[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, I will call this meeting to order. This is a meeting of the Medford Historical Commission. I'm going to just start real quick just with a brief meeting reading minutes. Pursuant to the acts of 2022, this meeting and hearing of the City of Medford Historical Commission will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to attend the meeting may do so via Zoom link provided in the meeting agenda. No in-person attendance of this or members of the public will be permitted and the public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. All right, so just a brief introduction. So tonight's meeting is public hearing on 16 Foster Court, and then we will have brief business meeting afterwards to conclude our business with 24th Street. Commissioners, if you could all just raise your hand just to introduce yourself real quick. I'm just going to go around as I see them on the There's seven people here on the board, one of which, Jen Keenan, our normal chair, has a conflict of interest in this matter. So myself, Ryan Hayward, is the chair tonight. I'm normally the vice chair. Peter Miller is the secretary. And then Doug Carr is on the board. Ed Wiest, Jess Farrell, and Kit Nichols. Wiest, yep, Ed Wiest. And Kit Nichols is last. So those are your commissioners for tonight. So tonight's meeting is coming at the submittal of paperwork for the demolition of 16 Foster Court. determination of significance already existed for this building. It was filed with the city clerk, so we went ahead and did that. Just in summary, the demolition delay process is a two-step process once paperwork is submitted. First step is to determine significance, and by definition, that means any building that's listed on the National Register of Historic Places any building that's listed on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places, or any building that was built 75 years or older, which is determined by the commission to be a significant building as provided by subsection 7048-78D, either because 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 the 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. So way back in 2019, 2019, we reviewed this building and it was determined that it was an early 19th century structure dating between 1804 and 1813, put it in a small group of buildings that had survived from that time period. It's a cape which is a rare form. It has interesting ties to East Medford. It relates to the broad patterns of development for that neighborhood. It's related with strong architectural families and it has important ties with the shipbuilding industry. All of that is summarized on the determination of significance letter that was filed with the clerk's office that's available up on our website along with the MHC form beyond which that determination is is based. So tonight we're determining whether or not the building is a preferably preserved building, meaning that it is in the interest of the city to be preserved and rehabilitated rather than demolished. So the way tonight's meeting is going to run is we're going to open it up with a motion from the historical commission. And then we will have commissioner comments, open it to public comments. We'll take comments that are against the demolition of the project first and projects for the demolition of the building. then we'll conclude with final commission comments, we'll conclude with a roll call vote on the matter, and then we'll file our determination within 21 days as required by the bylaw. Any questions from the general public or commissioners before we begin? All right, hearing none, I will start with a motion from the commissioners.
[Unidentified]: I'll make a motion to find the property not significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not significant or not preferably preserved? Sorry, correct. You would need to find it not preferably preserved.
[Doug Carr]: Oh, apologies. Not preferably preserved. Sorry, we already found it significant, right, in our previous meeting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct.
[Unidentified]: And a second? Second. Peter Miller second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, Doug, you want to kick start discussion?
[Doug Carr]: Sure. I mean, I think, you know, this has been a really strange gray area because of the fact that we've already chimed in on this building, made a determination, fought the good fight, but didn't end up getting it preserved. I feel we owe it to the city and the developers to follow through on previous determinations and make sure the process is clean, even though there's a change in ownership. I just think That's the right approach for this property. I think we've been through this process enough to know that we probably need to streamline this a little bit in the future so there's more clarity for future owners that they'll know that they'll have a clear process if there's a change of ownership or whatever the process may be. So I feel like this one is more of a a quick determination and a quick kind of reinforcing our previous decisions and moving on with the process.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Peter? I don't have too much to add. I mean, the building is certainly a significant building for Medford, and we did find it preferably preserved earlier, but That process ran its course. We attempted to make it into a one house local historic district. There was no, there wasn't support from the city council, some support, but not enough. So I felt like we've gone through that process. I personally don't see a need to go through that process again. So I guess that's where I'm coming down on it. in terms of re-litigating the whole process, I guess you could call it.
[Unidentified]: Great. Other commission comments? I'm gonna start with Ed. Ed, I think you're cutting out. Yeah, he's frozen. All right. Ed, we'll come back to you. Jess? I don't have any comments at this time. I don't have any comments. Sorry. Thank you. No worries.
[Robin Stein]: Ryan? Sorry to interrupt. This is Robin Stein from KP Law.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, Robin.
[Robin Stein]: Do you want to just make sure Ed is on so he can hear before Anyone has comments just so he doesn't miss anything?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, let me just double check.
[Robin Stein]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: He seems to have gone away.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, he might need to sign back in.
[Unidentified]: There he is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There we go. Ed, we lost you there for a second. Apology for dropping. Yeah, where it comes down to again, you know, ownership doesn't change the fact we went through 18 months and went through other things. So I think at this point, yeah, maybe cleaner just to find not preferably preserved. Okay, great. And Kit.
[Kit Collins]: So it has gone through a process that other commissioners have already spoken about, which I think needs to be recognized and observed. And that said, it is a building that would be preferably preserved. That's an important part of Medford history. And it's, I think, painful for us all to see it go this way.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great, thank you. We're gonna open it up to public comments now. If you would just raise your hand or make yourself known and I'll call on you individually. Please keep your comments as brief as possible. And I need your name and address for the record, if you will. And I guess we should open it up to, to those in favor of demolition first, and then we'll conclude with those against demolition. Yep, Mr. DeMarco, Attorney DeMarco, sorry.
[SPEAKER_00]: Good evening, Mr. Chair. Good evening, members of the commission. I appreciate your time tonight, and I appreciate your positions on this. Thank you very much for being willing to meet and to discuss this. It's an unfortunate situation, obviously, that a building which you had found to be properly preserved went through the process and now got stuck in this hiatus gray area as Mr. Carr stated. I appreciate the time. I would urge that tonight's meeting move forward. And if you do move it forward, which I hope is the case, that you issue your decision as quickly as possible, as there is quite a bit of financial turmoil going on with this matter. I appreciate the expendency and have a good night.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great, thank you. Attorney DeMarco, can we just get your address for the record?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, Roberto DeMarco, the law firm is Foster Walker and DeMarco, 350 Main Street, Malden, Massachusetts, third floor.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great. Ryan, just to let you know, I am taking notes too. Okay, great. Thank you. Anybody else at the hearing tonight interested in speaking? Seeing none, anybody in favor of against the demolition? Hearing none, I'm just going to close public comments then. Commissioners, any final comments before we move forward with the roll call vote? All right, hearing none, then I'm going to move forward with the roll call vote.
[Robin Stein]: Sorry, Brian. Sorry, it's Robin again. Sorry to interrupt. Did you, I wasn't sure if your agenda actually listed specific times for the hearing or not, but if it did, I'd recommend that you not jump ahead of those. The draft I saw said that the commission wasn't going to vote until 7.30.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, we usually just use them as the guideline and I'm certainly willing to wait until 730 and just move on to our regular business.
[Robin Stein]: I just would hate for somebody to jump on thinking they had till 7.25 to comment. I don't know if that's on the formal agenda or not. It's in the email I had.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There are times on the agenda that are just like guidelines and then down the bottom of the agenda, we usually note that the times provided are done so as a guideline. Everyone present offered an opportunity to speak. So I'm perfectly fine too. to jump ahead to 20 Otis Street if we just wanted to wait to make sure that that's fine.
[Robin Stein]: Hold on a second. Does the agenda actually say that they're just guidelines?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep, it does. Yeah, it does.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, I mean, I'll leave it up to you if you want to do it or not. Usually we just recommend that if you put times on the agenda you not jump ahead of them, but it's up to you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, no, that's fine. I will table the matter until 7.35 when we will conclude. And then we will move on to 20 Otis Street. If you want to do Robert's rules, I would just move we suspend business to permit 20 Otis Street to be considered.
[Unidentified]: Sure. Seconded if it needs to be seconded.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All those in favor say aye. You have to do well. I'm sorry. No, that's okay. Making it complicated. No, that's fine. Peter? Yes. To suspend. Jess? Yes. Kit? Yes. Ed? Yes. Doug? Yes. And I vote yes. Who seconded the motion? uh miss feral okay okay moving on to 20 yoda street um peter has been working with the owners to come up with the final design which was sent around to the commission peter do you want to take the lead on the plan sure do you want does does anybody want to look at yeah i would i would hold them up you'll pull them up yeah Yes. Well, we, we had, we did meet at the property, as I said, uh, last week. Um, and, um, we actually produced a sketch on site and then, um, we've had several rounds of, uh, emails and comments, um, from the historical commission to the owners. Um, And a list was generated of things we wanted to add. You can just zoom into the front elevation there, Ryan. Such as adding corner boards and window trim, door trim. if you want to pan down a little bit to the side elevation or over, adding every turns and making the corner boards match the water table trim, et cetera. And then if you want to pan back to the right, we also requested some, possible different designs for the garage doors, and this is the consensus design. I personally haven't overseen the process. I'm satisfied that the owners made a good faith effort to try to recall the original carriage house as much as possible within this design, and we didn't want to force them to go for a variance. I would be in favor of allowing the project to go forward at this point. Great. Thank you, Peter. Any comments from the commissioners?
[Kit Collins]: I would, I would just say, I think this, I think the modifications look great and I'm really appreciative of the Starks for being willing to work with us and make it a building that is in keeping with what was there and in keeping with the history of Medford.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So thank you. Great. Thanks. And yeah, I really do appreciate that the owners were willing to modify their design. The design changes were not crazy different from their existing plan. I think it will look nice and maintain the idea that there was a carriage house here because there really aren't a lot of them left. The building that's just disappearing off the landscape. Although we may see that they get reused with the accessory dwelling unit. bylaw coming into play now. All right, if there are no additional comments, I'm happy to take a motion on this particular matter. Move to release the oldest tree property from demolition delay.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Was that Jess, second? Yes, Jess. Okay, motions have been made and seconded. Just a second. Motion's been made and seconded. I'll go around for roll call vote. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jess? Yes. Kit? Yes. Ed?
[Unidentified]: Aye, yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, motion's been made five to zero, motion passes. So Danielle and Timothy, we'll get you our letter. probably sometime this week when we do the other letter. Thank you very much. All right. Can you guys just make sure that you upload those latest set of plans to the building department platform because we'll reference them. So as soon as you do that, we can get the letter up there with it. Okay. Thank you. Returning to our other item, we have to wait until 7 7.35, so I'm going to put a hold. We have no other business on our agenda, and of course, there's nothing else on our agenda, so we can't discuss anything. Just a quick question for Robin. It says public comments from 7.15 to 7.25 on our agenda, so would 7.25 be long enough, do you think?
[Robin Stein]: Well, what I saw said public comment that at 7.25 and then there were any final commission comments from 7.25 to 7.30 and then the commission was going to vote at 7.30. So I guess you could confirm if there's anyone else from the public who's hopped on and wants to comment or if the commission has any final comments. Like I said, we usually recommend if you're going to put times on that you stick to them.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Robin Stein]: But the one I saw said motion revisited and vote was at 7.30. So I don't know if what you have is different.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, no, that's what's here. 7.30, yeah.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, I have a related question to this since we have a few minutes here. I know that we had some discussions with the city solicitor about this process. I missed the last meeting, obviously. So I want to know if there's any I'm not aware of anything specific it hasn't come my way but the way to do what I think would be to do an amendment to the ordinance just to make it.
[Robin Stein]: that make anything that needs to be clarified clarified. So that would go through city council would be a proposed amendment to the ordinance itself to section 48 or chapter 48. Nothing has come my way on that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, that Yeah, that again, and we're, we've got a provision into a black hole on this one.
[Robin Stein]: Yeah, no, like I said, I think it could be clarified. It would just be through an ordinance change. I can follow up with Victor about that, but nothing has come my way yet on it. I don't know if Victor can speak to it.
[Victor Schrader]: Yeah, hi, folks. This is Victor Schrader, Economic Development Director for the city. No, Robin, you're right. We haven't really connected with the commission on that. Ryan, we'd be happy to work with you on some language corrections if we think that's necessary. Maybe that's something we set up a time to review in the near future.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it's not a bad idea. The commission needs to look at it. And then we need to certainly have you guys and maybe even talk with the Community Development Board, what their input would be on it, just to get their two cents because, you know, They're influencing design changes that and changes that may be come up against this bylaw. So we want to make sure that they work in harmony and not in conflict with other city ordinances, certainly. And then also city council, certain city councilors are hell bent on destroying this ordinance. So we want to make sure that we hear them out. and hear what their concerns are to make sure that any changes that they're hearing about that need to happen get clarified in spite of this bylaw. And they certainly opened the door. It's sitting in subcommittee that they're looking to make changes. So we're gonna use this opportunity to present some serious overhauls to make some clarity on this bylaw. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea.
[Robin Stein]: I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea.
[Victor Schrader]: I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. I think that's a great idea. you know, collaborate on changes and review those together before that time so that, you know, you all are prepared to kind of present some alternatives if you feel they're necessary.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep, sounds good to me. I could get my watch. I have 730 at the timeline. Is there any final comments to the general public would like to speak on the matter? All right. Hearing none, I'm going to close public comments. No final comments. Comments from the commissioners? hearing seeing none just returning to the original motion made a card made a motion to find the property at 16 Foster court not preferably preserved Peter Miller seconded will do a roll call vote Peter. Yes. Yes, for not preserved, not perfectly preserved. Okay, great. Great. So motion passes five to zero. So we will work on getting that letter filed with the city clerk and you guys will be on your way. I don't know if Attorney DeMarco, yeah, he's still here.
[SPEAKER_00]: I appreciate the time of the commission and thank you very much. Have a good night. Great, thanks.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Commissioners, we're all set with business tonight. I need a motion to dissolve this meeting. I'll move to adjourn. And what is the date? Are we going to be on the 17th or not? Yeah, let me just double check before I say that. Yes, meeting some 17th.
[Unidentified]: Move to adjourn. And a second. Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, non-debatable. Peter? Yes.
[Unidentified]: Jess? Yes. Kit? Yes. Doug? Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, motion to adjourn, five to zero approved. We are all set. Thank you all. Thank you. Good evening.
[Robin Stein]: Thanks everybody, good night.
|
total time: 0.7 minutes total words: 61 |
|||