we let this building keep going….someone will have memories of the roof caving In…
Is that your idea of progress?
Professional complainers.