KENT, Conn.—The Swift House Investigative Subcommittee, assigned the task of providing possible resolutions to the town’s ownership of the ancient building, made its report to the selectmen Tuesday, May 5, concluding that the building should be preserved and that uses be found for it “that are sustainable and contribute to the welfare of the town.”
The building, which has been closed since before Covid 19 struck in 2020, has been a town possession since the 1970s. It has been determined that the oldest portion, the cellar of one wing, dates back to the earliest settlement of the town, circa 1740, and that over the next century three early buildings were moved together to create its current conformation.
Because of its antiquity, it must be renovated to bring it into compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act if it is to be opened for public use. A report from the architectural firm Silver Petrucelli estimated that cost at about $2 million.
A report rendered last year by the Swift House Task Force strongly favored maintaining the building and suggested a variety of uses for it. The former board of selectmen took no action on it, however, and left decisions to the current board, which took office in November. The present board appointed the Swift House Investigative Subcommittee to assess the situation and suggest a way forward for the town.
Subcommittee Chairman James Anderson told the selectmen that “future ownership of the building is uncertain,” and that to ensure its continued existence a preservation easement is needed. A preservation easement would go on the building’s deed and would prevent demolition of the structure, preserving the façade. It would not prevent a future owner from altering the interior
“A draft [of the easement] has been made and revised and is imminent,” Anderson reported.
The committee’s second recommendation is formation of a nonprofit—a 501 (c) 3 Friends of the Swift House group—to raise funds for its restoration. Anderson noted that there is a large gap between the sum reflected in the architect’s report and the amount being set aside in the town’s five-year capital plan for work on the building.
“It’s a very large gap,” he observed, but he added that there is “public affection” for the building” and the subcommittee members believe “people would step up and organize efforts” to restore it.
The third recommendation in the report—Plan B—would be to sell or commercially lease the building to a third party. “We felt it was very important to identify a Plan B in the event that a [fundraising group] did not happen,” Anderson said.
Anderson was lukewarm to the idea of a commercial lease, noting the group, which was charged with reporting back at the end of April, did not have time to explore its ramifications for the town. But subcommittee member Jason Wright strongly advocated for it, terming it a “logical possibility that could be explored.”
Subcommittee member Marge Smith said the subcommittee had not taken a formal vote on its report “because we did not have time to look at alternative prices,” as the selectmen had asked. She said she believed the $2 million price tag was high, reflecting a complete renovation.
All groups looking at the building agree that most of the cost is associated with ADA compliance, which would not be necessary if it were in private hands.
Anderson said he had been through the Silver Petrucelli report in detail. “Having done restorations of old buildings, I thought some of its estimates were high, some low, but for the purposes of our work was a professionally done piece of work. The reality is the gap [in funding] is so great we did not believe new cost estimates would change the challenge the town faces. I believe the numbers are in the right zip code.”
He said the subcommittee “did not redo” the work of the previous task force. That group’s report identified a number of uses but only one, rental of an apartment upstairs in the building “passed the self-sufficiency test” that would relieve the town of having to support the building.
“Having an apartment would generate money and having someone in an old building is good for a house,” Anderson said. “But the challenge, if the town retains ownership, is that the town would be a landlord, which doesn’t sound like a natural use.”
Wright said outside money would be needed to buttress any fundraising effort. A primary step, all agreed would be to get the house listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which would make it eligible for more grant money. An estimated $5,000 to $10,000 would be needed to achieve this.
It was also noted that every grant the group had looked at required matching funds. The Board of Finance has pushed future funding for Swift House into the sixth year of the capital plan, where it will not be taxed for until next year. Anderson said the town’s strategy should include funds in its 2026-27 budget to pay matching funds.
He said it would make it much harder for the 501 (c) 3 to get funds if the town was not committing itself to the effort. “It’s a town building,” he said. “Let’s put our money where our mouth is. If we don’t do it, fine—we’ll sell it.”
