The Holyoke Historical Commission has voted to pause processing Community Preservation Act (CPA) business until the city and CPA committee resolve who will carry out and pay for annual inspections and enforcement of historic‑preservation restrictions, a member of the commission told the CPA committee on Tuesday.

Chris (member of the Holyoke Historical Commission) told the CPA committee that the commission “is supposed to be going through these buildings once yearly to ensure that the ins restrictions are correct,” and that the commission has had no consistent support or funding to perform that work for about five years. He said the commission lacks both money and technical expertise to perform annual inspections and that the absence of an enforcement mechanism leaves the commission and CPA exposed.

The pause means one current applicant, Nick’s Nest, cannot move forward until the historical commission either lifts its pause or the commission and CPA reach a practical solution. The CPA committee chair asked the historical commission to consider reversing its vote as a good‑faith step so the candidate could proceed while the broader issue is addressed.

Committee members debated options for resolving the impasse. Several suggested requiring future applicants to include the cost of necessary third‑party historic inspections in their project budgets. “If you’re getting money from us, the least you can do is make sure that you’ve accounted for all requirements for compliance,” Sarah said, arguing applicants should be able to quantify inspection costs. Others warned that obligating applicants to pay recurring inspection costs could be unfair for small community groups.

Members also raised the practicality and cost of ongoing monitoring. Michael noted the CPA committee’s budget has been cut and said annual inspections for 25 years — the committee’s stated maximum restriction length — would create a substantial recurring workload and expense. “We simply don’t have the financial wherewithal to do anything else,” Michael said, adding that an initial architect or historic specialist verification at project completion may be reasonable while long‑term enforcement remains a challenge.

Committee members cited existing contractual enforcement tools. Several participants said contracts contain clawback provisions and that CPA grants commonly include a 25‑year restriction; Michael noted the committee previously set a 25‑year limit with clawback language. Still, members worried about enforcing clawbacks in practice and whether the city solicitor’s office should recommend clearer legal remedies.

Several members urged the CPA to explore hiring an outside expert on a limited term or to coordinate with a city task force the mayor has convened to handle overlapping enforcement needs across boards. Rosanna Lopez, the committee’s new planning‑board member, suggested the mayor’s task force could be leveraged to add historic‑restriction checks to other enforcement activities.

Next steps: the CPA chair asked Chris to forward copies of the preservation restrictions and related contracts to the committee and asked Helene and others to review language and bring questions to the city solicitor. The committee agreed to add the issue to the next CPA agenda and to pursue a special vote at the historical commission meeting on Nick’s Nest if appropriate.