Our heart tells us that the frustrated Webster has a legitimate beef when he complains that the town has placed obstacles in the way of his plan to upgrade an old building at the corner of Connecticut Avenue and Page Street.
This is especially true when you consider that the town encouraged him to take on the project at first — and that the handling of the case might seem to be part of a larger pattern that has had other developers raising issues over the months about what they see as municipal obstructionism.
But our head tells us that the town has a point or two on its side as well. Town officials insist that they have no problem with Webster’s project as such. Indeed, they have every reason to support it in principle, since it could play a key role in sparking the rejuvenation of a neighborhood that needs it. But officials say they won’t sign off on what he wants to do until they have assurances that he will do it safely.
Impasse Over Sprinkler Requirement
At issue is a century-old former church building long ago converted into low-rent apartments. It now stands vacant as its new owner seeks to renovate and modify it into higher-rent apartments. Webster wants to add another floor of living space up under the elaborately carved roof, an area that is now wasted attic space.
The town says that would make it a three-story building, if you include the basement. And three-story buildings require sprinkler systems. Webster replies that the $35,000 cost of sprinklers is a project-killing expense.
The town refuses to yield, saying the state fire marshal’s office insists on the sprinklers — though in reality it appears to be more a case of the state going along with a requirement that was originally imposed locally.
Compromise Hard to Arrive At
It is regrettable that the whole dispute, which involves important issues and directly affects a resident’s livelihood, has dissolved into unseemly posturing.
Like Martin Luther nailing his 95 theses to the wall, Webster put up a banner telling the world, “We want to renovate this building, but the town won’t let us.” The town, with what Webster described as uncharacteristic promptness, sent him a letter the same day telling him that the banner was in noncompliance with the sign law and threatening him with fines.
The situation seems to call for a compromise, but it is hard to see what form one could take. The town has suggested that Webster fill the basement with dirt or concrete, reducing three stories to two, but that seems downright silly. Webster has no plans to rent out the basement. Besides, that’s where all the pipes and utilities are located. He could swear in writing never to put any apartments down there, but apparently that wouldn’t cut it legally.
In the end, the town seems likely to prevail, and logic says that perhaps it should. This is, after all, a wooden building. One can only imagine the response if there were a disastrous, multiple-fatality fire and the town were shown to have been negligent in enforcing safety regulations.
It seems a pity, but the well-intentioned Webster may have to settle for a two-story building, which really means a one-story one.
