CHARLEMONT — To save the historic Charlemont Inn before it loses its grandfathered public water supply designation in December, town officials have asked a Housing Court judge to place the property under the receivership of someone with enough money to substantially renovate the 18th-century inn and get the water running again after five years.
But a lawyer, working pro bono for Charlemont Inn co-owner Charlotte Dewey, says the town has no right or authority to take control of the property for that reason.
“That’s Charlotte’s and Linda Shimandle’s personal property,” said attorney Mark Tanner. “That is not owned by the town. It’s none of their business whether or not those water rights expire. What the town is trying to do is preserve a water source that it doesn’t own and doesn’t have any right to.”
“Why isn’t the town doing everything it can to help Charlotte out, other than taking her to Housing Court?” he said.
He cited Northampton as an example of a community that has used some of its Community Preservation Act money to help preserve privately owned historic buildings, such as the Academy of Music.
The Charlemont Inn’s well was deemed a public water source before current state regulations were adopted. If the well goes unused and unmonitored for five years, it loses its grandfathered status and can’t be used for commercial purposes like an inn or restaurant.
According to court papers, the Inn built in 1787 has 32 rooms, with 14 bedrooms and nine full bathrooms. When told the Inn would lose property value if it doesn’t have a public water source, Tanner replied, “That’s not the town’s call to make. That’s Charlotte’s call to make.”
Health Agent Glen Ayers pointed out that the Board of Health has been working with Charlotte Dewey since March 2015 to get the deteriorating Inn back into shape and operational. He said that the substantial repairs required are very costly, and that a court-appointed receivership would wipe out debt, except for the money owed to the receiver for the repairs and the town taxes.
“The receiver would have possession, but the owners would still be the owners,” he explained. He said the receiver would spend the money to make necessary repairs to address the issues: finish the roof, and put in electrical service required, get the heating restored, put in humidity control and stabilize the structure. Also, the receiver would restore plumbing to the building, so that water sampling could resume.
Afterward, he said, Dewey could repay the receiver and have the property back; and if she couldn’t, the court would foreclose and the property would be auctioned, with a minimum bid for the money the receiver put into the property plus what the town was owed.
“It is painfully clear that the inn is well over $500,000 in debt (in) local taxes, sewer district fees ($48,000) state taxes ($170,000) private mortgage ($300,000) and other private claims against the business,” Ayers said. “We have asked the Housing Court to appoint a receiver under the Sanitary Code, which will allow the inn to be saved before the Public Water Supply designation expires. As far as I know, this is the only available solution that will save the Inn, because it provides the ability to wipe out the crushing debt, except for the municipal lien.”
The Board of Health is asking for receivership under the state Sanitary Code because this “super-priority lien” is only allowed under that code, Ayers said.
He said the Board of Health has proposed to Housing Court a receiver who is willing to put in money for the amount they think they could get at auction for the property.
“If the Housing Court does not approve the receivership, I predict the Inn will need to be demolished, once the (public water designation) expires. What a loss for the town. I’m afraid the town will end up having to pay for the demolition as well,” said Ayers.
But Tanner disagrees with the premise that the building is now under any Sanitary Code violation, since it’s empty and is being worked on. The building has been unoccupied since December 2011.
“This is a construction site,” says Tanner. “The Sanitary Code doesn’t apply. Not having hot water, heat, having air come in through windows – there is no need for these things while the building is being renovated. Citations apply only when one makes an inspection of someone’s living area.”
Ayers said Dewey and her sister have been putting in about 30 hours a week of work on the inside the building but that professional contractors are now needed for the electrical, plumbing, heating and roof work.
Tanner said the work is to be done incrementally, including the electrical wiring, as the money becomes available. Dewey is trying to raise money for the Inn restoration online, but as of Friday, has only raised $858 on a GoFundMe web page for the Charlemont Inn. Dewey has said she has raised at least another $1,000 from donors who are not online.
Tanner said the Charlemont Inn, from the outside, now looks much better than several other buildings in the town center. “There’s no law that says you have to have an occupied property. What you can’t have is a property that’s dangerous to anyone’s health.”
“Charlemont Inn is a very big deal to the town,” said Ayers. “We’ve had numerous meetings with the Selectboard, and they are very supportive. If it has to be demolished, it would be a significant cost to the town and the historical value is lost.”
After hearing arguments, Housing Court Judge Rebekah J. Crampton Kamukala, who toured the property in April, has taken the matter under advisement and said she is hoping to make a determination later this month, according to Ayers.