Tom Wilson, presenting the Wright Tavern rehabilitation plan to the Town of Concord Historical Commission on Dec. 12, said his team has circulated a slide deck that lays out a room-by-room vision, capital projects and program goals and that “we haven't hammered a nail in yet.” He asked the commission to advise which changes require its formal review and which the building operators may proceed with as routine maintenance.

Why it matters: The Wright Tavern project ties preservation decisions to public access and revenue goals. Commissioners stressed fidelity to evidence and to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, noting that some interventions will affect how visitors experience a nationally significant site.

Key points: Wilson said the preservation-restriction exhibit (photographs and text) is being reworked by Lynn Spencer’s team and that a contracted site plan from Dhillis & Roy (Seth Donahue) is expected soon. He outlined funding streams: a National Park Service grant targeting exterior repainting, fire suppression/security, and plumbing connections; roughly $150,000 from the Massachusetts Office of Travel and Tourism and additional funds from the Lynn Foundation (presenter cited roughly $300,000 between those two sources for visitor-experience work); and private donations for interior interpretation.

Accessibility and the front door were focal issues. Wilson told the commission he had a repair estimate of $36,000 for the existing front door but that a period-appropriate replacement with an improved ADA mechanism might cost on the order of $12,000–$15,000. He said the plan would preserve removed historic fabric in storage if replacement is chosen and noted an existing exterior ADA push-button post that needs repair.

Structural questions: Commissioners pressed Wilson for an engineering analysis of a vertical post and supporting beam in the rear extension that limits circulation and event layouts. Lauren Meyer and others agreed that a structural engineer should determine whether the post is character-defining and what reinforcement (for example, a steel plate or new beam) would be required before any relocation or removal.

Interior changes: Wilson outlined modest interior reconfigurations — combining modern closets, removing nonhistoric partitions to create a refreshment area and restoring flooring — and asked which elements the commission would treat as requiring formal approval. Commissioners repeatedly recommended documenting existing fabric and avoiding conjectural reconstruction; Anne Clifford and Lauren Meyer cited the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and urged not to add features without documentary evidence.

Programming and finances: Wilson said the project’s goals are preservation, public access and financial sustainability. He offered a working revenue mix — about 20% from tours/rentals, 40% from the tavern/retail sales, and 40% from fundraising — and said programming plans remain under development.

Next steps: The commission requested the outstanding site plan, structural-engineering analysis for the post/beam, clearer documentation of what the preservation restriction covers, and additional consultation with preservation specialists (e.g., Larry Sorley) about ceiling/plaster treatment. Wilson said he will return with updates and additional documentation.