Historic board presses Marion Woods on Geismund mansion’s future as owner cites safety, cost and mold concerns

The board spent its longest discussion on the large mansion commonly called the Geismund (Geismans) property, where Marion Woods — an adult care facility that owns the parcel — is pursuing removal or redevelopment of a deteriorated mansion on an 11‑acre parcel adjacent to Harts Brook Preserve.

Ed Puerta, counsel for Marion Woods (Nixon Peabody), told the board the applicant opposes any designation of the mansion and described significant prior remediation expenses and ongoing structural and mold concerns. Mr. Puerta said Marion Woods incurred substantial remediation costs and that moving forward with demolition or deconstruction affects the facility’s financial viability. In response to board questions, counsel and other representatives described an asbestos remediation bill “close to $200,000” and said demolition or deconstruction costs for the mansion were substantial.

Applicant representatives and their counsel described several constraints: the building sustained flood and mold damage and, while the building has “sound bones” according to the building inspector’s oral report, remediation rather than restoration may be the financially realistic route. The team also emphasized the operational needs of Marion Woods, which provides licensed adult care primarily for members of religious orders.

Board members and several participants pressed for alternatives: landmarking and grant avenues (including federal historic tax credits) were discussed as mechanisms to offset rehabilitation costs; board members suggested the possibility of deeding the house to the state, county or town to relieve Marion Woods of ownership and long‑term maintenance obligations. Marion Woods representatives cautioned that transfer or deeding requires legal and administrative steps — including approvals from the attorney general’s office or court for disposition of religious property — and that timing and continued exposure to weather and vandalism are immediate concerns.

Estimates presented during the discussion varied widely: meeting participants offered rough rehabilitation figures in the low‑millions (one estimation range given at about $3–6 million depending on square footage and finish standards) while deconstruction/demolition was characterized as expensive as well (an approximate demolition cleanup figure of roughly $200,000 was mentioned). Board members requested an in‑writing report from the building inspector that clarifies current structural soundness, and staff said it would request cost comparisons and, if appropriate, seek a memo from consultants (e.g., Stephen Tilly’s office) on restoration cost per square foot based on comparable projects (Odell House was suggested as a reference point).

The board did not vote on a decision to landmark, deconstruct, or recommend transfer at the meeting. Instead it directed staff to collect additional documentation — a written building inspector assessment, further cost information, the applicant’s current permits and any historic correspondence — and to consider drafting a memo to other town departments to inform potential preservation or acquisition options. Board members discussed the possibility of executive session to address legal or personnel concerns, but did not take executive action in public session.

Participants emphasized short‑term safety and security needs while acknowledging long‑term policy tradeoffs between preservation, municipal acquisition and the applicant’s operational viability. The board scheduled follow‑up for its next meeting and instructed staff to circulate the requested materials to members prior to that date.