Wishes of property owner
As he introduced the motion to deny historical status to the property, councilman Jimmy Bruno praised the Historic Preservation Commission, but noted that in this case the board could not support its decision.
“They have a great group of people [on the commission], and they know I support them, but I do feel we have to have the people [property owners] buy in,” Bruno said. The property owners, Fite’s stepson Tad Richards and his wife, Patricia, have opposed the designation. They say the sculpture and surroundings represent an artistic site, not a historic one.
Bruno said the property owners should have some say in whether it is designated. He said it’s possible a future historic commission might be less willing to work with property owners.
The resolution implies that if the entire property were historic, the commission should have made its case when it designated the sculpture historic in 2006, stating that “the Historic Preservation Commission did not designate the property when it designated the sculpture in 2006, and did not provide sufficient reasons for a larger, more expansive designation.”
Old quarries and woodland not historic
Some of the parcels contain slag and piles of bluestone left over from the mining operations that once occupied the property, “not historically significant in themselves,” according to the resolution.
Other parts of the property are “unimproved lots” — woodland and meadow — which never contained structures of “historical importance or unique architecture,” so building trails or an arts center there wouldn’t disturb anything.
Finally, the resolution states that one justification listed in the commission’s designation declares the entire property, and possibly the district surrounding it, historically significant “in and of itself, which it is not.”
Councilwoman Leeanne Thornton thanked the commission for its efforts, and in general for its devotion to preserving history. She said that there appeared to be a “breakdown in communication” between the commission and the not-for-profit corporation that oversees Opus 40, and expressed the hope that “as things move forward, the commission and the owners of the property and the established board of directors of the nonprofit can sit down at the table and continue a dialog.”
