[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, this is Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, September 12. Let me just do our order of business here. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting of the City of Medford Historical Commission will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by using the Zoom link provided for in the agenda. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. So we have a busy agenda tonight. First up we're going to start with a preferably preserved hearing for 80 Canal Street. So just to recap and how we got to this tonight. Last month we accepted an application for 80 Canal Street for partial demolition of this structure. Because this structure is on the national register, it is automatically deemed significant and therefore tonight we are having a preferably preserved hearing. And I would just like to remind folks the definition that we'll be using tonight when we're talking about historical significance and preferably preserved. So with regards to historical significance, a building is considered significant if 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 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 as I said, 80 canal is automatically significant due to the fact that is on the National Register. So tonight we will determine whether or not the property is preferably preserved. Preferably preserved means that the commission has determined after an open public hearing that the 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 that the 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 those issues. So what I'll do is I will take a motion from my commissioners. We'll go around for commissioner comments. Then I will open up the floor to resident comments or anybody that would like to comment on this case. We'll close those out, circle back for any final comments from the board, and then we will have a vote. So commissioners, I will take a vote for 80 Canal Street. If somebody would like to make a motion, excuse me, a motion.
[Unidentified]: Madam Chair?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to find 80 Canal Street, preferably preserved with the caveat that I'm going to shoot it down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Would anyone like to second that motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Given the caveat, I will second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ed. Ryan, I will start with you then for comments.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think the building has lost integrity to the point where it's no longer In the interest of the city to preserve or to seek any sort of preservation or rehabilitation aspects of the existing building. But I, I am just curious if there are any people from the general public here for the public hearing so I'll leave it at that for now, and then circle back once I hear public comments.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, just so you know you cut out a little bit so I would just. Don't move when you're speaking. I'm just going to reiterate, I think the gist of your comment was there's really nothing left here to preserve.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Correct. I'm interested in starting the discussion so we can hear what the public has to say.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Got it. Thank you very much. Ed, do you have anything to add since you seconded the motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: From what I have seen, although I'm willing to hear otherwise, the district makes sense, location makes sense, but the building, from what I've seen, is not there anymore.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ed. Peter, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I think it does have a very interesting history and it is very significant historically for the town with its association with the canal, Middlesex Canal. It's quite an old building. They thought it was a tavern at one point, but it's really an interesting building. But I think I agree with the other commissioners that due to the fire, et cetera, it would be, I don't, you know, I think the city has already lost the asset, I'll say. So that's where I come down, but also I would be very interested to hear from any of the people in the neighborhood or any other citizens.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Peter. Jess, do you have anything to add on this one?
[Jenny Graham]: I just have a question, which is, is this on the National Register of Historic Places that some part of the documentation that we reviewed was was the National Register of Historic Places documentation and I wasn't sure. How that relate because it was a whole group it wasn't just one building, it was a whole group of buildings, so if one of the commissioners could just kind of explain that I would really like to learn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a clarification.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan go ahead, thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's a contributing resource to the overall district. So the NR form I gave you is for the whole district. And the building is a part of that, even though the individual form listed in MACRS does not show it as being a part of the NR. And there are, just so you know, there are hundreds of buildings that are perceived to get,
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hold on a second, Ed. Ryan, finish your thought.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I was just going to say there are hundreds of buildings listed in Medford, but that's mainly for the canal prism. So those are just considered non-contributing buildings. This is really actually the only one contributing building of the entire NR district. All right, I'm done. Go ahead, Ed. OK. Ed, go ahead. Again, and just for clarification, The NR district is not a city of Medford Historical District.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No. Correct. Jess, does that answer your question? Yes, thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do you have anything to add on this one.
[Kit Collins]: Well, just to say that it clearly was a historically significant building and I recognize we can't take the condition of the building into consideration, that's not our, that's not our job. But the its location, and the fact that it was. presumably a tavern, I think makes it a historically interesting building. I'm interested to hear from the public as to their opinions on this.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, thank you. So I'd like to open it up now to any members of the public that are here. I think the property owner is here as well. So if anybody would like to speak, if you'd like to raise your hand or make yourself known, I will call on you for public comment. Just I don't see anybody raising their hand i'm just double checking, let me just double check the chat. Anybody going once. Going twice. Okay, then we do not have any public comments on this matter. So I will close the public comment portion of this meeting. So I think unless my commissioners have any other questions or comments, I will go around for a roll call vote on preferably preserved status for 80 Canal Street. We're very good, okay. All right, then we have a motion on the table to find 80 Canal Street, excuse me, 80 Canal Street preferably preserved. That has been seconded. I will go around for roll call vote as I see people on my screen. Please be prepared to unmute yourself and vote. Kit.
[Kit Collins]: I agree. It is probably too late to save.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So you're voting no.
[Kit Collins]: I'm voting no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Ryan.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No for not preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica. No. Okay, so the motion fails zero to five. So the property owner will be allowed to proceed with their project on this one. We will get a letter out to you and coordinate with the building department to release your permit. And good luck with your projects. Okay. All right. Thank you, everybody. All right, we'll continue on with our agenda. We are here for back to new business. We're going to start off with 130 Boston Avenue. Tonight we are voting to release the demolition delay. So just to kind of recap how we got here. I forgive me, I forget which month, but we did receive an application for partial demolition at this property. It was found significant and preferably preserved. The demo delay subcommittee has been working with the property owner to come to a resolution to mitigate the demolition on this building. And I think we are there tonight. If Ryan and Peter would like to walk the other commissioners through the process, that would be great. And then we can take a vote.
[Adam Hurtubise]: want to start with that Ryan or. Sorry it cut out real quick, what did you ask.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Like to start the conversation and walk through the plans to how we got to where we're at for 130 Boston.
[Adam Hurtubise]: yeah give me a second i'll see if I can. i'll see if I can pull up the plans here on my screen, so I can share with everybody.
[Unidentified]: you should be able to share as co-host. I'm just going to take a quick zip through here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 130 Boston Ave is a really ornate Queen Anne Victorian house. And we just wanted to make sure that we really documented the building well and made sure that we mitigated the potential demolition that was going to take place in this house. It did get gutted, but now the owner is working to move forward with their permit and kind of restore and rehabilitate. I'm going to use the term rehabilitate because the term restoration has been weaponized against us. So in this case, this is a, this is a tried and true rehabilitation of this building. It was occupied by a hoarder who passed away. And now we have somebody who's interested in putting some life back into this building. But we wanted to make sure we captured that. So these are the drawings that we started with, just so people were aware of what we received with the application. And we really wasn't clear what the actual full scope of demolition was. So we switched and did some existing conditions. Peter and I documented this building on the hottest day of the year and through both looking at what the existing building was and What we could see in the real estate photos, we're able to reconstruct pretty faithfully what was here before the gut rehab had taken place. And so you can see there's some details very typical to Moses man this fireplace. They have some photos of it. Didn't exist when we were doing documentation, but it does exist in photographs that we could see. These wing walls are pretty common to Moses Man. And then very typical of Victorian houses, they just tuck in rooms wherever they need to. So in this case, it has two forward public bedrooms. It has a space for a domestic servant in the rear. Both were able to access this bathroom that was once here. And then there was some space in the third floor that was both a finish room And then what I like to call it, in the back, it was probably a trunk room because Victorians did not have unfinished attics like we do today. They don't put anything in unfinished space. They would typically have stored it in finished rooms in trunks. But most importantly, we wanted to make sure that we captured all the intricate details that are present on this property, because there's a lot of them. And when you really zoom into these drawings, you can really start to see all the shingling and details on the dormers. And some of this stuff was worthy of preservation and recreating in modern materials to make sure that there was some maintaining of the integrity. And on the opposite side, just zooming over here, As part of the documentation, we documented all of the intricate shingles that were on this whole wall, because there's like five or six different patterns, which is pretty cool. The entire lower course is brick, and that's laid out in Flemish bond. So there's actual record of what is here, both photographs and architectural drawings. And that led us to the modern design. Now I put this on eight and a half by 11, so it's a little bit clear. So as typical in most houses, we don't really have a lot to say in the interior, but some of the interior changes for this house do affect the exterior. So we really had to look at and work with how do things lay out. And so there's some minor tweaks to the floor plan that we had to make to adjust to accommodate windows and whatnot. But the end result is that we get a building on the outside that looks much closer to the original, and all of this is going to be replicated in artificial materials. So it can be done in ASAC, it can be done in Certaintied siding, theater impressions that look like that, and Certaintied also makes a vertical siding, so it will look pretty close to the original design. There are some very minor changes like fireplace on the outside, but you get all the characteristics of the existing building here. You still get these flares, you get these horizontal lines, we still have some of the dormers. The only change to these plans that came to me a little bit late in the afternoon is just to block off this window to get a better layout of kitchen cabinetry on the inside. So other than that one change, which I think the commission can certainly accommodate, everything else was good to go according to Jim Calbee. So I think that this building design has turned out well, and I think the final building, if it's constructed in this way, will be a good example of what you can do, even with artificial materials, because oftentimes people want to just drop in vinyl materials, and you can do a lot more than just simply run them up the side of a house. You can make them work with you and work with some of these older buildings to get a lot more life out of it. And that's basically it in a nutshell. Peter, do you have anything to add? No, I don't. I think you did a great job interpreting that. And I just wanted to thank Mr. Calvi for working with us as best he could. And I think it was a great collaborative effort there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I agree. Thank you, Ryan and Peter. And thank you to Jim and the property owner, Jim Calvi. I think we had some good conversations. I think this is a win for everybody here. And I hope he's proud to do the project. And I hope he gets a lovely house out of it that he can provide for somebody who needs housing in the community. So yes, certainly, hopefully, that everybody's happy here. And it's a win. Just want to double check from the commissioners that weren't involved, Kit, Ed, Jess, do any of you have any questions with regards to this or anything that Ryan talked through? No? Okay, then I'll take a motion to lift the demo delay here if somebody would like to make one.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll make a motion to lift the demolition delay pending uploading the final agreed upon plans of taking out that window or whatever it was.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think Ryan was going to do that and then we'll ask the homeowner just to upload those in citizen serve and then we'll be able to release everything. You know, as soon as that happens. Okay, I have a motion on the table to lift 130 Boston Avenue pending the window change. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Kit. Okay, I will go around for a roll call vote. Second. Thank you, Ed. Two seconds. I'll go around for a roll call vote as I see folks on my screen. Kit?
[Kit Collins]: All right, what am I, what am I, what's the appropriate response?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes or no to lift the demo delay at 130 Boston Avenue?
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yes on Royce, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jess? Yes. Okay, the motion passes 5-0. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you, Mr. Calvi.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Adam chair. Yes, Jim just wanted to relay that because he can't speak that he just wanted to thank everybody for their efforts.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, thank you so much, Jim and yes, keep us posted and let us know if you any need anything as your construction continues. Okay. Okay, next up here we have 20 Otis Street, which is the carriage house. So again, similar situation to 130 Boston Avenue. This property has been found preferably preserved. The subcommittee has been working with the property owners to mitigate the demolition of the carriage house. So I think Ryan or Peter, if one of you would like to walk us through where we're at on that, we can go from there.
[Unidentified]: Peter, you want to take the lead on that one?
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. So as far as the screen sharing goes, can I share?
[Jennifer Keenan]: You should be able to, yes, because we're all co-hosts, so you should be able to.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. I'm in the process of pulling it up. Do you want to share, Brian, or shall I? If you've got it, I've got it. I've got one of them up here. All right, go ahead.
[Unidentified]: OK, can you folks see that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So just to be clear, that's the old one, right? Right. This is kind of where we started. This is the front facade of the carriage or the rebuild garage. And then.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So these were the plans that originally came in with the application.
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Then version 2 is after discussion with the property owner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: This is version 2.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We were trying to talk to them about changing the roofline to make it look more like the original. This was the result. Apparently, The owner confirmed that they could do this without getting a variance. So we did try to push them to go a little higher, but that would have put them into variance territory. So they declined to entertain that. So this would be the scheme we're voting on. whether to lift the demo delay. And I feel like it has come a long way since the original one. It's more in character. I had a few comments. There weren't any quarterboards on this. And I don't know if that's just a drafting error or what. And there wasn't really any trim around the you know, doors and stuff, just a J bead. So they seem like they would be willing to entertain that. I would like to hear from the owners on that. And I had some comments about the garage doors. Like that a little bit more traditional looking garage doors, but They said based upon availability, because there are a lot of supply chain issues, the choices aren't quite what they were. So they said they would entertain that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Can you kind of revisit the height? Because I'd like to know, what was the reasoning behind raising the height?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, we were just trying to get the roof shape to look more like a carriage house. So if we go back to where we were, we just had this kind of, you know, that was the side view. And it really doesn't. It just looks like a very basic, you know, low slope shed roof. So we were trying to kind of push the designer to get something that was a little bit more in character. We met with them at the property and we produced a sketch there on the spot. They did take it to heart. They came up with this. There was some back and forth with the building department about what the allowable height is. and there was this number of 15 feet. It's not the right number, Ryan? Yeah. And it was a question of, was the 15 feet to the peak of the roof or as in many cities to the midpoint of the highest roof plane? And so we did an exchange of emails with Dennis McDonald at the building department. I think he finally agreed that it was to the midpoint of the highest roof. So that allowed them to make a little bit higher roof and still meet the zoning.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'd like to see options for the doors. I think the doors are critical.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I would too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do we have pictures of the proposed doors?
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is what they agreed to, you know, we don't we don't have that yet. You know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is one door or two doors.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I believe it's one. but I would like the owner to speak to that. So if you want, I can show you the sketch that I produced.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I think that would be helpful.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, so the one I produced was just an overlay. So we raised everything up by two feet, and then I was looking at a kind of more of a traditional breakdown of the doors. This could be a single door, but looking like two doors, I added the trim around the door and the window, added the corner boards. That was basically it, just raising this up two feet to get what I thought was a better proportion. But donor said that that would push them into variance territory. So I'm not sure that that's totally necessary for them to go for a variance. Yeah. You know, I don't want to, I wouldn't want to make them go through that process.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Just for, I think the doors are much more critical than the height.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. So I don't know how you guys want to leave it. You know, this, this is, this is what they were willing to, you know, give. And so, you know, I, that's where we are at right now.
[Kit Collins]: Jen just want to call your attention that in the chat, the finder has said they're fine with updating the trim and it's one door. Okay. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Yeah. I mean, personally, I think the doors need work and I'd like to see examples of the actual doors that will be purchased and put on before, before I'm ready to release this. If it comes down to a tie and I have to vote.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But I mean, certainly, you know, I'm not trying to hog the conversation here. I'd love to hear from the other commissioners, their thoughts.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's kind of my summary of the process. I mean, we did meet with them. We went over there and met with them. I was gone for a long, most of August. So there wasn't much communication during that time. I don't know if Ryan, you had any further communications with them. No, I think the changes are not crazy here. I'm fine with the massing now that I look at it in depth. I agree that I don't think it's worth it to go after a zoning variance.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Because they were able to max out the roof yard. Yeah, I had thought that I had mistakenly thought that under this scheme, they were going to have to go for a variance. But she corrected me on that, the owner corrected me on that. They maintain they won't have to go for a variance. So I thought since they were going for a variance anyway, I asked them to push it up further. But since they're not, I don't feel like I don't need to have that extra. I don't want to put them through that in other words. Yeah, I think the only change that I would make is the corner boards, making sure that those are there. And then on the left side proposal, and it'll mimic it on the other side, it needs Eve returns, just little ones, especially if you're going to have the corner boards. There, yeah.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Then I do think that the front door should look like two doors to the best of the ability. Even if that means making it wider, so be it. To me, this looks like two doors. Yeah, it's close. Even though it's a single door, yeah, and I know that they make doors like that, but again, you know, there are, I know, I know there are some availability issues out there, but that was one of my comments as well as I thought that I didn't really like the proportions of the doors. I, anyway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think these need much more detail. And I'd like to see pictures of the doors. If there's a supply issue, then, you know, okay, we're give give us a few options. And let us say like, yes, we're okay with any of all of these, whatever you can procure. I think there just needs to be more discussion around what it's actually going to look like these seem still very, I don't know, unfinished to me. Any, I'm curious if Kit or Ed or Jess. hasn't have any comments here.
[Kit Collins]: I agree with you, Jen. I think, I mean, you can get doors, and recognizing supply issues, I think you can, as a matter of fact, I know you can get doors that look like it's two doors with the appropriate hinges and windows that have the functionality of the one door. And I agree, I'd like to see, it's just what the options are, recognizing supply chain issues.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Ed or Jess, do you have any comments on this? No? Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, well, we do have it on the agenda as a vote. So I would like to vote if the, if the property owners would like us to vote, then we'll vote if they would like us to table.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Madam Chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to table this discussion until our next immediate meeting, which is subject to the 16 Foster Court discussion. So that date will not be, I'm not proposing we wait until the 17th.
[Unidentified]: And we can take it on right after we discuss 16 Foster.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Is would just. Somebody meaning that there may, which. I don't even know that I should comment on this, but. Further down the agenda. There is a possibility of a discussion on another property. Potentially having another meeting prior to our October meeting, just to give some context. So is there a second for that motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: HAB-Jacques Juilland I understand the motion is to table this only for the period until all. Whether there will be a meeting on a shorter than usual schedule I will.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, that is the motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. For this meeting, yes. Yeah, and and it will give us give them time the owners time to just make sure that we update those because the, as you all know, the plans that are submitted are the final ones go to the building department and become a matter of the record on there so whatever we approve is what gets moved to the building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so there is a motion on the table to table the vote for this to our next immediate meeting, which our intention is to have that before the October meeting that has been seconded. So I will go around and take a vote on that motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we want to hear from the owner first about that or no?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, I'm happy to listen if they have an opinion. Absolutely.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. We could I thought I saw. Danielle in there though.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I am okay. I'm in the chat that she says that's okay.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Daniel.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Okay. Okay, so a motion on the table to table the vote to lift 20 Otis Street until our next immediate meeting, which is the the intention is not before not waiting until October. I will go around for a roll call vote. So a yes vote is a vote to table. Kit.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. Okay. So the motion passes five zero. So that will get tabled. And thank you everybody for this discussion. Okay.
[Unidentified]: All right. I'll stop sharing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Thank you, Peter. Okay, moving along. Thank you, everybody. Okay, next up, we have 11 Orchard Street, a determination of significance. So again, last month, we accepted an application for a partial demolition at 11 Orchard Street. And if one of my commissioners would like to start off with a motion either way for this one for significance, we can start the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Madam chair, yes, I will make a motion to find 11 Orchard Street significant with the caveat that I'm going to shoot it down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Is there a second? Second. Thank you. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, I'll start with you since you made the motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, This is a big Queen Anne Victorian, but unlike 130 Boston Ave, doesn't have the integrity of the building. It's, you know, it's seen some changes and it's got vinyl siding on it, but I don't see it rising to the occasion of being significant by definition.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Kit, do you have anything to add on that?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit, did you have anything to add on?
[Kit Collins]: I'm sorry, I'm gathering my thoughts.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's okay, I'll circle back. I'll circle back. Peter, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, although I, well, yes. Just to say, I think I agree with Ryan. That was, upon reviewing the form B there, I thought it was, it's an interesting house, but to me, architecturally and historically, it doesn't stand out. It's a kind of a typical house. Typical two family, it's going to remain a two family. And it's, it's, you know, been dumbed down with the vinyl siding, as many of our homes in the area have been. And the history is kind of a typical history of of that type of a building, but I didn't find anything particularly noteworthy about it. So to me, I kind of agree. It doesn't quite rise up to the level of historically significant. I did walk past the house today and there is a pretty full dumpster on the side. So they'd begun work. Anyway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Sir, I will get to you once the commissioners make their comments, so just hang tight for a second. Ed, anything to add here?
[Unidentified]: I think Peter said about what I would say, so I'll just leave it at that.
[Jenny Graham]: OK, thank you. Jess? Yeah, I think the Form B is good enough documentation for this property to tell some of the story. not totally necessary to do for preservation.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Kit, anything to add? Thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Yes. So I agree. And I'd also add that having taken a look at what the owner proposes, I was gratified to see that they had made an effort to stay true to at least the exterior form of the building. Although,
[Unidentified]: I sort of wonder about the character of the neighborhood overall.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you. Mr. D'Souza, I see your hand is up. Can we just get your name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, my name is Augie D'Souza. This is about 11 Orchard Street in Medford. I am the contractor representing the homeowner here. Also, the homeowner is present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great.
[SPEAKER_00]: Welcome. Thank you. I want to thank this commission for having us here tonight. And also, just a comment. It is, they took the character away from this house with the vinyl siding and a new project that we're doing. We are going to kind of reinstall the value there was before. We're going to try to bring the looks of this house for what was going to pass. We're going to try to get as close as we can. We are going to keep the same view like everywhere else, all the other homes on the street. We are going to use composite trim. We are going to use cement siding, which is going to bring up the life out of it, not looking like a vinyl siding box. We appreciate that. We are definitely improving the looks of it, and we are going to keep the original looks as much as we can.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Mr. D'Souza, could you just tell me your address for the minutes?
[SPEAKER_00]: Actually, I live in Medford, 48 7th Street in Medford. I'm a local.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So at 47, do you?
[SPEAKER_00]: 7-0. 7-0. It's right off Middlesex Avenue. Yeah. That's my home address. I have an office at the Assembly Row at the Staples.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, yeah. Assembly. Yeah.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. The Staples has like a little office space now. I rent an office out of here. That's why I'm here right now, to be honest.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, great.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, sir. I love this neighborhood. It's a beautiful place. I love neighborhood.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, it's a great location here.
[SPEAKER_00]: I've been in Metro for 10 years. My kids went to Metro McGlynn School, great school. They moved to Maldonado with their mother. My stepdaughters are going to Metro High. There's no complaints about the city at all. It serves its purpose, and everyone does a great job on it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, well, thank you for explaining the project to us. I think it sounds like, I think my commissioners are ready to vote. So let's see, we have a motion on the table to find for significance at 11 Orchard Street. A yay vote will find significance, a no vote will vote it down. I will do roll call as I see fit, Kit.
[Unidentified]: This is like being cold call every time in graduate school, by the way.
[Kit Collins]: So I vote no. I don't think it's historically significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Ryan.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jess. No. Okay, so the motion fails zero to five. So 11 Orchard Street, we will get you your letter and you'll be on your way this week. Thank you very much. And let us know if you need anything further with the project as things progress.
[SPEAKER_00]: Will do, thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much. Okay.
[SPEAKER_00]: Have a good day.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Next up, we are receiving the application for 11 Hamlin Avenue commissioners. This one came in at about 430. So I was anticipating it, but I wasn't sure if it was going to come in, and it did. So I did send out a separate email for this one. So if somebody would like to make a motion to accept the application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Point of clarification.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, go ahead. Oh, I'm sorry. It's eight Hamlin.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. That was, I apologize.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The agenda's incorrect.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Eight Hamlin.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's eight Hamlin. Apologies.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That was my question.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Yes. I don't know why I had, I think because the orchard street was 11. I think I had 11 on the brain. Eight Hamlin. We are accepting the applicants.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Move to accept as to form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Ryan. OK, so there's a motion on the table to accept the application for 8 Hamlin that has been seconded. I will go around for roll call vote on this one. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes, to accept the application for demolition.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: Accept, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Yes. And kit. Yes. Okay. So five zero. Um, so next month we will have a significance hearing on this property.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ryan, we need a form motion to appropriate $500 for a form for eight Hamlin plate, uh, eight Hamlin street Avenue. Okay. Sure. I might as well get them all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Let's get them all wrong. Let's just get it out.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Abstreet road, 8 Hamlin.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, can someone second that? Second.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you both.
[Unidentified]: Who was first there?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It was Ryan and then Jess. Okay. Okay, motion to spend $500 for a form B for 8 Hamlin Avenue. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? Yes. Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. And kit.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Next up on the agenda. We have 16 foster court. I'm going to recuse myself from this one as in a butter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Commissioners, the application is in the file, the Google Drive. There is no photos attached because it's referencing the earlier application. So just refer back to the MHC Form B for photos and the other application for photos. Any questions, comments or concerns? Otherwise, I'll entertain a motion to approve this application. And then we need to schedule a hearing in advance of our next public meeting for the public hearing, because this building has a determination of significance for it already. So we're just going to move right to the public hearing portion of it. Now, my understanding from correspondence is I've seen that the and there has been some conversation vis-a-vis some legal advice by, at least between the vice chair and council. I... Executive session to leave is permissible under the open meetings law, so that at least the commissioners can hear the advice before they move further. Um, so the way I was told by the way I was told by the Council is that we would have to relay that information In a public session that that would not that because there's no longer litigation pending against us because we received an application that we would have to have any discussion of the advice in the public here in the public here, the public meeting so that's here I can certainly relate it's not anything that that was that was confidential, but the gist of it is is that. we should just move forward with the application as received as we laid out in our previous meeting and just move forward with the public hearing and then as we all agreed to at the last meeting to just move forward with the determination of preferably preserved and that we should, quoting last hearing, unless there's significant public opposition that we should go forward and grant their permit and legal counsel I also did make one note that if there is significant public opposition, that we are within our rights as a board to make sure that if we were to give that consideration, that the public would have to demonstrate to the commission that there is a plan in place, which I would be really concerned that in the short amount of time that there would be no plan in place so we could proceed as originally planned.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. So does that make sense, Ed? I get where you are.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm having trouble hearing you a little bit because you keep cutting. I don't know. It could be. I don't know the connections. Yeah, it's. Circumstances. We're not going to have an executive session. Yeah, that's, that's what I that's what I have been told is that we can't unless there was pending litigation against us that otherwise it would just be that we would have to have that in front of us. And now at this moment, it doesn't appear that reasonable because there's an application before us. And as I understand it, we're going to sell public hearing.
[Unidentified]: Correct. Do we have a date?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so just so commissioners know. Does anybody have a date in mind? Where I would like to schedule the meeting on October 3rd, if that works for most people here.
[Unidentified]: I did.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm sorry, Ed, you cut out Monday, October 3rd?
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Okay. Fine.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Does that work for everybody else? Just to just give me a nod. Yes. Peter. Okay. And then Kit.
[Kit Collins]: Just a clarifying question. So this would be a special meeting specifically for the purpose of the public hearing. So I guess my only concern would be what sort of precedent does this set?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So there's a 30 day window that we have to meet and meeting outside of that window, the next available date because of the holiday would be beyond the 30 days. So I just, it would cause us to fail to act on the application and they would receive it anyways. So rather than do that, I'd like to just act on the application and note the particular circumstances are extra ordinary in this case and that we're not really setting a precedent because we're just trying to act on a case that we have been moving through the deadline and we just happen to have to work with a particular deadline that we have at the moment. So I will move to accept the application subject to its being under protest and to schedule a hearing in light of the
[Unidentified]: to October 3rd, 2022.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, Ed, you're cutting out there. The motion is to accept the form recognizing it being under protest for October 10, 2022 to October. I think I know what you're saying, but, um, So Peter just, uh, Ed West moved to approve the application subject to being under protest subject to the hearing on October 3rd, October hearing takes place on October 3rd, 2022. Okay.
[Unidentified]: The public hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The public hearing.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Do I hear a second? A second. Okay, just. Yeah, just got it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, motion's been made and seconded. All those in favor, going to go around the room. I'd like to make one more comment too. Yeah, go ahead, Peter. I am kind of coming down on the side with Kit here. I just want to say this, I may vote to approve, but you know, I don't, you know, right now the bylaws written that the determinations are go with the applicant, not with the property, correct. So point of clarification on that. So, the, the way it was reviewed. was that we can move forward with this because determinations are fact-finding missions and that they are for the particular building, but then the discussion of whether or not a building is preferably preserved is subject to the particular circumstances of the application. the neighbor's comments, the public's comments, and the commission determining if it's in the interest of the public to preserve and rehabilitate rather than see demolished. So in this case, the KP law has said that we're well within our rights to keep using the determination of significance and move right into the public hearing. Yeah, I don't have any problem with the determination of significance. I guess what I wanted to throw out there, though, is that, you know, any developer can, you know, come in and threaten a lawsuit. And, you know, I just want to make sure we're not like, you know, short-circuiting the process here just because the developer's coming in and doing some saber rattling. So I think that's what Kit was saying as well. And I do worry that, you know, somebody's going to, other people could take this as sort of a precedent. It's like, oh, well, all we got to do is threaten a lawsuit and, you know, these guys will cave and they'll just set up a special meeting. you know, bend over backwards. But I mean, the thing is, this, I mean, also, I want to say about this building, and Kit probably doesn't know this as much, but this building has been a particular case, you know, this building, you know, we found preferably preserved before, we attempted to work with the previous owner and we didn't get anywhere. Then there was an attempt to make this a local historic district, which was voted down by the city council, was not supported by the city council. So this particular building has, let's say a long and checkered history of, you know, stuff going on in the public arena. So I think that's somewhat of a, you know, it's somewhat of a special case. So I'll probably vote, but I just wanna, I just have to say that, you know, about this process is that, you know, just because somebody, you know, threatens a lawsuit, you know, I don't think that, I don't think that that is, I don't think that that's a, you know, I think it demonstrates a lack of understanding of the statute, to be honest with you. So, you know, I just, I don't want developers to think that they can just come in and threaten us and get away with it. So, you know, and say, well, oh, you have to have a special meeting for us because we're threatening you with a lawsuit, you know? So I guess, It kind of ticks me off and, you know, I lost some sleep over this. So I, you know, I just don't like that. So I don't like that way of dealing with us. So I just have to get it off my chest and talk about it, you know, and just to let people know that, you know, I don't think that's really a type of action that we want to, you know, goal, you know, so to say that that's okay that that's a way that's that's that's going to become our mo you know so I guess that's that's something I have to get off my chest but. Right now, and I, I agree that we have to be careful what troubles me. Hold on one second, Ed. I do agree that we have to be cautious about setting precedent, but I do think that we're simply trying to act on what we had planned to deliver two meetings ago when we first started to talk to Doug and then last meeting where we discussed the particulars of the previous application. and then this upcoming application. And I think most of the commissioners at the time felt that there was no other recourse than demolition for this particular building, given that it's had its day and had its review. And that we're simply now, or at least for me, you know, even though I'm not voting as chair of this particular case, unless I needed to vote, You know, I felt that we're just simply delivering on moving this application through because it's required to be reviewed and that we should just move forward with that at this point, that it's not precedent-setting otherwise, that if somebody were to try to come in to push that and use any of those same tactics, that we could easily push back against them because they don't have the circumstances that 16 Foster Court has before them. I agree. I mean, I think the outcome is The ultimate outcome is preordained pretty much unless there's a huge public outcry feel like it's right I don't need it. I don't need to go through it again but I just, I just want to make sure that I, but even to clarify that you know we are well within our rights. Right. But even if there is significant public outcry, we are well within our rights to question if it's simply a stall tactic, or if there's a concerted effort to actually make something happen, i.e. somebody has the funds to purchase the building in the project to change direction, or, you know, somebody has, you know, an actual plan to move the building or something like that. And if there's not any of that, and they can't demonstrate that to us that we're well within our rights to, to shoot that down and to continue to move forward with the process not Not that I think that's going to happen, but, you know, certainly that we're well within our rights to question what the public's, you know, what the public's. Yeah. making sure something is safe because they can, you know, they can tell us. Yeah, go ahead, Kit.
[Kit Collins]: Well, I was just going to say, I don't have any problem with calling a special meeting if it's within the required 30 days. And that's the reason. I mean, I totally recognize that this is a piece of, that this is a building and a project that has been under sort of immense scrutiny. at pretty much every turn. But my point is, are we calling a special meeting that we wouldn't extend to a single family homeowner who wanted to do the same thing? And that's where I worry about precedent. Because to me, it's about making clear that we're impartial and equitable.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so Jen and I talked earlier today about this particular timeline and we both agreed that we will probably have to move next year's meeting in October to be probably on the Tuesday of instead so that every meeting falls within a 30 day increment so that it won't become a problem again. This is only a problem because of the holiday.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. This is not the first property we're seeing or will see where there was a change in ownership shortly after the 18-month delay ended. Chincote's, I don't know what the status is. We saw it go into they were going to basically demolish after 18 months. This issue is going to come. I think we've got to deal with the fact that there's a drafting issue here as to what extent the demolition delay runs. Right. And part of what- I think it's going to come back. Yeah, and I think I think what KP has suggested to us is if there are things that we want to do, like, for example, make sure that the determination runs with the owner, or if we want it to run with the actual property itself, that we should use the opportunity to change the bylaw to reflect that so that we can eliminate these problems. You know, I have no issue if it's seen as something that might be zoning to have it be recorded at the Registry of Deeds so that it's there for everybody to see and know, you know, and then it's and then it's perpetual. It's not necessarily for the building and once the building's had its 18 month run, it's over and done with. I would say that things can change. I wouldn't let it go for 20 years. Right, right, right. Uh, I think, you know, again, we're looking at, uh, again, as council has pointed out last week, they had a set of plans, which essentially, uh, would have got, you know, you know, would have gone through had happened and it's going to happen. It may, you know, we may hear about it. Some copies again, I don't know. And I think, you know, some clarity would be helpful. Agreed. Clarity would be helpful. Yeah. One way or the other. Yeah. Yeah. So that, that will fall into our, partially our court where we can direct what we're looking for clarity on in the bylaw, make changes to that, make proposals to change that, have KP review, and then have, have a discussion when city, the city council subcommittee wants to have that discussion. So. All right, I'm going to move circle back. Is that all the end of the discussion here? Does anybody else have any questions? Otherwise, I'll move forward with the roll call vote. Okay, hearing none, motion has been made to accept the application subject to being under protest, subject to making sure that the hearing happens on October 3, 2022. Motion is to approve or shoot down kit. Okay, we'll start with you.
[Kit Collins]: Sorry, struggling to unmute. Here again, what am I voting on?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I know what I'm voting on, but what's the motion of Yes, approves the application of motion? No, shoots it down.
[Kit Collins]: So I approve the application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: I made it, yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Jess? Yes. OK, motion's been approved for zero. All right, we will have the hearing on October 3rd. I will make sure that we get the legal notice out to the applicants so they can get their sign up and then we'll get that in the newspaper. And then just so everybody knows, I would like to follow that up with a vote for the uh oda street property subject to that they give us those very minor changes changes on our on october uh on october 3rd as well does that make sense to everybody yes move to add move to add that onto the agenda sure add motion to add that to the agenda can i have a second second so the motion is to Please clarify the motion. The motion's to add Otis Street to the October 3rd meeting. Okay. Ed West made the motion, Kit Nichols second. I don't think we need a roll call vote. We can just take a motion of hand. All those in favor say aye.
[Unidentified]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. or zero approved. Thank you. All right, let me just message Jen so she can come back unless she's listening. In the meantime, next up we have on the agenda two to four cape and street and also 50 winter street, the site plan reviews. and sent these out. These are the properties that Tufts University has petitioned to demolish. And we approved at the last meeting or prior meeting. So we just have to see if there's any comments that we want to make on the proposed designs. This is our opportunity now, kind of separate from the bylaw. Our demo delay bylaw reviewed the demolition. And if there were demo delays, just as for kids to all knowledge, if there were demo delays, we would review the particulars of the build thing. But as soon as we approve them, they can move on to site plan review, which is what's happening here. So we'll get a second go round for comments on the proposed buildings now. And, you know, we could certainly talk about the historical aspects of the neighborhood, the site, etc. But, you know, really, that's, you know, that's up to the commission whether or not they want to even comment on the project. Okay. So Jen, I just, I went right to two to four Cape and then 50 Winthrop street, just so you know, so you can take.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Yeah, the comments are due October 5th. So we have a little time. If folks would like to review the materials. And then send in any comments and then we can draft a letter or we can just send a letter that says we have no comments. and then I can compile them and we'll send them in.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Again, it's normally something I would work on for sure, but I'm gonna have to recuse from these two, because it's my old firm that's doing the architecture, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No problem.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry about that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I appreciate you making a note of that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then, Was Doug's company involved in this at all? I don't think so.
[Unidentified]: No, no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, all right, so I'll give him a chance to comment as well because I know he's away. I'll touch base with him as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If folks have no comment too, they should just send an email to Jen saying, we've got no comments, even if it's, even if it is because then it will just save us the time to say, Doug, you're the only one or Ryan, you're the only one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, please. So why don't we say, by the end of next week, by the 23rd. Send me your comments and then that gives me enough time to get the letters out by the 5th. Sure. Great. I know planning and development always appreciates when we send in comments. So, you know, we welcome the opportunity so that we continue to get these requests. I just wanna circle back one second. I got a message in the chat from Mr. Souza of 8 Hamlin asking to clarify what happened. So I'll just review real quick. So Mr. Souza, we just accepted your application tonight. That is the first step. I did email, if you read our packet or our website, it outlines this is a three-step process. So tonight we accept your application in 30 days. There's a significance hearing at our next meeting. And then if the property is deemed significant in 30 days from there, there is a preferably preserved hearing. So there is nothing else you need to do right now. You do not have to pay the $500 for the form B that comes out of our budget. So your project is on hold until at least the historical significance meeting, which will take place next month. And if you have any other questions, feel free to email us at the Historical Commission email.
[Unidentified]: or just let me know since you're still here. No, okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So we're good with two to four capon and 50 Winthrop everybody. We have our marching orders for that. Okay. Next up tonight, we are going to look at Shiloh Baptist Church. We have a representative here from the church. They're going to do a CPA application for a project, which I'm sure he will tell us all about. So Clifford, welcome. Thank you so much for joining us tonight. Hi. Can you hear me? Yes. Can we just get your name and address for the record, please?
[Unidentified]: Clipper Singleton. I'm at the 75 Grineer Street, Hampskin Air Force Base. I mean, I stay in a fan camp in a motor home. But that's basically... Did you get that, Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, 75 Grineer Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Grineer, yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Grineer.
[Jennifer Keenan]: At Hanscom.
[Adam Hurtubise]: At Hanscom Air Force Base. Yeah. OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Clifford, if you'd like to let us know what the project is at Shiloh Baptist, we can start the discussion there.
[Unidentified]: OK. What we're trying to do is fix our church, basically. And we're inside and out. We also need an assessment. I believe it's going to be kind of costly just to assess how much work it's going to cost to fix the church. The church is over 126 years old. There's a lot of work that needs to be done to the church. And we have some estimates that just to the windows alone can go up to $750,000, just to the windows. And we had some estimates for inside and outside. And that's costly also. We're still trying to get some more estimates. And so we are small. Membership is small. But our church is old. And we love our church. So basically, I knew at the church. I got married at the church. My mother-in-law was buried at the church. And just recently, a dear, close and dear friend was buried at the church. I met my wife, that's how I became, I'm ex-military. I'm a disabled vet, but I've been going to the church for eight years. And I do a lot of things at the church. I just been recently selected as a member of the chair of trustee. I apologize. I don't know the history as well as I should. because I'm new at the position. And some of the members that I've just gotten this email about this meeting tonight, I would have gotten them on board with me. They would tell you more about the history of this church. It's a lot of history in this church. It's very old, but we love this church. And that's why we continue to attend this church. So we're trying to save our church, basically.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, so is the CPA project, and if you don't know, we can get more information, but is the CPA, is the application you're putting into CPA right now just for planning purposes for the restoration of the church? Are there specific amounts of money and specific things you're going to go for, you know, that you know of right now?
[Unidentified]: Right now it's in the application. And I have a couple of people that are working on it for me, because I'm new at the position. And they're the ones who are working on the application itself. And they can tell you more about it. And I truly apologize. And I hope I didn't do this.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, it's totally fine. And I apologize because I put you on the agenda and I didn't let you know. And I kind of sprung this on you this afternoon, like, oh, we're ready to talk about this. The good news is that we do have a form B on the building, which tells us some information about the history. And I know that you need us to determine significance so that you have that for your application so that you'll be eligible for some of the funds. And Ryan, I don't know if you know a little bit, if you want to chime in here, just kind of, you know, share with the commissioners a little bit about the church, what you know, if anything.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Folks should be aware that this, the West Medford Community Survey was the first survey we did back in 2011, when we first started doing survey projects. This building was included as part of the African American neighborhood context was Medford was settled by a large number of African American. Americans who immigrated down from Canada, and they established a diverse neighborhood spanning most of South of High Street in what is traditionally called the Smith Estate. And of those, the big players are Moses Mann and his father-in-law Samuel Holton. And those folks, Moses Mann and Samuel Holton, were involved with the original creation of the church building back in the 1870s. And when they outgrew the original church, they built the wonderful building that's there today, And that congregation time merged with three others. the 1960s, and then sold out to Shiloh Baptist Church, who's owned the building since then. So Shiloh Baptist, there's two inventory forms if you go into Macris. There's the original little chapel building, which is a cute little structure, but it's now residential, and then there's this intricate church building, which has both a mix of architects and designers that kind of give it its weird, unique feature. The one thing that I would love to see restored as part of this building is the steeple. The steeple has been missing for a number of years. It's just trunicated at the top now, but the inventory forms for this building has an earlier picture that shows what it looks like. And then of course, you know, the outside looks like it's really well maintained. And it probably won't need as many repairs as a building that might have been vinyl sided over or had things hidden. But I look forward to certainly supporting the restoration of this building. I think I think it deserves it. It's a really important community landmark for this neighborhood. And one which I think would be a good use of CPC funding for both the planning and ultimate restoration of.
[Unidentified]: Can I ask you something about the steeple?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Please go ahead, Clifford. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Well, they told me, uh, it was, I guess a storm was coming and they had to take, they had to take it all. And wherever they placed the steeple, it was stolen. That's what the steeple was missing. Wow.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's a crazy story.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Clifford, I just emailed you the two form, they're called form Bs. They describe the historical narrative of the property. I just emailed those to you so that you can look at them and share them with your colleagues at the church. And you had a question, so go ahead.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, which is just is the restoration that the trustees of the church have in mind, does it also include the parsonage? Because I was totally struck by the history of the parsonage and one of the forms that was included.
[Unidentified]: Yes. That's great.
[Kit Collins]: It was just a really interesting link to early Cape Verdean history in Medford that I knew nothing about, and specifically linked to the Penike's Leprous Island off the coast, which is totally fascinating and absolutely historically significant.
[Unidentified]: And one of the members of the church wrote a book. It's in the library. And we're going to do some research also to add into that application that we're filling out for this grant. It's another grant that we're applying for. It's a bigger grant we're also trying to get in history. But we just discovered one of our senior members, she's on vacation now. She mentioned that it's a book that's written in the library by one of the members of the church. And there was so much history on this church. you know, that goes back years and years and years about, you know, the voting rights, the civil rights movement, and so on and so on. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So Ryan, do we, should we invite Clifford and his colleagues back next month to talk a little bit more about the specifics? Should we vote on significance? Like, what do you think we should do here?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I think we should vote on significance. So I can, I think we should. So a motion, a determination of significance is not going to change regarding the project. So I think we should look, if everybody has the inventory form for the particular building, I think we should all look at that and determine whether or not the building is significant. You know, of course, if you want to wait, we could table it until next month, but you know, we could, I, I think I have enough information in front of me, but that does not mean that the commissioners have enough information in front of them.
[Unidentified]: I think we have a deadline, September 30th to complete this application. I see.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So, uh, I'm happy to call a vote. If every folks feel that we have enough information on the form bees to vote for the record.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, could we clarify the addresses of, or the address of the building? We're voting on one Holton street. Okay. So it I'm con I'm a little confused because I saw a form for two buildings, the Parsonage and then the original church that had the steeple taken off. But I didn't see one for the actual current church. Did I miss that?
[Unidentified]: It should be one Holton Street in West Medford.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's your main church.
[Unidentified]: That's the building that we're trying to save.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, because I didn't see any forms on that particular building, but I might have missed it. So is it not not from you, Clifford, but from from Jen?
[Kit Collins]: And we've got 31 Lincoln Street. OK, just OK.
[Unidentified]: Seven Jerome. Yeah. OK. All right. That's the one that's confusing. When did you receive that? Well, these came through. Today. But yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do we, do we have the right, we have the right structures, Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it should be one Holton street. It's one. It's one. There's a four. Hold on. General.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Wrong ones. I apologize.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Cause it's listed originally as the Trinity Methodist Episcopal church, which is what it is, but it is now Shiloh Baptist church. Yes. So that's why I wanted the clarification because, um, I mean, the other two buildings were fascinating and definitely definitely historic so I can't even imagine how how historic this one must be as well, so if it's anything like the other two. I'm sure it is. I'm sure it's very significant. It's even better. I'm struggling to get to the mailbox so I can send it out to you. Here I am talking up all of these wonderful, intricate architectural features. You guys are looking at a little one-story building and you guys probably were thinking I was crazy. No, it was really interesting.
[Kit Collins]: Well, it did seem like it must have been a heck of a steeple.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, this one's... Because the little original church has a steeple missing as well.
[Unidentified]: It does, yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Unidentified]: Yes, because they told me when the storm, they had to take them all down.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see.
[Unidentified]: But they stole our steeple. That's crazy.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, okay. Apologize. So do we have enough information to vote?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I gotta, I gotta send out the form people.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then I'll lead the discussion and then people can read while, while they listen to me. Yeah.
[Jenny Graham]: This is the form B for one 27 drum, right? No.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, no, that we're, there's a yeah, we're getting messages on the side about another property on Jerome that is not on the agenda for tonight. So there's a little bit of a confusion right now. So, If people have questions about another property outside of the Shiloh Baptist Church that we are discussing right now, please raise your hand and I will call on you after this discussion is finished. Please do not put messages in the chat. It's just causing massive confusion while we're trying to have discussion with the agenda item we have going on right now. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think I sent it to everybody. If you didn't get it, let me know.
[Unidentified]: It should be inventory form MDF.776, which is Trinity Methodist Episcopal Church, which is known as the Shiloh Baptist Church today because it changed hands. Did everybody receive it? You sent an email? I did. Yep. Not yet. Not yet. Coming from the MHC email, so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is a good test to see how fast people's emails are.
[Unidentified]: Correct. This is one Holton Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, I just got it.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, OK, there it is. Ah, thank you, Ryan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, did you send this to Clifford as well?
[Unidentified]: No, can you?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, yeah, I'm gonna I'm gonna send it. Yep.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Subject to everybody's review, I'll make a motion to find this building significant, then I'll leave the discussion a second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. And was that Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that was it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ed. Okay, Ryan, you can start the discussion and Clifford, I'm sending you this form right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you. This is a start by saying it's a really important landmark. It's a really ambitious example of both it it's shingle architecture, which is Queen Anne and Italianate and, sorry, not Italianate, Queen Anne and other Victorian styles kind of all mashed together with the signature shingle pattern. It started off life as a small chapel. You can see it later in the form built by Moses Mann. That building was moved across the street, but the foundation still exists, which partially lays out some of the building. Then they built this really large expansionist church to accommodate a growing congregation. The church lasted until 1966 and then it merged with three others, they built their new church building elsewhere. sold to Shiloh Baptist, as I previously mentioned, so they have been the custodians of this building since 1966. It is, in my opinion, has all the aspects of integrity, it maintains its setting, which is in the Smith Estate, most of the buildings in the neighborhood survive in good various degree of condition. This one's on a corner lot. It's really well preserved. It has all of its windows, doors, siding, things that would otherwise be lost. The only thing that's missing is the steeple, but that's such a minor thing and it can always be added back. So I think that this building really warrants the preservation as As I mentioned, it's got important associations with people. And I think for those reasons, it deserves to be deemed significant for CPC reasons.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Ryan. Do any of the other commissioners have anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, other than just cruising through this thing, It certainly does deserve to be significant, for sure. If there was ever a building in Medford that did.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, that is certainly nice to hear. Yeah, I mean, I drive by this church every day, so it's beautiful and it's prominent on the corner. And yes, I would agree that, of course, it's significant and it's an important And you know they're it's a perfect candidate for CPC money I agree with with Ryan and that and we want to help these folks as much as we can. Does anybody else have anything to add? Okay, so I'll go around and take a roll call vote for significance for Shiloh Baptist Church on Holton Avenue that has been made by Ryan and seconded by Ed. Motion to find for significance for CPC funding. Kit. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed. Yes. And Jessica. Yes. Okay. The motion passes Clifford. Thank you so much. Apologize again for the last minute and apologize to my commissioners for sending out the wrong form. Um, we will draft a letter and I will email that to you. Um, it probably within a few days and you'll have that well in advance of the deadline of the 30th for your application.
[Unidentified]: Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, you're welcome. And let us know if we can help you with anything else and keep us posted on your projects.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you so, so much. God bless you all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much. Have a wonderful night.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, okay. Uh, next on the agenda, I just had a little welcome for kit as her first month officially on our board. So. It's been a, it's been a night kit. So trial by fire. So we're so glad to have you and thank you for putting in your application. And we're so lucky to have you on our board. So thank you.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks so much for the welcome. It's great to be here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. All right. Does anybody else have any new business before I move on to old business? Okay, moving on to old business. Oh, I should have taken off update on new member search, since we are full at this point. Update on property under demo delay. I have no update on 104 Harvard or 33 Third. Obviously, Boston Ave will come off the list and Otis we're still working on. Um, permitting, we're still moving along on permitting, I think things are working well there. As far as I know, there's still no building commissioner that has been hired. So we will continue to, to keep things status quo there. Um, I don't, we don't really have an update on the Thomas Brooks Park, we're waiting for the Mason to start. moving on to CPA projects or waiting for the historic Mason to start the restoration of palms wall. Hopefully that will happen this month.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I hope so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. Do we have an update on that Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I just, uh, we're waiting on funding papers and paperwork and budget and all sorts of other stuff that's just floating around and I seem to be going in circles. So I'm just, forgive me as I bet my frustration, but I think stuff is happening.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, thank you for all the help there. Cause I'm a little bit useless when it comes to budgets and city hall offices, we all have our strengths and that is not mine.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Dealing with budget is like dealing with the chip.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, and kind of circling back to the deadline that Clifford mentioned on the 30th, which I'm assuming is like an eligibility form.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I believe it's early eligibility.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Are we putting in anything? Okay. We're just going to get through these two things first. Okay. We'll do eligibility next year for phase two. Okay. Great. And then, um, on the dig, are we going to have a public meeting on that next month?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, no, cause we have, we have stuff to do with the artifacts. If anybody wants to come with me down a panel, I could use a, volunteer.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, so we categorized and cataloged all the artifacts we found at Thomas Brooks Park and they're looking for help to whittle that down. We have a lot of duplicate things. I am unable to go. I went and helped clean and kind of bag things, but my plane is full until the end of October, but if anybody has time and wants to take a half a day to go to Pawtucket, they will welcome help.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'll be happy to commute people down there. So I just probably need one other helper, and we just got to sort. There's 1,500 artifacts that are catalogable. We have to get it down under 500, which can be done, because there's a lot of stuff that doesn't need to be replicated.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Half of that's probably red pottery.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And brick fragments.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And brick fragments.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We started out on the first day as, oh, yeah, brick, everything brick. And then by the second day, we were like, eh, not so excited about brick. Third day, we were like, we're over brick. No more brick.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And it all looks surprisingly the same.
[Adam Hurtubise]: When you start to get into saving every little fragment, it becomes tedious at some point.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We had a lot of nails, too.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that doesn't surprise me. I learned the other day to something new about the house, but I'm not going to share it with anybody because I'm writing, doing a write-up. So you'll have to read my write-up. It will be pretty extensive.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. We'll reach out to Ryan if you would like to go and help with some of that stuff at the lab. Oh, and I guess we should, if none of the commissioners can do it, should we circle back to the volunteers?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we can. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Somebody will have time.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The lab reminded me that Cheryl is very interested in doing stuff. And I can certainly do it, but I want to give other people the opportunity to as well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, things are moving along there, which is exciting. So Jess and Ryan, any update on the survey projects?
[Jenny Graham]: We are checking references for the Fulton Heights project. We got a really wonderful application, I thought. So I'm really excited about it. And hopefully I'll be done checking references this week. So I'll let you know what comes back.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Exciting. Thanks. I know you worked really hard on that. So thanks for all your work there. Anything on brickyards, Ryan? That one's done, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, regardless it's ongoing. I'm trying to close out Winter Hill, but if the city doesn't get its acting gear to take care of budget stuff, it might not make the end of the month deadline.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, fantastic.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I think I did put a bug in here, but I've been trying to get that out the door for like three months and it hasn't happened yet. So It will be very bad if the city loses its $18,000 match. That's for Brickyards? Winter Hill. Oh, Winter Hill. And then Brickyards is ongoing, but is also going to need an extension.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't know. I don't think district met last week. I saw they had it was on the calendar, but there was no agenda posted that I saw.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I would, I would just remove that from our agenda.
[Unidentified]: That's fine. I can do that. If we need it, we'll bring it up as new business.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, that works for me. Um, I don't have anything else. Is there besides the meeting minutes? Does anybody else have a question or have anything to discuss?
[Jenny Graham]: I actually had one question or about historic districts, which was when the, um, foster court historic district was proposed and it didn't pass in the city council. Do you remember what the numbers were for that vote? Um, if it was shot down by the entire council or. It was split a little bit.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I don't think. No, no, I wasn't. I think. Yeah, no, it's John Falco, Nicole Morell, and Zach Bears, I believe, voted in favor. And then the rest of them that were on the board at the time voted no. But we need a majority, it needs to be five out of the seven.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, it's a two thirds, two thirds vote. Right. Yeah. OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: There would have been, there should have been minutes for that meeting as well right that was officially a district meeting.
[Jenny Graham]: Or, I think it was a city council meeting, I'm not sure where to get city council minutes but I can look it up I can figure it out.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We do, I don't know if it'll be helpful, but I did do documentation. I did floor plans and kind of a breakdown of 16 fosters. So I'll try to upload that just so we have that. That was again, part of the, can we really learn anything else out of this building?
[Unidentified]: And the answer was to me, no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody, Dennis, I know I saw you sent me a message. Does anybody else have any, Any questions, concerns, business to bring before the commission before we close out for the night?
[Kit Collins]: Do we have any idea about 14 Jerome and when it might come up?
[Jennifer Keenan]: So here's what I think is happening with those comments. There's a permit on hold, and the permit address is 12 Jerome. Um, we are waiting for more information it's in subcommittee. Um, the last communication I had with the property owner. was that he needed to write out a scope of work for what is happening to that property so that I can send it to the subcommittee. And we have yet to receive that information. So once we receive that information and then I can forward that on to the subcommittee, then a decision will be made on whether or not that is a fine as is or that needs to come before for a full application. So I haven't, let's see, it's been at least a week on any communication on that. Yeah, Wednesday of last week. So I was not aware that the member, those property owners were gonna be here tonight and we did not get any communication beforehand to discuss that. So that was, kind of a shock to me that they were messaging me about that property.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is that the one where I wanted them to draw the dormers? So they hadn't drawn them yet or whatever?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I think so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I do think that the building department is going to want to see if they're adding dormers onto a building. How would the building department even approve that permit.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We need more information on that one. Yeah, there's a comment in the chat about the meetings not being live streamed. Unfortunately, we have no control over that. I apologize. It says that on our agenda, but it's up to Medford Community Media what they stream live and what they don't. So we don't get a heads up on what is streamed and what isn't on a monthly basis. So I do apologize for that. And Dennis, we can talk about whether or not we should leave that language on our agenda or not. Sorry, I didn't get any of that. You're completely broken up. Does anybody else have anything else for tonight? Otherwise, Peter sent around the meeting minutes. And if folks wanna review the meeting minutes and I'll take a motion to approve the minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I did make that one correction, Jen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, thank you. Yes, to the person in the chat who's asking, the meeting is being recorded and it should be available for replay whenever those happen on the MCM website. So yes, our meetings are always recorded if for some reason they're not being live streamed. So thank you for that question. Yeah, just so I had asked Peter to revise the minutes. just to say that I had recused from 16 Foster Court last month. Does anybody have any changes or motion to approve the meeting minutes? Thank you, Ed.
[Unidentified]: Is there a second? I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Kit. Okay, motion to approve the meeting minutes from August that has been seconded. I'll go around for a roll call votes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica.
[Jenny Graham]: Yes, although I wasn't in attendance in August, so I just trust my commissioners that everything was in good order. Thank you, Jess. And Kit.
[Kit Collins]: Can I approve the minutes if I wasn't a commissioner? Oh, yes, sure. Well, you can approve them. I was at the meeting. You were at the meeting, so you can.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's true. And you can vote present too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, yes.
[Kit Collins]: So, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you, Kit. Okay, so that is, yeah, that passes 5-0. 5-0.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And now can we move to adjourn?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Thank you, Ed. Second. Thank you, Ryan. Motion to adjourn at 8 48 PM. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: I'm out of here. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Yes. And Kit. Yes. Thank you all. See you next month on October 17th.
|
total time: 1.59 minutes total words: 161 |
total time: 3.69 minutes total words: 340 |
||