[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, welcome everybody. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, August 8. We will get going with our regular agenda, and we'll just do a little housekeeping before we start. Pursuant to the 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. Commissioners, if you could just mute yourself, that would be great. Okay, tonight, we're going to get started with our agenda. Just to catch people up in case someone was following from last month, we were supposed to have a preferably preserved hearing for 80 Canal Street that has been rescheduled to next month. The property owner forgot to install the yard sign to make sure that the neighbors were notified. So we have moved that to next month. So there'll be a new, there'll be a next month's agenda and keep an eye to our agendas and be sure to email us if there's any questions regarding that property. So moving right along, we're going to look at an application, receive a demolition application for 11 Orchard Street. Commissioners, I sent you a link earlier to the paperwork for this and I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to accept the demolition application for 11 Orchard Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Peter. Is there a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Doug. OK, we have a motion on the table to accept the demolition application for 11 Orchard Street that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote as I see folks on my screen. Ryan? Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes as to form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so that passes for zero. So next month, we will have a significance hearing for 11 Orchard Street. Ryan, do we need a form to order a form for that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: To allocate $500 for an MHC form B for 11 Orchard Street. Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Okay, we're going to a motion to spend $500 for a form B for 11 Orchard Street. Ryan? Peter? Yes. Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Okay. Moving right along, we have an application for 75-77 West Street for demolition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to accept as to form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Thank you, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, Ryan appointed clarification on this discussion on this motion. These submitted this application in Claire in asking for clarification on the demolition scope for this property. And based on the plans submitted. I don't feel that this building is going to receive the same change that 11 Orchard Street is going to receive. So I am going to recommend that the commissioners revise their motion to pass on review, but I welcome the discussion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, just to be clear, if you look at the application, this is for mostly interior work. I don't think the envelope is being touched. And I think there was a little bit of confusion with regards to the note to the property owner that we were just double checking that there was nothing touched on the outside. And then we received an application for review, which I agree with Ryan, I don't know that this one warrants review, but certainly I'll, I'm welcome comments from Peter, Doug, and Ed on this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I am happy to accept the friendly amendment.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Reiterate my second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug, are you good if we pass on this one?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. So let's revise the motion then to, I guess, officially decline this application. And we will approve their permit for their project as is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion is to advise the Building Commissioner no application is necessary and that the permit can go forward?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Okay, Ed, so you're gonna make that motion?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll accept the friendly amendment.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Yes. And Peter, you're okay to second that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I am.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so motion to decline the application for West Street and allow the petitioner to move forward with their building permit as is. Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Happy to say yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. So I just got a text message from Dimitri, the property owner. So Dimitri, we are not going to review this. So we will approve your permit and you will be good to go tomorrow. We'll get that back to you. So you are all set. And thank you for your paperwork.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Appreciate that. Thank you all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, have a good night. Okay, moving on to our agenda. 76 Sharon Street. Last month we had a preferably preserved hearing for this property. There was an 18 month demo delay imposed. The owner very quickly got right back to us and wanted to make any changes the subcommittee recommended. And I know that they spoke and that happened. And I would say Ryan, Peter, Doug, if you wanna just update update on that and the progress to date. And I think that the plan is to vote to lift this delay, the property owner having satisfied the commission's requirements to mitigate the demolition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do you want me to pull up the plans or do you want to pull up the plans?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do I have them? Ryan, you should be able to do it. You should be able to share your screen if you have them handy. Wait, I might have them. If I have them handy, I will.
[Adam Hurtubise]: In essence, the proponent almost did everything we asked them to revise.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So you can see on the- Yeah, so if you could go through over that, Peter, that would be great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The front facade, you can see the revision cloud around the front facade on the top. So they had a chamfered hip up there, which they removed to take us back to the original profile. They restored keeping this dormer on the left-hand side and the windows. So that was restored. We went back to all shingle siding. On the front door and the window adjacent there originally, or right now there is like a protruding bay there, but we thought this was fine. And so we urged them to keep that, which they did. Moving up to the facade up above, they revised the roof on the right-hand side and that cowl roof up there to be more like where you had requested. They also did a style of asphalt shingles on the roof that we requested. Basically, everything we asked for, they pretty much put in there. At least for myself, I won't speak for the other commissioners, but I feel satisfied. with their effort? Yeah, I don't normally suggest or worry about roof lines, but I think that this particular building warranted just a recommendation on a slightly different shingle pattern from normal that will really set it aside and work in tandem with the external envelope siding. So, I think that when the owners are done, they'll be pleased with these changes and they'll be happy with the design. I think it goes a long way with keeping the character of the house and just keeping little details like this that will allow it to fit in better with the neighborhood. I'm glad they made all the changes and I'm happy to recommend that we move it right along.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. And I know that that was important to the neighbors as well that came to the meeting last month.
[Doug Carr]: Jim, the only thing I would add is that I think this shows that two things. One is that we can turn things around quickly. You know, the speed is important. We understand the time is money for any developers. So getting this done quickly, these changes were made in relatively short order, and that delay will be gone hopefully within minutes. But the other is that there's a little bit of creativity that's involved here. You know, sometimes it's not pure restoration, it's trying to adapt design that is sympathetic to the neighborhood, sympathetic to the context of the original building, which I think just did achieve what Ryan and Peter said. So I think, and I don't think it added much cost. You know, I think there was, you know, we're just tweaking the edges, tweaking a few details. It's a relatively efficient process and hopefully this owner and developer will proceed quickly and get this done in short order.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I think it was a win for the neighborhood and a win for everyone involved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, so, what, go ahead Ryan, I was just gonna say just building on what Doug said, I think it's an important point to get people to realize that, you know, the terminology in our bylaw says to you know that we're hoping for people to restore buildings, but the term rehabilitation is also in there and I think that. Right now, as we know, City Council is discussing this bylaw. You know, there are a few of them are hanging on to the term preservation, but I think they're misguided in that sense that rehabilitation is just as important. So in this case, this is a great example of rehabilitation in the city.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Um, the property owner would like to speak. So, if you could unmute yourself, that would be fine.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, Jennifer. Thank you for everyone to take their time to review this I do agree it's a It's a magnificent design that was still kept over the years and that I recognize that and was willing to comply 100%. One thing I just want to mention that with with the supply chain issues. The shingle that is requested is called Grand Manor. It's a brand of CertainTeed. And I'm being told a lot of their products are discontinued. I am willing to try my best to see what I can secure to achieve the Grand Manor look, which is the slate look. But I just want to mention that I had another project that We had a very difficult time finding these shingles and then found out that they are discontinued so I'm an award winner of a couple of projects of the past of historical restoration projects in West Bath. Maine, where President Washington visited that school, more than willing to send more documentation on that. I also want to reward a historical reward in Nashville, New Hampshire at a dam that was restored. So I do know quite a bit about historical renovations. And so, but I'm just, I just want to mention this, this roofing situation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think, first of all, Madam Chair, can we get the owner's name and address for the record, please?
[SPEAKER_08]: It's Nazar Vincent, N-A-Z-A-R, first name, last name, Vincent, V-I-N-C-E-N-T, and I reside at 4 Robin Hood, two words, Robin Hood Road in Arlington.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm just going back to supply chain. Yes, I think all of us understand that right now times are very strange and there's only so much we can do. So I'm perfectly okay with trying to get that look and using other products that are similar and if we can't get it, and you can get regular architecturals, I think that will also look fine. And at least we can say we tried. So, and again, that's, I think all of the other changes more than make up for it. It was just a suggestion on my part. We don't normally, I would not normally go into that level of detail, but I think for this particular house, it would be great if we could get it, but if the supply chain warrants it, then it's out, then it's out.
[SPEAKER_08]: Okay, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, and just keep us posted. You know, you feel free to email us anytime.
[SPEAKER_08]: Absolutely.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. All right, so commissioners, I will take a motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I make a motion to release the delay on 76 Conning Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, Sharon Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, 76 Sharon Street, been a long weekend.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Is there a second to? Ryan's motion for Sharon Street, not Cotting Street. I'll second. Thanks, Peter. Okay, motion on the table to lift the demolition delay at 76 Sharon Street. Ryan. Yes. Peter. Yes. Ed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. If the final version of the plans can get uploaded into CitizenServe, once they are there and we'll verify that they're there, we'll send you your letter and release your hold.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And just send us an email when you do that and it'll just help expedite.
[SPEAKER_08]: We will. Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, next on the agenda is 16 Foster Court. Ryan, you're gonna take over this discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, yes, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I am going to recuse myself from this discussion as I have recently become an abutter to this property. So I'm going to shut off my camera, mute myself, and if one of the commissioners would like to text me on my personal cell when the discussion's over, I'll happily come back to the meeting. Ryan, it's all yours.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks Peter, can you be in charge of that when we're done? Yeah, OK, great. I have been asked. community development and the applicant to confirm some things in regards to 16 Foster Court. It had some questions on the application process and basically it boils down to they want to know what to expect when they apply for their demolition permit. So it is a new owner. The original owner has sold on the property and they required to resub under normal circumstances, they'd be required to resubmit a normal application as part of this process. And they're willing to do that. But, um, I personally, and this is just my personal opinion, don't feel that this building warrants full review. Um, I do think it does need to go through the process, but I'm advocating that we, um, There is significant public opposition that we would allow this building to be found not preferably preserved. And I, I asked that of the commission because, um, this building has already had its chance. It's undergone an 18 month delay and that, um, there's really no support from. City council to establish a local historic district here. There's a project already permitted and awaiting construction. And the only thing that's standing in its way is the process that needs to happen. And I do believe it needs to happen. I believe that there needs to be a satisfaction of the, um, public meeting component of the demolition delay review, but, um, you know, the owners just wanted to have us confirm that. So I'd like the commissioners to discuss that. We could either outright reject the application, but because we've already receive this building and made a determination of significance. I feel it, it at least warrants public review because we have already said it's significant. And I feel that our findings probably wouldn't change. So I'm asking what the commissioners, how the commissioners feel on this matter. Request for clarification did we found it preferably preserved as well. We found it significant and preferably preserved it underwent an 18 month demolition delay. partly, I think, because of some confusion on the part of the original owner. And then because they did nothing, then we worked with them to, we worked with the historic district commission to try to establish a local historic district. It failed. So, you know, right now the building's sold, so we're taking it as a new applicant. But again, I don't think this building has any other course than demolition at this point. And that's my opinion, you guys might feel otherwise. I feel it doesn't have any course, but we still have to satisfy the public meeting component of our.
[Doug Carr]: Sure. Let me chime in here. I want to respect the process too, but I know that in many ways, the end result of this project is predetermined because we've already made decisions. We've gone through the motions of trying to do a historic district, and it didn't work, obviously, for whatever reason. And I think the lesson learned for me is that if we're gonna try to do a historic district, whether it's an area of the city or a single building, we need to get ground support from the community, from the owners, from the community, to try to make it happen and not try to impose it from above. Because you're just opening up a little bit of a battle that probably can't be won without some really hard feelings on all sides. You know, this product has been on the table for a while. I don't see any other result. I don't see any wisdom or usage coming from having the developers go through the process as if this never happened. I mean, this could happen to any products come before us. and we have the right to restart it from zero, but it doesn't, in many cases, it doesn't make much sense to do that. So I feel like there's no value in prolonging this process, barring some new facts, and I don't see any new facts to what we decided more than a year ago, I believe. Go ahead, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just another question. Do we know, with a new owner, is the development team the same? Uh, in, uh, in terms of who's doing it, I believe it. Uh, I'm not really sure who the, what the particulars of the applicants are. I know they sent one email and I know that they have a legal representation, but I don't know. I mean, the whole building's basically been permitted.
[Doug Carr]: So yeah, they bought the project. You know, they're going to build a project that everyone has seen and approved in the city right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So Doug, just let me, let me just regage. Um, cause I'm, I'm perfectly willing to go along with whatever the commission is, uh, says, you know, there's four people here tonight. The board is six people in total. So I'm just one person. Uh, so what you're suggesting is we just even waive the whole, once they, once they apply for their, the process that we waive the review process in total, like we did for the other project, we basically say that we're passing on review.
[Doug Carr]: That is what I'm recommending. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So if we don't do that, I would, so it's not going to be a 60 day process because there's already a determination of significance. So I like what Doug is suggesting, but if we don't do that, then when they submit, it would go right to a public hearing. I don't think it's wise either. I think it's fine to immediately find it significant, unless we are required to wait 30 days for that. But I don't see how we avoid the public hearing. I think it's a, appearances aside, I think that if I were the owner, I couldn't, you know, I would not take the chance of some somebody within the bounds of opposing the building permit, going in and claiming that essentially they there was a demolition, they did not go to review. I think the, you know, If this cannot be shoehorned into the, our provision saying you did everything you could, including selling it for a dollar as is, they're willing to wait the 18 months. One month's not gonna make a difference, but I think you at least have to go through the public hearing.
[Doug Carr]: Ed, let me clarify. I wasn't suggesting, I don't think even the application's been put in yet in time for this meeting, correct, Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, it would all the hearing in all the process, but I'm suggesting would happen at the next meeting in one meeting all at once.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So it's got to be 30 days notice. It's going to be 30 days notice of the of the hearing for preferably reserved. I don't see I get around that. We did suggest, we did recommend that they submit for this meeting so that we could make the determination to post the legal posting and then have the public hearing next month. But, um, they wanted a direction as to which direction the commission was going. So, um, we're just laying this out basically on the table that, you know, like I said, you know, I don't, you know, the public hearing is really the public's. know point because we we declare things significant and that's already been done for this building so we don't have to do that again we're just going to receive the application then next month jump right into the public hearing and you know if nobody turns out fine if 30 people turn out and they get clarification on the project and they say fine if we say fine then great um but you know also You know this bylaw was established for the residents, you know, they voted on it, they approved it. So if 100 people turned up at our meeting and said no. And there's nothing we can do about that we'd be hard pressed to say, let this project pass if they're supporting us, but I'm not advocating for that again. I just want to make sure that we meet all the requirements of the law that we're required to meet. So I'm just suggesting that they submit their application next month, and that the following month we'll have the public hearing, they'll have their notice, they'll have to put up the sign, and then we've met that requirement, and if we want, you know, we can tell them we're perfectly amenable to passing on the project, so we're going to vote down the, you know, vote down.
[Doug Carr]: So you think it takes 60 days, Brian, because our next meeting is on the 12th of September, right? Which is more than 30 days from now. That's 30 days from Friday. We couldn't, is it possible to shave 30 days off that menu and still make it work?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep, we could have a special meeting as long as it's within, as long as we have a quorum and as long as it's within the legal posting time. Absolutely can have a special meeting just with that on the agenda. Sure. I just think we should. air on the side of caution in terms of short-circuiting the process. Because if this project has a lot of public support to the contrary, then I don't want to be put in the position of being accused of railroading something through without the proper procedures. Correct, I think in the past other boards have been labeled rubber stamp boards. And I just, I know we have worked really hard to bring this whole city up. We have some really good people in the city right now. So I think that we should just make sure that we're meeting all the requirements. Dennis did clarify that it's the same project that was approved by all the other boards. So nothing's changed. It's just, this is the last component that needs to get taken care of in order for them to move forward.
[Doug Carr]: I guess I agree, I don't want to, I want to respect the process and respect the project as well. Are we agreeing that on the end result, we're just debating the way to get there, is that a fair statement?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think that's a fair statement, correct. So what I would recommend is that we receive their application and then do the public meeting posting. And then 14 days from that public meeting posting, have a special meeting amongst the available commissioners to have the public hearing and then hear any public comments and then make the vote accordingly. All right, I just want to make sure that the public has enough time to understand that there's a meeting and dah, dah, dah, dah. Assuming that they submit their application materials, there's 30 days that we can give notice that a public hearing is coming. Okay. They can go ahead and do their sign requirements as soon as they submit their materials. They don't have to wait. I'm not interested in rehashing this whole thing either. I just want to make sure we respect the public's input and all that stuff.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, is anybody here from the city or the developer? Does Dennis have anything to add to this? Are we good?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Good question. Anybody here? You can raise your hand.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: Rob DeMarco, I'm here on behalf of the developer.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure, Robert. Can I have your name and address for the record?
[Jeffrey Dirk]: Yes, it's Roberto DeMarco, I'm with the law firm of Foster Walker and DeMarco at 350 Main Street, Malden. And I am here on behalf of Red Spade, the owners of the property. Uh, I sent a letter to the commission, um, about this project and I'm, I'm a little bit. Confused about the discussion. I just heard my client has not agreed and not asked for direction to be very clear. My client, uh, purchased a property that had already been signed off on by this commission. The city permits state that you signed off on the building permit. The demolition permit, the building permit, the variance that was granted all run with the land. So for us to start the process all over again, I'm just going to be blunt commissioners. You have a very important job and I do respect it. However, my client is facing significant financial hardship. The project was approved. His bank considered the project approved. For us to go through an additional delay of starting this process, even a shortened process, which I would agree with Commissioner Miller, there are issues with trying to artificially shorten a process. I would instead urge that you don't consider this as being under your purview because it's a sale A sale in the process, I agree with. You would have new rights to start that process with them. But a demo delay occurred. The entire process occurred. The prior owner went forward and got a variance and went through an entire process. That variance then adjusted the value of the property. If you look at the deeds, and I know many of you have real estate background, but the deeds demonstrate an increase in consideration. Banks then pledged monies and took my client's pledge of guarantees for those values that reflected a variance. So the whole point of getting a variance is that there's a vested right that didn't have to be granted by the city. It's not a right until it's done, right? So a variance never has to be granted. By the city granting it, the city demonstrated that it was important was not an imposition, was not an impact on the neighborhood, and granted there's variance, that increased the value, increased the exposure. If I may, just finish and I'll be done very briefly. The permit was applied for, and there are sign-offs on the city records that the historic commission approved the building permit. So by you starting this process, piece of the process again, you're kind of cutting the tree off at the trunk when it's already grown above. So we're undermining the foundation of the process. So I would urge you to go back and actually look at this as not being something subject because it moved past the point. That's all. Thank you very much for listening and for your attention.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. I don't, I don't disagree with any of the points. That's why I just want to make the commissioners know that, you know, the moment we received your letter, you know, we did file it with the law department and are awaiting an answer from KP law or, you know, the mayor's office as to, you know, what the, you know, what their decision is, because, you know, we are only going off of the precedent that we've had over the years, which is when a property sells. So, you know, we've, We're just making sure that it's fair to everybody. And, you know, I, I do agree. We don't want to rehash this whole thing, but I don't, I don't have an answer to those legal questions posed in your letter yet. So I can only, I can only act on what we've done in the past at this point.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: I understand, Mr. Chair.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Um, commissioners just, uh, any additional comments after that, or are we.
[Doug Carr]: My only question is have in the past when we've had a change of ownership, has it been in the process or after the permit was granted for Mr. DeMarco's scenario?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think 109 Forest Street waited out the entirety of their process. And there are a few six month ones way back in the record from like 10 years ago at this point.
[Doug Carr]: Okay, look, if legal says this process should be eliminated, I am perfectly fine with that. If they don't, then we can shorten it as much as possible. The end result hopefully will be comparable.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think I'd agree with that. If legal says, if the city's legal, I mean, I don't wanna get in trouble with the city's legal division. So, you know, again, Uh, I think I'm not sure that we could jumpstart the process without hearing from the city's lawyer, Mr. DeMarco. So, so there's, there's, you know, so if, so there's, there's two things to think about, uh, uh, the legal department to issue a finding, which is certainly fine. Um, but. the owners were to submit an application, there's a 30 day window guaranteed that things have to happen in that window. So, you know, then we're under the timeline at that point once they submit their application. So I'm just gonna throw that out there that, you know, I mentioned that to Victor who asked this and the mayor's office that the moment they submit their application, then there's a window that we have to meet.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: If I could just a point of clarification, Mr. Chair and members of the commission, because there is a mortgage on this property with a bank. There are issues with us submitting for permission that might result in a removal of the ability to move forward. In other words, we would interfere with the bank's rightful lien and valuation of the property. So I would be extremely reluctant, understanding what you are facing, but I would be extremely reluctant to submit that application and submit my client to your purview when we could be in a position of then telling the bank all those affidavits we signed at closing are all not true. So I want to cooperate and I wanna work with you. It's my intention to instruct my client to do so, but it may be outside of his power and he could cause himself significant financial issues. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's so interesting to me that everybody's waiting for higher issues. So we're kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. I mean, yeah. I mean, my take is we can't make the legal decision. I think we can't make and we certainly can't defend the legal decision on our own. I think if it is in the hands of council for the city, we're going to have to wait for their opinion. make a recommendation that the commissioner's motion to ask the mayor's office and KP law to expedite their findings on this matter. Second, or I'll make the motion. I'll second it then. I think the reality is that, uh, either there's going to be a developer or an object who's going to be very unhappy and the city is going to have to defend this. And, uh, if that's the case, it's, it's really out of our hands to begin with. So I think we've got to get it. We've got to get the city to decide where it wants to put the fight. Should have been made and seconded by Peter Miller. Okay. I'm going to go around the room for the findings. Uh, Peter. Yes. Yes. Yes. The fastest three to zero. We'll, uh, we'll work on that and we'll, uh, we'll let you know where they, where they stand. As soon as we see a letter, you should receive a letter. Cause I know they've copied them on it. So we'll be in touch.
[Jeffrey Dirk]: Thank you for your time.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And we let Jen know, I think we're done on this matter. We're waiting. We received application materials for 595 Broadway, 162 Mystic Avenue. I know the comments are going to be due in like a week. So Doug, I wondered if you might want to take the lead on reviewing those materials and making recommendations on those projects. Jen, we're talking about the site plan reviews.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Yeah, like and let me just fill in the commission so we received these app. These two site plan reviews the day after our meeting last month, and the comments are technically do on Thursday of this week, but I did speak with Amanda today and let her know that you know today is the first opportunity we have to review and discuss. She said we could get our comments in by Monday of next week. That still gives the planning board enough time to review our comments in advance of their meeting on the 18th, I think it is. So we have a week. Go ahead, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 595 Broadway, it appeared to be the same architect slash design as previous. I was looking around my hard drive to find the comments that we had made and I could not locate them. I don't know if one of the other commissioners has those comments, but they may still be relevant and maybe we don't have more to add on that project. I'm not sure. I think we had a pretty good, as I recall, we had a pretty good give and take on that project.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Let me see what's in the Google Drive. Did you check the drive?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I thought I did, but I couldn't find a folder on that under site plan review, but maybe it was under demolition delay. It probably is under demolition delay.
[Doug Carr]: Is it the same site, similar design, same design?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think it's pretty similar, yeah. You remember it was a car wash site?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. But it's been a while, so I can't quite remember exactly.
[Jennifer Keenan]: There is a folder in demo delay. It was found not significant. I don't know. Yeah, there's a non-significance. It's from 2018. No, wait, hold on. Sorry, that's the Somerville letter. Hold on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It was found non-significant. It was the- Yes. Didn't we have some exchanges with that for something though? We went through a review, it was the Italian American Club. I must be thinking of some other club.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think it's very similar to the building that's next to the gas station on Boston Ave.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, that's what I'm thinking of, sorry.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's in that same block. It's just up and around the corner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, my bad.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kind of in the same area. Yeah, this is the little house. It was the little house that's half in Medford and half in Somerville. If you Google the address.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, my bad. I was confused. Sorry.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I thought the same thing, Peter, because I was like, oh, we did all this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But I'm like, it looked like the same design to me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It does look very similar. Maybe we should compare whatever address that was. It was Boston Ave, whatever it was.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, you're right. I'm sorry. It's been a long day as well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So yeah, so I think, Doug, will you be able to spearhead a letter for this one?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. So if folks want to email their comments around to Doug, that would be great. And then the second one, which is on 162 Mystic Ave, this is for the cannabis dispensary.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The old Colonial Volkswagen dealer. The last iteration being Colonial Volkswagen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, and it's also going to be an art something or other. Art center. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I, I, I will, my comment would be, what do we have to add on this one, which is, uh, you know, it's not a, you know, the building has the building is the building. And I disclaim knowledge as to how long it was there before colonial colonial facade went up. Uh, but it looks like essentially the same, the same type of structures holds Atlas. And I don't even know what we have to say about that. But that's the limit of my comments.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The only comment that I had looking at the design was, you know, there's all this talk about, you know, using Mystic Ave as like a kind of a gateway to Medford or vibrancy. And I just felt that it wasn't taking advantage of the vertical space that might be allowed there. I'm not a hundred percent sure what's allowed. But I mean, it just kind of seemed like, I mean, it's still this kind of simple one and a half story or however many building and it's like, well, would there be an opportunity to do something over that in the future? But I mean, I'm sure the folks at Theory Wellness don't have the funds to build a five story structure or whatever, but it just, you know, is there a way to kind of prepare that for future vertical something? I don't know. I'd be, you know, and that's just my personal opinion. It has nothing to do with like a historical kind of comment or commission in that respect.
[Doug Carr]: Okay, I'll take a first pass at both and circulate it. If you can just get me into your thoughts in the next few days.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and if there's no thoughts on 162 Mystic, you know, as a collective, from a historical perspective, you know, if there's a consensus to kind of pass on comments, then that's fine, too, I think.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, in the past, we've commented just on the quality of what we see. You know, that's our purview, too. It doesn't have to be history-based, although that's one of the reasons we're on the list. But we can make any comment we want about aesthetics, about codes, about anything we want. And obviously, the ZBA and the city's planning department could take it or leave it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. All right. Thank you, everybody for that. Okay, moving on. I don't have any other new business of any unless any other commissioners have anything. Okay, moving on. I invited kit Nichols tonight to join and observe and be here for questions I circulated we did receive an application for her to join our open seat. I had a great conversation with her last week so I wanted. commission to have the opportunity to see her credentials, talk to her, and we can decide if we want to vote to recommend her for appointment for our open seat. So, Kit, welcome. And commissioners, if there are any questions or any comments on anything that's happened tonight or just.
[Kit Collins]: No, as always, it's always interesting to listen in. I mean, it's why I put my application in. Great.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Maybe just share a little bit about yourself and how long you've been in Medford and give the commissioners a 30,000 foot overview.
[Kit Collins]: So I've lived in Medford since 2003. We started out over by Wright's Pond and actually spent a fair number of years not knowing very much about the history of Medford or really too much about its housing stock, honestly. And then moved to Governors Avenue in 2012 and suddenly became aware of how much the face of Medford was really changing and really aware of sort of the loss of some really beautiful historic buildings. And while, you know, I am not By any stretch of the imagination, a person who thinks that every building must be preserved, I think buildings with historical significance and value should be considered. And the thing I think that this body does, it's the only municipal body that really does that. And I see some real economic benefits to the rehabilitation, as you said, Ryan, of buildings that might otherwise just be destroyed or demolished. And I think as we look forward to sort of the Medford of the future, I think the balance that we have to strike is preserving that which should be preserved and which actually creates economic value for all of us who live here, and making sure that there's adequate housing for the people of Manford and the people who are coming in. The historical piece has always been of an interest of mine. I actually started out my career, I spent eight years working in a historical museum in the town in Vermont where I grew up, Woodstock, which is actually very interested in in sort of preserving the history of the town, although maybe a little bit too much so I mean there is. that it does have the benefit of a design review board that I think in some cases, takes it a little to the extreme, but it certainly was sort of the backdrop in which I was raised. And, and it's something that has always been a huge interest of mine. And in the last few years, we've been, my husband and I have really undertaken the I like the word rehabilitation of our home on Governor's Avenue, trying to bring it back to the best of what it was while making it a place that is actually comfortable to live in. So I'm honored to be considered.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, thank you so much. Commissioners, does anybody have any questions for Kit? Questions, comments? A welcoming.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think she'll make a great addition to the board. We'll start with that. Thank you. Yeah, I read the resume and it was very impressive. And I thought your letter was very impressive. So I'd have no problem welcoming you to the board, to the commission. Great.
[Doug Carr]: I'll say this, most of our meetings are not so legal heavy on the jargon as tonight's was, but it tends to be more focused. Medford's undergoing, as you said, a dramatic change, and we're trying to preserve what we can. We're realists. We know that every house cannot be saved and change must occur, but we want to save the gems for sure. The process of getting the city surveyed has been a decade in the making, and we're still not done yet. So we're going to have more tools and we're always going to be learning more about properties and histories of neighborhoods, different parts of the city that will help inform our decisions. So we could use another person who can think critically about it. It sounds like from what I see in your resume, you certainly have that.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you. Well, you know, I think even the things, just the mere cataloging, even the things that aren't, you know, that are demolished, the work of the commission ensures that there actually is a record.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. It looks like we have a comment from one of our attendees. Let's see, I see a raised hand, Eunice. If we could get your name and address for the record, please.
[Eunice Browne]: Yes, thank you. Eunice Brown, 48 Greenleaf Ave. Okay. A couple of questions. I see on the listing on the city website today that there are seven members listed. If Kit were to be appointed, who would she be replacing?
[Jennifer Keenan]: She's replacing Abigail Salerno, who resigned a few months ago.
[Eunice Browne]: Okay. All right, good to know. And secondly, has the resident from Malden removed herself from the board?
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, we are waiting direction from the mayor's office on that. Okay. She's on vacation today.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Eunice, could you give me your last name again? I'm sorry.
[Eunice Browne]: It's Brown. B-R-O-W-N-E.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Eunice Browne]: I'm really not understanding what the issue is here. It, in my mind, should be an absolute no brainer that the minimum basic requirement to sit on any board or commission here in the city is that you are a Medford resident. And should you need to leave the city for any reason, as people sometimes do for a whole host of reasons, then the ethical thing to do is to immediately step down. So I don't understand why there's an opinion or anything needed here or why somebody would be allowed to continue on.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Again, so this is a mayoral appointed commission. So only the mayor can unappoint somebody to this commission. And it does not just affect our board, this would require us probably a citywide audit for anybody who's no longer, you know, so if this is a this is this isn't an all boards and commissions, not just ours. So again, we are waiting for direction from the mayor's office. And as soon as we have it, A change may or may not happen. I don't know what's going to happen, but I appreciate your comments, Eunice. Thank you very much. Did you say she was on vacation today? The mayor is? No, no, no. Our commissioner is on vacation this week. That's why she's not here. Oh, okay. That particular individual. Okay. Thank you so much, Eunice. Thank you. Okay, are there any other comments with regards to Kit or our board member? Otherwise, I will take a motion from one of our commissioners with regards to Kit's application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: To recommend Kit Nichols for appointment by the mayor's office.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Second. Thank you, Ed. Okay, we have a motion on the table to appoint or to recommend for an appointment for Kit Nichols. Ryan? Yes. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. So what we will do, Kit, is we will send a letter off to the mayor's office asking for you to be appointed, and then we will keep you posted. The mayor might request an interview, so they'll either communicate with you directly or they'll let me know, and whatever I learn, I will certainly pass along, and hopefully we'll get you up and running before our September meeting.
[Kit Collins]: Great, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thanks so much. Okay, moving on to the agenda. Properties under demo delay. I know, let's see. Obviously, Sharon Street got lifted tonight. As far as I know, we don't have any updates on 104 Harvard Avenue or 33 Third Street. Ryan, I know that you and Peter met with the owner at Boston Avenue, so maybe you wanna update us there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let's do 20 Otis.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, let's do Otis first. I know that there was a meeting with those folks as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 20 Otis Street, I think the owners are open to investigating the one thing that might stand in their way of recreating the existing building. We looked at the building, the structural engineer has looked at it, the building department has looked at it. The building department's not going to classify it as an existing building because it's got no foundation underneath it at all, no historic foundation. It's just effectively sitting on grade to the best of the view. So they don't consider it existing. So they can't rebuild in the same spot. So the building has to come forward five feet in both directions from the lot line. And so because that has to move, it would have to have a full foundation. Everything would have to be rebuilt to code. So we seated that it would probably be best to recreate the building. and there's a height restriction of 15 feet, which is what they designed their original garage to, their new proposal. But Peter and I felt that the commission would support having them go after a zoning variance for the additional height. The only difference between the proposed building and a new building is about three feet. I think the existing building is about 18 feet tall. You consider there's a 10 foot first floor and an eight foot second floor, that gives you a ridge line at about 18 feet. And, you know, that would give them their two car garage the little bump out that they want. And they would only be required to go after the zoning variants for the height restriction. And if maybe they wanted to put it a little bit closer to the lot line, they could try if they're all if they. What are them so we've asked that they look into that and just let us know if they're going forward with that because we'll write them a letter of support. I think if commissioners might agree that's the right direction is that okay with you guys.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That sounds good to me. I think if we can save the carriage house and.
[Adam Hurtubise]: of the form of the carriage house.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So the spirit of the carriage house.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It would look exactly the same. And really the only thing we're asking them to change on their existing design is the roof. So they get a higher pitched roof, they get storage. If ADUs become a thing, they could convert it over to an ADU later. So I just wanted to give them flexibility. I would never ask somebody to go pursue a zoning variance and then not have it be useful to them.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then if some reason zoning doesn't give them the variance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Peter and I talked about allowing them to proceed as, as plans that we've done everything in our power to come up with some alternative for a small building. And then I would never hold somebody to the full extent because this is a carriage house. I would never hold it to the same extent that I would a whole residential building. So I would be okay with releasing the delay at that point. We did recommend that the commission pay the legal fee for the ad for the ZBA if they decide to pursue that option. It's a small cost to us in order for them to get their ZBA approval.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think that sounds reasonable. And then I'm not sure if Dennis is listening. I know he might be eating his dinner, but I guess obviously if they can get on this, if they decide they want to go for it, you know, can we get them on the September agenda? I'm assuming it's too late for August.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yeah, they need to apply basically the next week or two to be on the agenda for September. Okay. It's usually about five to six weeks in advance, just in terms of the review and then legal ads and things like that. So I usually like to get them in by the middle of the month prior.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Which means that we would know by our October, well, we'd have confirmation by the September meeting, and then we would know the result by the October meeting, what happened at ZBA, and we could make a- Well, unless it gets continued, which sometimes they do.
[Denis MacDougall]: So sometimes it's not always a one and done. And I can never predict which ones will be and which ones won't be.
[Adam Hurtubise]: They did it. They did ask that if they were pursuing the ZBA, if they'd be allowed to take down the existing building, I think that if they are making good faith, a meeting that they can take down the existing building, that would then clear the way for them to immediately begin construction. As soon as the ZBA finding is reported with the border with the land.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, so I think that's something that we could probably vote on at the next meeting. If they get on the agenda and we know that they're on. Or were they looking for something sooner than that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I told them to come and let us know. So maybe I'll email them tomorrow and just have them, but just let us know which way they're pursuing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed or Doug, do you have anything to add on that one?
[Doug Carr]: Nothing from me. All set, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. That sounds like a good plan, Ryan. Thanks for that update. Should we talk about Boston Ave and the updates there?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Share my screen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Doug, are you going to participate in this discussion?
[Doug Carr]: No, I'm not.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, just to stick around to just look at the drawings that I will. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you. Thanks for that clarification. Okay, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 30 Boston have everybody can see my drawings.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. And I think I'm just to be clear, the property owners here is attorneys here. So if there's any questions or anything. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And the hottest day of the year, measuring up this building and from that extensive documentation, we were able to recreate by for the most part, what the building was prior to demolition, which I think is important because that's usually one of the things that we asked people to do, you know, just so that there's a record of it. We recorded the interior, but there's still a few more things to add on these drawings but really what we care about is the exterior but you know the floor plan is important it does tell how people live in this building was really well preserved so you know the basement is what it is, first floor plan. Very typical Moses man details on the interior. He's got these little wing walls that play off the bay fireplace in the back which is kind of cool, you know, kitchen, little cold room on the side which was a pantry. typical to the upstairs, there's a couple of bedrooms. And then the attic was finished space, which is customary. There was probably a space for the domestic servant at the back, which also gave access to the upstairs bathroom. And then front room, which is also space for maybe a live-in domestic servant. And then in the back, the Victorians tended to have finished rooms, unlike how we store stuff in attics. So they probably had what they call a trunk room in the back, which is what this is here. is where I put most of my effort. So I'm going to zoom in on these because this is really where we are going to be looking to conserve. So I wanted to make sure that we had captured all of the details as they exist in the building. They exist in various degrees of preservation, but at least they're recorded here so that we can then work with the owner to get clarification on which portions of this is going to remain as part of the project, and then which portions are going to get recreated. I think Peter and I have a pretty clear understanding of what's to remain and what's going to be recreated. I think a lot of it can be recreated in new materials. ASAC and And vinyl, but there are a few details that we just wanted to make sure that the commission understands, because the next thing is I'm going to work on drawing these to reflect how it's going to get rebuilt. So, you know, we're going to lose, you know, it's going to kind of be boiled down, like all of these little rake details and things like that. We have to try to decide, you know, how much is, how much is too much, basically. I know based on the structural work that needs to happen on this building, most of, if not all of the exterior siding, sheathing, et cetera, is all going to be removed. I know all the windows are going to be replaced, et cetera. But there are things that can be put back that would help kind of separate this from a run of the mill box. And that's this banding course with the flares at both levels. And then there's a detail here, which is going to have to be addressed, which when this brick course, which is not secured to the building, so it's got to be removed. It either needs to be rebuilt in a new manner with this flare out or the flare be brought down to the foundation level. I don't think the loss of this particular course will be detrimental, but what I did want to record is on this side, the original shingling pattern. Knowing how much shingles cost right now, I would never ask for this to be recreated in in wood, but it certainly, you know, we could try to find ways to bring this back in newer materials. So, you know, so it's captured here in CAD drawings. The building's kind of interesting. I think that the changes that are being asked of it are not really crazy hard. Peter, if you want to jump in here and just chime off of what I talked about and then. Yeah, if you can go back to the front facade for a minute. Yeah. So, yeah, I mean, to some degree, we would like to try to, you know, preserve or replicate some of this detail, like, you know, up in the gable area, there's clabbards, whether those become vinyl or not, and then they are separated from other materials, you know, so maybe we'll have vinyl shingles below that, Maybe we can try to persuade the owner to use ASEC trim for the window details and the rake and gable details, to try to maintain as much of the feel of this as we can, although we can't probably exactly replicate it. And who knows, maybe some of this stuff is in good enough shape to scrape off and repaint or something. Maybe that little end gable on the end of the porch there, we would love to see that replicated somehow in some form, because that's kind of a critical element for the facade. And then this band, I don't know, there's a lot of detail in the band. You could zoom in on the band maybe, Ryan, It's detailed, but I don't know how much. We probably can't get that, but we would like the idea of the band to be in there somehow, whether it's simplified or there aren't so many bumps and grinds on it. But those are some of the kind of things we're kind of hoping to achieve. even though basically it's gonna be resided completely probably so. And I, you know, I'm open to change. I know, I know these railings, for example, are really decorative and ornate and they have ornate balusters, you know, things like this get boiled down over time. So just a simple two by four railing with a one by stock, I'm fine with, as long as they coexist with details like this. So, you know, the proposed changes for this building are basically twofold. They're going to extend this up and basically bring this all the way up to turn it into a gable, and then there'll be a dormer that intersects this. And then on the opposite roof, that's this side, there'll be a dormer for the stairs. I think the design just warrants a little bit of change, but by and large, there'll be more windows. They'll be gridded. So there'll be these two over two pattern. So I think that there's a reflection. I just think that the design needs a little bit more work. will integrate the owner's design just to make sure the commission and everybody is clear what's going to remain, what's going to be demolished, what's going to be recreated basically at this point. So that's the next step, Janice. We'll leave these out and we'll talk about that next.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so you'll reach back out to the property owner to go over these and then Hopefully we can come to a resolution so we can get him on his way soon.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If we edit my drawings and they do some stuff to theirs, I can probably come up with some clarification within a week. I couldn't imagine it taking longer than that. We'll send it to the commission, yay or nay, and then have it up.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You cut out a little bit on me. Is that me or is that Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think it's Ryan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Ryan, I lost you for a bit. Your audio cut out. Okay. Well, you're going to follow. You're going to follow up with the homeowner. You guys, that is the subcommittee. Yes. Okay. Okay. That sounds good. We're making progress there. Thank you. Okay. Does anybody have anything else with regards to properties under demo delay?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Only because it came up. Did anybody hear what happened to the Cincinnati situation where we saw that, yes, everything is no longer within our purview, but the developer now seems to have been foreclosed?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ed, thank you for bringing that up. So you emailed me about that public notice. I did find it online. There is an auction happening on Thursday. Thursday. This Thursday. I don't really know too much more than that. There was not, I mean, there was an attorney's office listed in the public notice, but nothing in the sense of like, you know, if you want a packet of information or whatever. So we did receive one email today from somebody asking, you know, kind of the status and we, you know, said to them, if the property gets sold, then, you know, a new one review could be warranted. And yeah, I expect I wouldn't be surprised if we got a couple other emails over the next couple of days about it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Chair. Yes, I think this is another example that if the property sells. Again, I think we're supportive of the project that's there. I do think that it would warrant re review, just in the same manner that we're discussing tonight. But, you know, I think that, again, we would just want to finish off that process, which is why it's so important the legal team come up with a decision on this matter. So, PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman. PB, Harmon Zuckerman.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I won't pretend to know what you talked about because I was talking to my husband in the other room. But I, you know, we don't know if the plans are being sold with it if a new person is going to do this exact same thing. You know, certainly, I know we had neighbors that came to meetings about that project that were concerned so, um, you know, I think another. open kind of discussions on that, however that shakes out, certainly the neighbors would probably want it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So foreclosure, it's probably the buyer probably starts square one in terms of, I don't think he gets the plans when they break the door down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, well they could find, I mean, it's easy enough to find out who did them and they could go to that architect and buy them or whatnot. But anyway, but yeah, if anyone's around Thursday and wants to wander over and see what happens.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Put in a bid.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right, it's a $10,000 minimum, well, it's a show up with a check for $10,000.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Show up with a cashier's check for 10 grand. That's your deposit. I've been, I've had to watch those things. It ain't pretty.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it'll be over in five minutes. So, um, but yeah, we'll, uh, you know, keep an ear to the ground. We'll see what happens. We'll see if we get any more emails from potential buyers interested in that. Um, okay. Uh, permit subcommittee, everything's going well. It's a little light. It's summer. Uh, we're on top of things here. So, Nothing new to report there. CPA projects. There's a lot of trees down in Thomas Brooks Park this morning. I don't know about you guys, but I lost my power for eight hours overnight last night. It was not pretty sleeping over here with no AC. But the wall, Palm's wall should be starting soon, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have to touch base with Richard McGrath. I'm going to do that tomorrow morning first thing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. And we're just waiting to award the Fieldstone wall. Waiting for clarification from finance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Waiting for finance to act on the financial paper. As soon as they receive it, they said they would. Maybe I'll follow up with Danielle to see where they're at.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. And then Ryan and I went down to Rhode Island. three weeks ago and cataloged everything that we found at the dig. It was a great couple of days. How many, three days over two weeks?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Two days. We did a Monday and a Monday.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, okay. We had a couple of volunteers go the first week and then Ryan and I went the second week. It was great. It was great to be there in the lab to see all the artifacts cleaned and cataloged. And so it'll be a fun, we'll hopefully have everything done and there'll be a public meeting in October to share what we found there from the dig. So, okay. I think that's everything on CPA. Any update on survey projects, Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, we got an extension for brickyards through 2023. So that's good. Uh, we're waiting on finance to act on winter Hill. There's some financial issues that need to get straightened out, need to get straightened out soon. So I'm going to, because otherwise we'll lose the money in September and here we are in August. So, uh, and we, they will not be extending it again. So they're stand to lose $18,000 if they don't. get this matter sorted out quickly. So I will follow up with them. I'm going to make a note of myself, follow up and give them a deadline to act on it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then Fulton Heights has gone out to bid. That's where Jess left it. So we're waiting on bidders. OK, great. What was the one which area were you waiting for finance? Sorry. uh, winter hill winter hill is not on here because I said last month, winter hill was done. Uh, but winter hill is not winter. Hill is not done because, um, due to some errors, uh, some money got taken out. That wasn't supposed to, then they got, didn't pay something. And now I'm trying to sort it out and they can do it. They just haven't done it yet.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. I don't have any update on historic districts. There's a district meeting on Thursday. So if anyone's free and wants to tune in, we'll get an update on that. Is there anything else from the commissioners before we approve the meeting minutes? No, Peter circulated the meeting minutes. Peter, I did notice there was a typo in my name on, I think, the second page. That's my last name.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Otherwise, I will take a motion when someone's ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Move to approve the minutes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you Ed. Thank you, Ryan. Motion to approve the meeting minutes from July. Ryan. Ryan. Yes. Thank you. Peter. Yes. Ed. Y'all. And Doug. Yes. Okay, great. Passes four zero. Does anybody have anything else before we adjourn? Okay. Motion to adjourn. Thank you, Ed, 8.22 PM. Thank you, Ryan. Motion to adjourn, Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Bedtime, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes, this is the shortest meeting we've had in two years.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And a long time, right? Let's all enjoy it. Thank you, everybody. We will see you next month.
[Doug Carr]: Adios.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Good night.
|
total time: 3.33 minutes total words: 246 |
|||