From pkelleher at Salem.com  Tue Aug  4 08:50:40 2026
From: pkelleher at Salem.com (Patricia Kelleher)
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2026 12:50:40 +0000
Subject: [MassHistPres] Reminder: Early Bird Pricing ends soon! Preservation
 in a Changing Climate Conference 2026
In-Reply-To: <MN2PR16MB3053F9CE8B3BBC1A05DF1C17A7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
References: <MN2PR16MB30538BC9CD27E379A2313575A7F92@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR16MB30532F2C7DDFD8AEE7A48BCFA7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
 <MN2PR16MB3053F9CE8B3BBC1A05DF1C17A7C22@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>
Message-ID: <MN2PR16MB3053404A862B1C199AA6CCAFA7D42@MN2PR16MB3053.namprd16.prod.outlook.com>

[cid:68cc7a29-8c73-4827-a8a3-eb9ad3e99401]


The City of Salem and Salem's Preservation in a Changing Climate Partners are excited to announce the sixth annual conference focusing on addressing climate impacts to the region’s historic resources.


Preservation in a Changing Climate 2026

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Morse Auditorium at the Peabody Essex Museum

161 Essex St, Salem, MA


$50 early bird registration (until Friday, August 14)
$65 after August 14
Students: $10 special rate for the first 10 students; $30 for students (valid student ID required)



Building on past Preservation in a Changing Climate Conferences, this year’s event aims to advance mitigation and adaptation strategies that address impacts of climate on historic buildings, landscapes and neighborhoods. The conference will include a full day of case studies, conversations and panel discussions and a keynote from Lori Ferriss, Co-Founder and Executive Director of Built Buildings Lab and an internationally recognized expert on leveraging existing and historic buildings for equitable climate change mitigation and adaptation. Lunch will be provided by PEM and a closing reception will be held at the National Park Service Armory Visitor Center.

You can view the program schedule here<https://www.preservingsalem.com/preservation-in-a-changing-climate-2026> and register to attend the event (first come first served).

REGISTRATION NOW OPEN

REGISTER HERE<https://www.pem.org/events/preservation-in-a-changing-climate-conference-2>




Patti Kelleher

Preservation Planner

City of Salem | Department of Planning & Community Development

98 Washington St., 2nd Floor | Salem, MA  01970

978-619-5685 | pkelleher at salem.com<mailto:pkelleher at salem.com>

www.preservingsalem.com<http://www.preservingsalem.com/> | www.salem.com<http://www.salem.com/>

*Staff liaison to the Salem Historical Commission & Salem Community Preservation Committee



M 8-4 Office

T 8-4 WFH

W 8-4 Office

TH 8-7 Office

F 8-12 WFH

 [cid:5e854cc2-04c4-4219-a298-e72b0e2a2751]

WARNING: Fraud Alert Regarding Fake Application Fee Requests

The City of Salem has been made aware of a fraudulent scheme targeting applicants with fake requests for application fee payments.

These emails and invoices are NOT from the City of Salem.
The City of Salem will never send invoices via email. All legitimate application fees are handled through OpenGov or in person at the Department of Planning and Community Development.

Do not pay any invoices or respond to these fraudulent emails.
If you have received a suspicious email or have any questions about legitimate application fees, please contact the Department of Planning and Community Development directly at (978) 619-5685.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260804/bba8f14c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 258080 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260804/bba8f14c/attachment-0001.jpe>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image.png
Type: image/png
Size: 507282 bytes
Desc: image.png
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260804/bba8f14c/attachment-0001.png>

From ccskelly12 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 10 08:51:54 2026
From: ccskelly12 at gmail.com (Chris Skelly)
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2026 08:51:54 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay Guidebook
Message-ID: <CAMXdL94n_mv9xScxWEK5UukMqwbrcYm62-iDOaEx9QbibT8arA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello, has anyone put together a brief guidebook on demolition delay that
is provided to applicants? I’m looking for some examples that would plainly
and clearly explain the process to applicants. Chris.
*Chris Skelly*
*Skelly Preservation Services*
Community Planning and Preservation
www.skellypreservationservices.com
ccskelly12 at gmail.com
*Community planning with the past, **present, and future in mind*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260810/2f6cfa87/attachment.html>

From nancyrobbins2 at yahoo.com  Tue Aug 11 11:19:16 2026
From: nancyrobbins2 at yahoo.com (Nancy Robbins)
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2026 11:19:16 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] HD Communication
References: <AC4F6DDE-F87F-4306-9F59-73D419EF7B4B.ref@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <AC4F6DDE-F87F-4306-9F59-73D419EF7B4B@yahoo.com>

The HDC is thinking about sending out a letter to our property owners with just a minimal bit of information. Basically just a hello from the Commission, here’s where you can find information ( Town Website) and contact info should they need to touch base. Pretty vanilla. 

One of our members is reluctant to do this as our guidelines are what they consider a bit outdated ( updated guides are in the works) but nevertheless it’s what we go by. 

Does anyone have comment as to why sending out a letter of this sort is/could be detrimental?  BTW, there has not been any communication in many many years. 

Thank you,

Nancy
Nancy Robbins Federici & Peg Dooley
Co-chairs, Norton Center Historic District Commission
C. (508) 958-5165

We hire smart people not to tell them what to do but for them to tell us. 
                                 Steve Jobs
                        






From nlouisedole at gmail.com  Thu Aug 13 14:19:21 2026
From: nlouisedole at gmail.com (Nancy Dole)
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2026 14:19:21 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] HD Communication
In-Reply-To: <AC4F6DDE-F87F-4306-9F59-73D419EF7B4B@yahoo.com>
References: <AC4F6DDE-F87F-4306-9F59-73D419EF7B4B.ref@yahoo.com>
 <AC4F6DDE-F87F-4306-9F59-73D419EF7B4B@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAAAbOnFZJ9y61Tuinvyx5npaDk_P2mGR8Q-utNK3Me8nM5mwrA@mail.gmail.com>

Not detrimental, very helpful actually. Real Estate Agents should also
inform clients if property is in historic district.
def send them guidelines, better if they are up to date of course, and also
direct them to the HDC information, applications etc on your listing on
your town's website.
Nancy Dole, West Tisbury HDC



On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:32 AM Nancy Robbins via MassHistPres <
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

> The HDC is thinking about sending out a letter to our property owners with
> just a minimal bit of information. Basically just a hello from the
> Commission, here’s where you can find information ( Town Website) and
> contact info should they need to touch base. Pretty vanilla.
>
> One of our members is reluctant to do this as our guidelines are what they
> consider a bit outdated ( updated guides are in the works) but nevertheless
> it’s what we go by.
>
> Does anyone have comment as to why sending out a letter of this sort
> is/could be detrimental?  BTW, there has not been any communication in many
> many years.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Nancy
> Nancy Robbins Federici & Peg Dooley
> Co-chairs, Norton Center Historic District Commission
> C. (508) 958-5165
>
> We hire smart people not to tell them what to do but for them to tell us.
>                                  Steve Jobs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260813/0c076267/attachment.html>

From DByer at mendonma.gov  Fri Aug 14 13:24:23 2026
From: DByer at mendonma.gov (Daniel Byer)
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 17:24:23 +0000
Subject: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay Guidebook
In-Reply-To: <CAMXdL94n_mv9xScxWEK5UukMqwbrcYm62-iDOaEx9QbibT8arA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMXdL94n_mv9xScxWEK5UukMqwbrcYm62-iDOaEx9QbibT8arA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <SA1PR15MB701625F4018B831128ACE7C0CDDA2@SA1PR15MB7016.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>

Here's what we did in Mendon, https://mendonma.gov/257/Demolition-Delay-By-Law, there's a page that explains the process with a flow chart

~Dan Byer

Dan Byer
(he/him/his)
Historic Commission - Chair
Historic District Commission - Vice Chair

20 Main St.
Mendon, MA 01756

Office: 508-458-6707
Cell: 774-481-1321
Fax: 508-478-8241
mendonma.gov<http://mendonma.gov/>




From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> On Behalf Of Chris Skelly via MassHistPres
Sent: Monday, August 10, 2026 8:52 AM
To: MHC MHC listserve <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: [MassHistPres] Demolition Delay Guidebook


CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the Town of Mendon mail system. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.


Hello, has anyone put together a brief guidebook on demolition delay that is provided to applicants? I'm looking for some examples that would plainly and clearly explain the process to applicants. Chris.
Chris Skelly
Skelly Preservation Services
Community Planning and Preservation
www.skellypreservationservices.com<http://atpscan.global.hornetsecurity.com?d=QLMzQyi6H3FaBF1f-p1OTRUN0BcewvWRj5S_38zucdM&f=3IJG8kdPkMWRlfH6ipjF6gvf2kFvMCIaGaQPWgCAHefbYh0eUdXDGNyPSEPJAHRS&i=&k=BbfH&m=S4VQh5fJKD5JIHHTp3osrDG9oRiDuwhFocASkYqIG-II2DNSx3fRd3uggAHmUZDXacWFeieOQ1trOpyWlZhaWp9xqRPARv5mbiHQHUxgGiZwqPEWizjUP5RIKINeirsG&n=EoMnDz1vViayxukwqNpcTwMzKbJvM83PVWEqmIjULXU&r=Nwib-aMawdHGsSDRuTB5aTukLFWJUCfasxImHuOP1DszrSGVAVln_umWf_sd2KnY&s=47a90766ee49f52561e42a73a0db3170689ae28fa9d8cddf3d1e8e855074cb8d&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.skellypreservationservices.com%2F>
ccskelly12 at gmail.com<mailto:ccskelly12 at gmail.com>
Community planning with the past, present, and future in mind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260814/3e76b943/attachment.html>

From ggschuler126 at gmail.com  Mon Aug 17 09:37:46 2026
From: ggschuler126 at gmail.com (Gretchen Schuler)
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2026 09:37:46 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] HD Communication
In-Reply-To: <CAAAbOnFZJ9y61Tuinvyx5npaDk_P2mGR8Q-utNK3Me8nM5mwrA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <AC4F6DDE-F87F-4306-9F59-73D419EF7B4B.ref@yahoo.com>
 <AC4F6DDE-F87F-4306-9F59-73D419EF7B4B@yahoo.com>
 <CAAAbOnFZJ9y61Tuinvyx5npaDk_P2mGR8Q-utNK3Me8nM5mwrA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALp33P4gAvGan4miZbQO4z2drhwtqL48JNfYop+U=6mvKDkjAw@mail.gmail.com>

Send the letter - the more info out there the better.  You could tell
people that if they provide emails you can send updates - so offer an
address to send email - then when guidelines are updated you can send out
the new link or a second letter to those owners for whom you have no email.

Gretchen Schuler
Wayland Historic District Commission

On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 9:29 AM Nancy Dole via MassHistPres <
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

> Not detrimental, very helpful actually. Real Estate Agents should also
> inform clients if property is in historic district.
> def send them guidelines, better if they are up to date of course, and
> also direct them to the HDC information, applications etc on your listing
> on your town's website.
> Nancy Dole, West Tisbury HDC
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2026 at 8:32 AM Nancy Robbins via MassHistPres <
> masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:
>
>> The HDC is thinking about sending out a letter to our property owners
>> with just a minimal bit of information. Basically just a hello from the
>> Commission, here’s where you can find information ( Town Website) and
>> contact info should they need to touch base. Pretty vanilla.
>>
>> One of our members is reluctant to do this as our guidelines are what
>> they consider a bit outdated ( updated guides are in the works) but
>> nevertheless it’s what we go by.
>>
>> Does anyone have comment as to why sending out a letter of this sort
>> is/could be detrimental?  BTW, there has not been any communication in many
>> many years.
>>
>> Thank you,
>>
>> Nancy
>> Nancy Robbins Federici & Peg Dooley
>> Co-chairs, Norton Center Historic District Commission
>> C. (508) 958-5165
>>
>> We hire smart people not to tell them what to do but for them to tell us.
>>                                  Steve Jobs
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260817/726d6221/attachment.html>

From dennis.j.dewitt at gmail.com  Fri Aug 21 09:53:08 2026
From: dennis.j.dewitt at gmail.com (Dennis De Witt)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2026 09:53:08 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] 25 years of not filing required preservation
	restrictions
Message-ID: <6565CDF1-6D95-4864-9299-CDFD17549AD1@gmail.com>

The story below from the Plymouth Independent reveals that Plymouth has systematically failed to put in place required preservation restrictions in connection with CPA funded projects over the last 25 years.   Even allowing for the fact that even this comes as no surprise in Plymouth, it is worth reading as an object lesson.

Might there be other examples in the state?

Dennis De Witt

Millions of dollars in community preservation projects around town were completed over the past two decades despite a “systemic” failure to follow required steps designed to protect historic buildings and open spaces.  As many as 40 publicly funded projects since 2000 were completed despite a failure to file the necessary historic preservation or other deed restrictions, Town Manager Derek Brindisi said in a recent interview with the Independent.

In at least one case, the failure could mean the integrity of one of the town’s most iconic historic sites will be compromised, Town officials said.

The Mayflower Society is moving forward with plans to make controversial changes to the façade of downtown’s Mayflower Meetinghouse in order to renovate its basement into a wheelchair-accessible museum.  The plan – which has received permits to move forward – includes the removal of a pillar, two windows, and some stonework on the façade in order to add a doorway and a wheelchair ramp, according to plans on file at Town Hall.  The changes, officials say, will make the Meetinghouse – the historic church on Town Square constructed on the same site the Pilgrims built their first church in 1622 — equally accessible to people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The heated controversy over the planned renovations exposed what Brindisi says is a more widespread problem with a lack of oversight in the Town’s grant process dating back 25 years.  The Meetinghouse renovations could have been stopped had the owners followed the rules in 2018 when they received a publicly funded $2.6 million historic preservation grant to restore the building’s stone façade, officials said.

All such grants require the applicants to file and record a historic preservation deed restriction, a document designed to ensure all future owners cannot alter the historic integrity of the building.  No such deed restriction was ever filed, town officials say, opening the door for the Mayflower Society to apply for permits to change the outward appearance of the church.  In fact, no deed restrictions were filed in as many as 40 projects dating back to 2000, including a $3.2 million grant for a new roof <https://www.plymouthindependent.org/6-2m-pilgrim-hall-project-will-restore-precious-artwork-replace-roof/> at Pilgrim Hall approved as recently as 2023, Brindisi said.

It’s unclear how many of the other grant-funded historic sites might have been compromised. Town officials are still researching to build a comprehensive list. So far they have provided no evidence suggesting the historic integrity of other buildings was damaged.  “The Meetinghouse is a symptom of a much larger problem,” Brindisi told the Independent. “We have a systemic problem here.’’

Town officials say they still do not have a total number of properties that have been affected as they are still trying to get a complete list. So far, the town has identified $37.6 million in Community Preservation grants for which deed restrictions were not recorded, according to a spokesperson for Brindisi.  The Independent filed a records request for the list of funded projects where required deed restrictions were not recorded, but town officials refused the request on grounds it is not yet available.  

Exactly who’s to blame for the oversight failures depends entirely on which Town official is being asked.  According to Brindisi, it’s the fault of the Town’s past Community Preservation Committees (CPC), which reviewed and made recommendations on roughly $4 million in grants awarded each year.  Bill Keohan, a Select Board member and former longtime chair of the CPC, said it’s the fault of town managers and staff. He said the CPC did everything it could to get town officials to record the restrictions.

“We had town managers, department heads, and we had town counsel at times that wasn’t terribly cooperative,” Keohan said at a July 23 meeting of the CPC. “There wasn’t any shortcoming of any CPC over the last 23 years.”

Contacted by telephone, he declined to comment for this report.  The current chair of the CPC, Ed Bradley, put the blame on another Town appointed group – the Historic District Commission, charged with enforcing the deed restrictions after they are recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds.  Anne Mason, chair of the Historic District Commission, did not respond to requests for comment.  But Paul Blanchard, vice chair of the commission, also appeared at the July 23 CPC meeting to defend the commission’s work, arguing his board can’t enforce a deed restriction not yet officially recorded. He told the CPC it isn’t his commission’s job to make sure the restrictions are recorded in the first place.  “That made me very upset,” Bradley, the CPC chair, told the Independent. Then, as if responding to Blanchard, he said: “If that’s not part of your consideration, then we need to find somebody else to be the gatekeeper and watch over restrictions.”

Contacted by the Independent, Blanchard declined to comment.

Regardless of who is to blame, Brindisi said Town staff is working hard to clean up the mess and make sure all projects affected by the oversight failure are identified and the necessary deed restrictions are recorded. He said he expects to make a report to the Select Board on Sept 1.  He also said Town officials are withholding the last payment on the Pilgrim Hall project until it receives confirmation the deed restriction has been recorded.

After initially agreeing to an interview, Donna Curtin, executive director of Pilgrim Hall, did not respond to attempts to schedule an interview.

Brindisi said the Mayflower Society moved quickly to file a deed restriction in place once they were reminded by Town officials of the requirement, but the restriction has yet to be officially recorded.

￼
Before (left) and after renderings of planned changes to the outside of the Mayflower Meetinghouse.
He said he has asked the Historic District Commission to review the plans as if the deed restriction was in place.  But since there is no legal restriction, town officials issued the Mayflower Society a permit to move forward with the controversial changes to the building’s exterior.

CPC Chair Bradley told the Independent the new project would have been prohibited had the Society filed the deed restriction as required on the 2018 restoration project.  “All of which was protected by money that was given to them by the CPC,” he said.  Bradley said Town Meeting members would never have approved the grant had they been aware of the Society’s ultimate plans.

Officials with the Mayflower Society declined to comment for this report.

Michael Tubin, who was chair of the Historic District Commission when it unanimously approved the planned changes to the exterior of the Meetinghouse on July 15, said he opposed the changes even though he ultimately voted to approve them so the Commission could provide a unanimous decision.  “It’s probably one of the most important sites that we have, and to see that they’re just ripping into the side of the building and ruining the symmetry of the building, I think is horrible,” Tubin said.  Said Bradley: “Their architect and Mayflower says this is the only route that they see viable. We don’t believe so.”

The CPC has invited the Mayflower Society and the Historic District Commission to its Sep. 24 meeting to discuss the renovation project’s future.  Both Brindisi and Bradley said the Mayflower Society owes the town some money for dismantling the publicly funded façade restoration work in 2018 – some of which will be destroyed to make way for the new project.  “There is some balance of money that should be going back to the town,” Brindisi said.

Bradley said the CPC will no longer recommend Town Meeting fund grants until applicants have filed the deed restriction and, in the case of historic preservation restrictions, gotten the approval of state historic preservation regulators – a bureaucratic process taking up to a year or more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260821/db47089c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image-5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 101536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260821/db47089c/attachment-0001.png>

From jenn at barrettplanningllc.com  Mon Aug 24 08:08:27 2026
From: jenn at barrettplanningllc.com (Jennifer Doherty)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 08:08:27 -0400
Subject: [MassHistPres] 25 years of not filing required preservation
	restrictions
In-Reply-To: <6565CDF1-6D95-4864-9299-CDFD17549AD1@gmail.com>
References: <6565CDF1-6D95-4864-9299-CDFD17549AD1@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAAvoqEOByqtmy9akTYqueywi_SW20VNPvQsGyip40Qjfe=E-DA@mail.gmail.com>

While this is concerning, I would note that it is Plymouth's own policy to
require preservation restrictions for all CPA-funded projects. The CPA
legislation only requires a preservation restriction when the municipality
acquires an interest in a property using historic preservation funds
(generally speaking, when the municipality buys a property).

But, certainly many communities around the state are like Plymouth in that
they require preservation restrictions in exchange for CPA fund grants.
Given the requirements of the preservation restriction program, this is a
good example of really thinking through what "CPA funds = preservation
restrictions" means for the community. As the article notes at the end,
there are other options beyond preservation restrictions.

Thank you,
Jenn


On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 2:18 PM Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres <
masshistpres at cs.umb.edu> wrote:

> The story below from the *Plymouth Independent* reveals that Plymouth has
> systematically failed to put in place required preservation restrictions in
> connection with CPA funded projects over the last 25 years.   Even allowing
> for the fact that even this comes as no surprise in Plymouth, it is worth
> reading as an object lesson.
>
> Might there be other examples in the state?
>
> Dennis De Witt
>
> *Millions of dollars in community preservation projects around town were
> completed over the past two decades despite a “systemic” failure to follow
> required steps designed to protect historic buildings and open spaces.  **As
> many as 40 publicly funded projects since 2000 were completed despite a
> failure to file the necessary historic preservation or other deed
> restrictions, Town Manager Derek Brindisi said in a recent interview with
> the Independent.*
>
> *In at least one case, the failure could mean the integrity of one of the
> town’s most iconic historic sites will be compromised, Town officials said.*
>
> *The Mayflower Society is moving forward with plans to make controversial
> changes to the façade of downtown’s Mayflower Meetinghouse in order to
> renovate its basement into a wheelchair-accessible museum.  **The plan –
> which has received permits to move forward – includes the removal of a
> pillar, two windows, and some stonework on the façade in order to add a
> doorway and a wheelchair ramp, according to plans on file at Town Hall.  **The
> changes, officials say, will make the Meetinghouse – the historic church on
> Town Square constructed on the same site the Pilgrims built their first
> church in 1622 — equally accessible to people with disabilities under the
> Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).*
>
> *The heated controversy over the planned renovations exposed what Brindisi
> says is a more widespread problem with a lack of oversight in the Town’s
> grant process dating back 25 years.  **The Meetinghouse renovations could
> have been stopped had the owners followed the rules in 2018 when they
> received a publicly funded $2.6 million historic preservation grant to
> restore the building’s stone façade, officials said.*
>
> *All such grants require the applicants to file and record a historic
> preservation deed restriction, a document designed to ensure all future
> owners cannot alter the historic integrity of the building.  **No such
> deed restriction was ever filed, town officials say, opening the door for
> the Mayflower Society to apply for permits to change the outward appearance
> of the church.  **In fact, no deed restrictions were filed in as many as
> 40 projects dating back to 2000, including a $3.2 million grant for a new
> roof
> <https://www.plymouthindependent.org/6-2m-pilgrim-hall-project-will-restore-precious-artwork-replace-roof/> at
> Pilgrim Hall approved as recently as 2023, Brindisi said.*
>
> *It’s unclear how many of the other grant-funded historic sites might have
> been compromised. Town officials are still researching to build a
> comprehensive list. So far they have provided no evidence suggesting the
> historic integrity of other buildings was damaged.  **“The Meetinghouse
> is a symptom of a much larger problem,” Brindisi told the Independent. “We
> have a systemic problem here.’’*
>
> *Town officials say they still do not have a total number of properties
> that have been affected as they are still trying to get a complete list. So
> far, the town has identified $37.6 million in Community Preservation grants
> for which deed restrictions were not recorded, according to a spokesperson
> for Brindisi.  **The Independent filed a records request for the list of
> funded projects where required deed restrictions were not recorded, but
> town officials refused the request on grounds it is not yet available.  *
>
> *Exactly who’s to blame for the oversight failures depends entirely on
> which Town official is being asked.  **According to Brindisi, it’s the
> fault of the Town’s past Community Preservation Committees (CPC), which
> reviewed and made recommendations on roughly $4 million in grants awarded
> each year.  **Bill Keohan, a Select Board member and former longtime
> chair of the CPC, said it’s the fault of town managers and staff. He said
> the CPC did everything it could to get town officials to record the
> restrictions.*
>
> *“We had town managers, department heads, and we had town counsel at times
> that wasn’t terribly cooperative,” Keohan said at a July 23 meeting of the
> CPC. “There wasn’t any shortcoming of any CPC over the last 23 years.”*
>
> *Contacted by telephone, he declined to comment for this report.  **The
> current chair of the CPC, Ed Bradley, put the blame on another Town
> appointed group – the Historic District Commission, charged with enforcing
> the deed restrictions after they are recorded with the Plymouth County
> Registry of Deeds.  **Anne Mason, chair of the Historic District
> Commission, did not respond to requests for comment.  **But Paul
> Blanchard, vice chair of the commission, also appeared at the July 23 CPC
> meeting to defend the commission’s work, arguing his board can’t enforce a
> deed restriction not yet officially recorded. He told the CPC it isn’t his
> commission’s job to make sure the restrictions are recorded in the first
> place.  **“That made me very upset,” Bradley, the CPC chair, told the
> Independent. Then, as if responding to Blanchard, he said: “If that’s not
> part of your consideration, then we need to find somebody else to be the
> gatekeeper and watch over restrictions.”*
>
> *Contacted by the Independent, Blanchard declined to comment.*
>
> *Regardless of who is to blame, Brindisi said Town staff is working hard
> to clean up the mess and make sure all projects affected by the oversight
> failure are identified and the necessary deed restrictions are recorded. He
> said he expects to make a report to the Select Board on Sept 1.  **He
> also said Town officials are withholding the last payment on the Pilgrim
> Hall project until it receives confirmation the deed restriction has been
> recorded.*
>
> *After initially agreeing to an interview, Donna Curtin, executive
> director of Pilgrim Hall, did not respond to attempts to schedule an
> interview.*
>
> *Brindisi said the Mayflower Society moved quickly to file a deed
> restriction in place once they were reminded by Town officials of the
> requirement, but the restriction has yet to be officially recorded.*
> [image: image-5.png]*Before (left) and after renderings of planned
> changes to the outside of the Mayflower Meetinghouse.*
>
> *He said he has asked the Historic District Commission to review the plans
> as if the deed restriction was in place.  **But since there is no legal
> restriction, town officials issued the Mayflower Society a permit to move
> forward with the controversial changes to the building’s exterior.*
>
> *CPC Chair Bradley told the Independent the new project would have been
> prohibited had the Society filed the deed restriction as required on the
> 2018 restoration project.  **“All of which was protected by money that
> was given to them by the CPC,” he said.  **Bradley said Town Meeting
> members would never have approved the grant had they been aware of the
> Society’s ultimate plans.*
>
> *Officials with the Mayflower Society declined to comment for this report.*
>
> *Michael Tubin, who was chair of the Historic District Commission when it
> unanimously approved the planned changes to the exterior of the
> Meetinghouse on July 15, said he opposed the changes even though he
> ultimately voted to approve them so the Commission could provide a
> unanimous decision.  **“It’s probably one of the most important sites
> that we have, and to see that they’re just ripping into the side of the
> building and ruining the symmetry of the building, I think is horrible,”
> Tubin said.  **Said Bradley: “Their architect and Mayflower says this is
> the only route that they see viable. We don’t believe so.”*
>
> *The CPC has invited the Mayflower Society and the Historic District
> Commission to its Sep. 24 meeting to discuss the renovation project’s
> future.  **Both Brindisi and Bradley said the Mayflower Society owes the
> town some money for dismantling the publicly funded façade restoration work
> in 2018 – some of which will be destroyed to make way for the new project.
>  **“There is some balance of money that should be going back to the
> town,” Brindisi said.*
>
> *Bradley said the CPC will no longer recommend Town Meeting fund grants
> until applicants have filed the deed restriction and, in the case of
> historic preservation restrictions, gotten the approval of state historic
> preservation regulators – a bureaucratic process taking up to a year or
> more.*
> _______________________________________________
> MassHistPres mailing list
> MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu
> https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres
>


-- 
Subscribe here <https://jbedoherty.substack.com/> for *Preservation Across
the Commonwealth*, a bi-weekly newsletter about historic preservation
happenings in Massachusetts

Jennifer B. Doherty
Preservation Planner
Barrett Planning Group LLC
350 Lincoln Street, Ste 2503
Hingham, MA 02043
Office: (781) 934-0073
Cell: (508) 209-7443
jenn at barrettplanningllc.com
www.barrettplanningllc.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260824/5568bb2b/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image-5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 101536 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260824/5568bb2b/attachment-0001.png>

From csullivan at cambridgema.gov  Mon Aug 24 11:36:56 2026
From: csullivan at cambridgema.gov (Sullivan, Charles M.)
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2026 15:36:56 +0000
Subject: [MassHistPres] 25 years of not filing required
	preservation	restrictions
In-Reply-To: <CAAvoqEOByqtmy9akTYqueywi_SW20VNPvQsGyip40Qjfe=E-DA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <6565CDF1-6D95-4864-9299-CDFD17549AD1@gmail.com>
 <CAAvoqEOByqtmy9akTYqueywi_SW20VNPvQsGyip40Qjfe=E-DA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BLAPR09MB6835C04866F1A686AFCECB9EA3A02@BLAPR09MB6835.namprd09.prod.outlook.com>

Keep in mind something not mentioned in the article, that not all CPA-funded projects require preservation restrictions - only acquisitions.

Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/AAb9ysg>
________________________________
From: MassHistPres <masshistpres-bounces at cs.umb.edu> on behalf of Jennifer Doherty via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>
Sent: Monday, 24 August 2026 08:08:27
To: MHC MHC listserve <MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
Subject: Re: [MassHistPres] 25 years of not filing required preservation restrictions

While this is concerning, I would note that it is Plymouth's own policy to require preservation restrictions for all CPA-funded projects. The CPA legislation only requires a preservation restriction when the municipality acquires an interest in a property using historic preservation funds (generally speaking, when the municipality buys a property).

But, certainly many communities around the state are like Plymouth in that they require preservation restrictions in exchange for CPA fund grants. Given the requirements of the preservation restriction program, this is a good example of really thinking through what "CPA funds = preservation restrictions" means for the community. As the article notes at the end, there are other options beyond preservation restrictions.

Thank you,
Jenn


On Sat, Aug 22, 2026 at 2:18 PM Dennis De Witt via MassHistPres <masshistpres at cs.umb.edu<mailto:masshistpres at cs.umb.edu>> wrote:

The story below from the Plymouth Independent reveals that Plymouth has systematically failed to put in place required preservation restrictions in connection with CPA funded projects over the last 25 years.   Even allowing for the fact that even this comes as no surprise in Plymouth, it is worth reading as an object lesson.

Might there be other examples in the state?

Dennis De Witt

Millions of dollars in community preservation projects around town were completed over the past two decades despite a “systemic” failure to follow required steps designed to protect historic buildings and open spaces.  As many as 40 publicly funded projects since 2000 were completed despite a failure to file the necessary historic preservation or other deed restrictions, Town Manager Derek Brindisi said in a recent interview with the Independent.

In at least one case, the failure could mean the integrity of one of the town’s most iconic historic sites will be compromised, Town officials said.

The Mayflower Society is moving forward with plans to make controversial changes to the façade of downtown’s Mayflower Meetinghouse in order to renovate its basement into a wheelchair-accessible museum.  The plan – which has received permits to move forward – includes the removal of a pillar, two windows, and some stonework on the façade in order to add a doorway and a wheelchair ramp, according to plans on file at Town Hall.  The changes, officials say, will make the Meetinghouse – the historic church on Town Square constructed on the same site the Pilgrims built their first church in 1622 — equally accessible to people with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The heated controversy over the planned renovations exposed what Brindisi says is a more widespread problem with a lack of oversight in the Town’s grant process dating back 25 years.  The Meetinghouse renovations could have been stopped had the owners followed the rules in 2018 when they received a publicly funded $2.6 million historic preservation grant to restore the building’s stone façade, officials said.

All such grants require the applicants to file and record a historic preservation deed restriction, a document designed to ensure all future owners cannot alter the historic integrity of the building.  No such deed restriction was ever filed, town officials say, opening the door for the Mayflower Society to apply for permits to change the outward appearance of the church.  In fact, no deed restrictions were filed in as many as 40 projects dating back to 2000, including a $3.2 million grant for a new roof<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.plymouthindependent.org/6-2m-pilgrim-hall-project-will-restore-precious-artwork-replace-roof/__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!c3EJcr8MzPL4zFBSaTRRXpzrXUSzNHo3SczzC3qNUHPdcyitsnTiNkj9NVN4FOUeAdaugDRs2tJSSfjt8B62_HyV9CowY8O8$> at Pilgrim Hall approved as recently as 2023, Brindisi said.

It’s unclear how many of the other grant-funded historic sites might have been compromised. Town officials are still researching to build a comprehensive list. So far they have provided no evidence suggesting the historic integrity of other buildings was damaged.  “The Meetinghouse is a symptom of a much larger problem,” Brindisi told the Independent. “We have a systemic problem here.’’

Town officials say they still do not have a total number of properties that have been affected as they are still trying to get a complete list. So far, the town has identified $37.6 million in Community Preservation grants for which deed restrictions were not recorded, according to a spokesperson for Brindisi.  The Independent filed a records request for the list of funded projects where required deed restrictions were not recorded, but town officials refused the request on grounds it is not yet available.

Exactly who’s to blame for the oversight failures depends entirely on which Town official is being asked.  According to Brindisi, it’s the fault of the Town’s past Community Preservation Committees (CPC), which reviewed and made recommendations on roughly $4 million in grants awarded each year.  Bill Keohan, a Select Board member and former longtime chair of the CPC, said it’s the fault of town managers and staff. He said the CPC did everything it could to get town officials to record the restrictions.

“We had town managers, department heads, and we had town counsel at times that wasn’t terribly cooperative,” Keohan said at a July 23 meeting of the CPC. “There wasn’t any shortcoming of any CPC over the last 23 years.”

Contacted by telephone, he declined to comment for this report.  The current chair of the CPC, Ed Bradley, put the blame on another Town appointed group – the Historic District Commission, charged with enforcing the deed restrictions after they are recorded with the Plymouth County Registry of Deeds.  Anne Mason, chair of the Historic District Commission, did not respond to requests for comment.  But Paul Blanchard, vice chair of the commission, also appeared at the July 23 CPC meeting to defend the commission’s work, arguing his board can’t enforce a deed restriction not yet officially recorded. He told the CPC it isn’t his commission’s job to make sure the restrictions are recorded in the first place.  “That made me very upset,” Bradley, the CPC chair, told the Independent. Then, as if responding to Blanchard, he said: “If that’s not part of your consideration, then we need to find somebody else to be the gatekeeper and watch over restrictions.”

Contacted by the Independent, Blanchard declined to comment.

Regardless of who is to blame, Brindisi said Town staff is working hard to clean up the mess and make sure all projects affected by the oversight failure are identified and the necessary deed restrictions are recorded. He said he expects to make a report to the Select Board on Sept 1.  He also said Town officials are withholding the last payment on the Pilgrim Hall project until it receives confirmation the deed restriction has been recorded.

After initially agreeing to an interview, Donna Curtin, executive director of Pilgrim Hall, did not respond to attempts to schedule an interview.

Brindisi said the Mayflower Society moved quickly to file a deed restriction in place once they were reminded by Town officials of the requirement, but the restriction has yet to be officially recorded.

[image-5.png]Before (left) and after renderings of planned changes to the outside of the Mayflower Meetinghouse.

He said he has asked the Historic District Commission to review the plans as if the deed restriction was in place.  But since there is no legal restriction, town officials issued the Mayflower Society a permit to move forward with the controversial changes to the building’s exterior.

CPC Chair Bradley told the Independent the new project would have been prohibited had the Society filed the deed restriction as required on the 2018 restoration project.  “All of which was protected by money that was given to them by the CPC,” he said.  Bradley said Town Meeting members would never have approved the grant had they been aware of the Society’s ultimate plans.

Officials with the Mayflower Society declined to comment for this report.

Michael Tubin, who was chair of the Historic District Commission when it unanimously approved the planned changes to the exterior of the Meetinghouse on July 15, said he opposed the changes even though he ultimately voted to approve them so the Commission could provide a unanimous decision.  “It’s probably one of the most important sites that we have, and to see that they’re just ripping into the side of the building and ruining the symmetry of the building, I think is horrible,” Tubin said.  Said Bradley: “Their architect and Mayflower says this is the only route that they see viable. We don’t believe so.”

The CPC has invited the Mayflower Society and the Historic District Commission to its Sep. 24 meeting to discuss the renovation project’s future.  Both Brindisi and Bradley said the Mayflower Society owes the town some money for dismantling the publicly funded façade restoration work in 2018 – some of which will be destroyed to make way for the new project.  “There is some balance of money that should be going back to the town,” Brindisi said.

Bradley said the CPC will no longer recommend Town Meeting fund grants until applicants have filed the deed restriction and, in the case of historic preservation restrictions, gotten the approval of state historic preservation regulators – a bureaucratic process taking up to a year or more.

_______________________________________________
MassHistPres mailing list
MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu<mailto:MassHistPres at cs.umb.edu>
https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://mailman.cs.umb.edu/listinfo/masshistpres__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!c3EJcr8MzPL4zFBSaTRRXpzrXUSzNHo3SczzC3qNUHPdcyitsnTiNkj9NVN4FOUeAdaugDRs2tJSSfjt8B62_HyV9PsPo0qT$>


--
Subscribe here<https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://jbedoherty.substack.com/__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!c3EJcr8MzPL4zFBSaTRRXpzrXUSzNHo3SczzC3qNUHPdcyitsnTiNkj9NVN4FOUeAdaugDRs2tJSSfjt8B62_HyV9MvZK2eP$> for Preservation Across the Commonwealth, a bi-weekly newsletter about historic preservation happenings in Massachusetts

Jennifer B. Doherty
Preservation Planner
Barrett Planning Group LLC
350 Lincoln Street, Ste 2503
Hingham, MA 02043
Office: (781) 934-0073
Cell: (508) 209-7443
jenn at barrettplanningllc.com<mailto:jenn at barrettplanningllc.com>
www.barrettplanningllc.com<https://urldefense.com/v3/__http://www.barrettplanningllc.com__;!!GolgDdAAPFHvrrz0!c3EJcr8MzPL4zFBSaTRRXpzrXUSzNHo3SczzC3qNUHPdcyitsnTiNkj9NVN4FOUeAdaugDRs2tJSSfjt8B62_HyV9ITljeZO$>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260824/d41e8946/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image-5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 101536 bytes
Desc: image-5.png
URL: <http://mailman.cs.umb.edu/pipermail/masshistpres/attachments/20260824/d41e8946/attachment-0001.png>

