[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, we'll get started. It's 703. This is the Medford Historical Commission meeting, it is Monday, July 11. We have a busy agenda, but before I get started to that, let me do our business here. Pursuant to the chapter 20 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. So first up tonight, we're going to have a preferably preserved hearing for 20 Otis Street. And this is specifically for the carriage house. Just to recap how we got here. Two meetings ago, the property owners submitted an application for total demolition of this carriage house. Last month, the meeting, excuse me, property was found to be historically significant, which means that it is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic or social history of the city or Commonwealth, or 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 a group of buildings. So last month, 20 Otis Street was found to be historically significant. So tonight we will have a preferably preserved hearing. And the designation of preferably preserved 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 just to remind everybody, 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 properly address these concerns. So we will take a motion. I'll go around to my commissioners for comments, then we'll open it up for public comments and take it from there. So commissioners, I will take a motion for 20 Otis Street when someone is ready.
[Unidentified]: I'll make a motion that
[Adam Hurtubise]: The carriage house at 20 Otis Street be found preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Is there a second? Thank you, Ryan. Peter, I'll start with you since you made the motion if you want to jump start on with comments.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Kind of as we've stated last time, it's a carriage house that's in pretty good condition, as far as I can see here. And we have a diminishing number of these in existence in the house, in the, sorry, in the city. And I think it'd be great if we could work on saving a few of these that are left and hopefully reuse them so that they could meet the needs of the current owner.
[Unidentified]: About it for me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Ryan, I'll come to you next.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll just keep it nice and simple and say that I think it's in the interest of the general public to rehabilitate and maybe find a way to conserve the structure rather than see it demolished. So it's taking right by law.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Jessica, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: Nothing.
[Unidentified]: I agree with both commissioners on both those points.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Ed?
[Unidentified]: Nothing further.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Doug, anything to add? I know you're only on your cell phone right now.
[Unidentified]: I'm not sure if you could unmute.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I'll take your silence as nothing to add, but if something comes up, just unmute yourself.
[Unidentified]: You might have to unmute him. Oh, well, let me try. Yeah, nothing is happening. Okay. All right. Well, we tried.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, Doug, he can get to me if before he gets into the meeting. So thank you to my commissioners. If the property owners are here, I'm happy to take any comments from them. And then certainly if there's any members of the public who would like to comment on this case, please raise your hand and I will get to you in due course.
[SPEAKER_03]: Good evening. We are Tim and Danielle Stark. We are the property owners. Thank you for having us. I think that there are a couple of people who have been in this neighborhood who can speak to the historic value of this particular structure better than we can. We've only been here for the last year and change. There are a couple of comments that I do want to make about the Carriage House generally. specifically to Peter's point and some points that were brought up in the prior meeting. Unfortunately, what's shown on the form B are semi-obstructed photographs that were taken from the street while we had scaffolding up to the siding. The current exterior of the carriage house was put up by a prior owner to kind of disguise what's going on underneath. The railroad ties that you see are a retaining wall to prevent the erosion from what is a floor laid on top of dirt that is supported by rocks underneath. while some elements of the interior do remain underneath that, others have been stripped away or altered significantly by other ownership. And the roof is currently, you know, slapdash shingles over a frankly dilapidated structure. I know that we can't consider the state or the structural integrity right now, but I do want to make two points. One, generally for the record, and the second about our ability to preserve the structure. We did have a structural engineer out who did do an evaluation. The roof is not safe as is. It lacks lateral supports and a ridge beam. and is a significant danger for snow. And the reason that I bring this up is not because this is simply a risk of this falling down on our property, but somebody did subdivide the adjoining rear lot and built a domicile on the property line. So the green structure that you see on the form B photos is someone else's house, approximately three feet from this existing structure. And in addition to something being done about the roof, something has to be done about the fact that there is no foundation. We can get into those other things, and we're happy to talk to the subcommittee about them at the appropriate time. But I do want to note, one, that a lot of the condition that you see in that photography is purely cosmetic, two, that there is a real and existing safety issue with the roof, and that three, Any work that is done to preserve this must include the addition of a foundation, which requires digging in an excavator and all of the steps that come along with that. So barring that, if the committee has any questions, we'd be happy to take them. Otherwise we turn it back to the chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much, Tim and Danielle. Okay. Commissioners. Do any of you have any questions?
[Unidentified]: Based on what the Starks said. Going once. Going twice.
[Jenny Graham]: I mean, I would like to hear from the commissioners commissioners that are on the subcommittee, like what types of things they might bring to that subcommittee.
[Unidentified]: if the demo delay goes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I can't speak for Peter, but I think we would look at where their design is versus where the design of this building is, maybe try to reach a resolution, you know, because obviously there's issues with this building, you know, that we would take into account. So, you know, I don't think they're too far off and I don't think the that every older building has issues that come up against building code. It's just a matter of how much work. And I think that this building deserves a little bit of investigation into that. And I can see that the homeowners have already started to take it in that direction, which is great. That's what this process is about, is to investigate and to make sure that we've closed all the doors on whether or not this building is salvageable or not, and to find a resolution. you know, again, if we have 18 months, I don't want to hold them up for 18 months. If we did put a delay on this building, I would want to see a resolution in like two months, you know, at most. So which, again, it's such a small building, I don't think finding a resolution would even take that long. But I think we could reach a resolution that would be beneficial to everybody in the community, including the homeowners themselves. So I think I think it's worthy of additional dialogue here, that's all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I have a question for the owners. If it's in danger of collapse to the property behind it, then has anyone at the building department come out and look at it?
[SPEAKER_03]: We've had initial dialogue with them. We also did some extensive work on the main house for the benefit of the committee. One of the things that we did is we redid the entire foundation, added additional structural supports, that all had to be generally inspected. The dialogue about the carriage house came up, it was not germane at the time, but they're aware of the plans, they have the demolition permit, but given that the assessment was not an immediate risk, but a risk once we get into the winter months with the stability of the roof, we were encouraged to go through this process first.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Got it. OK. The commissioners or the owners, does anybody else have any comments on this before I go to public comment?
[Unidentified]: There's a comment from Thomas Downing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I was going to get to that. So Mr. Downing, if you would like to unmute yourself. And you can please state your name and address for the record.
[Unidentified]: Can you hear me?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, go ahead, sir.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[SPEAKER_15]: I'm new at this, so I'll try it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's OK. Can we just get your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_15]: Yeah, Thomas Downing, 24 Otis Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, go ahead, sir.
[SPEAKER_15]: I live next door to Tim and Danielle. I've been here for 51 years. I've seen that bond, if you want to call it, carriage house. Is she talking? Are you talking to her?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_15]: Okay. And like they said, they made
[Unidentified]: It looked not that these people have to go through this to correct the problem.
[SPEAKER_15]: And I don't think that carriage house has any historical significance because I've I've lived here and I've Ray Connors lived on the other side of me. And we've talked a lot. He's never mentioned the care I chose as far as anybody using it for anything. So I don't think there should be a problem with them knocking it down because they have plans to put another nice structure up.
[Unidentified]: So thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much for your comments, sir. I'm going to put you back on mute. Oh. Did somebody else want to speak? Okay, just wanted to make sure somebody else didn't want to speak. Are there any other public comments for this project? Double checking, going once or unmute yourself or raise your hand.
[SPEAKER_19]: My name is George Kong and I'm also on Otis Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, hold on, sir. Can you spell your last name for me?
[SPEAKER_19]: It's K-O-N-G.
[Jennifer Keenan]: K-O-N-G. And what number, Otis?
[SPEAKER_19]: Number 30. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much. Go ahead.
[SPEAKER_19]: I have no problem with them demolishing the structure either. That's all I need to add.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you very much, sir.
[Unidentified]: Are there any other public comments for this property?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, at this time we will close public comments on this project. Commissioners, does anybody have any last thing to say here before we go around for a roll call vote?
[Adam Hurtubise]: One thing I just, I'm curious about if the abutters I don't know if it's a house or a garage, like an accessory building, but if it's only three feet from the property line and it's a house, it's non-conforming, obviously, but for the homeowner's consideration, may I ask, Mr. Stark, You're a butter to the rear there. What the function is of the structure that's so close to the carriage house?
[SPEAKER_03]: That is a house.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's a house.
[SPEAKER_03]: That is a fully subdivided lot with two occupied residences.
[SPEAKER_21]: And the property line is their house.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, so just so you know, if you knock down the carriage house and build another house, I don't know if you'll be able to put it right where it is, because... Is that right, Brian? Yes, Ryan, go ahead. Yeah, Peter, just to clarify on behalf of the homeowners, they're not putting up another house, they're putting up a garage. No, I know, but... They would not be able to put it anywhere near that line if they tore down the existing structure. Well, that's what I'm saying. That's what I'm trying to get at is that don't count on being able to put your new garage exactly where the old, where the carriage house is. That's what I'm saying. So, you know, you may have to put it, you may have to put it well inside that because of your neighbor's non-conformance.
[SPEAKER_21]: The plans we proposed in the initial application for the garage do show that it does have a farther setback off the property line.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, okay.
[SPEAKER_21]: We're aware of that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Anyway, just thought I'd make that observation.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you both for clarifying that. Cause I think sometimes that. Gets overlooked. So, and is that Dudley street behind. Yes. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I was just curious. Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Commissioners, any other comments?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, thank you for clarifying that. Okay, I am going to go around now for a roll call vote. We have a motion on the table to find 20 Otis Street preferably preserved, that has been seconded. And I'm gonna read off names as I see them on my screen. Jessica. Yes. Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yes, with not much optimism.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So we have a five zero vote for preferably preserved. So Tim and Danielle, we will get you on the calendar with the subcommittee so that we can start looking at this and move you along as quickly as possible. Thank you both. Okay. Next up tonight we have a second preferably preserved hearing. This one is for the property at 76 Sharon Street. Sorry, just need a second here for some administrative work. 76 Sharon Street. So again, two meetings ago, the property owner here submitted an application for, I believe this is partial demolition. I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me. If my commissioners could remind me. I'm just gonna pull it up here real quick.
[Adam Hurtubise]: is a partial demolition.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Partial demolition for 76 Sharon Street. I think it mostly involves the roof line. Last month it was found historically significant. So again, tonight we will go through the same process with regards to preferably preserved. So we'll do commissioner comments first. Then if the property owners are here, I'm happy to hear anything that you'd like to say. And then we'll come around for public comment just like we did with the previous case. So commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion here, I will take it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Make a motion to find 26 Sharon Street preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second? Thank you, Jess. Okay, Ryan, I'll start with you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, this particular question so for significance I think we asked the question, you know, based on the bylaw, what, how does it relate to. You know important people and places and broad patterns of events in Bedford history. This question we're asking, does this building have. integrity enough that it's in the public interest to preserve and rehabilitate rather than see demolished. This is a partial demolition, and I'm comparing it to other buildings that we've recently reviewed in West Medford. I feel that this has less integrity than the other buildings. It may have some more interior integrity, but we haven't really, you know, I'm not really looking at that right now. I'm looking at the exterior. You know, it's, you know, it's got a lot of character with the stick style, but I don't necessarily feel that the shingles and the windows and the door, front door surround, the items are original enough to warrant a delay like we saw at 69 Jerome Street, where that had much more original features. So I'm not necessarily in favor of imposing a delay unless there's significant public interest for this particular building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Jessica, I'll come to you next since you seconded the motion.
[Jenny Graham]: Sure, I was thinking that the, you know, the architectural style was worth going through the review process. So I would just love to hear from other commissioners. You know, after hearing Ryan say that maybe it wasn't necessary. Yeah, I just like to hear from others. I'm not really one of the architects in the group who can kind of like, you know, look at the plans and really see too much from that.
[Unidentified]: I'm always just looking at the form piece.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Peter, I'll come to you next.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, I do feel like the house has some significant architectural detail remaining. I do think that there has been some unfortunate additions, such as the front door and the little bow window type thing in the front and some other moves that have detracted from it. But I feel like the house is quite intact and it's quite unique even for West Medford. I would like to see it preserved, preferably preserved. I mean, I have looked at proposed plans, and I think they're quite, I think they're pretty sensitively done, and with just a short amount of work, I think it could be, I think they could be, I don't think there's that much that I would need to tweak on them, but I would love to see them kind of take the front facade back to almost something that's a little bit more appropriate.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Ed, any comments?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm sort of leaning toward where Ryan is that we're talking about this as sort of an individual house, not part of a specific group of houses. And we're talking about what happens and what happens to houses of this age, they get changed. And the changes may have gone to a point where at least on the exterior sense, preservation is not really a word that goes with it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Doug, are you able to make some comments on this one?
[Doug Carr]: Yes, I reviewed the Form B. I'm a little on the fence here because I know I haven't really looked at the plans, the proposed changes. If it was an actual teardown, it would be a hard no for me. But if Ryan thinks that it's a relatively sensitive addition, changes that preserves the integrity, especially of the front elevation with its unique roof geometry, I just don't see many houses with that geometry, I think. You know, if we say no to this, we have no influence, obviously. And what Ryan is saying, I think, is we don't need much influence, because it's pretty much there. And I think Peter's close to that as well. So it's a little bit of a, I'm on the fence on this one, because I don't want to flip on the project. We don't ever want to do that, where we encourage historic property owners to adapt their buildings and make them work for the 21st century all the time, no matter how old the house is.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So I have a question, Ryan, how many of these Queen Anne sticks do, I mean, are, I, I mean, I agree with Doug that the, and Peter, the roof line is so unique. I'd be curious, like, I mean, this is the 1881 approximately. Do we have a count? We have any sort of count of what, of what we have in town for these?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, I can check one second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, and just in terms of like architectural changes, you know, I'm just reviewing their plans real quick. I mean, it seems like, you know, they're changing some of the roof line towards the rear, which is, you know, which is great. They are changing some things in the front, like they'll be getting rid of that front window raised. I don't even know what you'd call it the raised dormer. They are trying to emulate some of the language like they've got the clip people on the left, they're trying to add it to the front as they change around the front roof line. So obviously, they're trying to, you know, they're obviously trying to adapt the existing style, which I think is great. It is going to be a major change for the building. But again, I don't think the integrity, I don't think the integrity is there. You know, there is there is a certain level of integrity, but it's been
[Unidentified]: Are the property owners here?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Why don't we do this? Why don't we take a kind of a break for some commissioner comments? I'd like to hear if the property owners are here and if there's any neighbors or any other public comments on this one, why don't we take those and then we can kind of circle back on our discussion.
[SPEAKER_08]: I'm here to represent the property owner. I'm the builder.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. Can we get your name and address for the record, please, sir?
[SPEAKER_08]: Jim Patnan, 60 Arsenal Street, Watertown.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And P-A-T-N-A-U-D?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Go ahead, sir.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Can you spell that one more time? I'm sorry.
[SPEAKER_08]: P-A-T-N-A-U-D. OK. And your address one more time? 60 Arsenal Street, Watertown. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead, Jim.
[SPEAKER_08]: So we're willing to work with you on any design changes. We're up for whatever. We're trying to keep it the best we can. We want to minimize whatever it is you don't want us to do. And obviously we want to speed up the process. So we don't want to try to do anything that you don't want us to do to drag this out. So we're willing to work with you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. I'm curious if there were any discussions with the property owners about keeping the look of the front. Was that intentional or just kind of curious on the process and how the renovations came to be?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, we knew it was going to be a historic issue. So he wanted to try to keep the look as close as he can and still gain what he wanted to do on the inside. It didn't know that I know it says on the plans and final siding, but that's not correct that the siding can either stay the way it is, or something that you guys would prefer to see.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I'm commissioners does anybody have any questions for Mr. Pat now who's the builder.
[Unidentified]: My clarification. Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: On your note for number of properties documented in the stick style on macros, which is not quite up to date, but I would know if there were other buildings. There are three buildings so documented 21 Ashcroft Rd, which is an 1877 large example located just off of Medford Square. There is 51 Fulton St which has been demolished and 63 Oakland St which has been demolished. Okay, so I wouldn't say this is the last one but if I had to estimate of the 3000 pre 1900 buildings, there would probably be a safe bet probably maybe. three dozen or so that would probably be classified under this style that is separate from the Queen Anne, separate from all the other Victorian styles, but there's probably around three dozen or so citywide. That's just a loose guess. It's nothing to be holding to, but it's a rarer style, I would say. It's just a form of Queen Anne Victorian, basically, and it's a narrow little subset.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan, for that context. I think that's really helpful. Are there any members of the public here that would like to speak on this project? If you could please raise your hand or make yourself known. We do have a lot of people on the meeting tonight, so I just wanna, if there's anyone here for this. Elizabeth, are you raising your hand? Okay, can you unmute yourself? Can we get your name and address for the record, please?
[MCM00000561_SPEAKER_04]: Elizabeth Dowie, 69 Sharon Street in Medford.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Go ahead, ma'am.
[MCM00000561_SPEAKER_04]: I wish I was better prepared, but I couldn't find actual plans of what they're trying to do. Is it gonna stay a single family house? I'm also coming at it from a neighborhood perspective that they take houses and then, you know, move, use up every, all the way up to the setbacks. And so I'm also interested in what kind of footprint it's gonna have and the price. People are getting price out of the neighborhood. So I hope that's a little bit coherent.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I think, well, I'll come back to the builder in a second. I'm not sure that this isn't a project for a homeowner, that they're doing it for themselves. So it may never go on the market.
[MCM00000561_SPEAKER_04]: Oh, you're saying they are doing it for themselves?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't know. I mean, it's not, that's not a question that we typically ask, but I'm certainly, I mean, I'm certainly, you know, we can ask the builder, Jim, do you have any, and as far as I understand, it's staying a single family.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yes, we own the house and it is staying a single family and then it will go up to scale once we're done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Jim.
[MCM00000561_SPEAKER_04]: Maybe one other question about the heating system. They have those amazing radiators in the house and I'm sure they're not the most efficient, but I'm curious what the plan is for those.
[SPEAKER_08]: The heating system will be all new.
[MCM00000561_SPEAKER_04]: So you're going to toss those? Yes. Okay. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much. Was there somebody else that would like to comment? Okay, Susie, I see you Susie Neko, you can unmute yourself. Hello. Hi, can we get your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_00]: Susie Neko, 49 Sharon Street. Thank you so much. Go ahead. So, I mean, this is, I haven't come to one of the commission, as you know, I haven't come to one of the historic commissions meetings, but we have an issue that is, and I feel like Elizabeth alluded to it, that the neighborhood is being transformed from this historic community to this being bought by developers and either counting it as a two family and making these two units that are joined by a garage and selling them for, you know, exorbitant amounts of money. And as Elizabeth said, pricing people out, but the overall, this community is very old. This part of West Medford is very, it's historic. It goes back to, it was like, goes back to one of the first, of the first areas that Americans were allowed to buy property, probably in the country. And they were only allowed to buy property near the river. There's a couple of great books written on it that are local books by a local historian. But this, it seems that this particular house is one way that we can kind of, we might be able to, we can't influence, for some reason, we can't influence the building department and why they're giving these permits to these developers instead of, you know, instead of to like real people who are going to live in the houses. And what happens is the houses go for so much money that the people get upside down on their mortgages and only stay like a couple of years. So in essence, they're destroying the neighborhoods by by allowing these corporations to buy these houses. So this particular house is, as you brought up, it's extremely rare in what it looks like. And it is a piece of the original neighborhood, which is how many hundreds of years old, probably 1700s. And so, but that's an 1800 house, but still these neighborhoods were being developed at that point. So I just don't know how to kind of stop this. And I don't mean stopping the sale of these houses. I mean, stopping the sale of these houses to these corporations that are just, you know, kissing your butt to get the thing pushed through. But in essence, it's destroying the neighborhoods and destroying the historic character of the neighborhoods. You know, is it because this isn't a very expensive neighborhood to begin with? So they're allowed to do that? Like if it was over in the other part of Medford, we wouldn't be having this conversation, you know, or I don't know. But, you know, I'm a landscape architect by trade. And at the very least, I would like to see some kind of renovation of the landscape that is in more conforming to, to this neighborhood. They just ripped out this retaining wall and it's just like half of it's hanging in the wind. The other side was done by the previous owners and it's just that crappy block that they put on top of each other. There's nothing historic about, and they took out the mature trees. First thing they did was come in and cut down all the trees. You know, and so I'm just kind of, I don't know, I don't know what my point is. I'm not feeling very well. So, but it's just, there's got to be a way that we can put our heads together and kind of stop or affect You know, it's not fair to Jim P or whatever his name is that, you know, that we have these conditions, but at the same time it is because we live here. Jim P does not live here. He doesn't intend to live here, you know? So this is our neighborhoods. This is our neighborhood. And it's pretty striking. If you've been, I don't know if any of you, I think Doug Carr is from right around here. So he's very, You know, I recognize some of the people in the participant list, but I don't know if the commissioners are aware of how this neighborhood is and what the type of transformation, and God knows how they're getting the permits. I don't know how they're getting the permits. It's not, you know, half of it is wet, you know, and they're building bigger than the original. I mean, there's a lot going on. As far as this particular one, this is the only one we kind of have. And why didn't they post what they're going to do? Why wasn't that posted like a week ahead of time or whatever? So we could take a look at it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Suzy, let me just let me stop you for one second and then I'm going to let Doug jump in. Our task is to evaluate the structure as it is today. We really don't, our goal is not to look at what they're doing, but it's to mitigate the demolition of the existing structure. And then only when there is a preferably preserved status put on a property, do the discussions really begin about like what is going to be happening. I'm going to let Doug jump in, because I think we're probably about to say the same thing with regards to permitting and how people acquire properties and all kinds of zoning issues. So go ahead, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm sympathetic, Susie. I know exactly your concerns. I've lived in West Medford for the last 26 years and in Medford since I was five years old, going more 20 years further than that. The thing is, developers look at properties different than homeowners to if they want to maximize what they can build. And if the city zoning, which was written probably before I was born, and even though they just revised it very generically, they have not done the degree of zoning changes to protect the quality and massing and scale of neighborhoods. That is something that takes a lot longer than what the city council has just done, which was basically take a low hanging fruit from what I understand and really keep things you know, the egregious stuff, but it doesn't get into the design of the buildings and the quality of the neighborhoods. We're just not there yet as a city. And the answer to your question of how to change that is not to prevent developers from coming in, but to give them better rules so that you can guide their development in a way that is consistent with the way you and I feel about this neighborhood. That's where we need to go as a city.
[SPEAKER_00]: So yeah, zoning and regulations, but who does that? So the Historical Commission doesn't have any say as to that part of the regulations?
[Doug Carr]: We can advise if requested, and we have done that. We actually submitted some comments to the zoning, but the city, like I said, if you're looking for a more detailed zoning change, you know, neighborhood by neighborhood, that's probably From what I hear from the city planning department, that might be a three to five or longer year of evaluation, because the Brooks Estate neighborhood will be different from the Hillside, from the Lawrence Estates, from North Medford, from South Medford. They would all have different zonings that would reflect what those neighborhoods are. We can't go too deeply into it now, but that's really what needs to happen so that you don't get something that is out of scale, out of character with the neighborhood. You have better control. and design review, design review for new buildings and projects.
[SPEAKER_00]: So is there anything in the historic commission about landscapes and about some kind of restoration of that?
[Doug Carr]: I don't think so. I mean, I think we have broad design ability to make suggestions as when we have leverage, but you know, we can't, I don't think we have any veto ability to say you cannot tear down a tree or several trees on a property. I don't think we have that power.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'd like to jump in for one thing did just, you know, um, some of you may know I'm a real estate agent here in town, and I think one thing is, if you love your home and you love your neighborhood. I think you need you need to talk to your neighbors because at some point, someone's going to knock on their door and make an offer for their house. Well, you know, especially in your neighborhood Susie over there there's huge lots over there that can be added on to and there's profit to be had. And it starts with the homeowner who lives there or the family that owns the property now. Who are they selling to you know you have a right to sell your house to whoever you want to, and there are plenty of properties and I can say this from experience that I have buyers that would want to buy these homes and renovate them and live there and raise their kids there, they never come on the market. because somebody knocks on their door and offers them a check and says, move out when you're ready and I'll pay you cash, take six months, take only what you want, leave everything else and I'll clean it out for you. And they make it easy. And there are plenty of other buyers that would do that as well that want to live there, but they never get a chance to actually know about these properties for sale. So it really, that's where it starts in my opinion. and I'll just get off my belly pulpit from that.
[SPEAKER_00]: I just feel like that's another discussion because that really affects our residential taxes and their corporations buying the houses but we're being taxed. They're making the profit and then my taxes go up because they're selling but that's a whole nother thing. I was on the Conservation Commission and we would require If they cut down a, you know, 14 caliper inch caliper tree, we would require that they replaced it with light with at least that much tree or, you know, vegetation certain kinds of vegetation and So the historic commission doesn't have any of that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, and I would just say at this point, if you're concerned about trees getting cut down, if you see something happening, you need to call Aggie Tudin, who's the tree warden. I mean, she's really the only person who has authority as far as I understand. I'm in on that property. They cut down massive trees off that property. Right. Call the tree warden. We have a tree warden in Medford. I know Aggie, but why would Aggie have anything to do with their private property? Well, I think it's a conversation to have with her.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I could just bring up one thing and then I'll try to keep this brief, but there has been a lot of discussion about West Medford making West Medford or some portion of West Medford into a historic district. Now, that's not what our board does. That's the historic district commission. And they haven't moved on that. But if. the people in the neighborhood decided that they wanted to make West Medford into historic district and someone was willing to take the ball and run with that, then you would have design review because historic districts in the city of Medford do have design review. So this is something to think about. And we've had many properties come before us in West Medford, and many of them have been suggested that this would be a great contributor to this house to a historic district. So if the people in the neighborhood decided they wanted to make a historic district, and they demanded to the city council that it be so, it might get some traction.
[SPEAKER_00]: Peter, that's a fantastic idea. And that would also help us retain our street trees because they're just cutting them down like crazy. They're just, you know, clear cutting our street trees and in historic districts, you can't do that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And at the very least, if you want to protect your own property, you can talk about a single house historic district for the property that you live in currently. So definitely get engaged with the Historic District Commission, for sure. That was a great suggestion, Peter. Thank you. Suzy, are you all set? Thank you so much. Kathy, go ahead. If we can get your name and address for the record, please.
[MCM00000359_SPEAKER_00]: I am Kathy Ball, 27 Monument Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Go ahead.
[MCM00000359_SPEAKER_00]: I appreciate all those comments from the last three or four speakers. And I agree with them. What I'm thinking about though is very more specific or what I want to raise because they raised other good points. It's just the way the house looks, looking at it from the street, I think is very special. And so if there were going to be okayed for some demolition, I would hope that the angles that you see from the front would be preserved because there aren't many houses that you see that have that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's all I got. Thank you, Kathy. Thank you very much for your comments. Are there any other public comments for this? For this case tonight for 76 Sharon street. If not, I will close the public comments and move back to our commissioners for any last discussion. I'm just looking make raise your hand and make yourself known if there's any comments going once. Okay. Okay. At this time, I'm going to close public comments for 76 Sharon street. Thank you everybody commented commissioners. I'm going to bring it back to you. Are there any last comments before we go around and take a roll call vote? Ryan, did you have something to say?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I would just like to make a point that there are certain city Councilors who are trying to lessen the power of this wonderful bylaw. And if you value any of these dialogues that you have with your city, that you will, when the time it's necessary turn out to support the historical commission, um, in, in order to save this bylaw from being stripped of any power.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Can you give us names?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No need.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just encourage you to go back and watch the budget hearings. You'll figure it out real quick.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Exactly. No need to call names. It'll be evident.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Thank you. Doug, did you have something you wanted to say?
[Doug Carr]: No. Can you just repeat the motion so we're clear about what we're voting?
[Jennifer Keenan]: We have a motion to find for preferably preserved that has been seconded. And if no other commissioners have any comments, I will go around for a roll call vote. Okay, for 76 Sharon Street, there is a motion on the table to find four preferably preserved status that has been seconded. I will go around for a vote as I see people on my screen. Doug Carr.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed Wiest.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Ryan, are you there?
[Unidentified]: Oh, did you hear me? No, no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You're voting no.
[SPEAKER_06]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica? No. Okay, so that is 3-2 that passes for preferably preserved status. So this will go under demo delay, but Jim, we will get you into subcommittee so that we can move things along for you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Okay. Will I be contacted on that or do I have to?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'll email you. We'll get that on the calendar.
[SPEAKER_08]: All right. Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody. Okay. Moving along. All right. We have a few more things on our new business for this evening. Next up, we are going to take an application for 80 Canal Street. This is for, it's for partial demolition, but the house has had a fire significantly. But commissioners, the paperwork is in the Google Drive, so I'll take a motion when someone's ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: clarification madam chair yes thank you a vote to accept this application because this building is in the national register historic district for the middlesex canal will automatically send it to a public hearing just to be preferably a preferably preserved hearing correct okay okay so this is going to bypass significance because it's already on a register Significant. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. So we don't vote for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, it's automatically significant. Okay. But we still do need to accept the application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to accept the application as submitted.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is the application in the drive?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, it is. Yes. Sorry.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Do you guys get I didn't get I didn't get the link, sorry, I didn't. It's there. Any of the other links should get you to the drive.
[Jenny Graham]: I looked at it, I'll second that motion. Thanks, Jess.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, motion to accept the application for AD Canal that has been seconded. Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It appears to be as to form. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Yes. Peter. Yes. And Jess. Yes. Okay. So that's five zero. And so we will have a preferably preserved hearing next month for that property. We'll get that in the transcript and get going on that for next month. Okay, we have four significance hearings tonight. So let me just recap real quick. When we determine significance on a property, we are determining whether it is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or the Commonwealth, or it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So first up for significance tonight, we have 10 Newcomb Street. And commissioners, I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Make a motion to find 10 Newcomb Street significance with the caveat that I'm going to shoot it down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Was that you, Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Okay, Ryan, go ahead. Let's start with you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I had the luxury of being able to help the consultant with a lot of the research in East Medford in this particular area in particular, and a lot of the buildings date to 1855 and relate to the shipbuilding industry. This is a duplex, and it's of the right vintage, but In terms of its period and style it's not really like the best of best examples, it does fall in that rare category of being 1855 to 1875, but there are better preserved examples, even in this district of duplex housing so I'm, I'm not in favor.
[Unidentified]: Okay, I'm just pulling it up on my map.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I rode my bike past the house today. I didn't find it particularly compelling either, but anything else to add on that, Peter? Uh, not really. To me, I don't, it doesn't seem to rise to the level historically significant for me.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Jessica, anything to add? No. Thanks.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Doug, anything to add on this one?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I agree with Ryan. I'm good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So then let's go around, we'll just take a quick vote on this one. It seems like it's going one particular direction. There is a motion on the table to find 10 Newcomb Street historically significant that has been seconded. I will go take a roll call vote. Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. No. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica. Okay, so the motion fails five, zero. well, zero to five, I should say. So that one, we'll release that one for total demolition by the end of the week. Thank you, everybody on that one. Next up, we have 85 Fern Road. Commissioners, I sent the form B around later this afternoon, so you should have that in your email.
[Unidentified]: I make a motion to find for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Is there a second?
[Unidentified]: I'll second. Thank you, Doug.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Fulton Heights is full of these characteristic bungalows that this particular example, it's kind of a larger, larger one, it's really a bungalow in disguise right because it's probably framed out to be a full two story house with a regular gable roof they apply some decoration and some architectural elements to make it look like a bungalow. In particular, I was impressed by the developmental history of this site. All of the research that John brought up, and it's like a perfect example of how Medford tried multiple times to develop Fulton Heights, and they tried to attract Victorian era white collar families to this location. You can see it like the tourney, twisty tourney streets and trying to meet topography, but they just weren't successful. So they had to, they waited until the early 20th century where they could downsize lots, basically make them smaller, make them affordable. And George McCormick's slogan was, if you're on this earth, own a piece of it. So he made it, you know, people could put down pennies on the dollar to make these houses affordable. So I think all of that really is kind of wrapped up, not just this house, but like houses in the whole, this whole neighborhood and development. So I would like to see some more details of this particular building preserved to kind of echo its legacy. But again, I'm not opposed to development that's happening here, but I think maybe something could be done to kind of echo its, its legacy and then, you know, be a win-win for neighborhood and homeowner developer. I know this particular developer seems to hold on to properties. They don't just buy and flip. They seem to hold on to properties after they've made investments. So I'm kind of taking that into consideration too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Doug, anything to add?
[Doug Carr]: I'm actually going to disagree with Ryan on this. I know I seconded the motion, but I actually don't think this rises to the level, even though it's more about the neighborhood. in my opinion, in the larger area that I think makes the strongest case for this house. But the house itself, I just don't think rises to the level of the kind of, you want to plant our flag for this house and really influence it. I haven't looked at the plans at all of what's being proposed, but I'm just not seeing right now. So right now, I'm a tentative no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Doug. Peter, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, not on this one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Jessica.
[Jenny Graham]: I think it's kind of hard to know for me like without the you know we're doing a full height survey right now, so I think it will be a lot easier to tell you know what properties. You know rise to preservation, you know during that that survey, but I think it's kind of hard for me to tell now without without. some of the experience that I think other commissioners have, like reviewing, you know, for more years and seeing more properties come up. I almost want to abstain on this one, but yeah, I'm not sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks. I actually agree with you. I think a form A on this would be super helpful for this neighborhood, but alas, we are in the middle of it, so we don't have that yet. Ed, anything to add on this one?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Again, you know, this is, you know, I get, I get why I get why it's interesting I'm not sure I get why it's significant and I'm not sure where I am yet.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Um, well, we have all commented so I'm going to go around and take a roll call vote. So people who are on the fence, make up your mind. Madam Chair. Yes, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm gonna ask the question before we take this roll call vote. Any questions for clarifications from me on like style, period, neighborhood, et cetera? I'm happy to answer questions if there are lingering questions from folks to clarify you one way or the other over the fence. Or, you know, either way I'm happy to tip you either way. I just I don't want to leave questions lingering before we vote here if you, if you have things on your mind. Hearing none I move the question.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I have a question. I mean with regards to the neighborhood. Um, you know, I. I mean, I think I kind of agree with Doug that just from what I know of driving around, this might not be one of the better examples up on that hill. But I haven't scrutinized everything either. So I'm curious, Ryan, your thoughts on that. In terms of the neighborhood, there's got to be better examples than this house.
[Adam Hurtubise]: because of Fulton Heights nature, I think there are maybe a smattering of good, really good examples, but this is your classic example of like typical bird where a slew of, let me classify it this way. A wave of, Modern updates kind of roll through the city in the 50s 60s and 70s and this is like a good example of the type of things that people did they modernize their windows they put on siding. And those to me, they're not historic, but those to me are normal courses of action for this style of house. So I can still read quite clearly what this house originally was, and I can read its floor plan just from looking at the outside. I can read its style. And most of the changes, as we have seen, are reversible, especially if, you know, somebody's going to invest in this property. So I'm looking at it from like, you know, kind of a retention type but you know because the, the, the building will effectively be lost at the end of this project. So, you know, are there other examples yes but everyone that we knocked down here it's going to keep falling like dominoes quickly. So, you know, there comes a point where we have to decide like, are we just going to let them all go or are we going to try to preserve some and where, where do we do it and for me, I try to retain and at least retain more of the look and feel rather than the particular design because these houses do grow and change Fulton Heights is really known for that, but I. You know, I is, is this, I'm going to use Doug's language, is this something that I would want to plant my flag for? No, probably not. If the rest of the commission feels that it's not something to work plant your flag for, that's fine. But if, you know, if there is something that we could do to kind of see it, you know, get out of it than what is currently proposed, then I'm willing to at least talk through it. But I'm OK with letting it go. But just know that for every one that we let go, it's going to leave less on the backside for the other ones.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. I think that's a good explanation. I guess for me, I mean, obviously I'm not voting, but it comes back to, you know, I haven't looked at any plans if whatever Michael submitted, but I'm assuming there's a second story coming on here, like it's gonna be taller. I can see you nodding, Michael, thank you. And, you know, will it be completely unrecognizable from what this was? Ryan, do you think?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yeah, pretty much. I mean, I'm looking at the plans now, and it makes it look like a totally different house. For me, though, I have to look at the existing house and what that house means. So I'm not sure. I'm not sure it's a horrible trade, I guess. I agree.
[Doug Carr]: I think, though, the reality is that real estate is so expensive around here. Anybody who buys a house in that neighborhood, they're going to want to have a full second floor. They're paying a ton of money for a really small house, for a lot of them in that neighborhood. They were obviously much smaller and we're not, as you said, Brian, the history of that neighborhood is one of cottages, something that was a different scale that people need now 100 years later. So I feel like that tide is gonna be really difficult to hold back. I think preserving the key houses in that neighborhood and not letting them all go, obviously, but the pressure is gonna be enormous given the prices of real estate here for the size house involved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, when are when is the survey going to be done for Fulton Heights? Is that this year or next year?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's just starting so next year.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, so within 12 months we'll have. We should have everything.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We should have a better understanding of this area, but I think I think the the intent is to. There are something like 30 individual subdivisions that make up all Fulton Heights and kind of account for its crazy. maze of streets. And so we're going to ask the consultants to look at like a selection of each of the subdivisions and kind of pull, you know, tidbits of houses that reflects each individual, like the mega subdivisions, like this Osgoode development, and there's Boulevard Heights and, and kind of nitpick like the best examples. But you know, there's, you know, we're not, we're never going to be able to cover everything, we might cover like 130 properties. So this particular area, you know, the consultants may push for large area forms, but really what we'd be looking for is is more nitpicking and MHC form B's and then come back with a second wave of MHC form A's that cover the whole neighborhood or vice versa. You know, learn more about the developments this round and then learn more about individual buildings in a follow up round.
[Unidentified]: Okay, that sounds good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Commissioners, I'm just gonna ask before I do the vote, does everybody feel like they have enough information at this point to vote? Okay, I'm seeing nods, thank you. Okay, we have a motion on the table that has been seconded, defined for significance for 85 Fern Road. Doug?
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Oh. Peter.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. No. Okay. So the motion fails. Zero to five. So Michael, we'll get your letter off to you by the end of the week.
[SPEAKER_02]: Wow. Thanks. I appreciate it. I will just say, I'm not going to talk a lot. I know I talked too much, but Brian, if there's, if there's something that I can do, that you feel would help with keeping the spirit of the existing house, I can run that by the architect. I'm open to that. If there's something that you feel would be helpful, I'm open to that for sure. Appreciated, understood.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Michael. Thank you so much for that comment. All right, we know you'll email us, so stay in touch.
[SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I'm good at that, right? Yes. Okay. Thank you, everybody.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Have a good night.
[SPEAKER_02]: Thank you very much. Bye.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Next up for significance. We have two dash four Cape and street. So commissioners, I will take. Sorry, my dog's barking. I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to find for significance with the caveat. I'm going to shoot it down.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Okay. Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's a sizable 20th century building. Seems like it's got some integrity, but not enough to warrant preservation. I know it's on a big corner lot. It's a big house, but I think there are other examples similar to this house that are better preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Ed, anything to add on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm with Ryan on this. It's just, it is what it is. But it's, again, no context, no history. It's just not a 300 hitter. OK, Doug? I'm with Ryan and Ed.
[Doug Carr]: I don't see a lot here. I haven't looked at what the new plans are, but obviously whatever is going to replace it, hopefully it will be, I don't know. Is it a full teardown or is it a- A full teardown.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And I think it's a modular that's going on.
[Doug Carr]: Well, I'm generally not a fan of those just because they feel like cookie cutters. I know the modular plans can be adapted with a little bit of effort to make them Not so cookie cutter, I would encourage the owners and the developers to do that because the neighborhood I think deserves better than something that is just could be anywhere. This is a unique neighborhood and any kind of massive or changes that can happen that would make it look it fitting in the neighborhood is worth worthy of consideration regardless of the vote here tonight.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Clarification. Go ahead, Ryan. I think it should be known and just mentioned to the commissioners that the developer and owner is Tufts University.
[SPEAKER_15]: We knew that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[SPEAKER_15]: Is that good or bad, Ryan? I don't know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You take a look at the plans.
[Doug Carr]: I will.
[Jennifer Keenan]: If you open up the application, there are some kind of computer renderings of what it's going to look like.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I were to comment on the particular designs, I think the designs themselves as a freestanding design, if there were no buildings on this lot, are nice and attractive designs.
[Jennifer Keenan]: They're OK. Peter, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm going to recuse myself on this one and the Winthrop Street one. The architect on this project is my former employer, but I would say that these guys will do a good job. So you can have faith in these architects. These are not fly-by-night architects, and they'll do an excellent, they'll do as excellent a job as they're allowed to. I'll put it that way by the budget. So I think we're in good hands, but I'm not gonna vote on these.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. I will just point out for my commissioners as well that the representatives on this project and on Winthrop Street are the same team. They are here tonight. So if anybody has questions for them, they're here to answer any questions as folks are making their decisions tonight. Jessica, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: It's really too bad because the house looks like it was once a really beautiful property, but I do agree with the other commissioners that there's probably not any point in trying to save it at this point.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you, Jess. OK, so we have a motion on the table to find 2-4 Capen Street significant. That has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Doug? No. Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Oh. Peter's abstaining and Jessica.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So the motion fails zero to four with one abstention. Okay. Okay, and last but not least tonight for significance is 50 Winthrop Street also again as I mentioned same team of architects, it's for Tufts University, similar in the sense that it's another modular that's coming on here, obviously completely different structure and different, you know, little bit different area of the street and the neighborhood. Um, so commissioners, I will take an application, excuse me, a motion when someone is ready to find for significance with the caveat, I'm going to shoot it down. Thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think it's self-explanatory.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Ed, you want to talk at all about this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me take a look at the application again, but I think I think we're in the same place.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Doug, any comments on this one?
[Doug Carr]: No, I'm with Ryan on this one as well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The modulars do look different, just to point that out, that they're not the same design. So if you looked at CAPEN, I would encourage you to look at Winthrop. Just the roof line is different. And yeah, they just purposely look different. So I just wanted to point that out. Peter, any comments? I know you're not going to vote.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No. Same as previous.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. And Jessica?
[Jenny Graham]: I'm sorry, I can't find the information on this one. Is this in the form A?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It is, yes. It's part of the form A. It's 50 Winthrop. It is mentioned early on. Sorry, I know it's a little jumbled in there because it's a big area form.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's the very first residence on page one.
[Unidentified]: Oh.
[Adam Hurtubise]: House 50 Winthrop, 1855 to 75. While you look, I mean, again, it's it falls in that category of like, it's old house, but you know, it doesn't have importance. I don't think there are other examples.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I don't have further comments. Thank you for helping me find the find the find the text there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And just are these existing dorms that are getting replaced? Are these new acquisitions and new dorms? I'm just curious. Do we know?
[Adam Hurtubise]: leave there are both new acquisitions but Adam can, I'm sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi Adam, go ahead. Can I just get your name and firm and address for the record.
[Dash]: Absolutely Madam Chair, Attorney Adam Dash of Adam Dash and Associates at 48 Grove Street in Davis Square Somerville. Good evening.
[SPEAKER_19]: Thank you.
[Dash]: Yes, Tufts is looking to take down both of these decrepit buildings and put up a new housing for students in their Coho area, which has been agreed upon with the city where they're gonna have resident advisors and they're gonna have rooms and the kids will not be able to park at these properties. They'll have to park on campus, that sort of thing to minimize any impact on the neighborhood. So it's not a, I guess it's a dorm, but it's not a dorm in the way you would conventionally think of it, it's a dorm. as being shaped to look like a house that would fit within the neighborhood. While it may be modular style construction, part of that is to eliminate long construction impacts on the neighborhood, the look of it will not be modular, as you can see from the renderings, which are simplified. Of course, it'll be much nicer than what the renderings look like at this point, but yeah I mean not that not that it matters, but these buildings are you know, both in deplorable condition and tufts is going to make them Nice, I would know that they are also as part of this coho plan not allowed to be used as fraternities or sororities or anything like that. So we think this is a big win for the neighborhood with new lighting. It'll be handicapped accessible, which the current ones are not. They'll be energy efficient, which the current ones are not. And I understand that's not necessarily the commission's concern, but at least to give you what Tufts' motivation is here with more safety features and bike racks and all of that sort of thing. And we have the architect here as well, if anyone had any more detailed questions about that feature, about any features.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So, sorry, just back to my question. Were these existing Tufts residences that are being, so these are, so we're basically, we can say that we're taking kids out of off-campus housing and putting them in here, potentially.
[Dash]: One could put it that way, yes. I mean, these were private houses, which I guess if you go way, way back in history, looking at the forms, actually were owned by Tufts way back when. And then what goes around comes around. And I guess they're being put back to, these properties are being put back to university use. It's kind of funny.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I only bring that up because I know there's a lot of discussion in town about students and off-campus housing and in private rentals, and there's lack of dorm space. So I think just bringing up that these will be new residences for some students to live in. Obviously, it will only hold so many kids, but it's a start. And so I just wanted to point that out.
[Dash]: And that was the whole point of this coho district that was determined with the city, having these various restrictions that I stated about the no fraternities and no parking. that sort of thing, and that there has to be a resident advisor living in each of the buildings to govern it, and that Tufts would police it, and Tufts would control it. So that is the, these are just rollouts of that concept.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Doug, I see your hand. Go ahead.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, just in regards to the Form A, I don't want to spend a lot of time, but it's odd that it stretches across the railroad tracks and catches two properties that don't seem to be part of what I consider this district. Do you know where that came from?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Are you asking me or Ryan? You're muted, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: So whoever defined the boundaries of this for me, it just seems a little arbitrary.
[Unidentified]: Ryan, can you answer that? Are you muted?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Maybe he stepped away for a minute.
[Unidentified]: No, I'm here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, go ahead. I'm just looking. What is it? Four green leaf and three charnwood? Yeah.
[Unidentified]: It could be, I'm just gonna look at the maps real quick. Weird, I'm not really sure. It must relate to the...
[Doug Carr]: I mean, it doesn't include the tough church renovation that was done beautifully 10 plus years ago. And how could it not? It's surrounded that district. It seems like it's a little bit of hit and miss in terms of what it should be encompassing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The church has its own form B. I can look that up, but I think three and four, I think that's a mapping error because they're not included in any of the information.
[Doug Carr]: We can move on. We don't need to debate that here. We can pass that later.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, we can. We'll put that on. Let's make a note, Ryan, to double check that with John. OK. Thank you, everybody, for your comments here and a nice discussion. So we'll go around for roll call vote. There is a motion on the table to find 50 Winthrop Street historically significant. And that has been seconded. So Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? No. Jessica?
[Jenny Graham]: No. And I hope that the housing that comes with it is prioritized for students with the greatest financial need.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you for that note, Jess. And Peter, I know you're abstaining. So the motion fails zero to four with one abstention. So thank you to the team at Tufts. We look forward to seeing these new developments in the neighborhood and wish you the best of luck with your project. And if you need anything, please don't hesitate to come back to us. And that'll be a nice thing to happen this summer. All right, we are, finished with our significance hearings. We do have 69 Jerome Street up next, which is a vote to release the demo delay. So I'm gonna ask members of the subcommittee to kind of recap with us where we left off with Jerome, where you guys got to, and if we could just review quickly the final design. I know the property owners are here too, and then we can vote to lift. Doug, Ryan, or Peter, if one of you want to start.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And just keep it real brief and say there was a design. It created a mega impact on the building. Then we went back and looked at it. It was less impact than we initially thought. We made some very minor changes and came up with a design that we're happy with that we feel mitigates the design, mitigates the demolition. So we're happy with it. I motion to lift the delay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thanks, Ryan. Peter or Doug, anything to add on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I think that that pretty much sums it up. I mean, some of our concerns were to preserve the detailing accurately and the Moses man detailing there and. The architect has done some good drawings to mitigate that demolition and to document the existing detail and also replicate it elsewhere on the building. So and to reuse actual existing elements, you know, where possible, if they're in the condition to do so. So I too also feel like It's an acceptable design.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Doug, anything to add?
[Doug Carr]: Just that the owner and architects did really work with us well, and I thought it was a good process. And I think the end result is going to be pretty good for the owner and for the neighborhood as well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Yale or Sid, I don't know if Jess and Ed, do you want to see real quick the final design, or are we good to vote? You tell me, because I know you haven't seen it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm fine.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK.
[Jenny Graham]: I'm fine. I appreciate the committee's great work.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. Yes. And I mean, obviously, we worked with Yale and said a few times already now. So I think we have a good, good working relationship with them. So thank you all. All right. I will go around and take a vote motion on the table to lift the demo delay at 69 Jerome Street. And was that seconded?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll second it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Okay. Okay, so roll call vote to lift the demo delay at 69 Jerome Street, Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ed. Yes. Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jess. Yes. OK, so that passes 5-0. Sid, if you could have someone on your team upload the final designs into CitizenServe, and then we'll get your letter off to you as well, and we'll get you on your way with your permit.
[SPEAKER_12]: Yep. I'm going to take care of it tomorrow.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. Thank you both.
[SPEAKER_12]: Thank you so much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, guys. See you soon.
[SPEAKER_12]: Thank you. Good night.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan.
[SPEAKER_06]: We seen plans uploaded for 17 Edwards street. We have not actually hold on.
[Jennifer Keenan]: As of like this weekend there weren't any there but let me double check that there's not anything there right now. I've been checking every couple days and I haven't seen anything uploaded. That was a leftover from last month in case anybody was wondering.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct. We just want to make sure that we get them up there so that we're not we the building or to get some up there because we released it last month. So I just want to write.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, there's still nothing there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, you're, you're not no sound yet.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did you hear me.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can speak to that. Hi, Attorney Desmond. Yes, go ahead. So the owner's away on vacation, but I thought that they had, in fact, downloaded it. I was on vacation last week, but I thought that she was getting those on the site before she left. But she's away. I can check in with her and see if the builder has uploaded them.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, yeah, and we have the letter ready to go. So as soon as it's uploaded and we just verify that they're the final ones that everybody agreed on, we can let it go.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I'll check myself tomorrow, because I thought that she had, you know, sometimes when you do a permit refusal, the numbers on the permits get confused.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So it might be- Oh, let me, okay. So the one that I have on hold is, let me give you the number. It's B21-002051. So that needs to go into that one.
[Kathleen Desmond]: All right, I'll make sure that they put it in the right one if they uploaded it to somewhere else.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is which property?
[Kathleen Desmond]: 17 Edward.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody else have anything for new business before we move on to old business? Um, I have no update on the new members. I'm so sorry. I Ryan and I are going to make this a priority for next month so we will get on as we've been up to our eyeballs with the Thomas Brooks Park CPA, and the architectural dig and Ryan was in Rhode Island today cataloging artifacts, and I'm going next week to bag artifacts. So, it was a very fruitful dig. So yes, we will do our best to have a full board by next month. Thank you for your patience there. Um, sorry, I skipped around a bit, but just CPA projects. Um, Thomas works park. The dig was great. We had great community. Um, uh, folks from the neighborhood that came out and helped. It was a real fun week. The architects, uh, archeologists were great. All the neighbors were great. We had a bunch of neighbors stop by some people brought their kids. So it was a really nice week. Um, I think for us, for the neighborhood and, you know, got to talk a lot about. You know the updates that will be happening in the park and I think everybody was under the, you know, but I was happy to see work happening and, and happy that you know some love was being put to the park and that it was done being done. I think tactfully and, you know, respectful of the neighbors and whatnot so I don't know if you have anything to add Ryan on that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, many thanks to the CPC board and all those that. to get the $60,000 additional allocation to make the stone wall project happen. And then just so everybody knows, I stayed up until 1.35 in the morning to get the city council to approve the final allocation. So we are very good. We will be moving forward with that just as soon as the city's financial department comes to comes to terms with all their financial accounting stuff so there's a like a backlog of financial stuff that we need to take care of not our fault not anybody else's fault but just stuff that's in the pipeline so yeah so just to circle back the dig is the dig part of the dig is done the lab work is happening now we awarded the project for the pomps wall restoration
[Jennifer Keenan]: And did we officially award the field stonewall yet or we're close.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it's because we're, they have to in order to generate the PO, the money has to be in an account for that Danielle has to give us, but I think they have awarded the project in the sense that they have notified the personnel that they're accepting their bid in order to lock in that pricing, because once they're, if they back out of the project now, they stand to lose their bid bond, which is 5% of the grand total of the project.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So, um, so hopefully soon, um, the Pomswell will get going. And then after that will be the Fieldstone wall. So, um, and we took a ton of pictures. We had some good social engagement. Um, we should get a blog post up Ryan on the dig. on the website. We can work on that. I have a ton of pictures on my phone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So just a clarification for the minutes. So the field stone wall was awarded, but has not been.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's like 95% awarded. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's awarded, but the contract hasn't been executed. Okay. So you can word it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks for checking on that here.
[Unidentified]: We'll probably be a month or more before the contract is executed. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, just back to properties under demo delay. Not really any updates after tonight. 15 Hadley will expire as well 75 South Street. So those will come off their demo delay is fulfilled. No other updates. We are meeting with 130 Boston Ave in subcommittee later this week, so that there's a little bit of movement there. Nothing on 104 Harvard or 33 Third Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, do we have plans for 130?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I do have something I can email you, yeah. Or it's in the, they're in the drive.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm not sure if they've changed since they were submitted. So, I mean, you guys can talk to the owner about that. And you saw my email, the meeting is set up in the library. Just check in at the desk, and they'll show you which room it is.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you all. Okay. Permits of committee and processes. Things are moving along. There's really not much in our queue right now. Things that have been coming through have been pretty benign. And the, you know, canal street was one of those, which we got tonight. So things are working well there. I have not heard anything on a new building commissioner. Dennis, do you know anything about a commissioner?
[Denis MacDougall]: I'm not sure exactly when the start is, but we, I don't know, unless it's changed and things change without my knowledge fairly often. Last I heard it was the building commissioner Arlington is going to be working for us for like one day a week to sign permits and go through that stuff. I don't know if that started yet, to be honest. But that was my understanding was that, you know, while The search is on and we're getting resumes in for incoming building commissioner that he will be acting as sort of a temporary one. Just sign the stuff that a building commissioner actually asks to sign.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. And then I know we traded emails about this the other day about the remote meeting law. We think that's going to get extended again.
[Denis MacDougall]: Last I heard today, I guess Alicia ran into Pat Jalen at the Brooks thing on
[Doug Carr]: Saturday.
[Denis MacDougall]: She said that, you know, at least through her that it's, it's, it will get extended. It's just the debate right now is when to extend it to or make it permanent. So it's at least have the option to have, you know, remote meetings. So, right. So it's, it's, it'll get done. I think for you all, you're fine because I mean, like last year when it went, There were about two or three days where we didn't know if we could have meetings or not. But given the time when your meeting happens, you're fine. So we've sort of done the assumption that I've got a zoning board meeting at the end of the month that I'm sort of operating on faith that it'll be allowed. If it isn't, then we'll figure it out. But we're sort of hoping we don't have to do that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then I guess the question is, if we wanted to meet in person or do some sort of hybrid, I know, Doug, that that was important to you. You know, in trying to set up the subcommittee meeting for 130 Boston now, Dennis informed me that it's hard to the building is not open city halls not open at night, really anymore. So that's why the meetings, the library so I don't know if they've figured out space. To have in person meetings and I, I actually requested our local history room for the subcommittee meeting but I was told that that meeting that people could still come in and out of that room if there's a meeting happening. So, and I was like well what if we want to have our meeting in there, like, I think that's a bigger conversation we need to have I wasn't going to. this was just a helper on the phone who helped me today so you know I can talk to Barbara about that if in the future we want to have our you know kind of standing meetings in there and so I think there's still some things we need to figure out but we'll have to just work on it a little at a time.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we know if the August meeting is going to be remote?
[Jennifer Keenan]: My intention as of now is remote. I think especially with summer and summer vacations we should You know, I don't know that we could feasibly meet in person before September, maybe October. Maybe we can shoot to have one meeting by the end of the year.
[Doug Carr]: I don't want to ever remove the remote aspect of this meeting. It's just, you know, you see how many people have come and gone. This meeting, we probably had 30 people total. We wouldn't have that as conveniently if we were just in person. So I just don't want to lose it. I'm okay with hybrid.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I agree and I think that, um, yeah, I mean I just know I mean it's just, you know, the time savers, and the gas and the traveling back and forth. We still have to commit to have a little get together at the holidays though so we will figure that out but separate issue. Yes. All right, well, you know, I'll keep you all posted as I learn things, of course. And, you know, if anyone has any questions, concerns, you know, feel free to just, you know, come to me privately and we can talk through anything. Okay, survey projects. I feel like we kind of went over this when we talked about Fern, but Fulton Heights is ongoing. Is Brickyard done yet?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no. So winter Hill is trying to wrap up. There was issues with. Amen. So we're trying to get John paid for the last phase. And then in order to make that happen, some money needs to move around because of issues with the way that the accounting was done originally. And so once that's done, he'll get paid. We can sign off on that. paperwork all done. Brickyard's just got extended through September of 2023 because John and Claire kind of have a backlog of projects so their product is due to us by February, the end of February 2023 and then they should be able to That should make us square. There is another bit of survey that they've been doing for us. And then we need to go out to bid for Fulton Heights. So it's not known who the contractor is yet. But I think the expectation is, as I said to MHC, the expectation is that they get back on a regular schedule. I think MHC is pushing for a regular schedule. So we're hoping to have it done by June of 2023 as well. So it's ambitious, but it can be done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you for that. I don't have any updates on local historic districts. Does anybody else, is there a meeting this month?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I recommend that we remove that from our agenda for now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No good to remove any sort of misconception that we have anything to do with that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I feel like, I mean, it typically comes up when we're talking about something else anyway, so. Okay, that's, I'm fine with it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, I did, I did run into Marianne Aduchi on the street the other day.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Uh-huh, this is about 78 Cotting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, and she said she has not given up. So, more power to her.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I mean, I guess until there's a permit in and there's no permit in, so until, you know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, it has nothing to do with us anyway, it'd be all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right, but I mean, it's, you know, they do have time, they're not ready with their plans or whatever, they have time to do a district if they get on it, you know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know, we'll see.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I think you know, I think between codding and the, you know, the lovely neighbors that came tonight to talk about 76 Sharon. I mean there's clearly passionate people out there in town that are concerned about historic resources and neighborhoods, changing in development, for better for worse. And, you know, I think they all need to get together and start, you know, having bigger conversations and participating more in our meetings, the district meetings, zoning, city council. I mean, I think there are people out there who care. And I think the more, you know, we bring these things to light and the more people participate, the better. Yes, Jess, go ahead.
[Jenny Graham]: COB, Erika Vandenbrande): yeah I was just thinking, based on our conversation earlier, but it would be nice if part of the comprehensive plan for Medford was to. have either the historic commission or another coordinator, I guess, pulled together, you know, kind of survey groups to find a way to identify those groups of residents who would want to come together to create a historic district and have it happen sort of that way so that there's groups of people that are actually bringing things to the historic district to be passed rather than the historic district commission taking having to do all of the work really of identifying what what residents one. And that could be part of the, you know, potentially the comprehensive plan. I'm not sure if that would fit.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Also think we need to go embark on a public education campaign to clarify the two roles of the commissions, to make sure that it's clear, and that we're separate boards but we have interrelated roles where we do the identification of historic resources, through our survey and planning projects and of course they come up as identified during demo delay as well. And then it's the historic district commission's job to establish local historic districts that they, you know that they feel are in the public interest and that they both, you know, both projects are kind of entwined, but also I think it's very important that we stay on top of any negative comments made, especially those that are not factual in any particular way or form. There have been several comments by certain people at recent meetings, very public meetings that I think need to be addressed and that we will be addressing those to make sure that the public knows what is fact and what is fiction.
[Doug Carr]: Is there a subcommittee meeting with the city council that's been scheduled yet? Or when do we anticipate that happening?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't anticipate that meeting for months, but you just never know depending on how that, I think it's important that we come out with the clarifications on the facts so that maybe the council just reviews whether or not they even need to take any action or just remove it out of their own action. Because I think the discussion was misled, misleading, and that they voted to do something that they really didn't even need to do based on fictional text. They were pulling ideas out of thin air, and they have no basis behind them. And if they do, they certainly haven't been brought to our attention.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, let's just start I just want to circle back here and we're talking about. There has been a motion to put the demo delay ordinance back into the committee of the whole to potentially change it. or make significant changes. So there was some discussion during the budget meetings and many, many incorrect facts talked through. But the bottom line is that it was used as leverage to pass the budget. And so there are supposedly, we will get called to a community hall meeting. Or maybe we won't even be invited. I don't know. But the discussion about the demo delay ordinance. And, you know, we need to have our facts ready so we can go in there and tell the truth and, and really talk about what's happened, and I know one of the biggest. kind of touch points I think that came out is there's always talk of, well, how many buildings have we saved? How many buildings have we saved? And I think we need to have some good case studies and examples of, you know, the demolition was mitigated here and, you know, and clearly there are folks changing their projects to help move their projects along quicker. You know, we can't say how many buildings to some degree that somebody maybe was considering tearing down altogether, and then they changed their mind and they said, oh, I'm gonna do X, Y, and Z instead. So I think we just need to be proactive and have some really good examples and have some public support behind us. So we're gonna need everybody's help here to be strong in this meeting whenever it happens.
[Doug Carr]: I think we have a lot of good examples of safe buildings, improved projects, working with developers, working with Yale, either today, twice now, and other developers who can speak to that we're not stopping their projects, we're trying to be pro-development to a degree that's without, we're still being sensitive to the history. I think it's a PowerPoint, we just make the case and bring out the people who have been benefited from it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think your, your term Doug pro development pairs well with also pro neighborhood. I think, I think the two terms are pair well together just because, you know, we're not only trying to mitigate the demolition but we're doing that through designs that integrate better and preserve the sense of place and definition, like, you know, we, as some of the neighbors alluded like, I think, people most people would agree, especially those people that live in it. We, you know, West Medford has a distinctive character that you'd want to see that's changing rapidly. Same thing with, you know, Fulton Heights is kind of starting to see that change and it's kind of rapidly develop in the next, you know, couple of years. So, you know, we might see rap, you know, huge, huge changes to whole neighborhoods that they're disappear and they come up against the housing production plan, right? So there's areas that the city is going to encourage additional development. So are those any of those areas worthy of preservation?
[Jenny Graham]: Jessica had, I think it would be helpful. I don't know if we have this, but have just a summary voting record of sort of what we've passed on, what we've passed along without even reviewing what we've spent along, you know, as well as I think You know we were known for what for what we. take a minute to really look at a little bit further, but we make many, many decisions in every single meeting. And the ones that we spend the least amount of time on and get the least attention are the ones that are making things move a lot quicker for folks. So I wonder if maybe just having a voting record of how the decisions we made over time and being able to say what percentage we pass on completely or some examples of things we've passed on might be helpful too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean there and there's a plethora of information in our annual reports to but of course no one is reading those. Um, but I agree with you just I think some stats I mean again like, I mean, you know, Ryan and I and Peter are going through permits, every week, you know, and, and. I mean, we're talking, you know, this is we're talking two to three people here who are squeaking their wheel at certain members of the council that are, you know, they have a friendly relationship and they're trying to leverage that as best as they can. And I do think that we have. You know some good folks here that have come before us, and other advocates that know that, you know, we work, we don't ever want to hold anybody. And we're trying to move folks along as quickly as possible.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. I think, you know, it's important to know. know we don't we don't want to make any changes to the demo delay because we actually I think most of us here think it's working and you know and working well you know there are you know quirks with it but I think that's just an adjustment of and clarification of you know as we move forward but I think most people understand that and it is working but also you know by opening that door You know, the public may, they may, you know, they may find that the general public is asking for a stronger demo delay, more than just this bought this body so like, you know, if the city gets up and starts asking for that they may find that they've opened the door to further strengthening brought about by the general public. So, You know, it's not indefinite. And, you know, there's really no difference between 18 and 24 months, but, and again I'm perfectly happy with the way it is I wouldn't ask for more, but I also wouldn't ask for less either I wouldn't take away anything here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I think too, this is an opportunity to make the ordinance better, you know, instead of, you know, cause when I first heard about this, I was angry and I thought, oh, it's gonna, but I'm like, no, like let's, this is an opportunity to strengthen it and to clarify and to put in perhaps some details that aren't specifically spelled out or clarified. And now's our chance to maybe get those things changed and added in so that they're more concrete and there's no question about them. So anyway, so all suggestions welcome and we'll keep you posted on when that meeting is going to take place. Um, does anybody have anything else before we move on to minutes? Okay, I know Peter circulated the minutes. I gave them a read they they looked good to me, but I'll take a motion when someone's ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Unmuted, I'm unmuted. I move to approve the minutes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Second. Thanks, Ryan. Okay, motion to approve our meeting minutes from our June, whatever day that was, June meeting, June 2022 meeting. Jessica? Yes. Ed? Yes. Ryan? Yes. Peter? Yes. And Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, 5-0 for minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to adjourn.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Move to adjourn. Second. Thanks, Jess. OK, motion to adjourn 855. Our next meeting is August 8. Send me an email if you will not be around. Otherwise, we'll see you then. Jessica, motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks everybody. Have a good night. Stay cool.
|
total time: 3.35 minutes total words: 596 |
|||