[MassHistPres] Parsing the meaning/intent of a preservation agreement

[Mike Potaski]

In 2020 the town of Uxbridge received a grant to conduct an archaeological and architectural survey of the characteristics of the Cornet John Farnum House (which is under the custody and care of the Historic Commission). In exchange, the town accepted a preservation agreement pledging to preserve the characteristics which contribute to the architectural, archaeological, and historical integrity of the structure.

The study identified serious structural deficits in the building that threaten its stability and portend its eventual collapse.

The first attempt to secure funding at town meeting for the building's restoration failed, in part owing to a lack of support from the advisory Capital Planning Committee. Committee members felt that substituting modern construction techniques would be more cost effective than replicating the original structural model. Essentially, substituting a replica for a restored building.

The Historic Commission has worked with the architects and engineers to come up with plans for a minimum amount of work to restore the building's structural integrity. Those plans do not completely resolve the Capital Planning Committee's prior objections. The Commission is now engaging with the Capital Planning Committee to gain support for that work so that a request may be made at the spring town meeting for funding. The Capital Planning Committee has been provided a copy of the preservation agreement.

Has anyone experienced similar difficulties and how were they resolved?

Michael R. Potaski
Uxbridge Historic Commission


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20231128/adb42bda/attachment.html>