Old feed store project must be changed

Old building was demolished without proper permits from
the town in January
by COREY YOUNG, Staff Writer
Backers of a mixed-use development on the site of the
recently demolished Windsor Feed and Supply store may need to
revise their project because the building was knocked down without
a permit, the Town Council decided last week.
The council allowed the project to continue but said
developers may need to consider a different site plan that makes
better use of the property now that the feed store is
gone.
The old building at the corner of Johnson Street and
Bill Beedie Way (formerly Bell Street) was slated to become part of
Woodstone Village, a new “live and work” project with residential
and commercial spaces proposed by developers Harvey Charnofsky and
Chuck Scoble.
But in late January, a demolition crew hired to tear
down two other buildings on the property also knocked down the feed
store, believed to date to the 1920s.
The action surprised local residents and town officials,
who expected the building to be remodeled, not
rebuilt.
Windsor resident Steve Lehmann lamented the loss of the
building and noted that nearby Bell Street was recently renamed
Bill Beedie Way for the former owner of the feed store, who may
have walked from his home to his work along the
street.
“It’s ironic. It’s the way Bill Beedie took to his feed
store, and now we’ve knocked the feed store down,” he
said.
The building was never supposed to be completely torn
down, said Councilmember Lynn Morehouse.
“The intent was to save the building,” said Morehouse,
who grilled the demolition contractor about his company’s removal
of the building.
Demolition contractor Dan Davis said knocking down the
building without a permit was a “terrible, terrible oversight” on
his part.
“I take responsibility for that. It’s the first mistake
I ever had” in 25 years in the business, he said.
“It’s a little hard for me to believe that a person
who’s been in business for 25 years and has never taken a building
down accidentally does it now,” said Morehouse.
Morehouse and Councilmember Debora Fudge at first said
they would support revoking the town’s approval of the project, but
agreed with the rest of the council to consider alternate site
plans for the two-and-a-half acre project.
Proponents of the project said there wasn’t much of the
old building that could be re-used, and most of the materials
needed to be replaced.
“It wasn’t our intent to do a historic restoration on
this building,” said Greg LeDoux, the project
architect.
The only elements of the original building to be
preserved were the support posts and trusses, said
LeDoux.
With a new outside look planned for the building, “There
was extensive work to be done,” said Ledoux. The old siding,
roofing and other exterior materials on the building were not up to
code and were always intended to be removed, he said.
The developers planned to put new siding, windows, doors
and roofing on the building, and to remove the existing raised
floor so that a winery could occupy the space, he
said.
The project developers only wanted to preserve the
historic character of the old feed store by putting a new building
with a similar design in the same location, though they planned to
use as much of the old materials — the posts and trusses — as
were salvageable, he said.
However, it was discovered late last year that the
primary posts in the building had significant dry rot and needed to
be removed, he said.
LeDoux said the developers asked the planning department
about putting in new steel posts. Town planner Rick Jones said the
town discussed the option with developers but never gave them the
go-ahead to completely remove the posts.
When town officials learned of the demolition, they
issued a “stop work” order and notified the developers the project
was in non-compliance.
LeDoux said he believes the project can still be
completed according to plan, despite the demolition. The exterior
of a new building will still match what was proposed to the council
last year, he said.
Councilmembers said though the demolition was
unfortunate, it created the possibility that a new site plan could
be considered for the project, which would include 10 live and work
units in addition to the large central building.
Fudge said when the plan came before the council last
year, she was willing to compromise on the site layout “because I
was so happy the feed store was going to be saved.”
Now, there is an opportunity to reconsider the location
of buildings and parking areas on the property, the council
said.
“I think there’s an opportunity to do something even
better that will last in the downtown for the next 50 years,” said
Morehouse.
The council studied an alternate plan showing a road
between the new building and the railroad tracks, which couldn’t be
possible with a building planned for the footprint of the old feed
store.
“I think this unfortunate circumstance gives us an
opportunity to get that road along the railroad tracks,” which
could allow for better vistas of the railroad, said Councilmember
Sam Salmon.
But property owner Jon Jernigan said the project team
wants to use the same site plan and keep the project moving
forward.
Rather than going back back to the Planning Commission,
future discussions of the project will take place at the council
level, the council decided. Those discussions have not been
scheduled.