Woodruff Farm Advisory Committee Report

INDEX
I.
Committee
II.
Charge
III.
Site History
IV.
Process
V.
Relation of the Woodruff Property to the Town of Guilford
VI.
Current Status
VII. Recommendations
VIII. Final Thoughts
2
WOODRUFF FARM ADVISORY COMMITTEE
I. Committee
The Guilford Board of Selectmen formed the Woodruff Farm Advisory Committee on
February 24, 2004, to make recommendations regarding future uses of the property.
Committee members were selected for their specific relationship to the area surrounding
the Woodruff Farm. Committee members were as follows:
Harvey Smith–Committee Chairman, Member of the Board of Selectmen
Russell Campaigne–Chairman of the Historical District
Nancy Elderbaum–Representing Woodruff Farm neighbors north of the railroad tracks
Lawrence Leete–Representing Shoreline East commuters and neighboring Guilford
Agricultural Society
Steven McGuire–Representing Woodruff Farm neighbors south of the railroad tracks
II. Charge
Recommendations were to consider “potential uses for the entire property, and shall
consider the viability of retaining the current structures remaining on the property for
future potential uses by the Town or other appropriate organizations.”
“The Committee shall be cognizant of the following factors in making its
recommendations:
3
1. The Town is obligated to provide land to the State of Connecticut Department of
Transportation (“DOT”) for 400 parking spaces at or in the vicinity of the existing
train station as a condition of the DOT’s construction of a new train station in
Guilford, which parking must be reasonably convenient to rail station users;
2. Prior to the purchase of the property, the Board of Selectmen voted in favor of
this purchase in part so the Town could satisfy the parking obligation of the DOT
with respect to the new train station;
3. At the Town Meeting authorizing the purchase of the property on January 16,
2003, Town officials explained that the property was intended for “Class C”* use.
4. The State Department of Transportation has indicated a willingness to discuss the
location and phasing of the parking required for the train station site;
5. Only a portion of the nine-acre site would be required for train station parking,
leaving the rest of the parcel available for agricultural, recreational, and municipal
uses; and
6. The property is located within the Whitfield Street Historic District and the
National Register District.”
*Class C Open Space is defined as “(possible for high impact use): acquired by the
Town with the intent of development for Town infrastructure or facilities; will remain as
open space only until such time as the Town sees fit to develop facilities on the property.
(Example: the woodland and fields behind Baldwin Middle School.) Of course should
the Town actually build on a particular parcel, all land use regulations currently in effect
are to be strictly abided by.”
4
III. Site History
The Woodruff Farm property has played a long and important role in the history of the
Town of Guilford. Henry Whitfield was the original owner of the property. This made
up a portion of the farm that went with the Henry Whitfield House, which is now a
museum. The Museum has been designated a National Historic Landmark, and is both
Connecticut’s and New England’s oldest stone house. Subsequent owners of interest
included Samuel Bartlett II, ancestor of previous selectman Samuel Bartlett; Connecticut
Governor Rollin Woodruff; Floyd Hunter, previous President of National Pony and
Trotting Association; Edward E. Perkins, Sr.; and now the Town of Guilford.1
The two large barns that remain on the site are significant in that they were originally part
of the Whitfield House property and were moved to their present locations by Rollin
Woodruff in 1905. Governor Woodruff built an Adirondack-style house on the property
that was utilized as a summer home, and which included beautiful grounds and a sunken
formal garden. The rest of the property was turned into a “model farm,” using the most
recent methods for livestock and crop production.2
1
2
Michael A. McBride, Historical Overview Rollwood Farm, 1999
Ibid.
5
Woodruff Farm Formal Garden
Floyd and Florence Hunter purchased the property from the Woodruff estate in 1944 and
operated it as a commercial dairy farm until 1966. Early in the Hunter’s ownership of the
property the Town of Guilford received their permission to use the southern portion of
the property as a landfill. Changes in dairy technology and the abundance of less
physically taxing work in local cities put an end to the Hunter’s dairy operation. The
Hunters sold part of the farm to developers for both the Rollwood and Hunter
condominiums; sold the land that became the “Fairgrounds” to the Guilford Agricultural
Society; and converted the creamery and garage/incubator to apartments, but maintained
the nine-acre core of the property to raise and train trotting ponies. 3
3
Rachel B. Gruzen, Agricultural Architecture and a History of Land Use on Rollwood Farm, Guilford, CT,
2000
6
Perkins purchased the nine-acre farm in 1986 and converted the Adirondack-style house
into additional apartments, and running the property primarily for the value of the rental
income from the apartments. The house was destroyed by fire in 2000, leaving only the
foundation and the chimney. The Town purchased the property in 2003.
IV. Process
At its initial meeting in March, 2004, the Committee decided that because of the
complexity of the issues involved with the site and the number of different groups that
have expressed interest in the property in the past, to the Committee would meet the first
three Tuesdays of each month. Thus an extended period of information gathering began.
The proposed schedule would allow the Committee to consider the State Archaeology
report, the DOT site plan, Phase 1 & 2 Site Assessment, feedback from the Town
Planner, Engineer, and Environmental Analyst, and proposals from groups that might
have an interest in being included in the property’s future uses.
Subsequent meetings saw the Committee review the history and significance of the site
primarily through a report and site visit by Rachel Gruzen and information provided by
Michael McBride, Curator of the Henry Whitfield State Historical Museum. In addition,
Jennifer Aniskovich, Executive Director of the Commission on Arts, Tourism, History,
Culture and Film, provided suggestions regarding prioritizing future uses of the site and
information about availability of State funding.
7
The Committee felt it important that they understand the issues regarding the
environmental status of the site, so on March 9th, the Committee met with Jay Curran of
GEI Consultants, Inc. GEI dug thirteen test pits and three ground water monitoring
wells. The property showed signs of benzene and metal contamination in the southern
area of the property along Driveway that exceeded state recommendations. This was the
area previously used by the Town as a dump and burning site for local refuse now has
nine feet of dump material capped by two feet of fill. Mr. Curran stated that any
disturbance in the area resulting from the construction of the train station parking lot
would be remediated at the State’s expense. Paved area would be considered a cap and
would require minimal remediation.
In addition to the review of this environmental report, Town Planner George Kral, Town
Engineer James Portley and Town Environmental Planner Leslie Kane provided thoughts
on uses for the Woodruff Farm site and how any decision should consider the plan for the
Town Center South Project.
Mr. Portley recommended that the best use of the old landfill area would be to pave it.
This would provide the 199 train station parking spaces required by the State Department
of Transportation and eliminate the need for extensive remediation of the site by the
Town.
Mr. Kral felt that the parking lot on the Woodruff Farm is essential, as he would like to
see the area around the property evolve into a more intensely developed neighborhood.
8
He felt the Town Center South Project would provide recommendations for more
residential and commercial uses.
Ms. Kane said that we should remember why the Town bought the property. Initially
many organizations were involved with the vision of the property. The Agricultural
Society had a vision for agricultural uses, the Guilford Preservation Alliance had a vision
for its historic value, the State had an interest because of the close proximity to the
Whitfield Museum, and, of course, the Town had a responsibility to protect the area
contaminated by landfill. Ms. Kane stated that utilizing the landfill area for agricultural
purposes (such as grazing) would not be recommended, but that a significant portion of
the property is not impacted by the contamination and that grazing and other uses would
be feasible on those areas.
The following individuals and groups were also invited to speak with the Committee to
discuss the interests in the site of their respective organizations:
9
•
Rick Maynard, Director, Parks and Recreation Department
•
Mark & Anne McIntyre-Lahner, Local Chapter 4-H Club
•
Paul Loether, Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
•
Preston Maynard, Guilford Preservation Alliance
•
Gary Melillo, Dawn Ross and Pam Orton, Guilford Center for Children, Inc.
•
Julie McClennan and Donita Arnury, Shoreline Alliance for the Arts
These Committee clearly indicated that these discussions were preliminary in nature,
which was important because several groups expressed concern that they were not able to
prepare a formal presentation. Assurances were given by the Committee that what was
important at this time was an understanding of the groups’ interest in future uses for the
site, not the presentation of their final proposals. The following is a brief summary of the
concerns of the guests invited to address the Committee after the March 9th meeting.
Henry Whitfield Museum (March 16, 2004)
Michael McBride, Curator of the Henry Whitfield Museum, has been very interested in
helping the Committee from the beginning. Because of the close proximity to the State
owned Whitfield Museum he feels a certain kinship with the Woodruff Farm. (Henry
Whitfield’s son-in-law was a prior owner of the Woodruff Farm property.) Many
museum visitors express interest in the Woodruff property and that Museum staff have
done some research regarding the site. The research was conducted in 1999 when the
State was interested in purchasing the property, and has been utilized when fielding
questions from visitors regarding the farm. McBride mentioned overflow parking and
public restrooms as crucial requirements for the future growth of the Whitfield Museum.
Mike McBride wrote in his letter to the advisory committee: “it is the position of the
museum that any negative impact on the Whitfield property, a National Historic
Landmark is unacceptable. Physical, visual and traffic issues of a negative nature will
impact the preservation of and image of the museum and the community and will
translate into a reduction of tourism and associated benefits.”
10
State Commission of Arts, Tourism, History, Culture and Film (April 6, 2004)
Jennifer Aniskovich, Executive Director, State Commission on Arts, Tourism, History,
Culture and Film; and Michael McBride, Curator of the Henry Whitfield Museum
attended the meeting on this date. Ms. Aniskovich noted that her agency obtains bonding
funds for State museums that could be used in the creation of a farm museum. She also
stated that its use as a parking lot is not “the worst idea” for the contaminated area of the
property. Among her suggestions were to proceed slowly because sometimes an
inappropriate use is implemented in a rush to put something on a site, and an
understanding of appropriate uses develops over time. Aniskovich did think that sending
out an RFP (Request for Proposal) could be productive. If the property were to be used
for the arts, funding may be available for operations and performances, but not for capital
needs. The Town should consider going directly to the State legislature for a planning
grant. On the other hand, she said that allowing three to four non-profits work together
on the project has not proven to be a successful model, nor has creating a new entity to
manage a site such as the Woodruff property. Ms. Aniskovich also warned that allowing
organizations to occupy the site “temporarily” could result in problems when an
appropriate use is found and the temporary occupants have no place else to go.
Parks and Recreation (April 13, 2004)
Rick Maynard, Director, Parks and Recreation Department stated that based on his
observations, the best use of the site would be for non-organized, passive recreational
activities. The Town turns down a number of requests from families for reunions and
other activities because athletic fields are in constant use and Jacobs Beach and Lake
11
Quonnipaug pavilions are in steady use throughout the summer. Other uses suggested by
Maynard were for a historically-themed adventure golf course, dog park, horse arena or
community garden.
4-H Club (April 20, 2004)
Anne McIntyre-Lahner and Mark Lahner, representing the Local Chapter of the 4-H Club
were invited to discuss the possibility of agricultural uses generated by either their 4-H
Chapter or other 4-H groups in the area. The Lahners have been involved with the
Guilford Agricultural Society a the 4-H for a number of years. They also operate their
own farm in Guilford where they raise a variety of animals. They have discussed the
farm with regional 4-H representatives and feel the Woodruff Farm would lend itself
nicely to an agricultural education center offering summer programs. This could be
combined with the effort to preserve heritage breeds, which would be a great draw to the
public, and 4-H uses would allow the site to maintain a connection with Woodruff Farm’s
agricultural past. Livestock programs have proven to be a successful people draw, and
the raising of small farm animals would not be too intense a use for the site, but still
provide a focal point. 4-H has funding and manpower for programming, but cautioned
that they do not provide funding for capital needs.
Guilford Center for Children (May 11, 2004)
Gary Melillo, Long Range Planning Committee; Dawn Ross, Board of Directors; Pam
Orton, Director; of the Guilford Center for Children met with the Committee to discuss
the possibility of relocating their facility from behind the Guilford Free Library to the
12
Woodruff farm property. The Town has already informed them that their current lease
will not be renewed in 2009 when it is next up for renewal. Of a more immediate
concern would be the need to relocate during any expansion of the library. The Center is
looking for a larger or possibly a satellite site as they currently have fifty children on a
waiting list for services. They had been shown the site by the Selectmen, and feel that it
would be adaptable to their future needs. One of the parents is an architect and has been
helping them with site review and preliminary plans.
Shoreline Alliance for the Arts (May 18, 2004)
Julie McClennan, Executive Director, and Donita Arnury, Program Director, of the
Shoreline Alliance for the Arts met with the Committee to discuss their long-range plan
of developing an arts center on the shoreline. They have discussed formation of a joint
facility with both the New Haven Ballet and the Neighborhood Music School. Their
ability to develop a facility will be limited by their ability to raise funds for construction.
A feasibility study is being started. Use of the proposed facility would require an
arrangement with the Agricultural Society for overflow parking for larger events.
State Architect (May 6, 2004)
The Committee also inspected the property and buildings with Paul Loether, State
Architect to evaluate the current condition of structures on the property. His report
(summarized here) dealt primarily with the carriage house and the two large barns. The
carriage house was considered beyond saving because of the severe level of deterioration.
A new period-appropriate structure could be built at this location if a future need
13
develops. Such a structure would not have historic significance, and would be considered
more accurately a reproduction. The second barn does appear worthy of restoration
despite significant rot and insect damage. Work would be required to repair structural
members. The second floor is of questionable stability and integrity. The roof is fairly
new, but the siding is a mix of materials, and in need of replacement to protect the
existing framing. The eastern-most barn is in similar shape to the middle barn, except
that a significant portion of the framing has already been replaced. Roof framing would
require supplemental framing (like the second barn) to meet current building codes. Both
barns would be more authentic with shingle roofs and with the former roof ventilators
replaced. Any timbers salvaged from the carriage house may be reused in any restoration
work done on the remaining two barns. Loether recommended that a structural engineer
evaluate both barns. The evaluation would more fully assess their current status and
allow development of a plan for “necessary remedial stabilization work.” Pest
inspections and treatments should also be carried out to eliminate future damage. Loether
also felt that ”a responsible rehabilitation program cannot be developed for either of these
structures until a historically sensitive and viable long-range plan be identified and
committed to.”
V.
Relation of the Woodruff Farm Property to the Town of Guilford
Rachel Gruzen wrote “On Rollwood (Woodruff) Farm, nature and humans have
interacted in relationships of conflict and concord for centuries to induce changes in the
land. The buildings of Rollwood Farm, even in their neglected state, serve as artifacts of
14
local climate and natural resources, as well as human needs, social values and human
creativity.”
The present Woodruff Farm site is only a remnant of a once much larger agricultural
landscape and a once majestic model farm. It still retains its unique location near the
Town Center and its important historic heritage. Most importantly, it remains a valuable
resource deserving of wise conservation and developmental planning to help insure the
future needs of our growing community. Through land use change, decline and neglect,
its present appearance tends to obscure the site’s unique potential for a renewed and vital
role in Guilford’s future.
The committee remained cognizant of the Class C rating (which allows for the possibility
of high impact municipal land use) throughout our deliberations because the site’s future
seemed challenged by its location between the Whitfield State Museum, the Guilford
Agricultural Society’s land to the north, and the industrial land development to the south.
The consequences of earlier site landfill activity left soils on the Woodruff Farm
contaminated. An Archaeological Assessment and Reconnaissance Report concluded
that, despite the presence of a wide variety of historic materials and two prehistoric
artifacts identified, no additional testing was recommended.4 The report concluded “the
archaeological resources present in the Woodruff site either lack integrity or possess very
low research value, and are not considered eligible for inclusion in the National
4
Archaeological Assessment and Reconnaisance Survey Improvements to the Shore Line East Railroad
Station, Guilford, Connecticut
15
Register.”5 The committee’s charge and challenge was to be able to separate the negative
from the positive in order to preserve a uniquely located and valuable Town asset. In our
effort to evaluate the site’s position in relationship to the Town, we confined our focus to
issues within the Committee’s charge. Neither did we expand our deliberations to
include other Town planning initiatives or goals (e.g. the Town Center South Project and
the interests of the Guilford Preservation Alliance). However, it was obvious that the
Woodruff property was located within the proposed study areas of both of these planning
efforts and could play a vital role in achieving their planned objectives.
The Woodruff property is the only Town-owned open space, other than the Green, within
the Town Center and the National Register Historic District. This fact makes the site
particularly suited for the development of a park capable of supporting passive
recreational activities. The ability to relocate some present “Green” activities to the
Woodruff site will help preserve the integrity of Guilford’s Historic Green. With its
aging barns still part of the landscape it remains a contributing resource to the distinctive
character of Guilford. Its location makes the property a unique buffer between developed
industrial/residential landscapes to the south, and protected State land (Whitfield
Museum) and Agricultural Society land to the north. Efforts by Town officials to
maintain the integrity of this resource would be prudent.
When the Governor’s house was destroyed by fire, the site lost a significant preservation
focal point. This should not be viewed as an indictment against efforts to pursue
historic preservation; rather, it presents the Town an opportunity to honor the site’s
5
Ibid.
16
historic past. This is an opportunity to be creative and wise in building a new future
that would return a proper vitality to a unique site that has been part of Guilford’s
agricultural landscape from first European settlement through the 20th century.
Proposals for this site need to consider carefully both traditional open space planning and
future municipal land needs. The site also possesses considerable value through
economic development opportunities related to tourism, educational programs and the
expanded use of the Whitfield State Museum as a regional destination. The Woodruff
property is also intricately linked to the Whitfield Museum in both its history and its
functional potential. The Committee feels strongly that the development of the Woodruff
property ought to complement the neighboring Whitfield Museum.
The final relationship, physically and philosophically, of the Woodruff Farm to the
Town is in transition and subject to change. As of the writing of this report, no proposals
by the responding groups interested in cultural, agricultural, historic or artistic uses were
sufficiently developed yet. As proposals from these groups develop, further review and
study will be required. It is hoped that a harmony of passive recreational uses, open
space and appropriate municipal uses will restore a positive vitality to the Woodruff Farm
– a valuable Guilford resource.
VI. Current Status
The nine-acre parcel of the Woodruff Farm is a unique parcel of open space within the
Guilford Town Center and within the Guilford Historic District. The property borders a
17
stream on its eastern boundary, and is across Stone House Lane from the Whitfield
Museum grounds and the Agricultural Society’s Fairgrounds. The site has been
underutilized for several decades and, as a result, the Woodruff Farm property and its
outbuildings have been allowed to deteriorate without the resources necessary to maintain
their original grandeur. The property has developed a picturesque patina with overgrown
fields and weathered siding. Unfortunately, underneath the picturesque exterior lies years
of accumulated debris and deferred maintenance.
The land surrounding the farm complex is a fraction of its original size. Most of the
remaining land was densely occupied by the original farm complex, and has been heavily
manipulated over the years. We have divided the site into five areas, classified by
historic and current features to help with our analysis of the site. Area 1 contains the
northwest section of the site and holds the memory of the more formal grounds, which
surrounded the original Woodruff residence. Area 2 is the northern section of the site and
holds the remaining farm structures and associated yards. Area 3 is the central section of
the site and holds a large area of saturated soils, classified as wetlands. We included the
riverbank growth in this area, which creates the northeastern boundary of the site. This
area also contains some residual contamination from the previous dumping activity.
Area 4 is the southwestern section of the site which has been allowed to fill in over the
past 40 years with trees. Area 5 is the southern section of the site bordering Driveway.
This area of the site was utilized as a dump site and holds a layer of moderate hazard
refuse, capped by a thin layer of soil.
18
19
Area 1
The Adirondack style Woodruff residence, which was lost to fire in 2000, sat in the
center of Area 1. With the loss of this focus, the surrounding site has been marginally
maintained. This portion of the site is the primary view from Old Whitfield Street, with
the front lawn complementing the lawn of the Whitfield Museum across Stone House
Lane. The foundation and main fireplace and chimney of the original house are all that
remain of the home, harkening to the grandeur of the original structure and its position on
the site. Several large pine trees surrounded the building, helping to complete the aura of
the original Adirondack-style house. The Town has received approval to fill the
foundation to ground level leaving the foundation in place. The fireplace mass resisted
demolition and is thought to be stable and safe.
Adirondack House Foundation and Chimney
with Fire Damaged White Pine Tree
20
The carriage house, which was accessory to the main house, helped to frame the entry
and mask the working farm beyond. The roof of the central bay had been open to the
weather for years prior to the purchase by the Town. The interior finish and structure of
the central bay is beyond the point of routine repair and would require heroic measures to
rebuild and replace the structure. As a result, the Town has received the requisite
approvals to demolish the carriage house and plans to proceed with the demolition in Fall
2004.
Carriage House from Stone House Lane
21
A formal sunken garden was located to the south of the main house, adjacent to a
greenhouse structure. This area is overgrown with several large trees on the southern
boundary. Some historic clues remain, such as the carved stone entry steps and the shape
of the grades in the area. Several mature ornamental trees remain among the overgrowth.
Carved Granite Steps of the Formal Garden
Looking North toward Carriage House
Area 2:
With active dairy farm use discontinued in 1966, the larger outbuildings became obsolete
and received minimal upkeep and required maintenance. The two remaining large barns
provide an agricultural backdrop to the site, providing a vague echo of its prior utility and
historic use. New roofs were put on the two largest barns about ten years ago with the
22
intent to use the barns for storage. Some repairs and foundation work was done in the
largest barn by a party planning to provide riding lessons and horse boarding. A onestory barn was dismantled and moved to the Fairgrounds for use as a farm equipment
museum. These actions have temporarily stabilized the structures and slowed their
deterioration. There are signs of prior infestations of powder post beetles and possibly
termites; it is not known if these pests are still active. Most of the repairs have been
practical and cost effective, but not in keeping with the historic construction methods of
the original structures.
Large Barns Looking Southwest
from Stone House Lane
The other large farm buildings, left without a productive use, were left unoccupied and
allowed to deteriorate. The chicken coops, greenhouse, and additional cow barns fell into
23
a state of disrepair and were hastily demolished over the years. Debris from the
demolition of these structures, including their slab floors and masonry foundation walls
remain on the site. The heavily modified garage/incubator and creamery were converted
to residential use and rented as apartments. The occupancy of these structures brought
regular maintenance and repair. They stand in need of some deferred maintenance, but
overall are stable and weather-tight.
The value of these remaining structures in Area 2 does not lie in the historic content of
the construction, because they have been heavily manipulated over the years. Rather,
their value lies in the agricultural image these buildings create through their position,
exterior scale and appearance. They remind us that the Town Center was strongly
agrarian, so the property’s agrarian nature should be preserved and further enhanced.
Area 3:
The use of the central area has historically been low impact due to the saturated soils. An
existing row of trees creates a rear boundary to Area 2 and a variety of grasses occupy the
majority of this area. The stream bank is heavily overgrown. There are some debris
piles, but this area is primarily open and unused. Some of this area remains
contaminated.
24
Wetland Area Looking North
with River Beyond
Area 4:
This area has been allowed to be overgrown by small trees and brush. A cart path can be
seen through the trees, and there are visible signs of excavation of earth materials on this
part of the site. This area has a variety of larger coniferous trees and several hardwoods,
creating a natural buffer from the adjacent residential properties. The site requires some
selective cutting and undergrowth thinning, but has value as a buffer area.
25
Wooded Area
Area 5:
This area was utilized as a dump for about ten years in the 1940s and ‘50s, and has an
accumulation of between one foot and nine feet of moderate hazard material (see
environmental report dated 2002), capped by a two-foot layer of fill. The surface is
covered by a variety of grasses and low bushes. Because of the heavy manipulation of
the land during the dumping activities, little evidence of its original use remains. The
burden of the hazardous soils will weigh heavily on its potential uses of this area.
26
Area 5 from Driveway
VII. Recommendations
Area 1
Immediate Needs and Stabilization. This portion of the site contains the carriage house,
house foundation and chimney, and the greenhouse boiler foundation. Because of
insurance and safety concerns, we feel that efforts should be made to secure these areas.
The Town has received permission to take the carriage house down, not having the
resources to restore the structure in its current condition. The Town has also received
permission to fill the house foundation with gravel up to the level of the existing
surrounding grade. The above-grade portions of the foundation will remain, along with
the chimney, which is felt to be stable. This should provide a memory of the former
27
grandeur of the home. This infilling should be undertaken carefully to allow for future
recovery of the foundation, should it prove feasible to reuse the foundation. The
greenhouse boiler foundation poses a similar danger and should be filled to address safety
concerns. These efforts will address the major safety concerns of the area and should be
expedited. The lawn areas should be mowed, non-historic debris removed, and the trees
pruned, with unhealthy and unwanted trees removed.
Recommendations. The asset of this area of the property is the memory of the grandeur of
the original house and grounds. We see this area as a park-like setting open for public
use in conjunction with the Whitfield Museum grounds and as a node on the potential
pedestrian pathway. We recommend that the in-filled foundation be re-pointed and
stabilized to create seating walls around a central pavilion. Picnic tables or bench seating
should be inserted to make this a gathering space on the site. An Adirondack-style open
roof structure could be added to the foundation, roughly recreating the original roofline,
and providing an additional covered gathering space for parties and picnics. A plaque
with a brief history and photo of the original house should be added to mark the
importance of the site.
The carriage house will be missed on the site. It serves as a screen and backdrop to the
formal grounds surrounding the main house. We feel that the massing and the position of
the structure on the site is important enough to suggest that efforts be made to reconstruct
the barn in the same location to a similar scale, detail and proportion. This building
should be associated with the municipal park and serve a use that gives back to the
28
community. A relatively new four-bedroom capacity septic system exists adjacent to the
main house and could be utilized to create public bathrooms in this new building, which
are needed by the Town Center and Whitfield Museum. This building could also house a
Guilford Welcome Center, directing people to the many attractions within Guilford or
possibly a small display area housing a collection of historical images of the surrounding
property.
The lawns, which provide a foreground to the main house, should be maintained and
enhanced as a recreation area. The existing trees should be cared for and supplemented.
Screen planting should be added to the southern boundary to help transition to the
residential neighborhood beyond. Portions of the original boundary fence should be
replaced and restored to mark the street edge and entrance. These open spaces would, in
conjunction with the lawns of the Whitfield Museum, provide for passive recreational
space for use by Guilford residents and visitors.
The sunken garden could create a more intimate, private gathering space. The
overgrowth should be cleared and a lawn planted in the fertile soil. Remnants of the
original stonework of the garden should be reset to help define the space. The contours
create a sunken area, which could serve as a viewing or educational area. Efforts could
be made by outside sources to restore and maintain the previous formal garden, but it
should always remain open to the public.
29
Area 2
Immediate Needs and Stabilization. Area 2 contains several structures in need of
maintenance in order to stabilize their deterioration and prevent unlawful entrance. The
perimeter should be secured with temporary doors and window coverings. The two main
agricultural barns have been recently re-roofed, which has slowed the intrusion of the
elements. There are signs of prior insect infestations in both barns, which should be
inspected for recent activity and treated if necessary. A structural survey should be
performed in both barns to look for potential failure points and assess the overall safety
and condition of the structures. Structural and architectural assessments of these
buildings should be performed and made publicly available to potential occupants of the
site. Identified potential failure points should be repaired and reinforced to avoid
collapse. Repairs should be scheduled to maintain the weather integrity of the structures,
and security measures implemented to avoid vandalism and minimize risk of fire.
The former garage/incubator and creamery, which had been converted into apartments,
stand in better repair. Routine maintenance should be scheduled to avoid further
deterioration. Temporary occupancy, if feasible, would help to develop a presence on the
site and deter unlawful entry and vandalism. Structural and architectural assessments of
these structures should be performed and results made publicly available to potential
occupants of the site.
The foundations of prior structures should be cleaned and stabilized and structural
evaluations performed to assess their potential reuse. Debris and overgrowth should be
30
cleared from this area and removed from the site. The area should be brush hogged and a
safety inspection made prior to allowing access by the public. Special attention should be
paid to areas with possible underground structures and dug wells. A volunteer clean-up
day may be initiated to facilitate this clearing. Areas of safety concern surrounding
structures should be fenced or delineated to minimize public risk.
Recommendations. Overall we see that there is potential for several compatible
organizations to occupy this section of the site. We feel that the organizations should
share similar community-building goals and have a focus on children. The Town should
accommodate organizations by providing a low-cost lease for portions of the site in Area
2 to allow the organizations to confidently fund the necessary infrastructure investments.
Guidelines should be set forth as to the types of organizations to be accommodated, as
well as to the aesthetic requirements for proposed improvements and additions. The
property sits within the Historic District, which will allow the Historic District
Commission to be a resource for organizations and to review proposed modifications.
We see this area of the site as being best suited to house new potential uses. Potential
new buildings should consider the historic density, scale and details of the original farm
buildings for clues as to how new uses could occupy the site. The existing buildings need
to be maintained and the Town should solicit proposals for compatible uses that will
maintain their historic character and agricultural appearance. The condition of the two
barns leaves them best suited for seasonal use for activities such as open market,
agricultural educational use, museum display or other compatible uses. With structural
31
stabilization and repair of the exterior siding and fenestration, the structures will allow for
a large open, one-story space, with a wonderful agricultural aesthetic. The improvements
necessary to winterize and meet required codes would make the reuse of the structures for
more year-round uses cost prohibitive and would risk the loss of the subtle patina that
makes these structures so picturesque.
The creamery and garage/incubator, which are winterized, stand ready to hold uses
compatible with the scale of the existing buildings. The building should not be expanded
or enlarged beyond their current form. Ideally, the additions made to these buildings
when they were converted from agricultural to residential use should be removed and the
roof lines returned to a more appropriate form, reminiscent of their original style.
This area of the site had a much higher density with several other large agricultural
structures that have since been demolished or moved. Any new structures should look to
the original layout for their position and scale. The north, east and west elevations of
new and reused structures should endeavor to maintain the appearance of former
agricultural use as seen from Stone House Lane and the Whitfield Museum. This would
include a diversity of scale in the buildings such as that found on typical turn-of-thecentury farm complexes. Efforts should be made to divide larger functions into several
detached buildings, or to diversify use requirements among occupants to achieve this
goal. The detail should be simple and utilitarian in nature, with large simple volumes
with high pitched roofs and heavy overhangs. Clues can be taken from the existing
structures for siding, rafter details, door and window detail, and so on. The southern
32
facades can be more suggestive of the new use and welcome pedestrian traffic from the
train station parking lot. Simply landscaped yards, fencing or meadow areas should be
maintained between and around the buildings to retain the figure ground and landscape
typical of period farms. Parking close to the buildings should be minimized and reserved
for service and handicapped parking. The Committee strongly opposes any bisecting
road connecting Stone House Lane to Driveway, because such a road would destroy the
integrity of the site. The majority of the parking requirements for new proposed uses
should utilize the proposed train station parking area with a network of pedestrian
connections to the new facilities.
Area 3:
Immediate Needs and Stabilization. This area is in a relatively stable state and has been
designated as a wetlands area. Several debris piles should be removed and the meadow
areas mowed. The Inland Wetlands Commission and the Conservation Commission
should establish an order of conditions for the protection of this area to oversee the initial
cleanup. Some contamination from dumping has been identified in this area of the site.
Advice should be solicited as to the requirements for capping this area in order to protect
the environment and occupants from any hazards.
Recommendations. Because of the delineation of this area as a protected wetland with
associated buffer zone, this area should remain with minimal improvements. The area
plays an important role within the site as a transition from the agricultural and park-like
context on the northern portion of the site to the more industrial and potential parking
33
area on the southern boundary of the site. This area will act as a buffer zone to control
the transition and provide a backdrop to the agriculture buildings in the foreground, as
viewed from the Whitfield Museum and Stone House Lane. The majority of this area
could be an open meadow that is seasonally hayed, maintaining its historical agricultural
use, while generating a picturesque setting for the existing and potential structures on the
site. Another possible use would be community gardens. The southern boundary of this
area should be modestly bermed and planted with indigenous plant species to form a
boundary and screen from the higher impact uses to the south. This should be modeled
after the natural hedgerow boundaries found throughout New England, where trees and
low growth are allowed to fill in between productive crop areas. Formal and ornamental
plantings should be avoided on this rear boundary. The depth of the planting and a
variety of coniferous and deciduous trees should be used to maintain some visual
boundary throughout all four seasons. This berm could also be designed as a protective
cap for the contamination. We see this area as a transition area of the site, not a high
occupancy area, because of the sensitive wetlands area and the contamination.
Area 4
Immediate Needs and Stabilization. This area is forested with a variety of mature trees.
This grove adds to the natural beauty of the site while providing a visual boundary with
the adjacent residential areas. These trees have seen minimal care and will need to be
limbed and inspected by an arborist for integrity. Lesser specimens should be selectively
cut, as should the with the undergrowth, which has been allowed to fill in the floor.
34
Recommendations. This stand of trees creates a visual boundary on the site’s western
boundary and is an important asset. With minimal care and protection, the grove will
create a backdrop to the other activities of the site, similar to the forested areas at the
Whitfield Museum. Most of the major trees are over forty years old, with a variety of
indigenous species. A fifty-foot minimum buffer should be maintained along the western
boundary. The under-story should be thinned to allow movement through the area.
Remains of an old farm lane are still visible, and could be restored as a walking path to
connect into the adjacent trail system. This area should not be built upon with new
structures; rather it should be utilized by low impact passive recreation, such as picnics
and walking trails, adding diversity to the park uses in Area 1.
Area 5
Immediate Needs and Stabilization. The State has performed the surveys necessary to
permit and design a parking area on the existing site. They are anxious to resolve the
design of the parking so construction can proceed along a similar time frame as the new
train station and the redesigned main parking lot. The Town is actively exploring the
purchase of an adjacent parcel in order to reorient the parking in a more sensitive way, as
outlined below. The Town should provide the necessary environmental site assessment
of the new parcel, and make arrangements to purchase the parcel from the current owner.
The owner has indicated that he is agreeable, and negotiations and testing are moving
forward.
35
Recommendations. The most appropriate use for the contaminated area of the site is to
encapsulate the area with asphalt through the construction of a parking lot. The State
DOT will provide cleanup and abatement as necessary to install a parking lot in this area.
They will make the improvements necessary to stabilize and cap the contamination to
prevent further exposure and leaching. However, the current size and configuration of
the contaminated area will not accommodate the number of parking spaces required by
the DOT as a condition of the train station improvements. Encroachment into
uncontaminated areas of the site to the north, as originally proposed, is not the highest
and best use for those areas of the property. The more productive uses of the other areas,
which have been outlined above, could benefit from the parking; but to maximize the
other areas’ aesthetic value they should be visually and physically protected from the
parking lot. Therefore, we feel it is in the best interest of the Town to acquire a small
portion of an adjacent property east on Driveway in order to hold the parking to the
southern boundary of the site. The addition of .75 acre of adjacent land would allow four
longer east-west rows of parking parallel to Driveway that would accommodate the 199
parking spaces required by the State DOT. This would consolidate the parking to the
southern most area of the site, leaving the balance of the property for the uses suggested
above.
The Town should hold the State to invest the necessary care in the landscaping and
lighting of the parking area to further minimize the impact on the adjacent uses. The
buffer described in Area 3 recommendations will screen the parking area from the north
36
and provide a picturesque backdrop to the improved uses of the farm buildings and park
areas of the site.
VIII. Final Thoughts
The Woodruff Farm site is a parcel of land unique its history, location and potential uses.
It is also a parcel transitional in time and function to Guilford’s growing community – an
historic, agricultural remnant of the past awaiting a new vitality and creation of a new
future. Our planning process should ameliorate the impact of growth on the Town’s
character as key parcels such as Woodruff are considered for development. We need to
evaluate growth strategies to ensure we retain our quality of life. We must determine
what we need to do to keep Guilford a special place in which to live while at the same
time providing for economic development and the services needed for a growing
community.
The Woodruff site, especially because it is centrally located, is capable of providing a
diversity of benefits to the community. Uses that are sensitive to site characteristics can
both enhance our quality of life and provide space for needed Town services. Our
Committee’s approach of viewing the parcel in five separate “use” zones reflects the
site’s multifunctional potential. Through this process, we can achieve the preservation of
a unique historic agricultural landscape with some open space, while also allowing the
integration of an appropriate mix of municipal services. The real challenge, identifying
what this site can become, is even more important now than what it once was.
Unfortunately, the only certainty is uncertainty. Unforeseen needs and circumstances
37
influencing the development of municipal property, combined with changing attitudes
and priorities, inevitably introduce an element of uncertainty.
Although the Committee’s recommendations are based on cautious optimism, the
Committee strongly endorses taking a conservative approach to site management. The
Town should allow the property to develop over a period of time. It is most important to
put Woodruff Farm to the right use, in the right place, at the right time, regardless of
whether the ultimate use is a formal garden, community gardens, a tourism center, an art
center, a day care facility, or any other use.
It is hoped that the conscientious and dedicated effort put forth by the Woodruff Advisory
Committee will be appreciated, accepted and adopted. The Board of Selectmen, using
this report as a guide, should carefully undertake review of any future uses proposed for
this site.
(Documents cited in this report and all correspondence received by this Committee are
available in the Town Hall .)
38