[MassHistPres] Perpetual historic preservation gl 184:31-33. Town seems clueless though voted at town meeting.

[Dennis De Witt]

Your experience with such an ex post facto PR is not unique.  We encountered it several times in Brookline in situations such as yours where preservation was one of several competing interests and did not have a sufficiently strong hand to play.  At least you have “mutually” acceptable in the language.  The question is what does “acceptable” mean and to whom on your (the town’s) side of the table.

Dennis De Witt

> On Nov 17, 2023, at 11:42 AM, rcasella--- via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hello Sally,
> 
> In my experience, I think what this fairness-minded developer means to say is, that a mutually acceptable exterior historic preservation restriction will be drawn up in an agreement that both parties will sign, that will take effect upon issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
> 
> Obviously arriving at a "mutually acceptable" anything could be tough after the proverbial train has left the station. 
> 
> Best of luck with the project!
> 
> Richard Casella
> Portsmouth, RI 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of sally milne via MassHistPres
> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2023 10:34 AM
> To: MHC MHC Listserve <MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
> Subject: [MassHistPres] Perpetual historic preservation gl 184:31-33. Town seems clueless though voted at town meeting.
> 
> 
> Hello
>   I’m seeking your experience . Our town entered into a complex purchase and sale with  a development company to use the Historic West Harwich Baptist Church for housing.
> 
> The church is within Captains’ Row a developing National Register district and a District of Critical Planning concern.  It is listed on MACRIS .
> 
> To be able to do this project a town created  article was on town meeting warrant. An Amendment was made  to that article and passed that a  perpetual Historic preservation restriction be placed on the church that would meet gl.184;31-33
> 
> However what might you advise me as the town in its purchase and sale agreement  now has language that says:
> 
> "We   (the  development company) agree to enter into a mutually acceptable exterior historic preservation restriction upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy."
> 
> I have concerns here and hope to hear any of your impressions or similar experiences as I try to make sure  the intent of the amendment is followed.
> 
> Thank you
> Sally Urbano
> West Harwich
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
> 
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres