[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, welcome everybody. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, June 13. And I will read our little statement here and then we will get going. 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. We have a very full agenda. So we're going to try to move things along. Up first we are going to have a preferably preserved hearing for 130 Boston Avenue. So just to remind folks how we got here. Two months ago we received an application for a partial demolition at 130 Boston Avenue. Last month, the property was determined to be historically significant. And let me remind folks of what that means. That means that the property 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 based on that definition, last month, the property was determined to be historically significant. So tonight we are doing a Preferably preserved hearing. And what that means is that the designation preferably preserved means that the commission has determined that after an open public hearing that the demolition of the building under review would be detrimental to the architectural or historic history, excuse me historical heritage of the city of Medford. And lastly, we just like to remind folks that the Medford Historical Commission does not and will not consider the building's condition or any safety issues when determining whether a building is to be preferably preserved. Only the building commissioner can address these issues. So what we'll do here tonight is we will go around for the commissioners to speak with regards to this property, then we will let the property owner speak, and then we will take any public comments before we take a vote. So from my commissioners, if anyone would like to make a motion, either way, I will start the discussions.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We need a motion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I'd take a motion, please, to start whether to find for preferably preserved or not.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Make a motion to find 130 Boston Ave preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Second. Thank you, Jess. Okay, Ryan, I'm going to start with you and then I'm going to go around. As I see folks on my screen, and then we'll go from there. So Ryan you can start the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: at this building and I really think that in the context of the group of buildings that it's in, those are the five buildings or six buildings along Boston Ave from 124 to 138 Boston Ave. This is a really well preserved collection of Moses Mann buildings. Moses Mann was an important West Medford architect who really developed his own style, especially during the height of the Victorian era. And this is a beautiful example, even though it needs work, it's a beautiful example of Queen Anne architecture. And it's a perfect representation of the types of works that he would do, not just here, but in the entire Smith estate. development. He had a role in there. He was basically the on the boots developer. He lived two doors up his workshop where he created all the woodwork for all these things was two doors down. So, you know, I think it's important to make sure that we preserve the integrity of these buildings and therefore I am very much in favor of finding for preferably preserved status for this building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Jess, I'll come to you next.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I agree with everything that my fellow Commissioner said. I think the form B was really clear about the architectural value of the property and it just seems like this would be a really great opportunity to try to have some of that restored back to its former glory. So I agree with Ryan on that. Thanks.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Jess. Doug, are you going to speak on this or not?
[Doug Carr]: No, as I live a few houses down and knew the previous owner, I'm going to recuse myself.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Doug. Peter, any comments?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I agree with what Ryan said and Jessica. And I personally feel like it's a beautiful building. It's got a lot of really nice detail on the outside. Although some of it is in rough shape, but I think there's a lot of it that could be saved or fixed or redone. And again, Moses man, you know, kind of watershed for projects of this type and the grouping of the houses together. I think it all adds up to a house that wants to be preferably preserved, so I feel pretty strongly about this one that it should be preferably preserved. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Peter. Ed, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think the discussion's been pretty much where Form B was, and I've got nothing to add to that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you so much. At this time, I'd like to invite the property owner to speak or his representative. If you could just, whoever is speaking, if you could just state your name and address for the record, please.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: My name is Roberto DeMarco, I am an attorney with the law firm of Foster Walker and DeMarco. I'm speaking on behalf of James Calvi, who's here tonight. We also have with us, David Brosnan, who is a structural engineer, I understand the commission has stated quite clearly that it's not willing to consider. the issues with the building. I do think that your form B on its face is incorrect. I'm not sure how it was drafted and the method in which it was drafted stating that the condition was, I quote, excellent. The building was condemned that's when Mr. Calvi took it over. The building requires significant amounts of work. The delay due to the process has only exacerbated that situation. There have been collapses. The Form B being on its face, incorrect. makes me question whether or not the study has been done and outside has been accurately documented. I would urge the commission to consider if they want to save buildings, then your process needs to have a change such that you can save these buildings. This building has been sitting since December and only getting worse. And if you're going to save buildings, then the process as it's flowing. Makes it almost impossible for buildings of this condition. The building was condemned and and that's an important issue here. The building has nothing left to preserve the dry rod, etc. The collapsing of the bricks that have happened only in the last 60 days. So I understand where the commission's coming from on this. We offered at the very beginning to work with you to try and preserve the outside if we could shore it up interior and process doesn't allow for that. So I would urge the commission to consider ways that it can change the process such that this doesn't occur because you'll lose more than you'll save. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you for your comments, Mr. DeMarco. Ryan, do you have any, is there anything we wanna discuss with regards to the form B and how it's?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I just wanna make a clarification that the condition is not a structural assessment, but the condition of the building is looking purely at what we're looking at tonight, which is the condition of the architectural fabric as it relates to the building's integrity.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan, for that clarification.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: I understand that very, very clearly. I've worked with these buildings before. Um, I, it is not concerning the structure. You're losing those architectural elements and they were being lost from day one. I, I understand the commission's desire and I understand the commission's direction. That this is not about the structure is about the elements that are being lost due to the delays. But I appreciate your comment, Mr. Commissioner.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I would also just like to add that it is my impression that you did get permission from the building commissioner to do some work, and I'm not sure whether or not that work has taken place.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: We have not yet. We were waiting to see what the position. We had asked to move forward, but the process takes time on all fronts because of the delay and the desire not to interact. We have our report. We had a walkthrough. The commissioner has asked us to hold off because of the question of a few days extra in these months long delay wasn't going to make the biggest difference, but we have well-documented the travels we've gone through. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, that's not what was told to us. So thank you for that clarification. If there's anybody here that would like to speak with regards to this property, whether in favor or against preferably preserved status, please raise your hand. And I'll be happy to call on you one at a time. Or just kind of give a wave.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hi, how are you doing? I don't know if you can hear me or not.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I can, sir. If you could get your name and address for the record, please.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure. I'm Joseph Ronin at 43 Winter Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, sorry. I just want to cut out a little bit. 43 Winter Street, Medford.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, I apologize my first time on zoom.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, go ahead. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, so I applied for a position on the board, and I was appointed by the mayor, and I was told by the city clerk to show up and show you this form. That's the, they said that's what I was supposed to do.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, if we could discuss that we'll discuss that later on in the meeting it's not appropriate to do that right now. Thank you very much. Would anybody else like to speak on with regards? Kelly, go ahead. Unmute yourself. Thank you, Jen. So I Kelly, can you just state your name and address for the record, please?
[Kelly Catallo]: Sorry, Kelly Catalo, 46 Otis Street in Medford. I am also the broker owner of Realty One Group Cosmopolitan in Medford Square. I am here to speak on this and our need for housing. If we were trying to protect something like what should have been protected on Forest Street, I could understand all these extensive long meetings that have been going on in regards to this property. But a man was found dead in this property, had to be taken out. This property had to be totally emptied and it is falling apart at the seams. I'm not really sure why this is being held up. I have gone through records, I've seen other properties that are historic, like the ones on High Street, that never had to come before you, that they were just given their permits and off they go. I saw a house on Ashland Street, given their permits and off they go. And that house was, the structure of that house, I think was 1890. But I don't understand with the housing crisis that we're in, every stall and every delay on a property that has nothing to to keep, to enhance that would be protected under historical status. I don't understand why we're putting all these roadblocks. We need housing. Jen, you know that. We are in crisis mode here. And I don't see, you know, from what I'm hearing, it sounds like they're willing to work with you. And I don't know why there's so much delay here. I just don't. And I'm seeing some other properties that I saw on one of your meetings, something over on 3rd Street that it looks like a vinyl box. There's like one little circle thing left in the house. And that person's permits were delayed and they were going to add more square footage, which means more people could have a home. I don't understand that. So I'd like you to reconsider your position on this, because it's falling apart anyway. So if somebody is going to put something nice there and we can get people into a home sooner than later, I think that that needs to be weighed here, too. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Kelly. Thanks. Would anyone else like to speak? Yes, go ahead, ma'am.
[MCM00000359_SPEAKER_00]: Hi, my name is Kathy Bull from 27 Monument Street in West Medford. And I've walked by that house for years and admired it. And I really appreciate the commissioner's position on it. It's very heartening to hear that that historical building that is part of the history of this neighborhood could be preserved. That's so heartening to me. I agree there is a need for housing. Nobody can deny that. And I agree that's a priority, but I think buildings like this cannot be remade, replaced. So I appreciate the commissioner's position. Thank you. Could you tell me your address again, ma'am? 27 Monument Street. Thank you. West Medford.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Kathy. Just for the minutes. Thank you very much.
[MCM00000359_SPEAKER_00]: Sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Judy, go ahead and unmute yourself. Thank you so much for your raised hand.
[Joan Cyr]: Oh, let me get rid of the race and, um, can we get your name and address for the record, please? Judy Kaplan. K a P L a N 90 Boston app. So I live just right up the street and I have watched this building for many years and I watched the gentlemen, you know, try to maintain it and You know, it's a sad story from beginning to end. But if somebody took down this building and put in the type of housing that's been put in around the neighborhood, first of all, it would not be low income housing. It might possibly be two units. I mean, hypothetically, it might even be three units and you have a parking issue. But the neighbors don't want a box going in there like up at the corner, well, a little past the corner of Harvard Ave and Boston Ave, just a box with a little shelf sort of thing over the front door. There's no advantage to our neighborhood and the quality of our life. to have something like that go in there. So if it can't be restored, perhaps it could be replaced, I don't know. But one thing I do know, and I think this is trivial, but it's important to us as neighbors, there is a gorgeous wisteria tree that sort of sits on the front of the house. And we thought it had been killed because it was cut, but it came back. And that wisteria tree is such an asset to our neighborhood. And again, you may think it's trivial, but in terms of history and aesthetics, you know, we'd like to see that wisteria tree here at this time next year.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Thank you, Judy, for your comments. Doug, I see your raised hand. Go ahead.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, like I said, I'm going to recuse myself from any decision because I'm going to butter, but I would just like to make one comment on the process here. It's important for people to realize that what was submitted to this commission for this property was not what was done. They did illegal demo and got out of the house without a permit. That is one of the reasons why this process has slowed down. It's because the city of Medford had to stop what was an illegal demo from happening without a permit. And the scope of demolition that was submitted to this commission was dramatically different than what was done. So I agree with Kathy Warner, this could tell about the need for more housing. That's what I do for a living. But then people have to follow the rules and that was not done here. And when that's not done, We the city and the commissions that are in charge of this process have the duty to slow it down and to make sure it's done right following the proper procedures. I think that's something that we missed here in the beginning. That's it might've been omitted, but it's an important piece. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Mr. DeMarco. I see your hand up. Go ahead.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: I just wish to make one clarification, there was never an intent to take down the building, the building interior. came out based upon much of what Ms. Catalo had said in terms of what occurred there and the electrical work that was being done. As far as the rest of the building, this is not going to be replaced. The building itself needs a lot. That's one of the reasons we have Mr. Brosnan here, the structural engineer. The building is built with severely, severely under structured and we have a desire to save the structure. My client is not taking down the building. So I just wanna make sure that it is very clear that the extent of the demo was and is to reinforce the structure. Our request to the city was to repair the sill to be able to get at the sill so that we can save the structure from falling down. These are the issues that we're trying to address and that have been delayed. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Attorney DeMarco. Is there anybody else here tonight that would like to speak for or against this property, please give a wave or raise your hand. Just making sure I'm not missing anybody. Okay, at this time, I'm gonna close the public comments. Thank you everybody for your input. It is much appreciated. We very much appreciate when folks come in and chime in on the process. With that said, I'd like to circle back to my commissioners, if anybody would like to speak to anything that any of the public or Attorney DeMarco has said, and just make one more comment before we go around for a roll call vote. So would my commissioners have anything to say? Going once. Okay, with that, Joseph, I'm gonna have to table you for now because this was a complete blindside to me. So I'm not in a position to have you vote on this. So we'll talk later in the meeting. All right. Okay, commissioners, then I'm gonna, we have a motion, excuse me, we have a motion to find 130 Boston Avenue preferably preserved that has been seconded. At this point, I'm going to go for a roll call vote and please unmute yourselves and be prepared to vote. Ryan. I can't hear you, Ryan. You're not muted, but I can't hear you. I'll come back to you. Oh, go ahead. I'll come back to you, Ryan. Jessica. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, reluctantly, but yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan. Ryan, can you hear me? Ryan, give me a thumbs up or thumbs down on your vote. Okay. Well, I'm we have a unanimous vote regardless of Ryan's decision it's will pass three, even if he voted no it would pass three to one. So at this point we have a preferably preserved vote for 130 Boston Avenue, there will be an 18 month demo delay place on the property and Mr. Marco if you or your client would like to engage with the subcommittee. in order to work on lifting the delay sooner than 18 months, please send us an email and we will get that scheduled. It does not have to wait until the next meeting. We can meet in between meetings.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: And your 18 months begins today? Correct. I will say that any further deterioration that occurs is unfortunate. 18 months is...
[Jennifer Keenan]: And we're willing to work with your client if he would like to work with us. Our goal is never to hold somebody for 18 months. We're happy to look at the plans and the design and get it lifted sooner than later if you're willing to work with us.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: I understand. Thank you very much, Chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. OK, at this time, we're going to move on to the rest of our agenda. We have a very full agenda. So we have one, two, three, four, five demolition applications we'll be taking. So I'd like to get through those fairly quickly. Commissioners, you have been emailed all of the applications, links to the Google Drive. And so I'm gonna go down our agenda here. and I'll take a motion to accept as each one we get to. So I'm going to start with 10 Newcomb Street. I'll take a motion to approve and accept and approve this application when someone is ready.
[Doug Carr]: Motion to accept Newcomb Street demo application.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Is there a second? Second, yes. Thank you, Jess. Okay, motion to accept the demolition application for 10 Newcomb Street. Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, in form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I haven't reviewed it, so I'm going to abstain. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did we lose Ryan? I think we lost Ryan. So that's two, three, sorry, I'm, where's Jessica? Why am I losing people on my screen? I'm sorry. Okay, Jess and Ed have voted and Doug, we're good, three, zero, four, 10 Newcomb Street. Okay, 43 Wright Avenue.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to accepting form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed.
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. OK, motion to accept the demolition application for 43 Wright Avenue. Jessica.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, although I didn't think that the photos quite showed the entirety of all four sides, but it was mostly complete, so I'll go yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed? Yes, that's the form. Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan? Ryan, you're muted.
[Adam Hurtubise]: On 10 Newcomb.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Was 3-0 on 10 Newcomb?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then, OK, and then on 43 Wright? Are you voting on 43 Wright?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I will turn down 43 right now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: For what reason?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't think the scope of work meets the standard of our review. The building is already significantly compromised. And the roof is already a flat roof. So it's such a minor change that I don't believe that it warrants review.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, noted. Okay, 85 Fern Road. I'll take a motion to accept the here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to accept the demolition application.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Is there a second on this one?
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Motion to accept the application for 85 Fern Road. Jessica. Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan? Yes. Okay, thank you. All right, was the vote for 43 right? 4-0? No, it was 3-1. 3-1, okay. Okay. And then were you voting yes on Newcomb? Yes. Ryan? Yes. Okay, so that will be 4-0. Okay, 50 Winthrop Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to accept this to form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Second. All right, I'll take Jess. 50 Winthrop Street receiving demolition application. Jess. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan. Yes. Thank you. 4-0 Peter for the minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I want to go back to 43 right again. Was it four one?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It was three one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Who then who didn't vote? Oh, I voted no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan voted no.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's four votes total. That only adds up to four.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't vote.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct. Don't we have six members?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I'm sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It must have been four to one everything's five.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, and then four to one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sorry. All right, it's been a very long day. Thank you for clarifying.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Madam Chair point of clarification. Yes, on the vote for 130 Boston have I believe was said. 5-0, I just, 5-1, I just wanna make sure in the meeting minutes that it reflects 5-0 with one abstention.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, right, because Doug recused. No, because Doug didn't vote. Doug did not vote.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's 4-0 with an abstention.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Correct. Got it, 4-0. Thank you. Okay, last application, 2-4 Capen Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to accept as the form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Pete, I'll take Peter. Motion to accept application for 2-4 Capen Street, Jess. Yes. Peter. Yes. Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan. Yes. Okay, thank you everybody.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And did we not get an application for 80 canal?
[Jennifer Keenan]: We did not. So thank you. That one did not come in. So that we'll get, we'll see if that comes in for next month. It was a long shot, but I put it on the agenda just in the off chance they got their paperwork in.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica, go ahead. I see your hand up.
[Jenny Graham]: Can I move to reconsider the right street application that we just reviewed, given Ryan's discussion of it after he was able to come back?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sure, why don't we are Ryan is can we do that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Second. Okay. All right. Thank you. We're gonna others. We're going to reopen the discussion on 43 Wright Avenue. So this was, yes, this is a demolition application. It's partial demolition. So do we want to review this project? is the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: House is at a reviewable age. However, the design of the particular building, the changes to it, really he's adding a roof where a flat roof largely exists now. So, the integrity of this building is not going to change dramatically from what it is currently. If anything, it will improve. So I don't, I am still okay with passing on review for this, but I leave it up to my commissioners to decide otherwise.
[Doug Carr]: Brian, was it a flat roof originally or did it become that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know. I can do some quick research. Let's find out.
[Doug Carr]: Because usually the ones that we try to intercept those ones before they get here, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, in this case, it's going the opposite way. He's adding a pitch cable roof where a flat roof exists, which, you know, feel like a natural transition. Sure. And looking at the 2010 picture, the roof's been flat for a while. So I think, again, whether it's really demolition, I think it's a pretty open question.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do we wanna revote here? Or Doug, did you have anything to add or Jess?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I would make a motion to pass on the review. That would be my motion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So the intent is to advise the property owner that this is not subject to demolition delay, period.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, that we have elected to pass on review.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Doug Carr]: Which we do all the time.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Doug Carr]: Of course, we have done, yes. Mostly between meetings when it's determined that the permit is not relevant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, this one did not come early enough that we could bounce it to subcommittee. So in the, you know, in the interest of moving things along for the property owner, we put it on, I put it on the agenda. Sure. And 85 Fern for just for the record came from the same petitioner. Okay, there's a motion on the table to pass on review for 43 Wright Avenue. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Jess. Okay, motion on the table to find 43 Wright Avenue to pass on demolition review. Jessica? Yes. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? Yes. Okay, so that's a five zero to pass. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Pass the pass.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Pass the pass. Okay. We're good with every other application that came in. I just want, before we move on to the significance hearings, I just want to make sure there's nothing else that I know. I know I flew through them quickly, so I apologize. That was my fault. I should slow down, slow down next month. Apologies. Okay. All right. All right, let's move on to determination of significance. We have four properties for significance this evening commissioners you have links to the form bees that are in the Google Drive. I'm, let's we're going to start with 20 Otis Street. which they're, you know, this is a full demolition of the carriage house that's behind the property. So, but the form B does encompass the entire property so I just want to make that clarification. And I just would like to just reiterate because I, it was 45 minutes ago that I read definition of significance and other folks have joined the meeting since then. So when we determine significance, we are voting to whether or not the property 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 with that said, if somebody would like to make a motion with regards to the carriage house at 20 Otis Street, please do so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Make a motion to find this building significant at 20 Otis Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second?
[Doug Carr]: I will second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Ryan, I'm going to jump off the discussion with you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Houses with carriage houses in tandem still standing in an exceptionally good condition are exceedingly rare and hard to come by in the city of Medford. And with the coming of several new bylaws that encourage housing, it'd be great to see some alternative use other than just simply a garage. I know the plan for this particular residence is to replace it with a garage, but it could also in the future perhaps become an accessory dwelling unit. In terms of speaking just about the carriage house, it appears in good condition. It's been well cared for, matches the house, seems kind of nice in terms of scale and size. It's placed very similar to most garages in the back corner of the lot. So that's very typical of the style of building. And yeah, it's a common form, but it's, like I said, it's rare to have them. So that's all I have to say.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Doug, I'll go to you next.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, we've seen about probably six or eight carriage houses come before me in the last 10 years. And I think this is the best looking one in terms of its care and great detailing. A lot of them are leaning at five degrees and there's all kinds of things like you can see through them at the foundations and it just looks I think Ryan's right. I think there's a tremendous opportunity here. It could be made into a garage, but it could also have other future uses. I think it's really got a lot of potential. And I think we want to explore that because it looks, I mean, even the form B, if you look at the last page, it's pretty stark in terms of what they say, you know, just how this houses, you know, potentially National Historic Register eligible. And we just don't see that on a lot of buildings and a lot of carriage houses are just gone from that. So this one to me is a pretty easy call.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Jess, I'll come to you next.
[Jenny Graham]: I don't have really anything substantial to add. Thanks for the comments from my fellow commissioners. I have similar thoughts.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Nothing to add.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Nothing to add.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Okay, so we have a motion on the table to find 20 Otis Street historically significant. That has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Jess? Oh, sorry, Jess, I see your hand up.
[Jenny Graham]: Do we do any public comment on this, Jen? There's a comment in the chat. Oh.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Typically no, but Ms. Stark, if you'd like to say something, you feel free to unmute yourself. Okay, I'll just read the comment into the record. The owners would note for the record that the interior is not in good condition. Thank you for that note. I would just like to reiterate that we do not consider condition when determining whether or not something is historically significant or preferably preserved. So with that said, we have a motion on the table to find the 20 Otis Street historically significant that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Jess. Yes. Peter. Sorry, Peter, you're muted. I think I muted you by accident. Okay, you're a yes, thank you. Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan? Ryan, you're muted. Yes. Okay, so that's five O for significance for Otis Street. So next month we will have a preferably preserved hearing for that property. And to the owners, we will email you out the information needed for the sign that must go at the property in advance of next month's meeting. Okay, next up we have 76 Sharon Street. Commissioners, I will take a motion for this property when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to find for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Point of clarification. Yes, Ryan, go ahead. The motion for significance for period, style, and location in the Smith Estate subdivision and also in the African-American context, if that helps.
[Doug Carr]: I will second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Ryan, I'll start the discussion with you then.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. This is a really good, really well preserved example of stick style architecture stick style architecture had a very brief stint. like really plain Jane versions of this building, this type of building, and then there's really ornate. This is kind of right in the middle, and it's the perfect representation of the type of architecture that the developers who were working in the Smith Estate subdivision, the same division, mind you, that Moses Mann was working in, they failed several times at trying to attract the upper white collar individuals out of Boston So they really toned down their types of buildings that they were constructing to attract the mobile middle class to this neighborhood. And they were very successful at it. And this is just a really good example of that type of building. And you can see some pictures on the interior online, seems to be in pretty good condition. And I know they're gonna renovate it, but I would like to see a little bit more, I would like to see some more sensitive renovation here. So for that reason, I'm leaning towards significance for this building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Doug, I'll come to you next.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, the Form V actually has a lot of really interesting things in it. I won't go into a lot of details, but if you just look at the roof shape, I don't think you'll see that roof shape in any building in Medford, maybe even within 10 miles of here. It's between the asymmetric gable in the front, the dormer that splits the hip roof. It's just a unique shape. I haven't looked at what the plans for this building are, but I think there's a way here to work with the owner to try to get them what they need. The building is largely intact in terms of the exterior. We don't have much or any say on the interior, but obviously we can work with them. We've done that on plenty of other owners. So I think there's a great opportunity here to come up with a project that works for the 21st century while keeping alive a 19th century building that is worth preserving.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Jess, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: I agree that the Form B does point out a lot of different interesting architectural aspects from the stick style. And then there's just several other things that say it might have this or that surviving to look into it further. So I thought that there were a lot of different things to be preserved about this property, so I do think that it is significant from the Form B. Thank you, Jess.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter, anything to add here?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No. I think that the others stated it well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you very much. Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Again, there's some, I yield my friends, the architects as to that piece of it, but certainly there's some social history there, which at least is worth going forward on.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you, Ed. Okay, we have a motion on the table to find 76 Sharon Street historically significant that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Jessica. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so that will pass 5-0. And we will have a preferably preserved hearing for that property next month as well. Next up we have 136 Boston Avenue. And I will take a motion from my commissioners when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to find for significance with the understanding that I'm going to shoot it down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: In that case, I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. OK, Ryan, I'll start with you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: despite the fact that it has some associations with the neighboring properties, this particular building has been altered beyond recognition prior to the construction of the current iteration that it's in. So I am okay with the loss, because of the loss of integrity, I'm okay with letting it go.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Ed, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: From looking at it, I understand where Ryan's coming from, I would agree.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you very much, Ed. Jessica?
[Jenny Graham]: I'm glad we have the form B that says a little bit more about this place. But yeah, I agree with the other two commissioners have already spoken.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I don't think it quite rises especially in the current state, certainly not architectural significance. So I'd vote this one down, I think.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, again, because I left a few houses down, I'm going to recuse myself. If I was voting, I would agree with my fellow commissioners. I think this one doesn't rise to the level we could pass, but I'm going to recuse myself.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Doug. Okay, we have a motion on the table to find 136 Boston Avenue historically significant that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Jessica? No. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? No. Okay, and Doug is recusing himself. So we have motion that has failed zero to four with one abstention. Okay, and finally, for significance hearings, we have 4054 Mystic Valley Parkway. Commissioners, you have the paperwork in the Google Drive here, and I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to find for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Is there a second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can second. But I'm gonna vote no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Peter. Ryan, I'll start the discussions with you since you made the motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't really know how I feel about this particular building. I think it has an interesting history. I do think it has some associations with Medford's post-war development in industry. This particular neighborhood was targeted for basically development after World War II. It was all salt marsh. And the only thing out here was the adjacent WEI building, the radio station that we had an MHC forum for. And so, with a rail connection adjacent to this location they basically pushed for a little bit of a development along here, but I don't necessarily believe it rises to the occasion of some of the other buildings. I know that we've okayed most of the demolition of the buildings along Mystic Valley Parkway, so change is imminent. And it started back in the 70s almost with some of the larger scale high rises down the street. So, you know, for that reason, I'm gonna probably vote it down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Peter, you seconded it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I did think the history was pretty interesting. I don't think it's architecturally significant. I think there's a better and higher use for the property. So even though it's kind of interesting and exemplary history of how Medford evolved and everything, I don't think it quite rises to the level of significance on both the historical front and the architectural front. I guess that's where I'm coming down on it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you. Jessica, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: I just have a question, which is, have there been many commercial properties that have come across the commission? And have there been some that have been preserved? Sorry, I just have a bigger context question, I guess, about that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Clarification, Madam Chair?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, the building in South Medford, the... We're live.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The Italian shop there that we... Oh, Bocelli's. Bocelli's, yeah. So we cut that way, encouraged them to save that one. Whether something happens in the future, I don't know, but... Colette's Bake, you know, former Italo now, Colette's got set, you know, went through us and ended up staying there without much change of use.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So, yes, good one Ed and then also I remember we had that building, I think it's residential now but it was the old a and p I want to say maybe on Central Street or in that area somewhere Ryan over by your neighborhood.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We didn't save that one that one just. The, they built a larger development but then reneged on the all the wonderful renderings that they showed so that's why it's important to hold people accountable to what they show to the boards and commissions because they lost a lot they left a lot of detail off of that building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We've definitely had a fair amount, Jess, and I think it's a good reminder, you know, and then we certainly had some Tufts buildings too that were more, you know, they weren't quite residential, but they certainly, you know, came before us for review.
[Evangelista]: Did you have anything to add on this one, Jess? Yeah, thanks. I don't think I have anything to add, thanks. Okay, thanks.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I would agree that the specific structure doesn't make it close to significant. I think, and again, I know it's not strictly on the agenda. I've seen the form B on the former WEI building. And I think the concerns we're expressing are gonna be on the site plan and what goes there next, but not on saving this one. And also eventually I think what's going to happen On the EEI side, that's still used for broadcasting. I doubt, I don't know the technical answer. I doubt that building's actually used for anything anymore. I think the transmitter, what's feeding the antennas for the current radio station is someplace else. But I think we're talking more about what the parkway should look like on that stretch rather than saving this building. And I think the EEI buildings would be part of that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you so much. Doug, did you have anything to add?
[Doug Carr]: No, I'm accusing myself for a different reason on this one because I believe my firm Q3 is involved in the development of the building that may replace this one. So I will recuse.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right, so we have a motion on the table for significance at 4054 Mystic Valley Parkway. I will go around for a roll call vote. Jess.
[Evangelista]: So the vote is for significance now. Yes. Okay. Thank you, Peter.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No. Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So the motion fails zero to four with one abstention. Okay. Next up, we have 17 Edward Street. We are looking tonight to vote to lift the demolition delay here. Ryan, or the subcommittee, could you update us on this project?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I was able to, the homeowner was gracious enough to allow me to access to the building to do some architectural documentation in the terms of measurements, the building inside and out. Just have a quick one page summary to do on the findings which are very basic. Basically the house is mostly intact. There were a few changes that you can see. You can see where closets were removed. There's China cabinet and stuff, but the house mainly retains a lot of its integrity. I think we felt that the architect and the homeowner were very willing to restore a lot of that detail and character back. So we are, now that that documentation is done, we are comfortable with allowing them to proceed.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Um, so, um, is there anything we need to screen share or show the other commissioners or are we good.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, the drawings if people want to see them, but the photos basically the photo show all they need to but I don't know if.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think the biggest thing here was that the building fit in so nicely with the four other buildings on the form A, and that was the most important thing with kind of keeping the consistency with that streetscape on this project. So if the subcommittee is cool with that, then I will go around for a roll call vote. Actually, well, let's make a motion formally.
[Adam Hurtubise]: make a motion to lift the demo delay for 17 Edward Street contingent that the homeowner submit the current architectural plans for final permit.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Seconded. Thank you, Jess.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm not on the subcommittee, but I still second it because I trust my colleagues so much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's okay, we'll take it. We'll take it. Okay, so we have a motion on the table to lift the demo delay at 17 Edward Street pending uploading the most recent plans to the permitting system, which, you know, Ryan and I have access to so we can verify.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jen you froze. You froze a little there, Jen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Am I back?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sorry. Okay, roll call votes. Jessica? Yes. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan? Yes. Okay, so the motion passes 5-0 to lift the delay on 17 Edward Street. Okay, next up we have 78 Codding Street. So we have two agenda items for this property. The first one being that the Historic District Commission asked us to discuss our thoughts on a local historic district for this property. So before we move on to the next agenda item, which might be lifting the demo delay, I wanted to just get folks thoughts on a local historic district for this property. And I think Doug or Ryan or Peter, since you've been working with the homeowners, perhaps you can just kind of shed a little light on what's been happening here. I think just a recap would be helpful to the folks that are listening in tonight.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I did correspond with them today too. And I don't know if any of them are here, but I think they, They got a sick family member. So they weren't sure if they're going to be able to make it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Are you talking about the property owners or the district?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I am talking about the property owners. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you for clarifying.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Go ahead. Sorry about that. And the architect was maybe thinking of coming, but I don't see his name there either. So, okay. At any rate, if you've read the emails and stuff, the homeowner really wasn't in favor of creating a local historic, single family local historic district. So I think that kind of speaks for itself. And I personally, as a commissioner, wasn't really in favor of it. Especially since the homeowner didn't want to do it. So I think it would be a tough sell to the city. And I feel that since we've been working with the homeowner and the architect, they have revised their design to something that I feel is quite appropriate and doesn't change the overall massing of the house. It's essentially putting a porch on the back and dormers on the front and back. So, and we did go through a few iterations with them on the design. And so I know there was another additional letter written by one of the neighbors.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, and just for my commissioners, we did receive two public comments on the last 30 days about this property and both of those letters are in the Google Drive. If people would like to read them. I'm sorry, Peter, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: One of them from Marianne there was, her comments were mostly about, Changing, we had some paired windows on the dormers, and she wanted to change those to single windows. So I don't know if they're willing to entertain that when I say they, the homeowners. And I believe one of the historic district commissioners also wrote a public comment, Frederick. He did, yes. And he had very few comments. Like additional comments, I think that he had one comment about making the front center windows smaller. Other than that, I think he felt that we did a decent job of working with them and trying to get something appropriate.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just would like to say, Peter, I got a message in the chat that the architect is here for seven. Yes, his name is not here, but he is here. So if we have questions or if there's additional comments, somebody is here representing the property owner.
[SPEAKER_02]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I would like to hear from all the commissioners on this because I think it's important to note for the record kind of how we fall with regards to a local historic district here before we talk about releasing the demo delay. I want to make sure that everybody has their say and has their thoughts out there. And from my understanding, historic district commission did talk about this at their last meeting. And as you said, Peter, the homeowners don't want it. I think it seemed a little mixed from the neighbors. I think the majority of people didn't want it, but there were a couple of neighbors that did. So, um, I know we kind of talked anecdotally, maybe two meetings ago about this, but I would like to just have my commissioners, you know, uh, state their position on this so that we have it for the record. So Jess, I'm going to ask you to start.
[Jenny Graham]: I don't really think that we should be creating one home historic district. That's the proposal, right? That just this one property would be the historic district? Correct. So I am not in favor of that proposal.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I would agree with that in this case. Now, I'm aware that there are other homes where the homeowner does want to create a single-family historic district, and I guess I'm okay with that, you know, if that's what they want to do, and they view that as their legacy, so I don't mind them pursuing that. But in this case, since the owner was against it, and I didn't see that... how the home was being altered was detrimental to the integrity of the town or anything. So in my opinion, but so I was not in favor of it, of a single family local historic district.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Again, I am highly skeptical of how you could have a district with one property in it, whether or not the homeowner agrees. There may be situations where that's appropriate, but I can't speak to this one, but this is one where I would generally be pretty skeptical.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I mean, I obviously was close to this because I sit on the subcommittee with Peter and Ryan, we had multiple design meetings, got a lot of iterations. Peter did a lot of hand sketching, trying to come up with ideas. This was a very iterative process and the owners were very patient with us and we appreciated their patience because it's an important building. But I believe that almost every historic building needs to adapt and grow. And sometimes it's not just within the four walls, but sometimes it needs to go beyond the four walls to be functional. And I felt that this was a reasonable alteration to a significant historic house that we found significant and perfectly preserved. But that doesn't mean it's unchanged throughout time. It just doesn't work that way. And I don't think it should. I actually disagree with a few of my commissioners, because I think what I've seen over time is that getting historic districts passed is like an act of Congress. And if you know Congress, we haven't done much of anything in the last decade plus. I know that someone like Somerville has moved quickly and they have like, I think, 20 or 30 properties as single homeless star districts because they want to just protect the most important houses. So if you can work with the owners, it's not a bad thing to do, but we haven't done it much here. So it's, the jury is still out, but I don't, I never want to impose a district on an owner who's not willing to work with us on that. That doesn't seem fair as a homeowner myself, I would not want that to happen to me. So I think this is a reasonable design And we took our time making it right. And I think it's well done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Ryan, I would just like to have you wrap up this agenda item.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I just I'm not in favor of a district here. I think there are times building might be fully demolished and threatened and it's gone forever, or there's times where a building might be gutted beyond recognition and all integrity stripped down bare to its bones. But in this particular case, I think the particular alteration, as Doug said, follows the natural progression of what's going to happen to a building. You can't, you certainly can't let nothing happen to a building unless, you know, it's the houses are not necessarily museums, they're living entities, they change with the times, they change with styles and they change with our methods of living. So I think it's important to acknowledge that the homeowners have worked with us to do what we asked in the demo delay, which is to mitigate the demolition. So I think it's partially successful in that regard. So I think I'm in favor of moving this process along, but I'm not in favor of a district.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Ryan, thank you very much. Do we need to vote on this, do we think? I feel like our statements are pretty concrete here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think we just moved to release the demo delay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I'd like to move on to that agenda item next, officially, to vote to release demo delay. So I think Ryan, Doug, Peter, again, I think it's important here. Yeah. I think it might be worthwhile. To see if there's any public comments here as well. Yeah, I'm happy to, if there's anybody here that would like to speak one way or the other on 78 Cotting Street, happy to. I mean, again, we did receive two letters, so we did get public comment since our last meeting. So if anyone's here to speak specifically, I'm happy to just, you know, make, raise your hand or unmute yourself.
[Maryanne Adduci]: Hello?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, ma'am, can we get your name and address for the record, please?
[Maryanne Adduci]: Yeah, this is Mariana Ducey at 2 North Street. I'm one of the ones that sent the letter in. Okay. I just want to point out that last week's, well, yeah, I guess it was last week's Historic District Commission was canceled. So there was no meeting there. And the previous meeting was when they discussed the possibility of making 78 Carding Street a Historic District. And they discussed for a little while, and then they said, well, let's postpone this until we can discuss this further. So there really was not any public polling on this to see what the neighbors wanted. One of my neighbors communicated with the chair of the historic district commission, and he emailed back and said that, well, I think she asked, what's the chances of making this a single home historic district? And he responded that it would help if we had support from the neighborhood. But we hadn't moved to that point yet. So just I wanted to clarify that it's not that there wasn't enough support. I don't think we moved to that point to find out if there's enough support in the neighborhood.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you very much for that clarification. I think what we'll do on this matter is that I will send an email to the chair of the district commission, letting him know where our commission stands on this, and then he can take it from there because we don't have anything else to say with regards to creating the district, if somebody wants.
[Maryanne Adduci]: No, I know, I know, I realize that, but you brought it up tonight, so I thought I just wanted to clarify that, that it really never moved to the point of finding out if there was a neighborhood support for it. So I just wanted to clarify that, I guess.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Thank you very much for that. It's much appreciated.
[Maryanne Adduci]: OK. Thank you. Bye bye.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Let me share my screen so that we can talk about the drawings. And Ryan or Doug or Peter, I'll let you kind of take the lead on kind of narrating. what's here, and I'm not sure if I'm on the, tell me which page you want me to show. This is the basement, so I don't know that it's exciting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's the one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Peter, why don't you go ahead? Okay, well, so this is, so these dormers that you see here on the front, we have two gable dormers joined with a, a shed dormer in between. This is the sort of front facade, if you will, but this does not face Cotting Street. The house is oriented kind of parallel to Cotting Street. So this faces east, I believe. I'm not sure, or maybe it, I might have my compass direction messed up here, but. It faces away from Starbucks and Whole Foods, if that helps. And so I think, you know, we had gone through several iterations, one with three dormers, one with two like this. They had started off with just having a shed dormer straight across the front, which we didn't really think was appropriate. And then they had, on a second iteration, they had, gable dormers, but they had very shallow pitches, which we didn't feel really was appropriate for the house. So this is where we ended up. The middle window is the window that's on the stair landing that Fred Soule had a comment about.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So if you want to- And can you remind us what that comment was with regards to the window now that we can see it?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think he just wanted to make that smaller, that window. And it wasn't specific. I can read it for you if you want. Hold on a second. He said, My only suggestion would be to make the front elevation, second floor center window a bit more of a small feature window rather than another three over one double hung. But otherwise the revised design is a nice improvement. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And I just want to, cause I went back and looked at your hand sketches, Peter, and I was comparing it to the original house and I mean, personally, I'm concerned that we're losing the three peaks here that were in the original house. So I'm curious to hear from the subcommittee why they felt going from three to two is appropriate. And to me, that's a major exterior change that is significantly different.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Chime in guys, if I'm wrong here, I think it was a non-starter for the owner, but they had a strong preference for this scheme. And I think amongst, actually amongst the members of the demolition delay subcommittee, there was a slight difference of opinion, I will say. I liked this scheme better. I felt it was more unifying than the three. but I think others may have felt better about the three. So I just liked this one better. I felt that it unified the front facade better.
[Doug Carr]: Peter, if I could jump in here and the architect, I would want him to speak to it as well. But what I saw was what we really have in plan are two bedrooms and a hallway or a bathroom in between. And this is really a reflection of that plan. The three equal ones don't make sense when there are two big bedrooms, in a relatively narrow hallway or bathroom in between, which is what this is reflecting to a degree. But again, I'll turn it over to the architect who's got his hand raised if you want to fill more in on that, if you want.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, go ahead. And I'm sorry, can you repeat your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_02]: Sure. Thank you. I'm David Whitney. My address is 49 Linden Street in Arlington. I'm the architect working with the homeowners. And I would say, I think Doug hit it on the head. What you see is really a reflection of the spaces inside. The space between the two dormers is recessed, something that the subcommittee had asked for, just sort of a link between those two dormers. The window there is smaller than the others. It's not radically smaller, but it is smaller. And one of our concerns, in addition to what Doug said, is that three gables of this size would get awfully busy and crowded, especially if the plane is moving back and forth, something that the subcommittee and asked for. So I hope you like what we did.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just would also like to clarify that the chimneys are staying.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Thank you. I can't really see anybody because the way I'm sharing my screen, but I would just like to see if Jess or Ed had anything else to add here. No, thank you for the opportunity.
[Unidentified]: Not us.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. OK. All right, then let us go to a vote. Would someone like to make a motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to release the Cotting Street property from demolition delay based on the drawing submitted being submitted to follow the city for final permitting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Ed. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Jess. Okay, motion to vote, motion to release 78 Cotting Street from the 18 month demolition delay. Jessica? Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug? Yes. And Ryan? You're a no?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm a no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So that passes four to one.
[John Anderson]: Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And just to be clear, the permit will not get released until there is an actual permit in CitizenServe with the plans uploaded and confirmed that they are the same as we voted on tonight.
[SPEAKER_02]: Understood. I have a lot more detail to do, but I appreciate the work. Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you very much. Okay, we had one kind of late agenda item here, which was the Sarah Bradley Fulton Historic Marker, which I'm going to let Doug fill us in on.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm gonna actually turn it over to Laura Dugan in a minute, and I think John Anderson was here earlier, I'm not sure he still is.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I see his name.
[Doug Carr]: But Laura, why don't you try to summarize where everything's going? I do have your photos, historic map, And a couple other things, if we need to reference them, but why don't you give us the context, if you could. Jen, can you unmute her?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hold on. All right.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: Can you hear me? Yes. Can we get your name and address for the record, please? Yes. Laura Duggan, 31 Hickory Ave, Medford, Mass. OK, go ahead. Fulton Heights. Are you ready?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, go ahead.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: Well, it came to my attention about a month and a half ago or so that there was a significant memorial for a stone for Sir Bradley Fulton that was languishing at the DPW yard behind a fence. The reason I found out about it is that I was on a historical trolley that Chris Dunneman's organized. He pulled up to the DPW and I wondered why he was doing that. He's told me, he knows I'm into Sarah Bradley Fulton having a play about urns and organized a day for her. So he said, go behind that fence over there. So I did. I jumped off the trolley, went over and looked around and there was this beautiful stone languishing in the DPW yard followed by, surrounded by debris. that said it was supposed to be sitting at the side of her first house in Metford, which was near the Craddock Bridge on the south side, on the east, south of the bridge on the east side. And there it was. So at that point, I started researching, I contacted John Anderson, and I thought this was terrible that this beautiful stone was there. And we both did research. John has a map, but I also in her book written by Sarah's great great granddaughters did indicate that she thought it might have been by the police station. that was by the police station in Medford. And then I guess it got moved when they built the new one. Anyway, the point is, here's a picture. This is what I found when I went behind the fence. So it's obviously not available to people to see, but I didn't know about it. So it needs to be moved. Now, in contacting Commissioner Tim, he said that he's willing to move it if we get a new place that is documented as sitting approximately at the correct location of her first house. Her second house, by the way, was a farmhouse she bought that was situated about 260 Fulton Street, and they named it after her at her death. Anyway, I diverged. So anyway, Commissioner Tim said he would move it. So at this point, we started looking around. I really, I felt that the, it should be put in a place that fairly accurate where the house was because that's what's indicated on the, on the plaque of the monument, but I also thought felt that it should be accessible to pedestrians. And if you put it back at the police station which may or may not be correct. you cannot access it if you're a pedestrian. And I apparently, I got an email from Mayor Brianna today, and she said, oh, the police are willing to put it back there, but it would not be accessed by the public well there. It may not even be accurate to go there. It's to get to the police station, you have to cross a very dangerous street. And I don't think too many people wanna do that to go see it. And it's also, Most people that I've talked to feel like putting it by the police station or in front of it, I don't know where they want to put it, would not be appropriate. It wouldn't be accessible and it wouldn't be appropriate. So I did find an alternate location walking around there myself that is On the south of the bridge on the side, not far. It's just across and there's an area there. I don't know who owns that land. I did ask Commissioner Tim whether it's state or city owned, but it's it's basically I sent you a picture to Doug. I think of the new location. you might have there. I showed this new location to President of the Methodist Society, John Anderson, and he agreed that the new site would work quite nicely if we could put it there. It's accessible pretty easily by pedestrians. It could be included in a Methodist historical walk. D. Morris does a lot of those, plus we now have the historic trolley taken below. Anyway, Yeah, here's the site that I found. I walked around and it's a wide sidewalk and just by that tree, it's got a tree even already, a tree. You could put the stone there and I thought that would be viewed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Excuse me? So it's fundamentally on, you said the east side or the right or the west side of Main Street? It's the east side.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: Yeah, it's on the east side.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So it's the east side.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: Is this coming down from 16? No.
[Doug Carr]: It is. Yeah, but if you overlay a map of where the house was versus where it'd be today, it would be practically smack dab in the middle of Route 16. So we can't put it there. Correct.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: I think we all agree on that, right? Right.
[Doug Carr]: So I think Laura's making the appropriate choice that it's a little bit more friendly environment pedestrian-wise on the square side of Route 16 than the other side, which is a massive on-ramp, basically to 93.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no. No, no. Having walked by the former site regularly for the last few decades, and walking past this site for the next few decades, it's probably as good as you're going to get, and it's probably marginally safer for pedestrians, if there's such a thing as safety for pedestrians at that intersection. That's a fair point, Ed. You wouldn't know. You've lived there for many years. I just have a question about where this is located. Now, is this coming off of Route 16 before you hit Maine, or is this coming on to Route 16? That's a 16 west off ramp.
[Doug Carr]: If I would have pan left, Peter, five feet, you'd be looking at the river. I'm on the bridge.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: Yes. which would be very beautiful because you'd have it there and you have the river right behind you, you know, Mystic River there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: If this blue car takes a left, it goes under the bridge towards the mobile station.
[Unidentified]: Correct. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm just getting a sense of where this is. Okay. Thank you.
[Doug Carr]: So there's a bit of work to do here because it's near the river. It's going to have to have lots of approvals. This could be DCRL land, We've got a lot of work to do. We need to have a drawing that actually shows the exact location, which I think Laura and I and some other folks can pull together. And then we just got to kind of shop it around and get all the approvals we need. We just wanted a general sense of, is the commission okay with this direction that we're thinking? That's what we're looking for tonight. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I would say, yeah. I mean, anything to get it from behind a gate that nobody can get to, I think anything is better than that.
[John Anderson]: May I just chime in here for a moment?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, go ahead, John.
[John Anderson]: John Anderson, 102 Brook Street. If you look at the background of Ed Weiss, that's sort of the view you get. If you turn around, if you're facing the proposed memorial stone, and then you turn around to go back to the square and look to your left, you get a rather nice view down the river. similar to his background. So, I mean, that's another reason that I like this site. It's more connected with Medford Square.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's the neighborhood I took the picture.
[John Anderson]: Yeah. And that's a view of the river that you don't get just walking along High Street, unless you bother to step out on the pedestrian bridge there, which most people don't.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I have been asked if, although I think they're being overly kind, is if I was taking the picture in Amsterdam. So it is impressive to some people.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: No, no, it's a good picture. It's just, I took this picture, this particular one, yeah. But I just wanted to see what the board thinks about this proposal, too. Because it's not only to get it at a fairly accurate location where that house was, but secondly, that it's accessible to people, right?
[Doug Carr]: Agreed. Yeah, Laura, you have a support letter from the historical side from John Anderson. I think you're looking for a similar support letter from us, right? That would be good. That is true. Which I think we can vote on tonight. We can write that. I'd be happy to write that letter. And I think, again, the final piece a final sketch showing the exact location so we can give it to the mayor, give it to DPW, give it to anyone who needs it, store commission. Sorry, maybe the folks along the river, this is within 10 feet of the river, so we're probably gonna have to go through Heather Anderson to get this approved. DCR, but the metric divorce as well. There's a few other hurdles here, but I think we're heading in the right direction.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: Oh, good.
[Denis MacDougall]: Hey, Jen. Yes. Okay. Um, just to this actual stretch of the road is actually controlled by DOT, not DCR. It's, it's only when you get further down into the other light on the other side, the other crosswalk light, which switches back over to DCR. But for, in terms of, in terms of actually a filing for the river, it depends on what you're doing. If you're just actually putting it down on the ground and sort of making it nice, it probably might not even require a filing site. I staffed the conservation commission. So with that, I'll be able to help you all out with that. Great.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Dennis. That's super helpful. That's Dennis McDougall at City Hall.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: McDougall. OK.
[Doug Carr]: Dennis has a lot of different hats he wears.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: OK. So you can help us with that. That would be grand. Yeah. So shall we make a motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: move that the commission advise any powers that be of the approval of the general concept of the relocation of the Sarah Bradley Fulton monument. Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, we'll do a roll call vote for that motion that Ed just said. To support, to support the moving of the Sauer Bradley Fulton historical marker to wherever the most appropriate home will be to be determined. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed. Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jess. Yes. And I'm not sure if Ryan is back. He had messaged me that he's stepping away for a minute.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Back. Okay. I'm just going to recuse myself from this vote. Not going to vote yes or no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So we have four, a four, four in favor, one abstention for the minutes, Peter.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[John Anderson]: Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you both. Thanks for coming. Thank you so much.
[SxgiOOMwDHY_SPEAKER_23]: I appreciate your support.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug, do you want to stop screen share?
[Adam Hurtubise]: You got it. And the final words of that were support the moving of the Sarah Bradley Fulton historical marker to the most
[Jennifer Keenan]: to the appropriate location determined by many departments, something to that effect. I think Ed stated it much more eloquently than I have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All the powers that be. Are we saying that this is the most appropriate location, like near the corner of Main Street and the Route 16 West off-ramp?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Assuming we don't get approval.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, we're saying it's appropriate north of Route 16 adjacent to the Mystic River, along an existing sidewalk, which is already handicap accessible.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right.
[Doug Carr]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Don't say that twice.
[Doug Carr]: Could be the longest motion ever.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh my goodness, right? Okay. Moving on to old business. Well, I was gonna update on the new member search, but apparently the mayor has appointed us a new member. So Joseph, welcome. And I apologize, I had no idea that this has happened. I had no communication. Otherwise I would have gotten you set up with our documents to be able to vote tonight, but we'll obviously make sure that happens in the next time here before our next meeting. And welcome to the commission. I'd love to hear a little bit about yourself. And you've been observing tonight, which might be the first time you've observed our meeting. So happy to hear any thoughts that you have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hi, how you doing? Appreciate that. I've observed a few. So I live over on 43 Winter Street. I'm a carpenter. I went to Wentworth Institute of Technology. Graduated with a construction management degree. I'm a real estate broker. I own my own company running realty. I also work full-time as a carpenter and a owner of a construction company, AR Ronin & Sons. I love historic rooms. I've been a carpenter since I was 15 years old, and I love working on old buildings and keeping them original and nice.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. I definitely think we could use your expertise, especially with our architects here on board. I know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I feel that I'm probably going to learn more from you guys than you will from me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I doubt that. I doubt that at all. Well, welcome. We're very glad to have you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We'll make sure we'll get you all set up. And then I'll get you on our email.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's excellent.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. All right. Welcome. Okay, I'm moving on. So, we have two items to discuss with properties under currently under demo delay 69 Jerome Street and 15 Hadley place. 69 Jerome Street. It is my understanding that the subcommittee has come to somewhat of a good place on that one. And we weren't ready to vote tonight I'd like to give the public just a chance to comment on any updated designs. Ryan are those on our website yet. Okay, so we'll get them up on our website so that, and we'll plan to vote next month to lift the delay. But I don't know if Peter or Doug or Ryan have any, you just want to share the conversations you had with the homeowners on that one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I haven't seen any updated drawings yet either. Did I miss those?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think they're in the email. I'll circulate them. I apologize. That's my bad.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I haven't seen the updated ones. I will reserve comment, but for myself, I was pretty good with the design they had. I mean, I'm glad we looked at it, but I was pretty happy with the direction that they were taking for me personally. And we just need to get some insurances that they were going to replicate that detail accurately. But and I'll reserve comment till I see the final design, but we didn't have. I mean, again, I don't want to speak for the other commissioners, but I didn't have that much that I needed to have changed on the design.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: My bad.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'll make sure to put those in the Google Drive. Just save everybody an email, but I'll let you know when they're there so you can look at them.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug or Ryan, did you have anything else to add on 69 Jerome?
[Unidentified]: I did not.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, great. All right, so we'll get those on our website. Any comments that will come in in the next month, just to make sure that we're covering all our bases. Otherwise, we will put that on the agenda next month to vote, to lift, assuming that everybody is happy with what happens there. Next is 15 Hadley Place. We received an email from their attorney asking us to lift the delay early. They are up next month. Apparently now they're saying that they're not going to touch the original house. Um, you know, they did send over some plans. Um, I'm not sure how folks think about this. I mean, it's been 17 months with zero communication from this property owner. And I don't understand why at this point one month will make a difference.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could speak to that Kathleen Desmond for Frank Capone. It's not so much that one month would make a difference and certainly I did ask for that. But I think that the issue here is that this is a fairly big parcel of land. It's over 10,000 square feet and originally the direction that Mr. Capone was going to take the project was to create substantially more units than what he is now intending on doing. At this point, what he's looking at is a five unit project, which doesn't require going through the major development process that would trigger a six unit. So the plan is to create three units, keep the existing home at 15 Hadley Place, and make that a duplex so that then you have five units, three additional units plus two in the other. I didn't want to just not communicate with the board once he decided to do that. It's kind of a Hobson's choice at that point. I understand what you're saying, but this hasn't been a situation where this has been in the works. He was contemplating a much larger project and has decided to downsize that to five units. So I wanted the board to have it. I did throw in that, you know, perhaps with the fact that he's not touching it, that that could occur. but I did want the board to think that we weren't sharing at this point. He's made it a different approach in terms of design. And actually this is quite a bit of legal work that has to go on before that occurs because it's registered in unregistered land. So I'm not even quite sure that the design is exactly where he wants to keep it, but I wanted to share it with the board when we had it so that you would have it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to find that the owner has not made a continuing and bona fide effort, and therefore we should not lift the delay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, is there a second on that? Thank you, Doug. Okay, so we have a motion on the table that the owner of 15 Hadley Place has not made a certified and bona fide effort to work with the commission and therefore the ask is not to lift the demo delay. So I just wanna make sure.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could respond to that first. Sure, go ahead. You know, this wasn't, The regulations indicate that you can wait and serve out the delay. But when the project was gonna be minimized to something that actually preserved the home, which literally happened two months ago, the design was put together. We had some stuff to do in terms of registered and unregistering the parcel. I thought that the board would be happy that the intent of the petitioner was to preserve existing dwelling which is in fact being preserved in its entirety with the exception of you know, making it a duplex rather than a single. So the entire structure itself that the board intended to be preserved is in fact being preserved. And I wanted the board to see that prior to the demo delay expiring as a right, which was what my process of thinking was in bringing it forward to the board. It wasn't an attempt to, you know, move around the board at all. It was a situation where my client decided, I'm going to keep the house. I'm going to include it in my design. And, and we brought that forward to the board once he made a determination to go to five minutes clarification before we get to that.
[Doug Carr]: Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I just, I just want to make a point that. I do really appreciate that he is going the route of trying to save this building and working it into his new design. However, I'm also taking into account that nearly 16 months ago, we did try several times with several emails to engage this homeowner. finally had a Zoom call, met with their architect after multiple tries to meet with them, and then they threw their hands up at that time. And, you know, we really wanted to see him move forward nearly 16 months ago. And, you know, I know he was, you know, he did say, and he shrugged saying, you know, I don't know what I'm going to do with the building. And I didn't know what I was going to do at that time. And we really wanted to engage him to move him along. knowing that he should be able to do something with this property, but he chose not to engage. We made every effort to engage. So I'm factoring that in 100% to our decision that we did not hold him up for 18 months here and that he held himself up. And I don't think the one month is gonna make a difference at this point.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I'm not asking, as I said at the outset, I put that in my email, but the demo delay does expire and if I take your motion is what I hear you saying you're moving to not allow him out of the demo delay as of next month. And that's not what this is. And, you know, I was involved literally two to three months ago, when he made the decision that in fact, he was going to maintain the building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And, and why are we just hearing about it now, it would have been helpful to get that message two to three months ago, and not get a week before the meeting and expect to be lifted.
[Kathleen Desmond]: The drawings weren't complete at that point. And my email wasn't, it was a request as to whether the board would consider an early release. Certainly, I wasn't expecting that the board would jump at that. And I wanted the board to have the drawings in the event that they didn't want to release it. until the demo delay was in force in effect. But these drawings are still somewhat a work in progress. He's going back to the architect with regard to some of the designs of the remaining building. But I wanted you to have what he had prior to the demo delay releasing. Because it is in a situation where You know he wants to retain the building, he's put a design together that retains it which is what I thought that the commission would be happy to see. I do think that he struggled between whether or not he wanted to move to a much larger development and wait out the delay, or do something less than that. And as it turns out it's not going to save him any time. in that event anyway, but he's gone with a design which incorporates the existing building. And I wanted the board to be able to see that and to provide that to the board. The one month delay, whether that comes or goes, isn't determinative here, but I wanted to show the board prior to the demo delay being released by operation that in fact, he has decided to retain the building and to make it a duplex rather than a single.
[Doug Carr]: Attorney Desmond, I appreciate that. I guess I don't think we can lift it because right now there are no plans to supersede it, right? I don't doubt you're telling us the truth, but we actually don't physically have the plans if I'm honest that would would show that, right? They're not ready.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I did submit the plans.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm sharing the screen right now, but you're saying that these aren't final. So we wouldn't be able to vote on them.
[Kathleen Desmond]: In terms of the design of the building itself, I think with regard to the windows, he was going to talk with the architect. He wasn't completely pleased with that look, and he may want to change that. With regard to the existing structure, he's not making any changes to that other than to make that a duplex so that will be two units and then there'll be three units um attached it's hard for us to make a determination on plans that aren't uh you know solidified or that could change you know it's uh you know well i i thought the important part was to bring before the board that he does in fact intend to keep the structure um in his design and not change it. And what I'm trying to say is we got the plans to you so you'd have them, because I didn't want to be in a situation where you thought that we held the plans until after the demo delay. I appreciate that. And that's why I wanted to bring that forward. But he really did struggle with whether or not he would wait out the delay and go with a bigger building. or do this. And in the end, he decided that the five units, which doesn't get you to the major development project was a simpler, better move for him. And in that analysis, he decided to keep the existing home.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you, Judith.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Desmond. I would just like to state one more thing that he had every right to hold his plans if he had intended to wait out the 18 months. So he was not obligated. And I understand he's sharing this with us. But if his intention was to wait out the full 18 months, he did not have to share with us anything at ever. Because after 18 months, he can do whatever he wants.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, except for that, it doesn't You know, I encourage my clients to share their plans if they're in a demo delay, because I don't want to be in a situation where it, it's the wrong or inappropriate look. So when he had solidified what he wanted to do, and it intended to retain the existing dwelling. I thought it best to get the plans over to the historical commission. I'm second guessing myself to a degree right now, but it was my recommendation that he put forward the plans to the board, so that they were aware that he intended to keep the dwelling that currently exists on the property. And that too.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I do appreciate that. And I think that was good that he did that with you. I just think, I don't know if he told you that we tried to engage with him originally and that there was just a total breakdown. Not that we couldn't agree on anything. It was just that he wouldn't engage with us with multiple emails saying, hey, we're going to meet. We're going to meet. So, you know.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think, Ryan, the difficulty The difficulty with that is until you know what you're going to do, you don't want to spend the cost on design.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I agree.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I agree. So I think it wasn't a situation. I know you were reaching out to him. I wasn't involved in that time. But I know that he struggled with what he wanted to do in this instance, whether it be a larger project or a project of this size. And he settled on this size project. And when the plans were done, we put them forward. You know, it's a cost factor. I mean, you don't want to, you know, go through the architectural plans because attorneys and architects aren't cheap. And, you know, at the end of the day, you don't want to do that until you're certain what you want to do. And he came to a resolution that he was going to incorporate the existing dwelling into his plans, make it a five-unit building so that he didn't have the added cost of the engineering and whatnot, which goes along with the major development project.
[Doug Carr]: Attorney Desmond, are the buildings connected or are they separate?
[Kathleen Desmond]: They're connected.
[Doug Carr]: They are, okay.
[Kathleen Desmond]: They are.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I would just like to say to Attorney Desmond, I very much appreciate that you brought this to us and I don't want you to think that we don't. And I know that we have a very good working relationship between you and our commission. So I would never wanna discourage you not to bring something before us. So I do appreciate that. I just wanna say that. All right, I'd like to simplify this motion. We can just make a motion to lift the delay or not, if somebody wants to make that, and then we'll vote.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have to say, unless someone wants to move to lift with the expectation of X no votes, it's either going to expire some date in July or it's not. I mean, I have a motion at all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We'll move the original question. I'm sorry, Ryan, say that again.
[Adam Hurtubise]: He said, I will move the original question. To not lift the delay? Motion, yep. As stated.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, I just want to make sure that a yay vote means we're not lifting the delay. Yep. Okay. So there's a motion on the table from Ryan to not lift the delay. Is there a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: There is a second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I second. I apologize. Okay. Roll call vote. Peter. A yay vote does not lift the delay. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Present.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Is that a yes or a no?
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's an abstain. Okay, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica? Yes. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? Ryan, I can't hear you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so that is three yes, a no, and an abstention. Right. So the demo delay is not lifted at 15 Hadley Place.
[Kathleen Desmond]: But I guess some clarification as to whether that means as to this month, or are we talking- The delay is through our next meeting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So on- Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm sorry? July 11th per the agenda. Yes, so July 12th, it'll expire.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you everybody. Is there anything else with regards to properties under demo delay? Have any other updates? Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just a point of clarification.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There was a note earlier from Miss Catalo about 33 Third Street. I just want to make a clarification in that regard that the city of Medford did try to engage with the homeowner on that to try to scale back her proposed development we certainly encourage development there. Just not in its current form, we encouraged, certainly, a look at a more suitable design that fits the neighborhood, and the homeowner has decided not to engage in that process and to wait out 18 months. So I just want to make it clear that the commission does try to engage with homeowners and encourage their architects to go in a direction that mitigates demolition, but not everybody chooses to participate. So we try to make sure that we engage, but we can't force somebody to change their design. So in that regard, I just wanted to clarify that one particular thing and make sure that it's known that that bill. We also did try to engage with 75 South street and there was some back and forth there, but then the communication stopped. So we're not sure where things went there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Correct. Thank you. I would also like to add on 33 third street that the building commissioner is not approving their plans either because they have way too many bedrooms for the lot or whatever the coverage is. So even if we were okay with what they were building, the building department, it is not allowed. So I will leave that at that. Okay. Permits subcommittee and processes and general update on permits. Things are moving along well. Obviously, you know, our agenda tonight is a reflection of the things that are coming before us through the permitting system. So all is good there. Mr. Moki, the building commissioner has retired. He retired right before Memorial Day weekend. He sent me a lovely note thanking us for our hard work and was really glad to work with us as closely as we did for the past two years. So we wish him very much very well on his retirement and a nice retirement. And it is my understanding there is no commissioner in place as of yet. And as soon as I know what is happening there, I will let you guys know. Okay, CPA projects.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, I just have a question, which is how will that will that affect the permitting process? Like, is there anything that gets delayed or affected while that position remains vacant?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm not sure. I mean, I know that the building inspectors and the code enforcement team, none of those folks have changed. As far as I understand, they're all still in their positions. I'm not sure if the plan is to promote from within or if they're gonna hire somebody outside the city to replace the commissioner. As far as I can see on our permitting system and the way that we're approving permits and working with them, nothing really has changed. If we have a question on something, we typically email the person in charge of the file and ask some questions and whatnot. So, so far, we haven't had any changes, but we'll see how that evolves over the next few months, I would assume. I'm sure the building department is feeling, you know, cause I think they were a little understaffed to begin with. And I think being down the head commissioner is probably you know, not making things move any faster over there. So, you know, we'll do our part to help them and keep things moving on our end. Okay, CPA project. So today was the first day of our archaeological dig at Thomas Brooks Park. We had 25 volunteers to volunteer to help us. We did have a few folks drop out. I think we were down to about 18 but we had a nice group this morning come for orientation. We had two architects from PAL out of Rhode Island who are leading the dig. And we had four volunteers working with them today. And then Ryan and I were there kind of intermittently as well. Well, Ryan was there all day. I was in and out. We already found some amazing finds in the dirt between pottery and nails and a button made of bone and some fun bricks. So it was an amazing day and we will be out there all week from about 8 a.m. to 3, 4 o'clock. So if your schedule allows and you want to pop over and see an active dig and process, come on by. There are no shorter, no quantity of observers that are not welcome. We would love to have you guys. We're taking lots of pictures, of course, for the record and for social media. And then Ryan is working on, we did get a bid for the Fieldstone wall, and Ryan is working with that vendor to shore up some of their qualifications just to make sure that they are indeed what we're looking for to work on that project. And then hopefully that one will get awarded soon as well. Did I miss anything on that, Ryan? I can't hear you, was that a no?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right, so that is the CPA update. Ryan, any update on the survey projects?
[Adam Hurtubise]: They're moving.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is helping me, I'm gonna work late into the midnight hours to get stuff done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right, good. And then we are working with Alicia and Community Development just to shore up our budget for next year. I'm sure you guys have heard there's budget meetings this week. We did get a question on our budget because we are requesting that our budget get raised. I think, was it 3,000, Ryan? Yeah. Because we got an increase in some grant money that we have to match. So I need to send a letter to the Committee of the Whole just to explain that. increase because I'm sure as everybody's heard, everybody's budgets are supposed to remain flat this year. So.
[Doug Carr]: Ben, did you know if the historic district commission got an increase? Cause they were talking, I was talking with them, not them, but the people in city hall about getting resources to help them develop historic districts and they getting those resources equals money. And I don't know, do you know anything about that or has that not happened?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't, I don't. Ryan, have you heard anything? Nope. No, I don't know. I mean, I didn't even know the budget hearings were happening. And then of course we get an email out of the blue, like, can you come to the committee of the whole meeting on Wednesday? And I'm like, uh, let me work on that. Although I think as of now, we don't have to go. I think we're going to send a written statement and we'll go from there. Jess, go ahead.
[Jenny Graham]: So you haven't seen, have you seen the budget for the commission for FY 23 yet? The proposed budget from the mayor for the commission?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I, it might have been in the email. I don't know that I opened the attachment because typically our budget, our budget does typically stay flat. I mean, we have to get the grant match, but it's usually, I mean, it's within a couple thousand dollars. Typically it's not, we don't get these like massive increases. So Ryan, correct me if I'm wrong, is our budget 30, 30,000 or 35,000? Hold on. Let me see if it's in the email.
[Jenny Graham]: Um, was there a reason just that you were asking, like, well, my understanding is that no, no departments will get any increases this year. So I'm wondering if we don't get that $3,000 increase, how will that affect our budget? And, um, will that affect the grants that we have that we need clarification?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Go ahead. So our current budget is 35,000. Our proposed budget is 38,000. Back when I had the mayor sign off on the application to Fulton Heights, it was mandated that they certify that they have secured funding for that project in this amount and that they are required to provide that funding. So they're required to provide this funding, whether they pull it out of Our normal budget or what is another thing but they're required to come up with the increased match and, you know, last year there was a jump from $16,000 to $17,000 and now it's $16,000 to $18,000 because they missed last year's jump. So they're just playing catch up basically for this increase. So I do understand that the city council is challenging everything because they're coming up with budget shortfalls, but the mayor has to come up with this money. So it's her request to meet the demand for the grant that she signed that we were awarded. I would like to think that they would.
[Jenny Graham]: With the money, the 38 just covers the matching grant funds for the next year, not additional foreign bees and things like that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Correct, because it's really, isn't it? It's like half and half, like the budget.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 18,000 of that 38,000 is for the state match. So they are giving us an additional 18,000. So the city has to expend money, but they get some of that money back. And we're a certified local government, so we apply every year because we're guaranteed to get that money, basically. So by not applying, we're losing out.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So in essence, Jess, our budget does stay flat every year. It's only the grant that changes. But the budget for the Form Bs and our subscriptions and our kind of administrative things that we have doesn't change.
[Jenny Graham]: I'll be at the hearing on Wednesday. if there's anything that I need to share. And then I would recommend that if there's any questions that people have to send them into the Councilors so they can ask about it on behalf of the commission.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Yes, the last we heard from the mayor's office was that we should just, we just need to send in a written statement explaining that it's a grant match and otherwise there's really nothing else to be said about our, they're either gonna give it to us or they're not.
[Jenny Graham]: So the proposed budget that the mayor proposed was 38?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Okay. Yes, it's here in our email. So $38,050 technically, exactly. And last year's was $35.50.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And the, the, the fiscal year 22 actuals that they're showing shows that we're not spending the money but we, we really are maxing out our budget so you know the actually reflect what what is being spent so perhaps that's why the city council has questions.
[Jenny Graham]: I just had questions because I heard that no, no department would get any increases that they requested this year. So I was concerned that we wouldn't have enough to have the matching grant, but you definitely cleared all that up. So, and it sounds like she proposed the increased budget from last year. So that actually isn't true. Like not all, I guess, not all departments got a level budget from last year.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, thank you, thank you. I think this was a good, it's always a good discussion to have about budgets, just which they started earlier in the year sometimes. Okay, I don't think, based on that, I don't think we have any local historic district updates. I think otherwise, if there's no other business, then we can just approve the meeting minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to approve the minutes of the last meeting by the secretary.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. OK, motion to approve the minutes from our May 2022 meeting. Jessica? Yes. Peter? I'll skip Peter since you, well, you're muted.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The dog was barking, sorry. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I was going to say, you wrote them, so I'm pretty sure you're probably going to approve them.
[Doug Carr]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Doug Carr]: I want to hear the dog barking. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan. Yes. Okay. Minutes past five zero. There's no other business. I will take a motion to adjourn. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Ed. Okay. Motion to adjourn. Jess. Yes. Peter. Yes. Ed. Yep. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Thank you everybody. See you next month. Adios. Not sooner.