Monomoy Theatre Demo Denial Appealed; Playhouse Is Not Historical Significant, Owner Says

CHATHAM – The owner of the former Monomoy Theatre property is asking the select board to allow the demolition of the former playhouse at 776 Main St.
In an appeal filed Nov. 21, Chatham Productions charged that the historic business district commission’s Nov. 5 denial of its request to tear down the playhouse was discriminatory and overstepped its authority.
The select board will hold the appeal hearing on Tuesday, Dec. 16, during its regular 5:30 p.m. weekly meeting. Board members held a site inspection Dec. 3.
In the five-page appeal letter, Greg Clark of Chatham Production wrote that the commission had failed to show that the theater building was historically significant and was attempting to control what the site will be used for, which he said should have no bearing on the demolition. Clark wrote that Chatham Productions intends to construct commercial buildings on the site that conform to town regulations and will restore and renovate the historic Washington Taylor House, adjacent to the playhouse, but plans for that project have not yet been finalized.
The playhouse is too run down and would be impractical to renovate into commercial space, Clark wrote.
In its Nov. 12 decision letter, the HBDC wrote that it was denying the demolition request because the theater structure represents “an important part of Chatham’s history.” Information presented by the historical commission shows that the building “has a rich history that is worth preserving,” according to the denial.
The HBDC also wrote that although the building is clearly in disrepair, there is no evidence that it cannot be restored and renovated or secured to prevent break-ins. There is a “lack of sufficient evidence” to support demolition, the letter read.
At the Nov. 5 HBDC hearing, historical commission chair Frank Messina said that the commission had determined that the theater building is historically significant. In his appeal letter, Clark wrote that the building did not qualify as a historic structure because the historical commission did not follow its rules and regulations by recommending that the building be declared historical to the select board or the Massachusetts Historical Commission (MHC). The historical commission, he wrote, “does not have the unilateral authority to deem a property as a historic property.” The commission developed an historic inventory form, known as a Form B, on the building, but Clark asserted that it was “unsuccessful in obtaining certification from MHC.”
The local historical commission typically votes on a building’s historical significance when addressing a demolition request. However, because the theater building is under the HBDC’s jurisdiction, the playhouse demolition did not go before the historical commission.
Messina has said that the historical commission halted its efforts to have the building declared eligible for the National Register of Historic Places when Clark took ownership and provided the information it had developed to the new owner. Clark wrote that a Form B was submitted to MHC in 2019 after researching town records and other information on the theater building, but MHC did not make a determination and, he wrote, said that there was not enough documentation to meet the MHC or National Park Service criteria as historic.
“Therefore, this building is not historically significant, and this is merely a continuation of the attempt to wrongfully control the use of the property, as we have faced in the last six years,” he wrote.
Clark did not provide documentation of the MHC correspondence with the appeal nor to the HBDC, which had requested it in its denial decision. The lack of documentation, the HBDC wrote in its denial, means that it “cannot presently credit the applicant’s verbal representations regarding the rejection of an application to place this building on the National Register.” Further, the HBDC wrote that rejection of the building for listing on the National Register “would not be determinative of the question as to whether the structure is sufficiently historical to reject an application for demolition.”
The theater owner also did not provide a 2019 structural report on the theater building as requested by the HBDC. In the appeal letter, Clark wrote that the report has no bearing on the historic nature of the building and the HBDC’s request for it “is a clear sign of overreaching.” He asserts that the building is structurally unsound and does not meet building codes now and when it was purchased by Chatham Productions. To bring the building up to code would be impractical and require “an almost entirely new structure.” Additionally, because of the stage and slanted floor, it would be impractical to renovate the building into commercial space, according to the letter.
Clark asserted in the letter that the building did not meet the HBDC or MHC criteria for historical significance. It is not architecturally significant because of the renovations and additions made over the years, he wrote, and is not listed on the National Register. He also wrote that the building has not contributed to or was associated with historical persons or events related to the cultural, economic, social or political history of the town, another of the criteria.
“As the theater was a summer use only, we do not believe it played a significant role in the overall community,” Clark wrote. No individual or entity stepped in after the University of Hartford ended its sponsorship of the Monomoy Theatre in 2018, he wrote, which “clearly demonstrates that the theater did not have a significant role in the community.” The letter later added that there is “no evidence of specific historic persons or events being associated with this building and the design is not of architectural significance.”
The appeal letter says that the HBDC did not prove the historical significance of the building but rather focused on what “tearing it down means for the future of the Monomoy Theatre. The fact is there is no current Monomoy Theatre. That business has been closed for seven years.”
The decision, Clark wrote, “was swayed by the HBDC’s attempt to control what the site is used for, which resulted in usurping the role of the planning board. What the planned use for the property is should have no bearing over whether the building can be demolished under town guidelines. The board members chose to ignore the fact that there is no documentation proving this building has historical significance.”