[Jennifer Keenan]: 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. Tonight we are going to start off with a preferably preserved hearing for 69 Jerome Street. Just to recap how we got here tonight. Last month, we voted on significance for 69 Jerome Street. The property was voted historically significant. And I'll just remind everybody what that means very quickly. It means it is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or Commonwealth, or that 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 group buildings. So tonight we are going to decide whether or not 69 Jerome Street is preferably preserved and an 18-month demolition delay put on the property. And what does preferably preserved means? It means that the commission has determined after an open public hearing that demolition of the building under review would be detrimental to the architectural or historical heritage of the city of Medford. And as we like to remind everybody, we do 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 make such a determination. Okay, so any of my commissioners, would somebody like to make a motion one way or the other with regards to 69 Jerome Street?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ryan motion defined 69 Jerome street preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Is there a second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can second it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Okay, Ryan if you want to jump off the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm particularly interested in this building because it's a Moses Mann building. Moses Mann was a really prolific architect in West Medford during the initial period of construction of what is known as the Smith Estate right up until about the 1890s. And unlike the development of today, he was a developer who both lived and worked in this neighborhood. And he built these fantastic examples of Victorian era architecture. And for that reason, I feel, you know, there's only a handful of them that are really well preserved such as this. There's a couple also that we'll be looking at on Boston Ave later tonight. So for that reason, I'm interested in seeing this building preserved and rehabilitated rather than demolished in its current scheme.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I concur with that. And I think the building has some very nice detailing on it that is still existing. And I think it'd be a shame to lose that. It's a very unique property. There's really nothing like it that I've seen in the city that has this kind of detail. on it. So I would like to see that preserved in its original state. And maybe we can work that into the new proposal somehow. That's basically it for me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Doug, I see you next on my screen. I'll go to you next.
[Doug Carr]: I think Jen, I concur with both Peter and Ryan that I think this building, um, you know, based on the evidence of the form B based on the existing details, it's, it's a unique building in Medford. It's not. Um, like a center colonial, we might have a couple of hundred of those all over Medford. This one is something that I have not seen reproduced anywhere in Sydney. So it's uniqueness to me alone qualifies it for a closer look and evaluation of how it's going to be altered and see if we can. reserve as much of it as you can. I have not looked at any of the proposal drawings. I'm just commenting on the building itself, but I concur with my fellow members of the commission. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. And yeah, and I'll just remind folks in the audience that our decisions are based on the property as it stands. And we typically don't look at what is going to be happening to the building or to any building until after a determination has been made, either for significance or for preferably preserved status. Jessica, anything to add for 69 Jerome Street?
[Jenny Graham]: Just that it was mentioned that it had significance in African-American history and the potential historic district around that history in Medford, I thought was also something that I'm not sure if anyone else has mentioned. But yeah, I agree with the other commissioners. There are several architectural details that seem like they should be preserved. So I agree with my commissioners.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Ed, anything to add for 69 Jerome Street?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't have anything. I'll wait the discussion, but I understand understand the position people are taking. I have read the form B. OK, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: At this time, I'd like to welcome comments from the owner and their team, and then once they have a chance to speak, I'll be happy to open it up for public comments. If you would like to make a comment, feel free to either raise your hand or make yourself known, and I will call on you. But I know Sid and Yale, if you'd like to say anything, please, the floor is yours.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, good evening, everybody. My architect Yale has already looked into this, the comments made by them, and she has drafted in what we feel like in accordance with the current architecture. Maybe, Yale, you want to
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, hi. So you said you haven't looked at the proposal, but the proposal that we sent assumed that the details are important. So we saw those and we tried to work with them, not only in that building, but in the whole development, also in the building behind which we propose on the long block. So one question I have is how much do we need to keep and how much can we replicate to match what it was there? That's one thing. Two more things I want to mention. One of them is the height. So part of the idea of developing this lot is just getting more square footage on it. So who is adding a building in the back but also this building doesn't have a potential of an attic finish or something like this because of the shape and the height of the roof. So what I proposed was building a full second story and having an attic above with the same shape of the roof and the same detailing but getting a little bit more basically getting a bigger building. Instead of the basement I will just remind in this building is very very low it's not something that we can finish and develop into into living space. So that's one more thing I want to discuss and the last one that I want to discuss I know that you always are very. a concern with keeping the windows facing the street. And I just want to mention why the facade is special, I understand for you. There's one window there that, you know, is really not going to work for me. So it's a bathroom window that may have been a window before, but it kind of is smaller and has kind of a like glass blocks around it or something like this, I have to look it again at the facade. But that specific window, even if we determine that we want to keep the facade the way it is and the building the way it is, I would just really want to change that window if possible.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Adam chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I just, um, I do think that those questions might be, um, relevant to a later discussion if we have it, but I think at this point they're irrelevant to determining whether or not the building is in the interest to preserve the preserver rehabilitate rather than demolish.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. I agree. I think we, you know, right now we're just focusing on the existing building and, you know, those questions, you know, will can be tackled in subcommittee when we're talking about lifting any demolition, you know, delay that happens. You know, the the goal of our process is to mitigate any and all demolition. So, you know, when it comes to you know, increasing roof sizes and moving windows, you know, this is why you're here. So again, these aren't discussions we can have ahead of time. You know, the goal is to have as little impact on the existing structure as possible. And, you know, it's not about maximizing the lot or the square footage or getting every dollar out of the project. That's not something that you know, necessarily is something that we're concerned about. Those are, that's between the owner and his project and their numbers, but that's not something that is of our concern, frankly. So, you know, that is something that needs to be taken into consideration when buildings are acquired and what are you going to do with them?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_00]: Understood. I just want to, you know, these are things that I'm looking at, right, on my end. So I'm just telling you the concerns. And just understanding how much that when you say preserve is really preserve the original or just, you know, having the same image in a new, you know, construction.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and that's very, it's very property specific, you know, that's nothing that we can answer today in that respect. You know, anytime I think we can pay homage to the building that's there, whether it's, you know, using updating materials or, you know, things that are just a little bit more environmental friendly, you know, from a maintenance standpoint, you know, those are certainly things that I think the subcommittee is open to and, you know, if and when we get to the point of talking about mitigating demolition and moving the project along quicker than 18 months, which is always our goal. You know, we don't want to see anybody sitting for 18 months unless they want to be. And that has happened. But I, you know, I know that we've worked together with you and Sid, and I know that that's not your goal. So we'll, I feel confident we'll, you know, there'll be some good conversations about this one. Are there any public comments for this project that anybody here tonight would like to speak of? I'm not seeing anybody raising their hand. I'm not, anybody would like to take themselves off or turn their camera on and wave. I will, no, going once, going twice. Um, okay. Um, all right, we will close the public comments then, um, uh, commissioners, if anybody has any final thoughts. Uh, based on the conversation with, uh, sit in Yale or anybody, anything else that anyone said we can, uh, otherwise we'll go around for a final vote, I guess, just cause I'm not on the subcommittee.
[Jenny Graham]: So I just wanted to share that. I'm, I hope that. you know, the architecture can be preserved at the same time that the land may be able to be used for, you know, more people. Increasing the number of units is definitely, you know, of interest, I think, but I do agree with, I will be voting to, you know, for this property to be preferably preserved, but I hope that both things can happen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Thank you, Jess. And I'll just, just for the folks that don't know, you know, we try to move things along in subcommittee with the owners once there's a preferably preserved status, but then certainly things will come, you know, once they're to the point where I think everyone's happy, it comes back before the commission. Everything will be reviewed. The rest of the commissioners have a chance to make a, um, you know, determination and it will be voted on finally by the full commission. So, so don't want you to think just that, you know, you wouldn't have a say if it, you know, certainly you're important and we appreciate you. So yes. Okay. Any commissioners, anything else?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move the question.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm sorry, Ryan, what?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I said I moved the question, which means take the vote.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, sorry. I got a, there was something in the chat, I got distracted. Okay, so on, so we have a motion to find 69 Jerome Street preferably preserved that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica. Yes. Ed, I saw your chat. Ed, I'm gonna ask you to vote regardless, and we'll discuss offline. I don't know if you can hear me. Okay, well, regardless, we have a 4-0 decision for 69 Jerome Street for preferably preserved, so that will pass. And then Yale and Sid, we will get to you in subcommittee and start moving things along for you. Thank you, everybody.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right, moving right along to the rest of our agenda. We have a packed agenda tonight. So we have two, four, five. demolition applications that we are taking for tonight. So I'd like to just go through those commissioners and we'll get those in so that we can move right along to our significance hearings, which are next. Um, let's call 20 Otis Street. This is for the, uh, garage slash carriage house only. Uh, this is a total demolition commissioners. You have, uh, the application in our Google drive and I will take a vote when someone is ready or excuse me, a motion when someone's ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: A motion to find the paperwork in order for 20 Otis street and to accept that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan and Peter. Okay, motion to accept the application for 20 Otis Street Carriage House. I will take a roll call vote. Ryan? Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica? Yes. And Ed, I'm gonna ask you to vote and again, we'll talk offline if you can hear me. Okay, Ed's having some technical. I can hear you, yes. Oh, thank you, Ed. Okay, so we'll call that 5-0-4-20 Otis Street. Ryan, we'll do the form Bs at the end. Okay. Next up is 62-64 Bradbury Avenue, again, for a demolition application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is a demolition application that was submitted, but if it were in permitting process, we would have passed on the review based on the scope of work. So I make a motion that the commission pass on review for this building. The understanding is that it is not proposing work, which is within jurisdiction.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Correct.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. OK, 62-64 Bradbury Avenue. The motion is to pass on review. Ryan? Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica? Yes. And Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. OK. Okay, next up, 76 Sharon Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: In order, motion to approve.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. 76 Sharon Street, motion to accept demolition application. Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. And Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, everybody. And okay, 136 Boston Avenue. This is a project that the building department stopped because it should have come before us for review. But again, so we're starting the process here. There is an application and some photos of where the building stands now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to accept as to form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Thank you, Ryan. 136 Boston Avenue accepting the demolition application. Ryan. Ryan. Sorry, I couldn't hear you. Peter.
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Doug Carr]: I live down the street, so I'm going to recuse myself.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Jessica. Yes. And Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so that is a 4-0 acceptance. Okay, and lastly, we have 4054 Mystic Valley Parkway. This is for a high-rise lab space, if I'm recalling correctly.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it's for the demolition of the existing one-story brick building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: To be replaced. Yes, to be replaced by lab space.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, yes, sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: To approve application.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, Peter, Peter, I heard Peter first. Okay, 4054 Mystic Valley Parkway. Motion to accept the demolition application. Ryan? Yes. Peter?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Doug Carr]: I'm recusing myself.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Got it. Jessica? Yes. And Ed? C, yes. Thank you, Peter. Thank you, Ed. And just to be clear, Doug is accusing himself because his firm is doing the project. So thank you, Doug. Okay, moving along. We have one, two, three, four significance hearings tonight. Just to reiterate for the crowd, we have received, last month we took in four demolition applications for the properties we will discuss in a moment. And tonight we are going to have their significance hearings. And just again, to remind folks real quick what that means. It 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 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. Our consultant has prepared Form Bs for the next four properties we will discuss. The Form Bs are all found on our website if anyone watching would like to review them or read about them. So we're gonna start with 52 Alston Street. So commissioners, I will take a motion when someone is ready. a motion for significance or a motion to not vote significance?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think a motion that 52 Alston Street is significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: To get it on the table.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I could second that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not sure how I'm going to vote.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Ryan, did you want to start the discussion? And I don't know if you are intending to vote it down or not. I mean, obviously you don't have to answer that, but let's at least start the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's an older version of a Victorian end house, small. It's got a lot of articulation. It's got changes, dormers of different regions. Looks like one's original, one's not. It's got nice, bays to kind of express the floor plan. But it's a, it's a less, less well preserved building than we have seen in the past. So I'm inclined to shoot this particular property down, given how many of these types of houses exist. Although I could be swayed if there's made by my fellow commissioners.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Peter, would you like to add anything? I know you would.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, I'm kind of in the same boat with Ryan here. It's, it's, it's got some nice, it's, it's a nice feeling house. It's They think this side bay, John Clemson thinks a side or a dormer near to the front might be original. And the bays are nice and stuff. I thought that the history was interesting. He recommends it for listing in the National Register. But that's based on creating a historic district for this little development area that happened pretty early on. And it seemed like the most significant thing he talked about for the architecture or whatever was that the guy who was the surveyor was important, Alexander Wadsworth's character, who I guess Did a lot of surveying and he was also landscape architect and worked on some important properties, but I don't know. I don't think he was designed the house. So even though he was a significant landscape architect, the fact that he surveyed the subdivision, I don't think that's particularly compelling, I guess. So I am on the fence about this one. I probably won't go for it, but. I'm on the fence. Anyway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: I'm not on the fence. I'm leaning against for the reasons described earlier. I don't think it rises to the level of something we want to plant a flag on. and die on that hill floor. And there's plenty of houses in Medford that I think would fall into that category. It's a nice house. And I, again, I don't know what's being proposed for it. Is it a complete demo or?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's not, I think it's mostly a roof change to get more square footage, you know, kind of comparable to what we see sometimes.
[Doug Carr]: And we've seen a dozen of those this year alone, I think. So yeah, I'm pretty much inclined to say we'll pass on this one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Jessica, anything on yours up front?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, nothing really jumped out in this one in the history or architecture, similar to what Ryan said. It's not exceptionally preserved, and there's lots of other examples out there that are better preserved. And so that's mostly what I was thinking. I was glad to hear my commissioners have similar thoughts because I wasn't sure if I was just kind of missing something junior commissioner here, but yeah, I agree with my colleagues.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much. And Ed, any final thoughts?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Again, we're in the sort of, we need to raise the roof line, but it is also, again, it is not pristine to begin with. It is in an area where, again, from a social history point of view, you see houses changing, even if they stay in the same foundation. So I don't think significance is of any great measure here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Yeah, and really the only thing that I saw, you know, that really kind of caught my eye was just the data construction. And, you know, we certainly talk a lot about our pre-1900 resources. And, you know, so, you know, I was just trying to take a second look when something, you know, is dated to the construction of what it is here on the form B, which is 1866 to 1868. But I agree, I think that this one is worthy of a pass and I think whatever will become of this building will be great. Okay, so let's do a vote. 52 Alston Street, I have a motion on the table to find for significance. I will go around for a roll call vote. Ryan. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No for preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is significance. Significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, significant, I'm sorry.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's okay. Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica? No. And Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Nope.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so the motion to find 52 Alston Street significant fails. So we will issue that permit this week. Okay, next up is 130 Boston Avenue. Doug, are you, you're refraining from this one?
[Doug Carr]: Yes, it's two houses down from me. I will note that I walk by this house every day and just in the past week or so, one of the corner piers, brick piers supporting a column supporting the porch collapsed in the corner of the house. So there's a column that's hanging in the air supporting the roof or the porch, just to give you a sense of how tough a shape of this house is in. I know that's not how we determine anything, but this house is definitely on life support.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. So again, 130 Boston Ave, commissioners, there's a form B, and I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll take a motion to find for significance under criteria A and B of the bylaw.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Jess. Ryan, would you like to start the discussion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll just keep it brief and to the point. It's importantly associated with an important architect and builder. That's Moses Mann. And it's important in terms of its architectural period and style. That is the Queen Anne architectural style and surviving detail.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, yeah, I, I rode my bike past the house as well today and notice the same problem. Um, I will say the house, you know, it's a shame that it's a, it's a crying shame that this house has been allowed to become so dilapidated. And it, you know, it's just unbelievable, because the house was super, it's like one of the coolest houses I've seen in this in this area. I mean, the level of detail on it is just incredible. But, you know, it's rotting away as we speak. And it's falling down, and shingles are falling off. And, you know, It would be great to preserve it, but, you know, and I know we're not supposed to take that into consideration, but I don't believe it could be preserved. I think it, it would have to be completely replicated because everything's just falling apart on it. So, you know, you can maybe keep the foundation and stuff. But, you know, What it needs is somebody who has a lot of money and to love this house, because that's what it would take. Somebody would have to really fall on their sword for this house and try to fix it up, because it is a beautiful, beautiful piece of architecture. Anyway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I just agree the builder and also the exceptional architecture, but I do not walk by this house every day and I do not have the same on the ground experience. And I don't know anything about structure. I can't tell from looking at something if it's structurally able to be preserved, but I do think from the Form B, it makes clear as Ryan noted on these two areas that it falls under significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Ed, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Again, subject to what I saw on the application, the form B says it's worth a try, but I don't think it's going to be within our jurisdiction very long. But I would support at least to give it a try.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Um, we are not taking public comments, um, during significance hearings. So, uh, Mr. Gleiman, I'm sorry. I can't, I can't, uh, answer your question or take your, uh, take your hand right now.
[SPEAKER_07]: Um, I was just, I re I represent the owner. Am I not allowed to have any, any kind of input for the record?
[Jennifer Keenan]: We do not take public comments during the significance hearings. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we have a motion on the table to find 130 Boston Avenue significant. And that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. And Ed. Yep. Okay, the motion passes four zero. Next month, there will be a preferably preserved hearing. During that time, we'll be taking any and all public comments from the owner and anybody else who would like to speak on that project. We will email you the next steps for that and check out your demo packet and a legal notice will have to be filed as well as signage in front of the property. So we will make sure to get you that language. Moving on to 146 Summer Street, determination of significance here as well. Commissioners, I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I will second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Peter, thank you. Okay, Ryan, let's jump off the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think in terms of its age and typology, it's important. We had the building right next to this. We had a good look at that particular building and wanted to make sure that that was preserved. So here is another similar example of this particular style. In addition, its inception was brought about by the change of Medford moving from a shipbuilding community into a streetcar suburb and railroad commuting suburb around the time of the Civil War. That transition is seen by the creation of the building by former shipwrights turned carpenters. And that particular transition is seen not just here, but In all of the major neighborhoods in Medford at that time that's the East Medford shipbuilding neighborhood where the builders there isn't enough necessary there isn't enough would wouldn't boats being built to supply the demand of labor that's here so they turned to building houses for the to attract more workers and. you know, that's seen on Codding Street and some of the early development there. So here's a perfect example of two houses put together by largely the same people. And for that reason, I find that it's significant in terms of its period style.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, thank you. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I agree. I like, um, 29, somewhere on the same street. And I forget the number, but South Street, similar to South Street as well. I think this house has lost a lot of its architectural detail, and it has a bunch of odd additions on the back. I thought it was interesting how the vacant lot next door used to have a chicken coop in the back of it. I thought that was kind of cool way back when. And so I would like, you know, I think it could contribute to a historic district in this area. I feel like its form and the overall massing of the house could be preserved. So with that in mind, I think I would like to find it historically significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I must say I'm a little bit straddling the fence on this one because I feel like The significance here is mostly about the context and about the neighborhood and the developer. It's not so much about the building. And the building, it's old obviously, but it seems to have, you know, when I looked at it, it just didn't look like an 1860 building. It looked like it had been through so many changes that it was, it felt like early as late 19th, early 20th century in terms of what it looks like now. So I'm struggling with this one a little bit. I'm probably gonna be a no. probably wouldn't be perfectly preserved unless I see something in between now and then, because I feel that, you know, there's a lot of properties that come with potential contributions to historic districts that I just know are never gonna happen. There's probably 10 districts in front of this one. And those are not coming at anything more than a glacial pace these days, even for single house districts. So I guess I'm on the other side of it right now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Doug. Jessica?
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I wasn't sure that I really could see the significance here, but I do really appreciate the context that Ryan shared, which I would not have gotten without his help there. But yeah, I feel similarly to Doug, I think, where I maybe wouldn't, I'm not, 100% sure, but I think this is entirely significant with all of the changes that have happened over time. But all of the things that we've looked at tonight have suggested historic districts. And I just know that those historic districts aren't really going to happen all over the place. So it's maybe useful to go ahead and preserve things one by one where we can.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm on the lean no side. Again, it is not particularly, again, the house has changed over time as many in the area have. It's one, again, I'm not particularly fond of the one doing discs one house at a time. I mean, again, it's not our jurisdiction and I understand we're dealing, the context we're dealing in, but it is, again, it is not something jumping at you. to be as a structure alone.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you so much. Great comments, everybody. And it's so important that we have these discussions. So let's take a vote. Okay, we have 146 Summer Street. There is a motion on the table to find four historical significance. Ryan? Yes. Peter? No. Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica? No. And Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sadly, no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so the motion fails one to four. So that one, we will release the permit this week as well. Okay, next up is 232 Fulton Street. and I'll take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to find for significance with the caveat I'm gonna shoot it down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Significant. Okay. In my opinion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Short and sweet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Gotta keep the agenda moving.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, Peter. Anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I also felt that this one doesn't quite rise to the level of significance and, you know, more power to them if they want to add a second floor onto it. I, I can't remember if it was for partial or full demolition, but I think it's partial. Yeah. So I would imagine that's what's going to happen. So yeah, I don't think it's quite, it's quite up there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm gonna know as well. There's a couple of really incredible gems of this building type in Medford, but this is just not one of them. I think a good architect and a good owner can come up with a plan that would make this building look reasonable and fit in reasonably well with the neighborhood.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Jessica? I have nothing to add. Thanks. Sorry. Thank you. No worries. And Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think I've heard everything.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Okay. Motion to find two 32 Fulton street, historically significant Ryan. Oh, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, Doug.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, Jess. No. And Ed. Okay. Motion fails five zero. Okay, that concludes our significance hearings. So next month we will have significance for the one, two, three, four applications we took earlier, except for Bradbury, which we passed on. And then we will have one preferably preserved hearing for 130 Boston Avenue. Great work, everybody.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to expend $500 for form B's for the following properties. 20 Otis Street, 76 Sharon Street, 136 Boston Ave. Okay. Motion for form B's $1,500. Ryan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Second. Thank you, Ed. Ryan. Peter. Yes. Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jess? Yes. And Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Spend it, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: What were the three properties again, Otis?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It was the 20 Otis Street, the Carriage House.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Which they'll do the whole property, Ryan, right? Right, yeah. Yeah, and 76 Sharon. Okay. And 136 Boston. 136 Boston, okay, thank you.
[Jenny Graham]: What about 4054 Mystic Valley Parkway? Do we not do one? We have a form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We already have that one. Right? We have that one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We do.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, they did the whole site there. So we're good there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We are.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then that, is that the rest of our budget?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It is not, I was going to make a motion to expend the last thousand dollars of our budget on the following properties by John has recommended because they're partially related to Moses man, spending the last of our budget on 138 Boston Avenue.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And sorry, I'm just pulling up the addresses 132 Boston Ave, which is between 130 and 136. He will also do 128. Are you 140? No. What's your address on the corner? I'm at 124. Am I being- Yeah, he recommended doing all of these because they're all Moses man buildings. They're all in a row and it will give us the context for each of those other buildings.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do so do we have enough to do all of them? Are we going to roll into next year's budget?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Lee, there's $1000 for this year and then there'll be another $1000 in the following fiscal year. If I decide to consolidate all of the budget together.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so do you wanna make a formal motion for those forms?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Make a motion to expend $2,000 on the remaining context of the Boston Ave properties with the addresses so noted.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Second. Thank you, Ed. Okay, Ryan? Yes. Peter?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Doug Carr]: I'm gonna recuse myself, this is my house.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Jess? Yes. And Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Peter, did we get the correct? Let's make sure we have all the numbers.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We have one 24. Yeah. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We already have one 30. We're going to get one 36 and then one 38, one 32. Is that one of them, Ryan? Yep. That's one of them. Yep. One 32 and one 38, one 38. Okay.
[Doug Carr]: That's every house between Arlington Street and the Mystic River on my side. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct. And it's Moses Mann, Doug's house is Moses Mann's house for a couple of years. And the house at 138 is Moses Mann's carpentry workshop. And so every house in between is kind of a representation of the man. So it's good to have that contextual, John, we'll write that all up.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, what about the, There's a house across the street from me. The next house, I think it's 122, where Neil Osborne lives. He's my neighbor. I know that was built the year after my house. Would that not be a Moses Man?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It may be, but there were a number, I mean, realistically, John and I looked at the landscape and like, we can keep going. There's Neal's house, then there's the one next to it, which is Moses Man. There's one on the diagonal, there's a couple across. So we could keep going, but I think to keep this block of really well-preserved pieces is probably the high point.
[Doug Carr]: None of these houses were done in the West Bedford survey? None of these six houses?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, just the just the commercial block across the street so it's kind of surprising that you know Neil Larson when he did this survey, they were mostly concerned about. capturing the Afro-American context. And they did not particularly focus on Moses Man. I mean, we could do a whole survey of West Medford, just of his parcels, because they're so, you can pick them out of a lineup. If you had to put all Queen Anne's together, even though they're really decorative and ornate, you can really pick his out of a lineup. So.
[Doug Carr]: Yep. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Thank you, Ryan, for that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I thank you guys for approving.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Moving right along, 29 Summer Street, the letter of support for ZBA. I just realized I didn't circulate that to everybody, so. Oh, yeah. You want to just recap what that is, Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: The 29th Summer Street came before us. They worked with us. They're interested in seeing the building preserved. And I asked them to do a walkthrough. And in the course of the conversation, it came up that they did not plan for having to go before the zoning board because they assumed just because they had four buildings, four units, that they could go up on the third level. And they're over the 50% rule on the third floor. they need a release from the zoning board. Otherwise they'll be losing out on their ability to build out the third floor or at least half of it. So they'd like our support given how much that they worked with us and I'm inclined to give it to them because I would like to see the project built as designed. Otherwise they may have to go back to either removing that altogether or go back to an earlier iteration where the floor plan was smaller, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, so we have a letter that's basically done. So what I'll do, do we want to vote or I can circulate it? How should we proceed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: What do you think? When do they expect to go before ZBA?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think this month.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I believe they're meeting at the end of this month. Dennis, it's 29 summer, right? They're on there. Correct.
[Denis MacDougall]: They're meeting two weeks from this Thursday.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So the 26th.
[Adam Hurtubise]: On that case, I would move rather than hold things up that we give the chair the authority to send a letter stating general support based on the reasons stated here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ed. Would somebody like to second that motion? Or does somebody have another idea?
[Jenny Graham]: Sorry, can you repeat the motion?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed is giving me permission to send a letter of support for ZBA for 29 Summer Street. Second it. Thank you, Jess. Okay, we'll go around, do a roll call vote, and then I'll circulate the letter. It's done. We have it. We've already done it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So- I didn't want to make the motion because I have already drafted it with Jess. Question, Ryan, before we vote. Did you say it was for the third floor build-out or the attic floor build-out? Yeah. Yeah. the units on the third floor of the zoning is only two and a half stories. And they had intended on giving each unit, um, like a master suite on the second, on the third floor. And because of that, they're way over the 50% rule. So, so they would either need to get rid of half of their units in a zoning variance or, um, you know, or some unit will just not have the same amount of square footage.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so motion for the chair to send an approval letter for 29 Summer Street ZBA has been seconded. Ryan? Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jess? Yes. And Ed? Yes. Thank you, everybody. Okay, next up, Paul Moki had asked me, he's putting in for his budget for next year and there is some work to City Hall that he would like to kind of get in for the budget for next year. And the biggest thing was, he mentioned window replacement. So he was looking to us to discuss you know, is there a particular vendor that we like, or where could we, you know, where could he source windows, I think, to start getting a number. And I mentioned this to Ryan, he had mentioned that probably restoration is the best solution here. And we also thought that it could be a good CPA project. So just kind of wanted to put that out here for discussion so that I can get back to Paul with, you know, just kind of our preferred solution here and how can we support him with this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: What facade? Are they talking the front facade?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think like all the window, the huge windows around the whole building.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think that there he had mentioned that uh that in their opinion that they're drafty and they need some work and that they want to replace them but the ideal solution here is to really preserve them unless they're severely deteriorated which looking at them they don't seem to be in that far of condition because of their size and make, they don't seem to be beyond restoration at this point. So my first preference would be to push for a serious assessment of the windows themselves and to make a decision on whether or not to go forward with preservation on the grounds that a conservator has looked at them. And that I think CPC would pay for, but also the conservation of said windows would also be a good Don's done a form on this building. I mean, it's mostly intact. There's very few changes to City Hall that have been made over the years. So it's a really good candidate for NR listing. It's importantly associated with a couple of important people. And of course, it's our seat of government. So we really should be on a preservation track of mind here.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, if I could jump in here, Ryan, I completely agree. I have a couple of different experiences with historic windows. We did the 70 windows in the Chippenbrook's Manor about almost 20 years ago. And that's an 1880, that's 50 years older than this one. And we managed to bring a lot of those windows back and they were a lot further deteriorated than I'm sure these are. I think the key thing here is context. What are they going to do in terms of HVAC in the building, you know, because they're using these windows probably for fresh air during the warmer months. And ultimately they need to have probably like Chevalier did, which I think we also were involved in either interior or exterior storm windows that can be to give them the, to get rid of the draftiness problem and still have functional windows or something like that. There's alternatives here, but they need to involve, honestly, a preservation architect who knows windows, which is what Chevalier did. I think it was, I think the company that they used is no longer in existence. I think the gentleman retired, but I know that the next generation have started their own firms. So there are plenty of candidates that the city has experience with that can help them work through this challenge and find out what the best solution is. But certainly trying to throw away those windows and recreate them would be, I actually, I think more expensive. I think it would be a hell of a lot more expensive. Some of those windows are really huge windows, you know, 10, 12 feet high and certainly in council chambers. So there's a lot to be done there. Dennis obviously was in that building every day. He knows that the good, the bad and the ugly on those, but I think we need to really take it seriously. I think the money, the CPC, I'm sure would be open to this. It's a great use of these dollars. About a third of the more than almost $2 million goes towards historic preservation every year. So even if it was a six-figure proposal, it would probably be well-received.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. OK, so what I'll do is if everyone's okay with this, I'll start a memo to Paul with our ideas. I took a bunch of notes during this discussion, and we can suggest, you know, to, you know, preservation using CPC dollars, let's bring in the Chevalier folks and get them, you know, get some help since they just went through this, ask about the HVAC, because I think that's a really good question. And, you know, just say we're here to help him however, you know, however he needs it. So, and then Ryan, we have the form B for the building or is it?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's on Macros.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So I can send that along with it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think I can send you the link right now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, so I'll take that on as a to-do to start that memo to him. And I'm sure I'll be looking to... Yeah, Jen, I can help you with it.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'll take a first pass at it and then one of the architects can make it better. Okay, great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Absolute point of curiosity because it's been a sore point of some people around here.
[Jenny Graham]: Check for council checks in the city of Medford. Sorry, go ahead, Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Will anybody raise the question of the Christmas lights again? Because it was said to be something of a structural issue at that point.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Why they weren't hung anymore?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Remember when they removed all the electrical stuff to Hormel for Christmas?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I don't know. It's an interesting question. Maybe if they're working on the facade, then maybe those will come back.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think the weight of the items were too heavy to be supported by the existing brick masonry. Too many of them, I think, was the issue, too much weight pulling on the building. Just a proud Vogue Tech parent who might be asked where it was going, that's all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No problem, we'll try to dig into that maybe after September.
[Denis MacDougall]: I have those lights in my office for several years and the only way to hang those lights is to have the window open from November to February, January. Well, there you go. They are hanging from the windowsill, so you have to, they're shut semi-tight, but the windows are still basically.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, case closed, so's the wind. Case closed, case been closed, window closed.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So maybe if the windows get some attention, they can build in some sort of ledge that can be hung from. Okay, we got another. We got another inquiry from the DPW about, Ed, this is right by your house, the street sign for Brooks Park, the street Brooks Park. Let me see if I can pull up the picture and share my screen. They want to move the street sign because they're putting in the city bikes, the blue bikes, and they need a spot for the contraption that holds the bikes. And they were curious, they were ready to move the sign, and then there is this funky street sign. Hold on, I just found it. So they weren't sure if that was, you know, if it was something important that they needed to worry about.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me see here. For context, Brooks Park has street signs. This is the signage for the actual Brooks Park. It's not Brooks Park is a semi-circular U-shape, so it's this sign. There are signs on either side of it, but this is the original sign.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You can see this post here, if everybody can see that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I could see the argument for the post, although I never look at it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think they want to keep the post, but they're going to move it down here because they're planning to put the bikes right here near the sidewalk. I think the question that they're asking, Are they okay if we move it?
[Doug Carr]: I think it's yes. I think it's not a problem to move it. There's nothing wrong with moving that sign.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If they preserve the ironwork, what's the issue? No, it's not as if it was a finish line, so to speak, once there was something like that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, and I guess the other question is, if the post changes somehow, do we care or do, you know, what are our thoughts?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, I care if the post changes. I would like to see the post preserved. It is a feature of the park that's noted in the form. So, okay.
[Doug Carr]: I'm with him too. I don't, there's no reason to get rid of that post. They should just move it, not toss it. You know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So we're okay for them to move it wherever they feel most appropriate in order to accommodate the bike.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It'd be nice if it could still be visible and not be hidden behind the one way sign or something, but. Yeah.
[Doug Carr]: That'd be my only thing that I would say.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. I'll make a note of that.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. They should, I mean, it should be a couple of feet off. I mean, it could be in the way of that one way sign if it's too close. So you gotta, somebody has got to use some common sense about the placement. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. This came from, um, It's Amy and Todd at the DPW, so we, and engineering, I should say. So yeah, so I will let them know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You know what would be really cool is if they could move one sign to the corner, you know, on the other side of the street, and then replicate the post and put another sign So one goes on the in road and one goes on the out road or something? I think they're talking about two different purposes. I mean, the replication could be either side of the blue bikes, the actual blue bikes area too, I guess. Do we know, are the blue bikes going to go right in the middle? That's the idea I get.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's how I heard it. So this is the email that they sent. The city is in the process of launching an expansion of the regional blue bikes share network. Todd and I are working on selecting locations to site the stations. The stations require a fair amount of space, 31 feet by six feet, plus a sidewalk clearance of at least five feet and a buffer of at least one foot if directly adjacent to a street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, the other thing is this, this, I think this whole turnaround is a one way. So you go in one and come out the other. So yeah, it is.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So maybe it should be coming out the other way.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. So maybe it's more important to, you know, put it on the inbound near the inbound lane. If you will, near the on the apartment on the apartment building side, right? Yeah. Unless that means that the people on the house side, the postman can't find their address because they don't know it's still Brooks Park.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's probably I think we have bigger issues with the post office these days. So this is true. I don't know that a sign is going to make much of a difference.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Because that's why I like the idea of two of them.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, the other one, the other one replicated for the one way sign.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, yeah, I mean, if we save the one sign, put it on the end, and then make a whole new sign that doesn't have to match and put it on the out, I don't know, that might be a, you know, city issue about how close you have to have the street sign to the corner of the whatever.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So, okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Whatever. It's all right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think we're all in agreement that the posts were fine. If they move it, the post stays.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, great. And I will see, you know, see if they can move it to the apartment building side and if that helps. Okay. Another sign discussion is ward gifts. Um, so Ken Krause is asking if there's any significance to the ward gift sign. He is leading the charge with Victor to try to get that sign removed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: In my opinion, it's a private building, uh, owned by Donald Cranley, I believe, who owned Ward's gifts. And that's a private discussion between him and the people who want to see that sign removed. I don't think it has any significance to Metro other than the fact that wards was a long-term business there, but I don't think the sign, we have no jurisdiction over the sign, so I don't think we should be taking it.
[Doug Carr]: Is there a photo of the sign?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, hold on. Yeah, I can, again, it's in my email, so hold on. Let me share my screen.
[Doug Carr]: Look, you know what, I want to just emphasize, I really appreciate people asking, you know, The city's asking. That's only a good thing. I thought this was the one facing the river.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think it does face the river and it's the rear.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's the rear of the building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's the rear of 44 and 42 High Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: As you can see, and at least Doug goes back that far and I barely go back that far. You can now see that the dam shows it was a Socratic apothecary.
[Doug Carr]: It's an old business, but the sign's actually not that old.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, I think other, I don't, there's no significance of itself. If you wanna make an art, you know, if you wanna make a city planning decision, something like a sign should be there, but that's not us. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think their goal is to, hold on.
[Doug Carr]: I agree with both Ed and Brian. I don't think there's any significance to that sign. I don't think there's any reason to keep it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: As I said, if you want something there for design purposes, that's a city call.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, the city sign ordinance may have changed since that sign was put up, who knows?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, so I think Ken is trying to either get a sign replaced, so you could see there's a Medford or Medford Square or possibly something designed from Medford artists or like a kind of open mural kind of area, public art area. Well, so I think that just that's the goal for the future.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But I think the first question is like, are you know, again, again, I think Ken's idea from a design point of view may make sense. But again, I don't think it's our call.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yep. Okay, so I will let him know that we do not feel we have jurisdiction and we do not feel there's any historic significance. And if there's anything else we can do to support them, let us know. Otherwise,
[Doug Carr]: Here's the funny thing, I think if you look over Ed's shoulder, you can see the sign in the background. I just think it'd be, if they want to put a mural up that covers that entire facade, it would be amazing. I think that'd be a great idea.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But that's a city call, that's not our call.
[Doug Carr]: Total city call, but I would encourage that.
[Jenny Graham]: I also think that signs would go to the historical society too, probably too. might be a good group to ask.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Should we make a motion to find the sign not historically significant? Once you make the motion, the motion is there forever. So I would not be inclined for the same. One thing, I mean, again, The idea of using it, I mean, don't tell Christopher Donovan that, he'll probably find a way to light this accessory up in 15 seconds. But the, you know, again, the idea that it might be a suitable place, again, for some form of public art, but I think that's not, that's not historical significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we will leave it informal for now. I will let him know our position and let us know if we need any other help. Such a very topical meeting tonight. Okay, last on new business, update on new member search. And the update is there's no update because I've been slammed. Unfortunately, my goal was to have interviews done and have somebody ready to be appointed. So I apologize, I failed you all. But going to try to move this back to my priority list. I know Peter and Doug, you know, volunteered to help do some interviews. We have one applicant who came last month who's great. We have a couple others that we got through city hall. So we just want to make sure we talk to everybody and do our due diligence before we make a recommendation to the mayor. So hopefully I'll get that done in the next couple of weeks and we'll be in a good position to get somebody on board maybe for as soon as next month. So that is the update there. Does anybody have anything else for new business? Okay. All right. Moving on to old business. Peter, Doug, and Ryan, do you wanna update us on 78 Cotting Street?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, sure. Subcommittee met with the homeowners to review their existing design provided some feedback. They provided a couple of options. We gave them a little bit more feedback, we came to a consensus on an option that we feel helps mitigate the demolition of the, the partial demolition of the building. So that design is available for public comment on our website with all the main materials is down the very bottom you can follow along with the design and see the design iterations the feedback that we gave to the homeowners. after the options that they presented to us and the final design that they presented back to the subcommittee, that the subcommittee feels confident enough to bring back to this board for review. So that is up there. I think it's fair to leave it up there for, I don't know, until next meeting, public comment, and then we'll take the vote at next meeting. if to release it. And if the commissioners have any comments, they can certainly review that information up there. I know we've had a lot, so I don't know if anybody had time to review that with the rest of the stuff. So I think it's fair to have it up there and get feedback and move forward at next meeting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I definitely want to, I mean, this is a very visible building. We've had a lot of public comments and emails. So I definitely wanna make sure that we give this one a lot of time for folks to comment on. And we can certainly keep it on the agenda next month for additional discussion, depending on what we get in from the public. I have not had a chance to look at it myself. So I would like to take the time to do that. And I know we had a packed night, so we will see how we do with that for next month.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do you guys know, I haven't looked at the email recently, have we gotten any further comments since we've posted?
[Jennifer Keenan]: We haven't. I did hear from Chris Bader that they heard from another neighbor about creating a single house historic district. So they are going to have another discussion about that. And I'm not sure if their meeting is this week.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think it is this Thursday.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. So I think they were planning to be on the agenda again. And so certainly I think there's concurrent discussions happening, you know, between our board and their board and we have, you know, kind of different, I mean our paths are different.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I did forward Chris Bader the link, cause he had asked to receive that. And the designs have been posted for a week now, right, Ryan? So I kind of agree that, I know the owners are here, so I'm sure they'd like to speak as well, but I think it might be wise to give sufficient time for the public to weigh in on this.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm sorry, I have somebody who has their hand up and you don't have a name. So can I get your name and address for the record, please?
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Sure. I'm David Whitney. My address is 49 Linden Street in Arlington. I'm the architect working with Sophie and Dan, the homeowners on this project.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Nice to see you. And the floor is yours.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you. Gosh, we'd like to wrap this up. We worked really hard with the subcommittee to make changes and respond as quickly as we could. And our understanding was that this would be put to a vote tonight. We started this process in January. We had thought this would go to a vote tonight. Is there no chance that can happen?
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, okay, so let me kind of, when you say this process started in January, it is very clear in our packet what the process is. And we are only one month or one and a half months in on an 18 month demolition delay. So you can't count the first three months of the process as far as we're concerned. You should automatically build that into your timeline. And I'd like to make one other comment that it is our understanding that this project isn't even happening until next year. And there's no permit application that has even been started. So I mean, are you ready to start digging next week? Or is this really happening next year?
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: I can say as an architect, I don't complete drawings until I know we can build the project. So we're going through this process. Please understand I'm not trying to pick a fight or be confrontational. We had just been led to believe that if we got materials in in time, it would go to a vote tonight.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think, again, considering the public and the, sorry, what's the word I'm looking for? This is a very exposed project, and I think it's only prudent that we give folks a chance to comment on it. So.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think, yeah. You know, if we, if you felt like we would definitely vote, I had sort of been under the impression that we might vote, but I think it was that we needed to give that minimum, a week of public airing time and have we not. We have, we have done that, at minimum. But I don't speak for the other commissioners. And I mean, personally, I'd be willing to, what's the right word? Not authorized, but say that I'm satisfied with the progress that you guys have made. However, I'm not the whole commission and I do think we, you know, on one meeting we did come under some kind of thinly, not so thinly veiled criticism for possible, it was implied that we could be possibly, you know, violating the open meetings code or whatever you want to call it, because we moved too fast on one project, even though that project had more iterations than your guys has won. And it went on for like three months or so. And people felt like, we came under some criticism that people didn't have enough chance to, from members of the public, they felt that they didn't have enough chance to look at this. So a week is not that long. that for people to become aware of it and respond to it. So even though personally, I'd be willing to vouch for the progress that you guys have made, but.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm not ready to call a vote on this tonight. I'm just going to say it. I mean, we, I have, this has not been, you know, I haven't, it wasn't on the agenda that we were voting. This was a discussion of the progress. Um, and I personally haven't even had a chance to look at the drawings or what's happening there. And I'm not sure if, you know, Jess or Ed outside of the subcommittee has either. So I'm not prepared to call a vote for this tonight. I'm just going to leave it at that.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Okay. And then the, forgive me. The next meeting will be second Monday of June?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It is June 13th. Great. Yes, we meet on the second Monday. And we will get you on the agenda for a vote that night.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: We look forward to seeing you then. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you.
[Doug Carr]: Jen, just a final comment on this. To echo what Ryan and Peter said, I think the subcommittee is satisfied with the design. We feel it's appropriate. We're endorsing it. We do recognize that there's an intense level of interest in this property, more than typical, but we feel that this is a good solution and I think we'll vote on it. But I think we should go out of our way if we're gonna wait an extra month. And I don't disagree with you, Jen. I think that's, politically it's prudent because we would be, the people are gonna object to it no matter what, but if we don't give people enough opportunity to really review it, the intensity will probably be higher otherwise needed. So let's make sure that everyone who possibly raises their hand has a chance to look at this over the next couple of weeks, including you and others to make sure that they're heard. And we could put it hopefully at the top of the agenda for next month.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I just had one question. So I passed the link on to Chris Bader. Is there anyone else that you guys feel that we should pass it on to? One possible candidate is John Anderson, but I don't know if anybody else. If we should do that or, I don't wanna set a precedent where we have to, We can't approve anything unless we notify certain members of the public, but.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, we're not going to, I mean, it's the onus is on the public to stay involved, watch our agendas and send us their comments. And again, the agenda says discussion of progress. It doesn't say vote to lift demo delay. So I'll make sure that next month the agenda says vote to lift demo delay. So there's no question of what will be happening. And the materials are already posted. We'll make sure that they stay top on the website for folks to see them. That'll be that. I mean, we're putting it out there now. There's more than 30 days till the next meeting, and that will be it. We will vote next month.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you very much. And let me add, I work in a number of different towns in the area, including many where this entire process takes place in one meeting, in one night. I recognize that's not your process. It's taken me some adjustment. I promise I respect the process, and I'm not trying to pick a fight.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I didn't think you were, but I just like to make it clear because so many people come in and they claim they don't know. And it's like, well, our packet's there, it's on the website. You have to understand that this is a three-step process to even get to a discussion about mitigating demolition. And that is up to a 90-day process. And people need, the onus is on the property owners to educate themselves on that. And again, as far as I'm concerned, those first 90 days don't count. So if we are lifting you after one month or three months, that's quick. I mean, this is an 18-month demo delay.
[MCM00001096_SPEAKER_02]: Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Okay, any other updates on properties under demo delay? I think all three structures at 109 Forest Street have closed. So I'm going to officially take that one off the delay list because now those properties are sold and anything that would come before us would start over. Ryan, we're still doing documentation for 17 Edward.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, there's some minor things that I gotta complete on that project before we release it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Will we be ready to vote on that one next month?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Yeah. I'm just gonna make a note vote to release 17 Edward and 78 Codding next month. Okay. There's been no update on Hadley Place or South Street or 104 Harvard. I think I mentioned last month that the owner for 33 3rd Street has chosen not to work with us. Both Ryan and I were on that side of town ironically last week and there is a wrecker in the backyard at that property. So I'm not sure if the owner is just going to decide to start demolition without a permit or what is happening there. So we will keep our eyes on that. I'm not sure unless anybody has any other updates that there's anything else to talk about with regards to Property is currently under demo delay. Bless you. Okay, the permits are moving right along. We're in a pretty good rhythm of approving them. And there's a few things that could be coming up for next month. We're waiting on some documentation on to clarify things, but all in all things I think are moving pretty smoothly there. So thank you, Ryan and Peter and Doug for helping me on those. CPA projects. Oh, I'm sorry, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We need to get our budget in to- Oh. the department, Alicia. Yeah, because it's May. So let's let's plan on doing that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, we should have.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, folks have things that they want to see us do. Now would be the time to, to make sure we incorporate it into a budget request.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody have ideas for money that we need? I don't know that we'll get any, but we can try. Do we have enough for our forms? Or should we increase that a little bit?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. And then we'll still get the, hopefully get the matching grant for survey projects.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, we'll definitely be getting the matching grant because the money's already there and confirmed. So, okay. Yes.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, if we, if we spent almost exactly our budget from last year, are we anticipating that we'll have more form B's next year? Is there a trend that's rising over time?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, we're definitely spending more on Form Bs, but I also lost some money to some expensive, we had to do like last minute legal postings a couple of times because we missed the deadline. So I don't anticipate that happening again. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do we, although one question is, is there gonna be a price increase on the forms? Okay. We pay well at the same amount for many years now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, no. We pay well above what the state pays, so we're fine. OK, I have been told we are very generous with the amount of money that we pay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do we have like a number. I know this probably in the annual report, like how many forms we did two years ago versus last year versus this year and just because obviously we're with the being online with the permitting system now, you know, we're able to flag a little bit more than we had in the past.
[Adam Hurtubise]: be prepared. You can look in the annual report, it's on there. Let me do that while we go back.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just wonder if asking for another $2,500 might be worth it just to cover our butts in case we have a few more.
[Doug Carr]: I think an inflation component might be wise for that exact reason.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah.
[Doug Carr]: Agreed.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, that gives us five more forms. And we know that, like we're doing tonight, we can spend it in month 11 if we have to. All right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We did 30 demo forms last year.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. A calendar year?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's probably what we, we've probably done that and then some this year.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. Well, I think we should add $2,500 to it. I can't hurt to ask. All they can do is say no.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's fine. Okay. Because I think our allocation is 17,500. So if we round it up to a nice easy 20,000, we'll be adding forms left and right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, okay. Again, even like, you know, we could have done a few more houses on Boston Ave just based on our discussion a few minutes ago, et cetera. So, okay. CPA projects, you probably saw, we did put out a call for volunteers for the archaeological dig for Thomas Brooks Park that's going to be happening the week of June 6 the week before our meeting. If any of the commissioners would like to volunteer or get on the list, just let me know and I'll put you on the list. We are not quite at 20 people yet. So, Ryan, we didn't set a deadline on our posts. I figured we could give it like two weeks. Say that again?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Two weeks is good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, two weeks.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So like the last, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, so not the end of this week, but the end of next week. Because we posted it on what, Friday, Thursday, Friday, last week? Yeah. So if we get to 20, if we get more than 20, we'll do a drawing. But right now, we're, I think, maybe halfway full, which is great. And I think there'll be some natural attrition, I think, based on schedules. weather potentially, et cetera. And I haven't even seen the city post it yet. I know we've posted it, but we did ask for some help from, we talked to Roberta, Doug and get it out there from the press office. So, so far pretty good response and good. I think people are happy to have an exciting project like that happening. Did the RFP for the Fieldstone wall go out yet?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Five.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. So, and we did award Palm's Wall?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So the Palm's Wall restoration will happen after the dig. And so we will keep everybody posted on that. But if you'd like to, like I said, if you'd like to volunteer to dig, let me know. There will be an opportunity for lab work in the summer as well, if anyone would like to go to Rhode Island. catalog and file whatever we find. So if you don't want to get your hands dirty, you can do some lab work.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I did see that there was an email in here from an illustrator who's a teacher at Medford public schools. That'd be really good for field work.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Awesome. Yeah. And feel free to share our, our posts on your social or share it with your friends. You know, this is really good. It's really good visibility for us and for the city. And I'm hoping, you know, hoping we get some nice positive press out of it too. I think that would be good for the city.
[Jenny Graham]: I was going to say, make sure you take some photos so that we can do like a blog post about it or something. I'm sure there will be like some coverage by the city maybe, but it would be a fun thing to do a blog about maybe as well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think so, for sure, for sure. Yes, we'll definitely get some posts up. I think people were laughing at my Indiana Jones picture.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, that was me. I was definitely laughing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, we need to talk to Mr. Ryan because he has never seen any of the movies. So his first homework assignment is watching Raiders of the Lost Ark. I haven't either. Yeah, well, I was just going to say, girl, you better get on it because you youngins.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But what snakes are there in Medford? Unbelievable.
[Jennifer Keenan]: What, Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: What snakes are there in Medford?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I know, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It was just a joke that the Holy Grail was at the Historical Society in one of the hidden cupboards, so I guess I'll be in on the joke finally.
[Doug Carr]: It's next to the Civil War photos they found there after 50 years. Jen, two things about CPC. There's going to be a new plaque for Pomp's Wall. We're going to rename it Pomp's Wall, right? Isn't that the plan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: The plaque is a historical society's property. So I don't think we have any jurisdiction to touch that. But I do think that we should, if we do interpretive signage that takes into account anything that's excavated during the archeological dig, that we do use that name and formally re-designated that from the quote unquote old slave wall. Because I think that we need to abolish that terminology and associate it with the specific person that we know built it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I know at one point we had talked about turning the stone so the plaque faced inward so it would be easier to read without standing in the street. But then I think the consensus was that would be too difficult and it would make more sense to get a secondary plaque for the backside that can be placed there and the front one stays as it is. So perhaps if we go that route, the one that will be facing the park that will be easier to read We change the name of it there, but I don't know that that was part of the actual wall restoration project But perhaps that is a you know a phase two that we can put in for that Ryan Or talk to the Historical Society or you know, I do think we have to change that. I think the question is how does it happen?
[Doug Carr]: well, we need to obviously negotiate and coordinate with the Historical Society, but I I'm pretty confident that they would want to update that sign to the language of today. How slavery is talked about is much different than when that sign was installed about 20, 30 years ago. The date's on the sign, but I think it has to go. It has to be updated. It's just- I agree. Even the term slave, it wouldn't be appropriate anymore. So it's, we can, we need to open that conversation. And, and if we, we can get a short grant or something, you know, from CPC, if, if we have additional, if we have a design, if we have a direction for that, there's, there's ways to get that where it's, it wouldn't be like an act of Congress to go through to get something that something of, of a small nature of, you know, 5,000 or, or approximate, whatever it would be.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Yeah, I agree. And I think we just gotta figure out how to do it. We can definitely do it. And I think, you know, it'll be interesting, like, you know, is there some sort of rededication when the, when Palm's wall is finished or do we wait for the Fieldstone wall or do we wait for more activity to happen in the park as a whole? So, you know, I think there'll be kind of opportunities there at certain points for perhaps, you know, these things to happen.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, the other comment I wanted to make is that, Jen, you and I had a conversation with the city of Medford with, um, uh, Amandra Centrola last week, asking us about some CPC thoughts and priorities and other things. Um, and we've talked about this in previous commission meetings. So it's not something you all haven't heard before. Um, but I think the, if I could summarize, Jen, I think that one of the big things we put out there was, um, funding, not for us, but for the historic district commission. So, and. expertise that would help them move the process along to get some of these historical, these mythical historic districts that are, are not happening, but should have been the low hanging fruit, the obvious ones, uh, which there could be, um, a lot of work done if they had, um, Some money's pushed in that direction to get them and not necessarily CPC, but that's city budget kind of things. That's because CPC, I don't think would actually go for that, but the city budget their budget would need to be significant to hire the expertise that they don't have to move some of these things forward. And if anybody on this call has any other comments, we can pass that along to Medford either through the planning department or through Roberta and the CPC.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it was a really good call. And I think one of the things we talked about at length was, you know, we've, been trying to move the needle on local historic districts. And I we, you know, as Doug mentioned, that's happening at a glacier's pace. And, you know, there is, you know, there's a there's some homeowners out there that would like to have that designation for themselves on their own property. And, you know, the city council has wanted, you know, a plan, a larger plan, and you know, these plans for these historic districts, what we talked a little bit about, you know, perhaps the way to go is to start, start with some of these single house districts. And if we get more of them, that is progress. And we're showing pathways to larger districts. And is there a way to empower homeowners that may want this designation for themselves? know, to help them through CPC or money for their property in as a trade-off or part of a single house historic district. And so I think there's some good ideas there. There's some, you know, ways to try to help move some of these things along because I think I know certainly since I've been on the commission and I'm, you know, kind of still fairly new, I feel like, you know, Ryan and Doug have certainly been on it longer than and then myself, but, you know, we've had no, not even a single house district done in the time that I've been here, you know? So, you know, why a couple of those can't happen a year, I'm not sure. Well, I have an idea of why, but I think, you know, I don't know we some things need to start changing and I don't know how to make that happen from our district standpoint. OK, speaking of does. Are there any other discussion points around local historic districts or historic District Commission or anything like that? Just to check in on on those.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think Chris Bader emailed us asking for copies of all of our inventory forms, to which there's a lot, but they're all up on macros so. So if the general public is interested in the type of inventory forms that we're creating. They can go look on the Massachusetts Cultural Resource Information System. That's MACRS. That's what that stands for. It's the assets of the Commonwealth. It's not just Medford, but it's all of the state. There's some pretty interesting things on there. So, you know, I said that you can download all of the forms that we've created so far, save for the ones that are created for demo delay that are up on our website. Should be.
[Doug Carr]: If, if someone was only interested in Medford forms is can our website is there a link to somebody to say if I wanted to download every historic warm be that we've ever created a city of Medford is that doable.
[Adam Hurtubise]: they can yeah so they can go in and and download all the forms specifically they can go in and see all the forms that have been created if they go to macros maps you can see where they are in the city and they can just download them that way it's not every and it's it's divided up like by criteria so if you wanted to know Like how many houses in Medford had a carriage house you can sort by that it's very sortable. It's far too extensive to create something like that on our website because there's something like 2500 plus forms. So our website would never be able to handle it nor would we want to try to replicate the detail of macros, I think that that's. very useful tool that we want to point people to because, you know, if they might find that, oh, they're from, you know, some towns, say they're from Maynard and they go in and, you know, they're looking for something for here in Medford, but then they go in and look for their own town.
[Doug Carr]: So, yeah, but I guess from my perspective, right, if I had a three inch binder and it was in the historic room in the new Medford library, and it had tabs for each neighborhood and every form B was there. I feel like something like that, even if it's online, it'd be even easier, but actually being able to see them and sort them and not have to go through a whole state level, but something that's a little bit more geared towards somebody who is just looking for Medford, it seems like a resource that it wouldn't be that hard to put together, not necessarily on our website, but someplace, is that reasonable?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm gonna show you how easy macros is. I just wanted to demonstrate exactly how easy this is.