Monomoy Theatre Demo Denied

CHATHAM – A request to demolish the former Monomoy Theatre playhouse was denied by the historic business district commission.

At a hearing Wednesday, commission members questioned why owner Chatham Productions had allowed the building to deteriorate and had not secured it against a number of break-ins over the past several years.

“I think it’s a substantial structure that should remain in the town of Chatham,” said commission member Doug Grattan. 

The owners can appeal the denial to the select board but had not done so as of Thursday afternoon.

Greg and Victoria Clark of Chatham Productions, which purchased the property in 2019 for $3.6 million, argued that the theater building had deteriorated to the point that it was not feasible to renovate for their planned commercial use. Although they initially planned to convert the theater and adjacent Washington Taylor House into a performing arts center, various proposals they had put forward that would have helped finance the project were turned down by the town. They also asserted that their efforts to have the building listed on the National Register of Historic Places in order to qualify for historic tax credits were unsuccessful. 

The partially boarded-up building has become a public nuisance, said Victoria Clark.

“We feel that this structure is not suitable for other commercial uses, which is why we’re looking to demolish it,” she said. Because the property is zoned commercial, they said they plan to pursue retail or some other commercial use, with possibly construction of new commercial buildings.

Originally a toy factory, the building began to be used as a summer theater in the 1930s. The lobby area was once a barn that dated from the late 1800s. Ohio University began the summer Monomoy Theatre program for students in 1958; it was eventually taken over by the University of Hartford until it closed in 2018.

Multiple additions were added to the theater over the years, and some of the construction was “a little shoddy,” she said. Greg Clark said that after they purchased the building, an inspection was done by an architect and a structural engineer, who found that it was in poor condition.

“No one had done anything to that building for 50 years,” he said.

Alan Rust, who ran the Monomoy Theatre’s summer program for more than 40 years, disputed that assertion, saying the building was reshingled within the past 50 years and that he had replaced doors within that time period. During the 60 years the summer theater was in operation, the building was vacant for nine months of the year and break-ins were never a problem, he said.

“We had some raccoons once, and some foxes,” he said.

The theater program was shut down after the town found numerous health and safety violations and the then-owners declined to make the necessary upgrades. The University of Hartford, which operated the program at the time, also declined to make improvements, and the property was put on the market.

But Rust said most of the issues cited by the town had to do with the complex’s living quarters, not the theater building. The university had previously done any work that was required.

Historical Commission Chair Frank Messina also refuted the Clarks’ claim that the commission had asked the Massachusetts Historical Commission to declare the building eligible for listing on the National Register but the state agency had rejected the request. The commission’s consultants documented the building’s history in 2011 and 2019, he said, and the commission was ready to submit an eligibility determination to the state when the Clarks bought the property. Messina said the commission turned over its research to the new owners, who said they planned to pursue the eligibility process. 

“We never took it to the next step,” Messina said. The commission also voted to declare the building historically significant, he said.

Greg Clark said the owners “cleaned up” the historical commission’s information, did further research and submitted it to the state, but were told by the state commission that there was not enough information to declare the buildings historically significant. Commissioners asked for documentation of those efforts.

Asked why a fence was not put up around the building to secure it, Victoria Clark said that that would not stop people from breaking in.

“It’s in such a central location, people are going to do it regardless,” she said.

Grattan said the owners “let the property go.”

“Personally, I do not want the building torn down,” he said. Other commissioners agreed.

“We just don’t want to see this building go by default into demolition,” said member Sam Streibert. 

Commissioner Robert Byrnes said he was initially happy that the Clarks said they planned to restore the theater six years ago. The commission approved demolition of several other buildings on the property based on those assurances. 

“Maybe we should have done that” without having a plan for the overall property. “Here we go again with another building being torn down.” He asked that the Clarks submit the architect and structural engineering report that they referred to.

Greg Clark said that even under the initial plans, the theater building had to be rebuilt at a projected cost $4 to $5 million, and the owners never promised to do that “for the good of the community.” To finance the project, they proposed residential development on the portion of the property closest to Depot Road — first a zoning district focusing on the arts, then condominiums and finally single-family homes — all of which were rejected by the town. He said they did not expect it would take six years to get to this point.

“We will proceed with this property, whether the theater stays there,” he said.

After polling the commission and finding unanimous opposition to the demolition, Vice Chair Darci Sequin asked the Clarks if they wanted to continue the hearing in order to provide additional information including the National Register eligibility request and the structural reports, but they asked that a vote be taken.

If the select board upholds the denial, it can be appealed to court.