Demolition redo: Petersham must vote again on fate of Nichewaug Inn
Special town meeting that approved razing historic hotel not properly noticed
By 
A DECADES-LONG battle over whether and how to preserve the historic Nichewaug Inn in Petersham appeared to come to an end last December, when voters at a special town meeting agreed to demolish it.
Turns out, it’s not over yet.
The town made procedural mistakes in notifying voters about the meeting – and now, a new vote will be required.
The anticipation of a second vote is likely to further rile up town residents who were already unhappy about the acrimonious nature of the Nichewaug debate. “We’ve spent an awful lot of money on a special town meeting that was invalid because the selectboard really wanted to rush it,” said Ann Lewis, chair of the Nichewaug Inn and Academy Committee, a town committee formed to explore options for the building. “What they’ve done is waste people’s time, money, and effort.” Lewis said she raised the issue of proper notice at town meeting only to be told by the town clerk that there was no problem.
The select board called a special town meeting December 6, and voters agreed to raze the Nichewaug, at a cost of $721,000.
Jim Moseley, a neighbor of the property who supported demolition, said he has no doubt the result of the revote will be the same, with residents supporting demolition. The December special town meeting vote was 143-31, exceeding the two-thirds vote necessary to vote for demolition. “This is just the losers playing parliamentary games in a vote they can’t win because the vote is overwhelmingly in favor of demolishing the thing,” Moseley said.
The problem with the December vote arose when the town tried to borrow money for the demolition. Petersham treasurer Dana Robinson said in an email that the town works with a bond advisor, who prepares a bid sheet that is circulated among financial institutions to obtain the best interest rate possible. In order to borrow more than $500,000, the town must get the advice of bond counsel, an attorney who makes sure the borrowing will be tax exempt.
The attorney found what Robinson described as “clerical errors” with the process. Petersham’s by-laws require a postcard notice be mailed to all voters at least seven days before a special town meeting. In this case, an informational mailing was sent out prior to the meeting instead of a postcard, but it was sent too late, only five days before the meeting.
Another oversight is the project was not presented to the town’s Capital Improvement Planning Committee for inclusion in Petersham’s capital plan.
“Because of these oversights, Bond Counsel recommended that the Town revote the borrowing authorization so there was no question as to the tax exempt nature of the borrowing,” Robinson wrote in an email to CommonWealth.
