Charlemont residents are faced with dilemma: Should public or private interests prevail in trying to do what’s right for the historic 18th-century Charlemont Inn.
There’s no question that both sides — the owners, Charlotte Dewey and Linda Shimandle, and the town officials who have taken the matter to state Housing Court — have the same goal in mind: successful rehabilitation of what should be an asset to this town that is increasingly attracting tourists.
But the two sides split on whether the owners have the financial means to pay for extensive renovation and to cover back taxes, fees and other debt.
That there’s a public water supply designation attached to the well on the property further complicates the issue. Declared a public water supply before state regulations, its status was grandfathered with condition that if the well goes untested or unmonitored for five years, the grandfathered status is revoked.
That five years ends in December. Without the public well designation the property can’t be used commercial to its full potential, as an historic inn and restaurant.
It’s no wonder that town has asked a state Housing Court judge to place the building and property under the receivership of an individual capable of completing the restoration. The town argues that placing the property in receivership will benefit the owners as well.
“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,” Glen Ayers, the health agent, said. “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.” Eventually the property could revert to the owners control.
But is this enough to trump the rights of Dewey and Shimandle?
Their lawyer, Mark Tanner, doesn’t think so.
Since the inn and its well aren’t owned by Charlemont, he says, “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.” And Tanner says the same is true of a potential loss of value for the property should the water source be declared unusable. “That’s not the town’s call to make. That’s Charlotte’s call to make.”
With the Housing Court now involved, however, it’s not just the owners’ or the town’s call to make. Given what’s being asked here, we can’t imagine a quick decision from a judge.
That time, though, could provide both the owners and town to continue to see if there’s another way here.
Ayers says if the Housing Court doesn’t approve the receivership plan, he envisions that the inn eventually will have to be torn down with the town footing the bill.
That vision is disputed by Tanner, who asks “Why isn’t the town doing everything it can to help Charlotte out, other than taking her to Housing Court?”
It’s a legitimate question. Perhaps there’s a Plan C, especially if the town is sincere in saving the inn and, yes, its water source. Maybe the town can help the owners restructure their debt. Perhaps, Charlemont officials can help find grants that could be used. If these possibilities haven’t been seriously explored, they should be.