Nonprofit pitches veterans-only community for town-owned Elm Street parcel; selectmen urge feasibility work

Lyndsy Cushman, CEO of TrustHouse Inc., told the Farmington Board of Selectmen on March 2 that her organization wants the town to consider donating or otherwise conveying a roughly 25-acre parcel on Elm Street (Map 34, Lot 17) for a veterans-only residential community.

Cushman said the concept would include a central monument and community buildings — a 4,500-square-foot veterans gym, a rehab/wellness building, small professional space, a grocery, three assisted-living cottages with ceiling-mounted patient lifts and about 90 handicap-accessible tiny homes, plus shared pavilions and a pond. "Just because you're handicapped in some aspect does not mean you can't make a living," Cushman said, describing on-site job opportunities for residents and investors purchasing units.

Board members praised the concept but stressed it is only conceptual. Vice Chairman Charlie King and Selectman John Scruton both pressed for evidence the site could support the proposal: the parcel is long and narrow with wetlands and ledge, water and sewer are not immediately adjacent, and the town’s topography includes ridge lines and limited road frontage. "Before I would be willing to commit on behalf of the town, there are a lot of hurdles that need to be met," King said, asking for preliminary engineering and a clear financing plan.

Cushman said TrustHouse plans to "tap into $435 billion" of investor capital but did not state how much — if any — is committed to the Farmington project. When pressed about hard cost estimates, she described tiny homes priced at about $75,000 each and other commercial structures in earlier-stage pricing but did not provide a total project cost or binding commitments.

Selectmen outlined the next steps they expect: TrustHouse should obtain a site-specific preliminary engineering assessment (including wetlands, soils and septic feasibility), a written long-term business plan showing committed funding or firm investor commitments, and a phased timetable with milestones. King described how the town would treat the property sale: it could offer conditions or milestone-based forgiveness of value if the board agreed to convey the parcel for community benefit.

Selectmen also raised long-term operational and liability questions, including who would staff on-site services, how veterans’ vouchers or other rental income would sustain operations, and what obligations the town might have if the project failed. "If their funding's not there and the money's not there and they go away, what is the Town's liability after that?" Selectman Phil Henry asked, echoing concerns about sustainability and local service availability.

The board did not vote on the request. Selectmen encouraged Cushman to meet with the Town Planner for available tax-map data, deed information and basic topography and to return with an engineered layout adapted to the Elm Street parcel and evidence of meaningful financing and operational commitments.

The board noted alternate sites were discussed during the meeting; members suggested the former Davidson Rubber site or other larger properties could be more suitable but cautioned those locations also have constraints and would require EPA/state coordination.