[Jennifer Keenan]: This is the Medford Historical Commission. We're gonna, let's call the meeting to order. It's seven o'clock. We have a pretty busy agenda, so we'll get going here tonight. We are going to start with a significance hearing. Oh, you know what, hold on. I have to send our little thing from the governor. Okay, sorry. Medford Historical Commission, Monday, April 11th, it's 7.01 PM. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting of the City of Medford Historical Commission will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by using the Zoom link provided for in the agenda. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Okay. So we have a busy agenda tonight. So we're going to get started. We are we're going to kick the meeting off with a significance hearing for 69 Jerome Street. And let me just remind folks what that means. So last month, we accepted an application for So tonight we're going to determine if that building will be significant. And what that means is that it is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or Commonwealth. Or it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. OK, commissioners, would somebody like to make a motion for 69 Jerome Street?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Could you hear me?
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I'm sorry, Ryan. Go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to find 69 Jerome Street significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, is there a second?
[Unidentified]: I can second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thanks, Peter. OK, Ryan, why don't you start off the discussions since you made the motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure. I mean read the form be and I'm familiar with the neighborhood in the area. This is a development that Moses man played an important role in Moses man for those who you who are not familiar was perhaps West Medford's most creative architects builder developer. He has his own little style as demonstrated in this building and other buildings in and around West Medford and a few of which we've had the chance to document because they were in the process of going down. So it's pretty easy to see his use of style. This is a smaller building than I'm used to, but that does not diminish its importance. And usually they're done in the Queen Anne style. uh, or related styles, those late Victorian, uh, highly ornate pieces of architecture. Um, and so for that reason, I'm, um, I'm pretty confident that this building holds significance just for Moses man alone. Um, there are other reasons, but I'll of course let the commissioners talk about that too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's it. Okay, thanks, Ryan. Yeah, I said thank you, but I was muted. Okay, Peter, you want to continue on?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I found this to be an interesting building. And I agree with the stuff about Moses man. And I thought that some of the detail in the building was pretty nice. There's some nice But what I guess they believe is to be original detail up on the cornice and some of this bric-a-brac, there's this interesting shelf, other cornice details that have survived. I think that it's quite a charming building and would definitely deserve another look at in terms of making sure that as much of that stuff gets saved as possible. I was curious about what, I don't know if any of the owners, eventually I'd like to hear more about what's actually being developed, or sorry, demolished. I had a little bit of a hard time from looking at the plan scene. What was being demolished in terms of portions of the building or if it's going to be, be recited or whatever. Yeah. Yeah, go ahead, Ryan. Just looking at the plans, the entire second floor is going to be removed of this building. And then, of course, they're doing a major addition to the rear. But for the focuses of this, the front half of the building, although the plans show an attempt to recreate some of the language here, there will be a whole new second floor. So basically, the property will be not distinguishable from its current form. So do you understand, Ryan, that all that detail is gonna be lost then with this current scheme? Yeah, I mean, I don't, I can let them, let the owners clarify, but based on my review, it looks like none of the, they're gonna be recreating, not salvaging. Just curious there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. So we do have the owner and the architect here. So why don't we go through comments and then we'll let them kind of answer any questions. Doug, anything to add?
[Doug Carr]: I tend to agree that this building is worth a second look. We talked about the possibility of a lot of and a lot of neighborhoods about potential future historic districts. And I actually think this one probably has one of the strongest cases for it, given the historic connections to the African-American community in West Medford, which obviously goes back many generations at this point. It's just a few blocks from where I live here in West Medford on Boston Avenue. I think the house does have a bit of sweet charm. And I think, you know, we'd want to see if we could creatively find a way to, you know, inspire whatever's going on for the addition and the renovations to recognize that and try to live within the language of the building itself, which is a unique language. There's a lot of details here I just don't see around. They seem like they're very much custom for this property and the Moses main connection as well. So I tend to agree with the previous two commissions on the big picture.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Jess, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: No, I agree with my fellow commissioners. Yeah, I felt that the history, the builder had such a huge influence on West Medford and then also contributed to documenting the history of Medford itself. It seemed like a historic property for that reason, as I was reading here before me, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Um, Yale or said, would you like to just comment a little bit on the design that you, I know you submitted it with your application. Maybe just talk through some of Peter's questions.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_00]: I can start or see however you want it.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, yeah, let me just quickly give a brief update and then you can kind of dig into details.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sid, sorry, before you start. Yes, before you start, can you just give us your address again for the record?
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Sure, sure. It's 69 Jerome Street. And this is Sid Gallo. Good evening, everybody. I'm from T-Talk Group.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Can you give us the address where you reside?
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, where I reside.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Not the property address.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, I decide, uh, 27 David and sir or reading mass.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. Um, so good evening again. Um, you know, knowing, uh, we have, this is not our first time. Uh, we have been, uh, in front of you guys and now boy, uh, when we were doing this new project and I know you guys said that next time, anything you guys can even come before with what plans you guys have. So this time around what we did and what Yale and we thought about it that, you know, we rather than even going to this meeting where, whether it's significant or not, we kind of assume so that we can fast track ourselves that let's just go with the design where this is significant, you know, and then try to come up with the architectural design, which maybe not a hundred percent, but kind of matches with the style of what the existing building is right now over there. And even the addition, which we are trying to do in the back, kind of mimic that. So everything is harmonious. So this is what our thought process, but I would let now Yale jump in and kind of tell you guys what she has come up with.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so I don't know how many of you actually saw that actual building or just the photos that we sent but It's not very charming. It's not in a great condition. It's kind of falling apart. I've obviously measured the whole house. I went through it, the interior. It's not great. It has some nice detailing on the front, which you see in the pictures. But if you see on all the other sides and the back, the back doesn't even look close to the front. Even the roof shape is different. So we did notice that the front has the detailing that is more historic and more special. And we assume you would probably point out to that. And that's why in the design, we tried to replicate it throughout the whole development. So also on the back to do something that takes that language and kind of repeats it. What bothers me a little bit is just the size. It's not even the... It's not even the style, but because of the way the roof is, and the basement is non-usable. It has a lot of columns inside, and it's very, very low. You can't even stand straight. So we can't use the basement. And the second floor is very tight and very small, and there is no way to keep the roof and use that. So what we proposed was to take down the second floor, build a full second story, and on top of that, put an attic, but replicate the way it looks right now. So keep the gable roof, repeat those details along the corners, that shelf, and carry those details through the development in a way that's going to give respect to what was there, but still going to get the owner a little bit more square footage that he can use on the site. So that's what I can answer any questions if you have, but that was the thinking process.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just would like to clarify two points before we continue this discussion any further. The first one is we do not take condition under consideration when it comes to whether or not we're determining significance or preferably preserved on any building. The second is there is no fast track. Once you're in the process, it is significant. And then if it's significant, it's preferably preserved. And again, we're evaluating the building as it stands now. That is our only job is to mitigate demolition. So we can't just bypass these steps. It's just not going to happen. So I just wanna make that clear.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Jen, sorry, when I say fast track, it's not, I didn't mean to jump the process or anything. It was a fast track from our end, you know, that let's just assume that this is significant and come up with a design so that we are not creating something else. And then after today's hearing, then we say, oh, let's now change the whole thing. So I didn't mean that, sorry.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I appreciate that clarification. Thank you. Um, commissioners, do you have any questions for Yale or said based on their comments?
[Doug Carr]: I don't think so, Jen, but I just, um, you know, we, our process typically has been that we. We don't spend a lot of time evaluating the design at this stage because that's putting, you know, kind of getting a step ahead of ourselves. We want to follow the procedures that we've followed with every product. And we're talking about. at this point, hundreds of projects over the last decade or so of this site. So I think you'll appreciate seeing these drawings and certainly posting them just so we can check them out down the road, but I think we should continue with the process, as you mentioned earlier, Jim.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, just wanted to make sure that Peter's questions got answered about detailing and whatnot, so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I do understand that, because when I looked, you know, when I looked at the drawings the first time, it didn't dawn on me that the front of the building and the, you know, the upper floor was being lost. So, you know, so that that existing detailing that we see is gonna be gone. So that was helpful for you guys to clarify that to me, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Okay, so we have a motion on the table to find for significance for 69 Jerome Street that has been seconded. I will go around and take a roll call vote as I see folks on my screen, Ryan. Ryan. I will circle back to Ryan. Jessica. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Ryan, I can't hear you. Okay, I'm going to assume Ryan stepped away for a minute. Regardless, we have, without his vote, we would have a 3-0 vote. So we will say that significance is found for 69 Jerome, 3-0. Can you hear me? Yes, I'm sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it's okay, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. 4-0 for significance for 69 Jerome Street. And we will have a preferably preserved hearing next month for that property. So we will get you the information for that to Sid and Yale. Okay, thank you, everybody. Okay, next up on the agenda, we will be receiving the application for 52 Alston Street. Commissioners, the application paperwork is in the Google Drive. I sent around the links earlier today. I'll take a motion when someone's ready to accept or reject this application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I move to accept the application.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Second. Thank you. 52 Alston Street. I'll go around for a roll call vote to accept the demolition application. Ryan. Yes. Jessica. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, that passes 4-0. We will hold a significance hearing next month. Ryan, we'll just do the form Bs at the end.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Next up, to receive a demolition application for 130 Boston Avenue. Commissioners, again, the paperwork is in the Google Drive, and I'll take a motion when someone is ready.
[Doug Carr]: Jen, can I ask a question on this one, if you could? I'm confused, because the property is for sale again. Is the owner trying to sell, but he's trying to complete this process before he sells? What's the context here?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm not sure. I don't know that it matters. We have the application. So I think, I mean, if the property sells, the process is null and void and starts over with the new buyer. So I don't know that it matters at this point.
[Doug Carr]: Okay. I think the only, my only comment is that the existing elevations, first of all, the drawings are much better than what, than, you know, the hand sketches we saw before in terms of, what it is, but the existing elevations do not show the building correctly in terms of anywhere near the level of detail or the complexity of the shingles and the geometry that are on that building. I'm two stories, two houses down. I walk by that building literally every day. And I'm going to recuse myself because I'm basically in a butter. I think there are much better drawings, there are clearer drawings, but they need to be refined to that next level, especially for existing unique details that are part of that building, the importance of that building is all I'll say before you take a vote on this.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I'll just make a point to that is that we're really not going to look at those until if and when a determination has been made, regardless. So I think if and when the time comes, and there is a demo delay put on this property, at that point when we start looking at mitigating the demolition, we could ask for revised drawings.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I will say, on the scope of demolition, it says here, full replacement of sill and siding. I'm not sure what that means about sill, but renovation of front and back porch, dormers, interior and roof and waterproofing. So I think that the demolition scope that's listed here is somewhat vague. So it does say full replacement of siding. I don't know. I could go either way on accepting this application because it's, you know, number one, the existing drawings, you're talking about the existing drawings, right, Doug? That's correct. So the existing drawings don't accurately reflect the level of detail that's on the building. And I feel that the scope of demolition listed here is somewhat vaguely worded. So I'm on the fence about whether to even accept this application, to be honest. But I don't know how others feel, but. Yeah. Should I clarify?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Ryan, I appreciate your jumping in here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure. I'll clarify where I stand. I'll make a motion to accept this application for commission review. OK. This is a gut rehab project. This is a standard. full and total strip of entire detail. So, and I have no illusion that that's what's going to happen. That's what's already partially happened. So I, it as if I were reviewing any other full gut rehab project.
[Doug Carr]: Okay. Ryan, to clarify, accepting this, is that language you just described different than any other application we accept?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, because it varies from contractor to contractor, how they describe the level of demolition. You know, some people will say rebuild when they mean gut rehab. So to me, you know, the drawings are clear enough. And, you know, based on permit review so far, we know that demolition is already partially taking place here. So, you know, I have no illusion that there's going to be major changes to this building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we have a motion to accept the application. Is there a second? Second. Okay, thank you, Jessica. Okay, so we will have a motion to accept the application for demolition for 130 Boston Avenue. Again, roll call vote. Ryan? Yes. Jess? Yes. Peter? No. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: I believe I'm going to recuse myself for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Or do you think that is important for this? I believe you should recuse yourself for conflict of interest.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Doug Carr]: OK. All right. That's what I will do then.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. So the motion passes 2 to 1 for accepting the application for 130 Boston Avenue. Again, next month we will have a significance hearing on that property. Okay, next on the agenda is 146 Summer Street. Again, Commissioner's paperwork is in the Google Drive. And I'll take a motion when someone's ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This one was pretty clear, so I'll move to accept the application.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. OK, motion to accept the application for 146 Summer Street. Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, 4-0 for Summer Street. and significance hearing next month. Better pack a cooler for next month, we're gonna be here a while. Okay, last but not least, 232 Fulton Street for receiving a demolition application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Take a motion to accept this application as submitted.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Seconded. Thank you, Jess. OK, motion to accept the application for 232 Fulton Street. Ryan? Yes. Jessica? Yes. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, so that passes 4-0. So again, we will hold a significance hearing for 232 Fulton Street next month.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Chair. Yes. I make a motion to allocate $1,500 for a form B for 52 Alston Street, 146 Summer Street and 232 Fulton Street. We already have a form B for 130 Boston.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Thank you. Is there a second on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Did we do 52 Alston Street? Do we have vote on that?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, we did, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: We did, it was the first one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: 4-0, it was the first one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, my bad. I was too busy taking notes here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, thanks for checking. Okay, motion to spend $1,500 for three Form Bs for 52 Alston Street, 232 Fulton Street, 146 Summer Street. Is there a second? Is there a second? Yeah, is there a second on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Okay. Roll call vote. Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you guys. Okay. Moving right along. Okay, we got and I forwarded to you all a site plan review for 4060 Mystic Valley Parkway. Doug, I know you're going to recuse yourself on this as your firm is the architects.
[Doug Carr]: That's correct.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Do you want to just mute yourself while we talk about this? Yep. Okay. Ryan, Jess, Peter, I forwarded you the email from City Hall because the documents are on a Google Drive. So wasn't able to forward them, they're large files. We have to have comments back to the city by May 10th, I think.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Which is the day after our next meeting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I know Doug doesn't speak for the architect, but did he, he may have interaction with the client. Did this client, this was the client that I believe prepared or wanted to have prepared for their property and MHC Form B and they did a little history on the building or something like that. I know John Clemson said that he worked with one of these clients over on the parkway. I'm just not sure whether that was that was not in the package that was submitted. Of course there was a note that there are no historic resources in the immediate vicinity which I kind of sort of agree with. The parkway itself is kind of a historic resource and it is NR listed so they they missed that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is the GE building.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, this is down further. This is the Bertucci's building, I believe. This is Bertucci's, I believe, and partly the courthouse, no?
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, the courthouse isn't coming down or nothing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is strictly the Bertucci's.
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is Bertucci's, Dennis? Yeah. Okay. I thought this was the lab.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is a project that's always been slated as mixed-use lab commercial development. And I think it's a great asset to that area. I think it's being built deliberately near transportation so that people then have access. The biggest hurdle that anybody has to clear with a project in that area is dealing with morning traffic, because going through there, it's quicker to walk than it is to drive. You know, really I have no comment on the actual building itself. I think that the, you know, any, you know, that whole area was supposed to be, you know, it was developed in the 50s and then, you know, was meant to be intensified and now it's finally intensifying, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So I'm wondering, as you were talking, Ryan, I'm sitting here wondering, like, will we have any comments on this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I will have some comments because No offense to Doug, but the drawings are half baked. They're just a diagram. They're just a diagram. And I don't see how I could do a review on something that's just a diagram. Right now it's just site plan review, but the building is not articulated. So I don't know what to say about it. I'll be happy to make comments on it, but, and I don't know if, Ryan agrees, or if he's had a chance to look at the submittal, but it's just basically a diagram.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Are we expecting more documents? Hold on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Because I know that there was, hold on.
[Jenny Graham]: I clicked on the link and I couldn't access the documents.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, hold on. I'm going to forward you. There was a new link. Hold on. I think the first one might not have not worked.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I was able to download the plans. And the site plans are very heavily detailed. But the architectural plans are very diagrammatic. So For instance, there are no doors shown on the elevations or actual windows. There's just strips of gray stuff, you know, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, why don't we do this? Why don't I will, let's look at what's there and then let's confirm with community development that what's there is correct and that this is what, we should be commenting on. Because I can... I mean, there's so many files in this folder. I don't know if it makes sense to pull them up now and go through them or... I feel like we should clarify what we're supposed to be looking at. And if indeed we only have kind of light drawings, then... I mean, there's a lot of drawings.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm not saying that it's just... the design isn't really, I don't know. I'd love to hear from Ryan to see what he thinks about the level of development of the drawings, but.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, have you looked at these?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm just cruising through right now. I mean, I did look at them briefly. I mean, what's interesting is the rendering on the front cover is extremely detailed, but The elevations of the building are very blocky. I don't know how else to describe it. It's tough to really understand what's going on there, I guess, is what I'm saying.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I do see your, yeah, perhaps- Which exhibit are you looking at?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Exhibit five. Five, okay. I do see exhibit five. Peter, I do see your comments and I do think it would make sense to ask for some detailed plans that match their, perhaps the level of detail that their floor plans are sort of exhibiting. even this is, you're right, it's very just thrown together quickly. So. I mean, I don't know if it's like they had the sketchy setting turned on, you know, that's possible. You can do that now. So yeah, it's interesting that they're proposing three layers of sub-basement parcel when nearly probably 100 feet away from this is swamp and the river. Well, I'm sure they have ways to deal with that, but I'm sure. Yeah, I mean, I have no issue with you if you want to provide a list of comments and start a letter. I think that we should be commenting on these if we have anything to say. I mean, that's really all I would say is that we need to see actual elevations, not diagrams, and to be able to react to it because what's there now is so sketchy. If we have the right stuff that It's almost impossible to comment on.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm looking at this now. I agree with you, Peter. It's just very basic. And I'm not gonna share my screen because this file's huge and it keeps tying up my computer. So I don't wanna like screw up our whole Zoom here. But I agree with you. I think these need more details. Bye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that would be my general comment. I mean, other than, you know, it kind of looks like this building could be anywhere. It could be in Houston. It could be on 128. It looks like a spec office building that you would see out on 128, you know. That'd be my other thing is it just needs more development, I guess. I mean, I think the rendering's pretty nice. It, you know, shows some stuff.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right, but I think I think we can yes and I think we can agree that an office building out on 128 is a lot different than something on mystic Valley Parkway, at, you know, a stone's throw from Wellington. Yeah. Um, all right. So why don't we'll we'll I'll confirm with Amanda and community development that what what's there is what we should be looking at.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then let's start a letter so that we make sure that we get that in by the deadline. And we'll go from there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And I appreciate you know, we always appreciate getting the opportunity to comment on these so Keep them coming.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just a question while we're on this building in this parcel. I just asked John Clemson to see if he has the form that was prepared for the Bertucci's building. But should we also document while we're just trying to wrap up the end of the budget, should we document the WEI building right next door? It's one of the few Art Deco buildings in Medford. It's probably going to be impacted by this parcel in the sense that, you know, it holds telecommunication equipment, so I don't imagine it's going to be demolished anytime soon, but with the pressure of development in this area being pretty high, it may just make sense to record it now rather than wait until, wait and react.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do we have room in our budget, Ryan, for?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, I don't, I don't know off the top of my head. The chances are yes. Cause I think we had around $8,000 left. So, um, but that does not take into account this $2,000 nor any of the stuff that John still has to bill for. So, uh, well maybe, but, um, we only have, um, May, May and June in the fiscal year left. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Um, Yeah, I'll make a motion to order a form B for the, what was the building, the WEI building?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, the next parcel over. Okay. Trying to see if it has an address, but I don't think it does.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I would say let's make it contingent upon room in the budget once we confirm that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: If not, we can hold it for July.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. 468 Mystic Valley Parkway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: 4068, okay, thanks. Okay, motion to spend $500 for a form B for 4068 Mystic Valley Parkway, contingent upon enough money in the budget for fiscal year 2022. Second amendment.
[Adam Hurtubise]: With amendment.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Okay. A roll call vote, Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. Ryan. And I'll vote. Yes. Since I never get to vote. So four zero for the form B. Okay. Okay. Okay, does anybody else have any new business that I am not aware of?
[MCM00001101_SPEAKER_02]: Yes, I have a question.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi, hi, Michael. Hi, Jen. Michael, just name and address for the record.
[MCM00001101_SPEAKER_02]: Name and home address, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sure, that works.
[MCM00001101_SPEAKER_02]: Okay, New Chestnut Street in Newton is my home address, and Michael Cohen is my name. Is that it?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.
[MCM00001101_SPEAKER_02]: You're welcome. I had sent in for 77 Winchester Ave for a garage demo. That was a few.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it's on my list. That's my bad. I'll get it to you by the end of the week.
[MCM00001101_SPEAKER_02]: OK, sounds good. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thanks for checking. No problem. OK, any other new business that I'm not aware of? Oh, Ryan, did you have a chance to connect with Doug on, we had a request to attend the CPC annual meeting tomorrow night and to talk about our views for historic preservation and the future of historic issues in Medford. I unfortunately have a conflict. I cannot be at that meeting. So I don't know if that if somebody here could attend or
[Doug Carr]: Well, I'm attending just because I attend all the meetings.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I know, but are you able to speak on that? I wasn't sure.
[Doug Carr]: I think so. But if you have, if no one else can come, just send me your thoughts and I'll convey them to them. You know, I think, I think I brought this up at the last meeting, just as some of those people started thinking about, you know, if they, if you've got a cool project, this is kind of, Jen, this is like how the Thomas Brooks Park came about, right? You, you know, you and a couple other people, you know, saw a need, saw a neglected asset and said, this would be a great project. And you were absolutely right. I'm sure if we put our heads together for 15 minutes, we've come up with three products around town that are worthy of consideration for potential CPC monies, you know, which now is approaching 1.8, almost, almost $2 million. I mean, the numbers going up consistently like 150 grand every round every year. So there's big money there. And it's competitive. So there's a lot of potential.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, my only thought is that how can we get some of this money back to property owners to consider, you know, for them to consider uh, you know, preservation work on their homes, restoring chimneys, not vinyl siding, but, you know, maybe a hardy board instead, something like, I don't, I don't know. I'm just kind of spitballing here.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. I mean, so there's been a very few products, um, have come to us that are not in the public realm, you know, because the, the, the, the criteria for selecting products for proving is how does the public benefit, you know, when we did the, the parsonage across from the St. Joe's School. It's a beautiful building, 18th century, not well-preserved, but they have agreed to allow public access to that building, periodically, not all the time, just to kind of give people a little skin in the game for their tax dollars going to what is essentially a private, it's a church, but it's still a private residence would have an even higher bar to clear in order to gain those funds, you know, versus, you know, the library, the historic room at the library we did, the landscaping, the public parks we do, all the open space, you know, that's, everyone from Medford can benefit though. The Brooks Estate, you know, that's, it's hard to make a case for a private home, no matter how significant and beautiful it is. Maybe the National Register homes, of which there are probably 20 in Medford, normally 25.
[Jennifer Keenan]: What if we came up with a list of what you'd need to do to be eligible for that money?
[Doug Carr]: I think it's worth raising, and I'm happy to raise it tomorrow night at the meeting. I don't believe we've ever granted anything to essentially a private homeowner yet, but that doesn't mean it's not possible, but I can certainly ask the question.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You know, like what if we said, okay, the criteria to be eligible is as follows. You have to try to get your house on the register or a local district, right? And then you have to be available twice a year for a tour for one hour, whatever, like a holiday tour or something.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, there could be other rather than a tour, my my suggestion would be a clause that would prevent demolition, for example, that would that would prevent not prevent somebody from developing the property, but would prevent it from being lost altogether. And, you know, or if they have land to prevent subdivision, you know, those those things that work in tandem with, you know, more than just the house has to be open, the house can be open in many ways, like it can exist, you know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, I think if we, you know, if we start to think about, you know, what would we expect for somebody to be able to get funds like this? And then, you know, then maybe it's a so it's like, the first part is what you need to do to have it. And the second part is what would qualify to have it. So you know, what are things that we I think as a commission, when we see things like partial and total demolitions, like what is important to us to try to maintain that we feel is important in a streetscape or in a neighborhood. And it's a little subjective, because obviously different parts of town have different priorities. But again, I think of things like chimneys, exteriors, materials, maybe types of windows, Again, I'm a little spitballing here, but, you know, I think if, you know, if we start to put our heads together and we can bring something tangible to CPC, then maybe it has a chance of being like, okay, we can consider this. I'm also, you know, if anybody else has any ideas too, I don't know. I mean, I don't, I mean, I think it's obvious we'll continue to go for, you know, money for Thomas Brooks Park. I don't know if we're talking about identifying brand new things, but deeper phases of Thomas Brooks Park, for sure.
[Doug Carr]: Two things that I've always had on my list are two of the churches in Medford are missing on their, basically their steeples, the one right next to the old Medford Square Theater, on I think Salem Street is, you know, lost its people, I think almost 30, 40 years ago. And there's one here in West Medford, a Baptist church that has a top that's been missing. That would be wonderful to at least get the drawings done, at least get the concept design done to bring those buildings back when the funds are available in the future, either internally or externally, but just to get the design done and get it documented. Those are two that I've, always had on my short list of kind of low-hanging fruit for prominent, you know, civic buildings, if you will.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, I really like that idea. And I'm going to mention something a little bit further to make maybe their idea sustainable long-term is that the towers are excellent locations to hide cell phone equipment. So, you know, take it out of sight and out of mind, but they get paid every month. So, you know, they can very, you know, even if the congregation diminishes, that it can make it sustainable, even with a small group to maintain such a large building. So I really like that idea. I'm 100% behind it if it, you know, if it happens to also have a cell phone tower in it, disguised, I'm also behind that as well. There's nothing worse than seeing them tacked on the side of buildings, so. I'm also behind, you know, if the city is going to be doing facade improvement programs with community and community development, you know, using that funds, they're using CPC funds in partnership with the historic tax credit program for any of the commercial buildings. So I think, I think there's a lot of opportunity.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, great. Well, at least we have a few ideas to bring for tomorrow. And thank you, Doug. Thank you for pinch hitting.
[Doug Carr]: I'll mention the homeowner's angle and see if there's any daylight there in terms of feasibility. There's a pretty strict approach to how they fund things that in many ways comes from the state. It's not really a local decision. The guidelines are state guidelines. So let me at least ask the questions and see where it goes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I got a question, would such a project as extending the bikeway through that difficult part from, you know, to try to get from Medford Square to along by the middle school. Is that something that is, or is that in such a different category of work that it wouldn't apply?
[Doug Carr]: I think it does apply, but it's, it's DCR. And I think that's why I think that's actually, I think it's either in design or, or, or has been designed, but not built yet. I know that somebody has looked at that because we've, we've, we funded things along that. I, what I think is an existing design. I'll double check that tomorrow night with the status of that, but I don't, I don't think that's. I remember going to public meetings on that before COVID and then they, you know, that the DCR was designing that effect.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Yeah. They, my understanding is that they finally reached an agreement with the neighbors. Cause I, I think DCR does own some of it, but there's a, there was an easement necessary to reach the street to kind of go over. Cause they don't, they don't own by the boat yard. So. Right. And that's probably the most difficult. technically too, is to get through there, right? I mean. The biggest impediment was crossing over what's the stub end of Gravely Creek there that's, you know, that basically needed some sort of bridge or some sort of work around. But, you know, I would love to see that area be used, you know, so much trash comes off of the highway there and then it just, you know, it's neglected cause nobody's over there. So, and, and, you know, they, they built the bridge under 93 deliberately wide so that you could have either traffic or some sort of pathway under there. So. You know, there's that wood, you know, um, over by assembly, there's that, uh, wood boardwalk thing that goes underneath the bridge. I wonder if they could do something like that. That's kind of like, Oh, there's, there's no need. There's, there's enough lane for, for two cars. There's enough lane on each side of the bridge for two cars. Okay. Yeah. I was curious where that project stood anyway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug, this money, we wouldn't be able to use it for identifying historic district, potential historic districts.
[Doug Carr]: I don't think so. I think we looked into that right in the first round. And I think Ryan, you had been part of that conversation when they're trying to figure out what's fundable and what's not. And I don't think, essentially research falls into that category, wants to be something a little bit different. I can, I'll have to go dig into that, but I don't think so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: To me, it's equatable to like a design of something, right? Like a master plan. So which we can do for other things.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Survey and survey-related is not fundable by CPC there. The state is working on changing it perhaps, but as far as I know, because there's no actual tangible product, I mean, the Form B is a tangible product, but it's effectively, like Doug said, research, that it didn't count towards being a legitimate expense. And in fact, there have been communities that have used it for survey and had to have to repay it at the end of the project because it wasn't approved by the state. So maybe if their rules change, I think that'd be a great use of funding. But.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Well, we have a bunch of ideas, at least.
[Doug Carr]: And the funding round, you know, is gonna start this summer. There's time to think about it too. There's a few months to kind of get your thoughts down. The initial ask is really just to kind of fill out a simple form, make sure you're eligible. That's a really simple form. It's not a full application. And you can do that in a couple of hours, easier or less.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And this will be for next year.
[Doug Carr]: It will be funded at the end of this year and passed by, the funds will be available about January from the council roughly like it is.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So we should look at phase two for Thomas Brooks Park.
[Doug Carr]: I think you should. I think that would be wise given that it might take a while to get and you'd be doing construction this year obviously on some of the pieces we hope.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, we're gonna talk about that in a few minutes when we get to the updates, but I think we can look and see what the next chunk could be, and there could be something feasible that we put in for.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think your next step is a more detailed documentation of the park's topography in advance of laying out some new and perhaps accessible pathways in that park, but we need full scale documentation, not just schematic level like Peter put together. So that's going to take a bit of time and money. So my suggestion would be that basically lays the groundwork to survey the whole property and then figure out what and where things are going to go.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I was even thinking just some of the tree and brush cleanup that we were talking about.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, if thinning.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Yeah, so we get we yeah we can look at what was on the plan. Um, okay. Um, I think that is going to cover new business just to kind of wrap up the CPC discussion. under just moving on to old business. So we are still looking for a new member. Tonight we have joining us. I think just listening in is Kit Nichols. So Kit, thank you so much for listening in. And oh, hi, there you are. Welcome. Okay. Kit has applied to be a commissioner. So I invited her to observe our meeting tonight. And, you know, just wanted to say, hi, didn't want to put you on the spot. Thank you so much for your interest. We will set up a time for you to talk to a couple of commissioners, ask questions, kind of get a feel. Hopefully. I mean, tonight we had a little bit of a feel of what we do. And then obviously we get site plan reviews and CPC projects and some of these other things. So it's a varied. Our work is varied. But great. And we have a great group. So.
[Kit Collins]: Go ahead. Can I add one potential suggestion for the CPC funds?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, absolutely.
[Kit Collins]: Which is the public path right of ways. So there's one that goes up the stairs from Governor's Avenue up to, I guess that's Summit. There's one that goes from Cedar Street to the Cedar Street extension. There's just a number of public paths that I don't think are very well known. And in fact, when I've had conversations with the public works, nobody's really clear who owns them, but they're also not maintained. And it's just, as the conversation was transpiring, I thought, gee, I wonder if that isn't, those are historic right of ways that the public, at least some portion of the public does use. And they're not, as far as I can tell, they're really not maintained at all. The three that I know of, I'm sure there are others in Medford.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There used to be one too next to the historical society that when the two houses were built there, it was kind of sort of extinguished with the promise that they would build it. There's an easement, I guess, they left like a five foot easement on the edge of their property, but it was never built. So, sometimes you can look on the assessor's maps and find them. I do think maybe they're probably deeded right of ways, but it'd be interesting to know who owns them.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I mean, for those people who actually walk their dogs, they're incredibly useful. And they're also, it's just sort of interesting. I think the one that you're talking about, Ryan, actually went to the school that used to be up where those new houses have been built by the Historical Society. Because I've talked to a couple of older residents of Medford who have described sort of scrambling up over the rocks to get to school up there. Anyway, just a thought.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, it's great, thank you for that. I mean, somebody, if it's not us, I mean, it's good to have that on the list and maybe we can help get it to the right people to spearhead if it's not us.
[Kit Collins]: Well, even if it was just sort of under, if it was articulated somewhere, who owns them? Because what I've noticed is that occasionally the abutting property owners, they just seem to expand. into the right ways.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, that doesn't sound good.
[Kit Collins]: Anyway, happy to answer any questions when whatever is convenient and appropriate.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Yes. We're so happy that you applied and we're waiting to hear from, we've been told from city hall that we have a couple of other applications. So we're just waiting. We don't have them yet. So it's a little, we'd like to move the train along and have somebody seated hopefully for next month. So we're going to work with what we have. So we'll set up a meeting to talk offline kit and we'll go from there. Thank you. So glad you were here. Okay, properties under demo delay. Nothing overly exciting to share except on 33 Third Street, the owner has decided that they don't want to work with us and they're going to wait out their 18 months. I'm going to send a message to the building department just to let them know that we've tried in good faith to work with the owner and they're not interested. So that's I think the biggest update for this month. Ryan, did you have anything else?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I started documenting 17 Edwards. It's a very much like six Rockwell, where it's almost completely intact. There are a few changes over time, nothing major, but you can tell what it was. So I'm just pulling together more accurate and complete architectural rules. on the building. John will probably update his form, just minor stuff. And then we gotta, I gotta relay the comments that the subcommittee put together on that project. Just over to them. I know Kathleen Desmond was asking for it today, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, yeah, maybe we can get something to them this week would be good. And then I think, I'm assuming at this point that, well, we know Hadley didn't wanna work with us, and I feel like 75 South Street at this point is just gonna ride out these last few months. I know, Peter, you sent a note back to them that we thought they misinterpreted our drawings.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, right, because she had sort of, said that we were altering the street frontage with our drawing. And so I sent her a video of my overlay, how you saw that, which shows that we weren't really altering the street frontage. It was more just a different way of massing it out. But I don't think we've heard anything back on that, have we?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Not that I'm aware of, no. And then 1094 Street, the main house has been sold. So now it's technically a three unit condo building, condo association. So the main house is one unit. And then the two units that were built are units two and three. So 109 has sold and the other two are under contract. So those will be sold in the next month. So I guess technically after the last one sold, it's over. Their demo delay is over because the property owner will no longer own the building or anything on that site. So I guess technically we can take them off the list. Okay. Anybody have anything else on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: book should be aware that, um, foster court is coming up for demolition rather soon. They cut and capped the electricities and utilities today. No, no machinery, but I expect that because of the size that they'll just show up on a weekend and crunch it into a hole and pull it out of there and be done with it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, and for those who aren't on the demolition delay subcommittee, I think we're slated for another meeting on 78 Codding on Thursday, right? I think. Yeah. That's contingent on if the architect takes our direction, but at least the direction has been relayed to them and that we're just waiting for drawings to see. Okay. I thought we tentatively set a meeting for...
[Doug Carr]: We did, but it did. We got to see the drawings. We can't get the drawings like an hour beforehand. Right. True. The next day or so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. Right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then of course the public has to have time to review and comment on it. So yeah, it's just a review meeting. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, good.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, question on, um, I guess that's it for that one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Um, I feel like I Oh, yeah. So let's go back to the CBC projects. Um, we had a site walk at Thomas Brooks Park last what's today, Monday, on Thursday, we did a site walk with the architects, no, the archeologists. And we are very excited to get that project going. So we are going to, we're gonna have to put out a call for volunteers. So we talked through, you know, They can have up to four people per day for the dig. So if anybody would like to throw their hat in the ring, we're assuming we're gonna get more than 20 people that are interested. So we'll probably end up being a drawing. We were going to send an email out to all the emails we collected during the public meetings. And then certainly we'll post it on social as well. And we're going to be looking at either the second, the first or second week of May. They anticipate one week, five days from eight to four for the dig. So we're very excited that that's gonna get going. They're waiting on the permit from Massachusetts Historical. And then as soon as they get that, we'll be able to get that scheduled and get going on that. And then whatever we find, we will have to go, is going to all be collected and cataloged. That will take place towards the end of the summer at the PAL lab in Rhode Island. So big things happening at Thomas Brooks Park, finally. Phase one. Yeah. And Ryan, we awarded the awarded the Palm's Wall Restoration Project.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. To Richard McGrath he's a master mason out of Lemonster. We're about to go out to bid for a third time for the wall, but Richard McGrath is interested in also bidding that project because he does both brick masonry and stone work. So, we'll have a bidder for that project as well this time.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. And I'm assuming he has some sort of crew. He's not just. Oh, yeah. No, it's not a one man job. No, no.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It will. It will take more than a year to complete that work, regardless of crew size. But, you know, he does have a crew that is able to help him. He's just a one man show.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Well, the Brooks Estate wall phase three is just about done. That wall is looking quite beautiful. So if we are lucky and we get just as beautiful a wall, it'll be a little different, but certainly very prominent on the street and you can tell you're driving up to something important, so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, the biggest thing is when we do start that construction is to mark out clearly the, the definition of the park entrances so that we can close off all of the illegal entrances that are kind of makeshift and and designate actual crossing location so it becomes safe.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. So I'll need everyone's help to get the word out for people for the lottery. So what I'll do is I'll start working up, I don't know, I'll probably have some sort of flyer. I can do it in Canberra or something. And then we'll, you know, if we could all post it, we'll get the city to post it. I think it'll be great. And it'll be great project for the, for all of us to get our hands dirty and dig and see if we can find some artifacts. It's so exciting. Did I miss anything on that, Ryan? I have all my notes in my phone, but my phone's over here and I'm not gonna pick it up.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think we discussed the second or third week in May, but that's about it. But it'll be tentative on people's schedules and whatnot.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, and if it's a light drizzle, we'll still be digging. So only if it's pouring out will we not be digging. I say we, I don't even know if I'm gonna be able to do it. So, but certainly, um, you know, if I know Ryan and probably myself, if I'm, if, if we're not able to dig, we'll probably just kind of pop in and out, take some photos, check in. Um, you know, I'll be in the ground. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I will be in the ground. I will definitely be in the ground. That's an opportunity not to be missed. So, and, and I am not just to be clear, I'm not taking up anybody's space. So that four does not include me. So the neighbors can definitely get involved. We want them to get involved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So definitely. Um, everybody gets your inner Indiana Jones out. It's going to be great. Yeah. Um, Okay, nothing to talk about on really building permits. They're moving along swimmingly, nothing crazy.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Actually, I had something that I was going to suggest again. Oh, go ahead. We had discussed this before. Maybe it's time again to consider how we deal with the multitude of small building replacements that are having their roofs ripped off. having second floors added, particularly, I just look at and think of Michael Cohen's project here where on Fulton Street, where we're gonna see that again and again for that neighborhood. So I didn't know if the subcommittee wanted to come up with some basic guidelines of things that we find acceptable or not, so.
[MCM00001101_SPEAKER_02]: I second Ryan's motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's just, it's just for, it's just for our own streamlining. I don't know. I definitely second the streamline. I got it. But yeah, no, I'm just, you know, for the benefit of the commission and everybody, you know, they're kind of similar to concrete block garages. So I just don't know how the subcommittee wants to deal with it, but maybe we can take it up. The three of us can take I don't know, Doug, Peter, do you guys have comments on that? And this is just general, not for this particular project, it's just for general projects in the future coming up. Basically, I'm just asking, should we discuss that should we take up the debate of, of letting certain typologies of buildings go because like this, you're going to see that same type of building over and over again, not just mainly in Fulton Heights but there are going to be other areas so you know and of course we could always say, you know, we want to review it, even if there's a prerogative in place. We can do that right now with concrete block garages, if we think that they're spectacular in some way, but we don't have to debate that here at the meeting, but go ahead.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I guess my instincts, Brian, are not so much to create. I don't know if we could do a template because, but we could certainly point to projects that we think were done successfully. that might be a better approach than trying to create rules. Cause I think I can't, I just see so much variety. I know what you're saying that that one building type is gonna be coming more and more, but we've seen, I mean, I guess we've seen a dozen different styles of building do that, something comparable to that over the last couple of years. So I think your instincts are right, but I'm just not sure the form it should take right now. Or like you said, if there was certain,
[Adam Hurtubise]: areas or particular, I don't know if that would be fair to others, but where, you know, it was gonna be more strictly reviewed, but in certain other, like if there was a core grouping or a core neighborhood that was, I don't know what I'm trying to say. So we wanted to try to preserve more. Yeah, no, I think your comment definitely makes sense. Like, for example, you could treat them like a taxpayer block where you'd want to increase development along main streets and major arteries with transportation links and that sort of thing, and maybe pass on the review of the secondary ones where you don't need necessarily so much influence on back roads and dead ends and whatnot. I didn't have any particular form in mind, so I don't really know either, but maybe our collective minds can work on it over the next couple of months.
[Doug Carr]: I think it's worth brainstorming. It does raise to me a larger question, and I think this is something I would actually kick towards Dennis for a minute or two. We sent a nice detailed letter to Dennis, your office, about the things that we were concerned about regarding zoning. Um, things that we had seen, uh, ideas that for reform changes that we should, you know, think about making. And I, I know that the city council and the mayor have reached kind of like step one of zoning, you know, fundamentals, but there's, I don't know how many more steps there are and what the plan is to get there, but that I would like to know that in the context of this discussion. I don't know if Dennis, if you have any thoughts there from yourself or, or, um, Anyone in your opinion?
[Denis MacDougall]: Did you send it to the office proper or person in particular in the office? So I can ask.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I went to Alicia and it went to, I think I sent it to Amanda.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, I'll check with Amanda in the morning then and see what the status is and I can ask her about it.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, it was a kind of longer term strategic look at things that we cared about. And we knew it was gonna be in this round of the zoning, but we thought, what is the plan for the next one?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay, so we'll talk, we'll continue to talk about that. Great. Ryan, anything on survey projects?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I have a lot. Winter Hill, I received phase four product finally. So that project is about to draw to a close. I just have to get John paid and then there's project closeout stuff. So Justin and I will be talking over the next couple of weeks to get all that closed out. Probably will take about a month to wrap things up because we have to get copies of the checks and once John cashes them. So assuming that he has been paid the correct amounts and everything is good. We'll have our report ready to roll and then we'll submit that and that should be closed before the end of the fiscal year. The current project in Brickyards and Mystic Park, which is the middle neighborhood between that and Medford Square, is in process. It will not be done by the end of this fiscal year, so we'll have to ask that they roll over our match to the following year, which creates a bit of a project. It's a little bit of a. Nightmare for the city's financial department just because of how much how many projects are going on at once because, um, you know, but that one should be going on until probably maybe. January February of next year, hopefully, and be wrapped up. The last project is we did get the $17,500 match for the Fulton Heights may give or take. So hopefully Massachusetts Historical Commission will get everybody back on track. They'll be good, give us good feedback and we can work with procurement to select a consultant and then we'll get going on that one. Does the matching fund come from Massachusetts Historical? Yes, the survey and planning grant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So just to confirm, we are wrapping up Winter Hill for all intents and purposes, it's basically done. Yeah. And we're starting brickyards in Mystic Park and Fulton Heights concurrently.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Brickyards is already underway. It's in their starting survey. Yeah. And I uploaded all of the MHC forms for Winter Hill under the form B section of the website. So they're all up for people to.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Great, that's such good. And then once Fulton Heights is done, we're going to circle back around again.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we need to kind of create a community-wide survey plan again. So we'll look at all the neighborhoods and all the recommendations that were all put together, see what areas we missed. And that next round that follows might not necessarily be neighborhood specific but we might cherry pick specific sub areas of neighborhoods like for example, when they did Medford Square proper they only focus on the commercial core because there were just so many properties to document so they, they missed all the neighborhoods of well preserved mid and later 19th century buildings up and behind Medford Square summit road. you know, there's a multitude of areas that deserve to be documented this next round. So, and usually they end up doing about 135 properties. So we may like prioritize what, you know, what areas we look at, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Okay. Anything on local historic districts? I know there's a district meeting on Thursday.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we as a commission want to take a stand on how we might feel on a potential 78 Codding Street historic district? I know that it was mentioned at the meeting. I know that there's agitation for it, but I wonder if the commission wants to take any stance. Um, I know how I feel about it, but I just, my, my, I'm only one of many members here. So I'm just curious what the collective there's six of us right now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, five tonight, but six, five tonight, six.
[Jenny Graham]: I wouldn't mind taking a stance against that. Against having a one house historic, uh, district.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I agree. I think this is a reactive approach. And I don't know if a proactive approach will ever be forthcoming. But I don't think it's the right move to make for this particular project. And I think it's the wrong time. But I think it's not fair to the homeowners. But
[Jennifer Keenan]: I was not at the last meeting, but I'd be curious to hear from you all. Did anyone speak up? Did any of the neighbors or butters, what was the general sense?
[Adam Hurtubise]: There were people that had written in that were for there were some people that spoke that were for their project. You know, but they didn't necessarily talk about the extent of demolition they were just supporting their neighbor, which is, you know, certainly find a, you know, we encourage people to participate in the process. There was only one. One person in person in support of preferably preserved status, taking into account the actual building and the history and the level of alteration proposed, and the impact on historic fabric. And I will just say, with any decision that this board makes, it's really a. At this time decision right so you know we're not saying that a district wouldn't be necessarily important to that building at a later date we're just saying, you know as Peter said it's reactionary at this point so, and the building. you know, based on my understanding of the plans, it's gonna remain standing. It's not like Foster Court. It's not like the impacts on Forest Street. There's a difference here in approach. So I feel that I'm against this district at this time.
[Doug Carr]: I guess my recommendation is to hold off and see if it happens. It's odd to be against something that hasn't happened, you know, as a preemptive strike. I would propose that we just, let it sit for a while, go through our process, you know, cause we're going to be most likely finished with our process before they even start theirs, if I had to guess, you know, so that it will be, it may work itself out without us doing anything. You know, I don't, I'm not seeing a swell of sentiments behind, you know, a district for that building, that building being untouchable and unchanged. I'm just not seeing that right now. I'd be surprised if that had any political traction in the long term.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But do we know what if the if this is the subject matter of the Thursday meeting?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I looked at the agenda briefly, it's on there as a discussion point, as is a couple of others. So it's not the sole focus of the meeting at all. I think, you know, I'm sorry, whoever was gonna speak.
[Jenny Graham]: No, I was just saying there's two properties that were listed as potential single home historic districts in the agenda for Thursday. 10 Mainings was the other one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's Sharon's house. Is she proposing a district for her own house?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Why not? The plot thickens.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sure. If a homeowner wants their own, I guess they can do that. I mean, my thing, I kind of agree with all of you and my thing is that, you know, city council has been very unfavorable to single house districts. And, you know, now here we are to almost two years later from foster court, and there's been zero movement from the district commission on moving the needle on really any districts. We continue to have properties come up on South Street, Summer Street, You know, other parts of town that we have talked about over and over and over again. And there has just been zero movement made on anything and I don't, I mean I just feel that we can only do so much, and we can, you know, without a historic district commission that is going to kind of buckle down and do the work. I don't know what else to do because us, our seven, our plate is full enough on our board. And I feel very strongly that we do really good work. We work really hard, all seven of us. And I don't, we can't, we can't fix everything in town. I don't know what else. I think it has got to stop somewhere. It's not, it's not on our, as much as I want it to be on our plate, cause I'm, I'm such a, like, I, I'm a get stuff done type of person. And it angsts me that the whole time I've been on a commission, like nothing has happened on their board. I'm very, I'm very torn here. Some days I think I'm just gonna leave and go into that commission.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll whip them into shape. I don't know. Yeah, it is tough. And it is angst producing. And because we get caught in the middle of this kind of thing. You know, it's happened before it can happen again. It probably will. Um,
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, 21 Toro is still not done. Am I correct, Ryan? And that's been since before I've been on the commission.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I tried to get city council to act on it and they just, just wouldn't act on it. You know, they voted to support it. Then I told them, no, it's a bylaw change. And they just voted to support it again, you know, to route out the issue, to make it look like they did something. it did nothing to actually establish the district.
[Doug Carr]: But Ryan, what year was that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Chris, I guess they did it, I don't know, four or five years ago. And then they came to a meeting and Chris was like, oh, you're in a historic district now. And I'm like, no, you're not. You know, I'm like, there's no review here. You can voluntarily submit. But, and then, then we, we got before city council again, and I said, made it clear that, you know, to the clerk that it's a bylaw change and they didn't put it on right. Then they just voted.
[Doug Carr]: But there's four new Councilors in the last three years. I mean, it's not the same council for what it's worth. You know, they, this, this new council, I suspect could be more open to it than others, but I think I think the process has to be transparent. It can't feel rushed, it can't feel reactionary, or it's a political non-starter. I think for a lot of people, no matter what their instincts are, it's gotta feel like you're doing this not in the heat of battle, but as a kind of detached calculation outside of an immediate project. That's when it should be done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jess, you have your hand up, go ahead.
[Jenny Graham]: I definitely agree with that dog, but I was just wondering what their processes so if they discuss on Thursday a potential district for these properties. Is it doesn't mean at their next meeting they decide for sure or like. Is there a set number of steps and what meetings they go through.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There is a set number of steps. Ideally, you would determine what the boundaries are and justify the single house historic district. And there needs to be a loose map drawn up and there needs to be a public poll from the homeowner that they get given time to respond to a survey for that building. There's public support. There's a report that they have to put together that answers, you know, what is the district? Why are you establishing it? What are the boundaries? What are the properties? They have the inventory form that we did. So that's, you know, the history is documented there. And then that gets submitted to Mass Historical, and it also gets submitted to our planning board, which I think is the community development board. In this case, it's acting as our, planning board, they both get to comment on it mass historical has 30 days to respond, I think 30 or 60 days to respond. But if they ask any questions or clarifications it restarts the clock. Same goes for the planning board. I know in the past the planning board has had concerns about establishing districts that prevent development that encourages housing, which I can understand, but the two are not, you know historic preservation is not an enemy against developments nor is it an enemy against housing creation that you can very much work in tandem. Once that process is done, then they have to take the report to city council. They need a two thirds majority vote. So that's five out of seven Councilors to approve it. From there, there's a map that you have to create and file with the registry of deeds. Once that's done, the attorney general's office gets 60 days to review the bylaw. They don't have any comments or questions on The, the change then the ordinance takes effect after they, the mayor has signed off on it, the mayor doesn't sign off on it it goes back to city council for reaffirmation. If they sign off on it and veto her non signature which I couldn't imagine it would be an issue. the district is created all in all, it probably will take close to a year for a lot for single house for larger houses, two to three years because there's a lot of political discussion back and forth and balance between educating the general public, convincing the non sayers why they should join the cause, or figuring out how to avoid those naysayers. you know, realistically, it's a long term process. And, you know, the city council's sticking point has always been in the past, there's no master plan for how establishing historic districts yet. So, you know, they offered to perhaps pay for a report. So perhaps, you know, if they had some ambition, the goal here would not be worrying about creating a single house historic district, but inquiring money to go after and hire a consultant to lay out what areas of Medford would be worthy for consideration for single house historic districts and multi-unit buildings, and then where does it clash against other plans like the housing production plan, and then prioritize which areas we're gonna preserve over not, and then deal with the general public, because they're the ones that we have to convince are worthy. You don't have to live in the district to support it, but if people are, you know, if the city council's constituents live in the district and they're saying no, you know, they're not going to vote for it.
[Jenny Graham]: So it sounds to me like even if they, even if they move as fast as they possibly can to create this, these historic districts that the demo delay is likely to be lifted before the process goes through.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I've already said that earlier, so I'm just plus one, but yeah. I think on an express term, you'd be looking at six months if you were really motivated and could get the job done. But really, it's much longer than that. And I couldn't imagine. But I don't know. Who knows? Maybe the homeowner might decide to not do anything. And we may have to wait out the demo delay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I was just, this is all hypothetical, as Doug says at this time. but I think we will probably know more after Thursday, right? So I'm just wondering, okay, let's say they decide to try to pursue this, whereas, you know, after, let's say another month or something, we have a design that we feel is acceptable, that we could vote to, you know, quote unquote approve, like let happen. So I'd still want it to get into a position of, you know, working at cross purposes to, I don't know. I'm not sure how to approach that. You know, I don't want to directly be thwarting the historical district commission, but, you know, we have our process, they have theirs, but well, would it look bad if we were, you know, they had an intention and we were kind of, you know, I mean, could we be viewed as like undercutting their process? I don't know. You know what I'm saying? make any sense.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't know that there's anything we can do about that in the sense that, you know, we have our marching orders and we're following our ordinance. Right. And I mean they could have theoretically they could have five districts in the works at any one time that we may or may not know about and we're over here and they're over there. True.
[Doug Carr]: I would say this, you know, we're independent boards. We obviously have a difference of opinion about this. At least the majority on this board do so far. Right now, I don't know if Chris speaks for that entire board. I guess we'll find out Thursday, but it wouldn't be a bad idea to have probably a summit between our boards at some point to have an open communication. But we do have, we are independent for a reason, you know, and I think we have different We just have different ways of approaching things and different philosophies at some levels. But I think there might be overlap and there could be common ground on some cases, but that would be a discussion for another day, I think. And not around one property, but about a general approach to the city that may be worth having down the line.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, it'll be interesting to see if their design evolves And I guess we agreed that we would send the design. If we get a preferred design, we agreed we were going to send it to Chris anyway, right? So. Yes. So he'll see it. So yes, we should do that. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And we'll have a public discussion as well.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. I think we've exhausted that topic for today, but always good to check in on things. Um, I don't have anything else unless somebody else does besides the meeting minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just real quick for CPC, for the Oak Grove tree project, did we sign a memorandum of understanding for that project? If we did, I don't think it's going to be going forward. I wonder if we should ask CPC to remove that project from our agenda. Cause I know that it's part of a larger effort and that's gonna change probably the approach to that particular project. And I don't foresee it moving forward unless Abby is still interested in moving it forward. But again, she hit a roadblock with issues with procuring trees and getting them to do the work.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I thought when we left it, they were doing a whole tree plan for the whole cemetery.
[Adam Hurtubise]: They are. So I wonder if we should just give this money back and take it off of our agenda.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's not on the agenda.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, it is it's in the meeting minutes for no new update.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, okay. Yeah, no, we should.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm going to take it off the minutes. No, no, no. I, there's, I believe there's a memorandum of understanding and we should make sure that like, we make it clear that we could not, it's not that we didn't fulfill our, fulfill our, our commitment to that project. It's that, that there are other planning processes that are larger than that project and that we should free up that funding because there's funding earmarked for that project. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I can send a couple of emails to just check on that and whatever they want us to sign to relinquish that, I would like that money to go back into the coffers because we can always reapply later. Thanks, Ryan. We'll double check all that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Maybe we should make a, oh, yeah, no, they're different. I was gonna make a recommendation that it might go to the buildings, but that's preservation, not recreation, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. Okay. Does anybody have anything else before we do the minutes?
[Doug Carr]: Yes. Real fast, the announcement at the beginning about The public meetings being held online. Is that, is there an end date for that?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's through July, as far as I understand it. Is that right, Dennis? That is correct. Yeah, it's July.
[Doug Carr]: Okay.
[Denis MacDougall]: And there's going to be another extension. So, but as of currently we're operating with July being end date.
[Doug Carr]: Does that mean our August meeting is in city hall?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I would imagine theoretically. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we want to try to have a dry run of. zoom at city hall and see how it see how it might work. Um, in advance of that, um, you know, we could even do it a separate sub meeting that handles, you know, some business that we have to, that we could pull off of our, uh, the facilities either there or they're not for a hybrid meeting.
[Doug Carr]: I don't, I don't know if they, if anyone knows that right now, any, any, any thoughts on that?
[Denis MacDougall]: Um, right now. 207, which is the council side room has cameras 201. I don't think the cameras are workable for that type of meeting. So I know that we're sort of talking about what we're going to be doing, not just with this, but with all the other boards and commissions, are we going to try to go forward with some sort of hybrid function? So, I mean, it's, it's doable. It's just figuring out the best methodology to do it. I know. It might just be a big rolling television that comes in where we can project the Zoom meeting up on that with people in the audience to see the people on Zoom and then have someone on Zoom in the meeting itself sitting there uploading documents onto Zoom. It's gonna be, there's like a multi-step sort of functionality that we're trying to sort of figure it out.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, there needs to be extra personnel. I'm sorry, Dennis, go ahead.
[Denis MacDougall]: It might just even be like two people, one person sort of staffing the meeting and another person actually just doing the Zoom part. You know, there might be sort of two parts. One person can just do it from home, just log into the meeting and then sort of handle the Zoom part of it. Because if you're actually in the room, you might not be able to monitor Zoom nearly as well as you will from, you know, from Yes.
[Doug Carr]: Dennis are you saying there's a plan in place that you think will be there in place by August or you're not sure.
[Denis MacDougall]: Talking about it in our office internally so I mean saying there's a plan in place would be not correct but we're, we know that we've got time to do this and we have a certain deadline in which we have to have something figured out. Some, it may not be, some may just go no hybrid at all. It may just go back to we're meeting in person and that's what we're doing. I don't know. It's going to be up to the individual board commissions what they would like to do.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I also think there'll hopefully be some sort of directive from the governor's office.
[Doug Carr]: I mean, I bet he's going to punt to localities and let them do what they want to at some level. And I think we, I would just start planning. Because I think we want to have the ability for people on this commission and anyone in Medford or beyond to dial in and attend like they did tonight. Because imagine somebody waiting two hours to speak now, what a monumental waste of time that would be versus dropping in and out. And us, we can do it from afar, travel, work, vacations, even this. There's so many benefits. I just don't want to lose what we've gained over the last two years.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. And there are directives, like there needs to be a directive of if, say, we want to participate and we're on vacation, you know, or at a business meeting, you know, can we participate from afar? Right. Because I don't mind chiming in if I'm doing business elsewhere and, you know, I'm far away and have to see my clients, but I want to still participate in the commission meeting because that's my duty. So those things will all need to be figured out by the governor's office, not necessarily by us.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think just the one thing that concerns me is that we will need help in the rooms, one or two people. And I'm obviously concerned about sound and microphones. So are we sitting here in front of our computer, but we're physically in the room? Are we all have headphones on? One mic in the room. You know, I don't know that the city has kind of thought through. You're almost running a TV broadcast at that point. You need it. You need a, you know, and. You know, we, we always joke more as agent real estate agents, we're talking about doing our videos. It's like the most important thing with regards to video is audio. So I, um, you know, I just. Obviously City Hall has a lot on their plate. I don't know how far ahead they're thinking. I agree with you, Doug. I would love to keep the hybrid meetings going. I think it's a benefit for everybody. I want them to work. I don't want them to be like, I can't hear you. I can't see what you're talking about. And so I think, I'm hopeful that there'll be some initiative taken and if we're gonna do it, we're gonna do it well and not do it half, you know, the rest of the phrase. So, um, all right. With that said, meeting minutes, I did, um, Peter, I found a typo.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, under the bullet for 78 Cotting Street, the third line down, it says hose and not house.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, hold on. That's not good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We don't want no hoes in there. Okay. So under 78.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did you find it? It was on the third line.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll find it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. It's the third, third line under the bullet. I don't have any other changes on the minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 78, right? Correct. Oh, I got it. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you for doing them. I'll take a motion to approve the minutes when someone's ready.
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Seconded. Thank you guys motion to approve the meeting minutes from March, 2022, Jessica. Yes. Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. I'll make that change and upload them.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. Okay. Motion to adjourn eight 43, Jessica. Yes. Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug.
[Unidentified]: Hell yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you everybody. Our next meeting is May 9th. See you next month.
|
total time: 1.38 minutes total words: 198 |
total time: 1.92 minutes total words: 280 |
||