[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, this is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, May 8, we will get started. Let me read our little blurb here. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting of the City of Medford Historical Commission will be conducted via remote public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means. Means members of the public who wish to access the meeting made you so by using the zoom link provided for in the agenda. No in person attendance or members of the public will be permitted. Public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Okay So tonight we have a full agenda. We're going to start with a preferably several meetings ago, we accepted an application for the full demolition of a carriage house at 91 Winchester Street. That was determined to be historically significant. And to remind folks what that means, it means that the property or building is associated, importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or commonwealth, or that it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself in the context of a group of buildings. So the Carriage House at 91 Winchester Street was determined to be historically significant. So tonight we will determine if the demolition will be detrimental to the city of Medford. So the designation of 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, the Medford Historical Commission does not and will not consider the building's condition or any safety issues when determining whether something is to be preferably preserved only the building commissioner can address those issues. Okay, so commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion one way or the other for 91 Winchester Street, we can open the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Madam Chair? Yes. I make a motion to find the carriage house at 91 Winchester Street preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Is there a second?
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thanks kid. I also would just like to clarify. I'm I think I said that this was a full demolition. I think it's only partial. So I just wanted to make make that clarification. But Ryan, why don't you start off the discussion? Sure.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This type of building is exceedingly rare in the city of Medford, there's about 3000 pre 1900 buildings. Overall, in the built landscape of Medford's 18,000 existing housing stock. plus or minus of that is probably less than 500 of these buildings left, maybe less than that, because they sometimes disappear, you know, or have disappeared. So I'm just basing that over what we used to see on maps and would need confirmation, but it's definitely not a lot. And in terms of It's important to the city of Medford. This is a hallmark of Medford's pre streetcar error basically that it was the method preferred method of transportation, not everybody was wealthy enough to have a horse and buggy a lot of people shared or did. what I would say is Uber, early forms of Uber. But, you know, it was a status symbol definitely in the 19th century, the late 19th century when the hallmark of these type of buildings were built. What I'm particularly interested in is this is a rare, a super rare example where it's a gable and construction. Most have a gable that runs parallel to the front entrance of the building. And you usually have a little dormer on the front for the hayloft door. And in this case, they've turned it gable into street to mimic kind of a lot of the, what you'd see up in like Northern New Hampshire and Maine, the larger 19th century barns that have that were for like large agricultural farms. So this is like a very interesting miniature version of that. And I don't know if the builder, you know, it's hard to speculate, but it'd be interesting to know who the builder was and if he had any experience building those types of structures and that's why he chose to do it that way. But anyways, that's just my long rambling to say it's rare, has architectural interest, and I'm interested in seeing something happen other than just simply demolishing it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Kit, I'll come to you next since you seconded the motion.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Kit, you're muted.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit, you're muted. Thank you.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I had an entire soliloquy going there. I was just going to, as I was saying, in addition to what Ryan just said, I would just add that I found the form to be really quite compelling. And particularly, we know it was in place in 1898. Um, and it seems to be a really kind of remarkably well preserved, at least from the outside, um, carriage houses. And as Ryan has said, we don't have very many of those left. And in addition, I would just say that so much of what comes before us is residential. And we do, I mean, we do what we can to sort of preserve the residential landscape. But I think this is a really interesting, um, sort of architectural example of the trades history in the city.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Thank you, Kit. Peter, you're up next. You're muted. Don't start talking.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I have a fondness for this building. My kids were friends with the family that used to live there. Subsequently, we have moved back to Great Britain. So I've been inside the house. I've been inside the carriage house. You know, I don't recall the condition of it, but I do remember it was kind of the feeling of like, an urban farm almost. And so I'm attached to the building, I would I would love to see if that could be, you know, saved somehow or incorporated into a new use rather than just torn down. I just sort of have a personal attachment to the house, but also I think it's a very, it looks, appears like it's got a lot of its authentic original detail. on the wooden part, not the cinder block part necessarily, but I wouldn't mind seeing the cinder block part go down, but I believe the demolition is for the opposite, right? To save the cinder block part. So yeah, I wish we could have some rethinking on that, but anyway, that's my two cents.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm with the group so far. The uniqueness of this property is compelling, I think. I wasn't clear about what the scope of demolition was from what Ryan and Peter described, but if it is in fact the main building, I think that's the purpose of this process is to kind of pause and see if we can come up with a better plan that can be workable for the owner and will protect the heritage of the city. So my instincts are to continue that pause and see if we can come up with a plan that works for everyone.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And just to be clear, Doug, in the file and for any other commissioners, in the demo delay file on the Google Drive, there is a file called photos of 91 Winchester Street. It's very clear what's happening between the barn part and the concrete block part. Ed, anything to add on this?
[Unidentified]: You're muted.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed, unmute yourself.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Ed? Yeah, I understand from what I've heard that, I understand from what I have heard that it is the wooden structure, not the concrete structure that is going down. And the pictures in the Form B compared to the pictures in the application I'm not clear, if it's a total of the carriage house, I get it, but it's not clear to me exactly what the plan is other than keeping the concrete L compared to the original building and the original building going completely. But as I said, that's where I'm, The Form B pictures were not particularly great for explaining what's going and what's not going.
[Jennifer Keenan]: There's one picture of the garage in the Form B. I'm going to share my screen right now, and I think this will say it all. So here is the note of what is being torn down.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: OK, I see that one, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The slab is going to stay, but the barn is going to come down. and then the concrete part will be capped, and the flat roof part will be capped.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: All right. Right, now I get it.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, okay.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. You're welcome.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I'd like to open it up for the homeowner, if she would like to make any comments or any members of the public that would like to comment on this. So Lee, if we could get your, just clarify your name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_01]: My name is Lee Herringshaw, and I live at 91 Winchester Street. Okay, the floor is yours. Thank you. Thank you. We went past the one photo quite quickly, but the One half of the roof of, I call what you call the carriage house, the barn, because to me, it's really classically a barn. And the concrete part, a garage. It's not historical. It doesn't have the old beams or any of that structure. Part of one side of the roof of the barn has fallen down through the hay mow floor onto the concrete floor on the ground, posing what I think is a huge danger to, you know, there's all these properties really close to me, unfortunately. Another thing you can't see is that the back of the barn has just been tar paper since I bought it. So what I've been doing since I got the place in 07, much of the reason I got it was because of my love for that barn. I grew up in Vermont. This whole property is very special to me that way. So what I've been trying to do since it's been in outrageous disrepair before the roof fell in is to be able to fix it up. and preserve it, obviously. My funding for that from sale of something else fell through in 2018, and then the roof began to be worse. So I have had a number of different contractors come and look at it. I've had people, I've paid contractors to do some interim work to try to just keep the roof from falling down. And thank God we didn't have major snows this winter, or because of the delays and everything, it would have come down on its own. I would do anything to keep this place, and I've tried everything I can. But it is in horrific shape, and it was in horrific shape when I got it. And my plan has always been to fix it, and I just can't afford to do it anymore.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And I'd just be curious, do you just plan to leave it an open parking area?
[SPEAKER_01]: Oh, no. I'm going to make it into a patio. I would not park cars there. That's why the ugly modern piece is not being torn down, because it's solid. And I can put a car in there if I need to.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So that's why you're keeping the pad and then you'll have the concrete areas storage or for a mini garage or something like that. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Thank you. I think that's super clarifying. Yeah, Doug, go ahead.
[Doug Carr]: It seems like if, if the condition is that poor, the building department would intercede and just make this call. They've done that before. Obviously you've mentioned that earlier, Jen, that, you know, if it's, if it's a, safety concern, a health hazard, they override us, right? That's, we've always never fought that, never tried to. So to me, if that's the case, that should be what happens here. But I don't know why it hasn't, if that's the case, Ms. Erickson.
[SPEAKER_01]: Well, I was waiting to hear what you guys had to say. So I could, I didn't know that that was how the sequence went. I did speak to someone at the building commission beforehand about the plan. There was a covering person when I finally got somebody. But, you know, you have the photos. Sure.
[Doug Carr]: I believe the commissioners.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, the commissioner happens to be here at our meeting tonight. So Bill, thank you for joining us.
[Unidentified]: Good evening, Madam Chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and if you have any knowledge on this one, feel free to chime in.
[Bill Forte]: Actually, I don't, but it is a pleasure to meet you all for the first time. I'm glad that I'm here tonight. I know that you have me on the agenda for later. Just a quick advisory. I am also going to be logged on to the ZBA meeting at 730. So if I happen to not put my attention on this meeting, then certainly don't take it as an insult. No worries. Of course. Um, so, um, in cases like this, um, we do not normally interject unless, um, I'll give you an example of where the building, the building commissioner will interject is, um, um, the recent fire there at, um, um, Elizabeth Warren sun house there upon, um, uh, I forget the name of the street. But anyways, in that case, it actually posed an imminent threat to public safety. The house was way up on the hill, it was in danger of collapse, and it was going to fall on the street. We don't normally interject on garages because they're really, you know, they're not the prime, first of all, they're not a principle structure, that'd be the first thing. Second thing is that we usually don't interject on behalf of a property owner because it could essentially be a conflict of interest. to you as the historic commission. The only time that we will cite a building as unsafe is when it's an imminent threat to public safety. Even if it's going to create property damage to private property or butters, here again, we may cite the owner as an unsafe structure, but we won't order it down for the specific reason that it really is outside of our purview. Having said that, we would only act on an emergency situation. We really don't get involved with opinions, especially when it comes to private property. We leave that to the structural engineers and obviously to the authority of the commission in this case. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Commissioner. Lee, happy to, I don't know if you had any comment back on that.
[SPEAKER_01]: I just have questions. So a collapsed roof would not suffice in your view to make it a hazard if it's three feet from the medical building next to very large old trees. It's several yards from my other neighbor's property.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, I mean, a matter of chance for you. So, again, we don't normally get involved in private property accessory buildings for the simple fact that Although it is obviously in disrepair and obviously it would come down safe, I don't use the authority of the building department in that manner. It's not appropriate. It would be extending the city's liability. If we were to say, oh yeah, go ahead and rip it down, there could be complications beyond what we're seeing just here at this meeting. So as a matter of policy, we don't do it and we'll only exercise our authority under chapter 143 section six through 10. Okay, on that. So it's general laws chapter 143 section six to 10. That's the express authority for the building commissioner, the fire chief, and the mayor. to order a building down. We don't overstep that authority only in cases where it's an imminent threat to public safety. And so for that reason, we probably, we may send you a notice that it's an unsafe structure, but we will not order it down. We will order you to make it safe. So that's kind of where we differ.
[Doug Carr]: Commissioner Forte, this is Doug Carr. If the building is were it to be condemned, if it's maybe not an imminent threat to public safety or a property owner or even the owner, Ms. Heringshaw, if it was something that you didn't think it was, it was condemnable by the city, would that push it over the line or not? I'm just trying to understand where the line is because I think the previous commissioner had a different line, to be perfectly honest, which is okay. I'm not questioning your authority. I'm just trying to understand where that line is for you, sir.
[Bill Forte]: Again, Commissioner car I would say that my, my authority lies only on the imminent threat to public safety. I would not cite a given example of where I might cite a building unsafe and and order it's order it's demolition. In a case where a building might be falling apart on a public way, that would be one thing. Another situation might be that a house is abandoned and open to the weather and in disrepair. I might order it fenced in. But in no case do we order a building down unless the threat to public safety is imminent. And I'll tell you why. Because insurance companies will cite you know, the building inspector is going beyond the scope of his authority, especially in cases where there might be a fire investigation or there might be some other reason why a building shouldn't come down right away. If the building is insured, I assume that the building is not insured at this point. you know, there would be a conflict of interest with the insurance company, and it would expose the city to liabilities that otherwise may not be covered under Chapter 268A. And that's why I'm very specific about staying in my lane. You know, again, if this was a house that was on or near a public way, and you know, the threat was dangerous and imminent, I would essentially, to exercise my authority, I would actually have to enact what's called a board of survey. A board of survey is basically the fire chief, myself, and a disinterested party, such as a structural engineer that doesn't work in the city, to do a careful survey of the property to determine whether or not the structure has to come down. Here's an example of a careful survey. I actually had a radio tower, a communications tower in Waltham that was 290 feet tall, never had a building permit. So I could not determine whether or not it was safe. We performed a survey. We actually got a court order and had it taken down. So in cases like that, that's where we would exercise that authority. But simply opining that a building has to come down is not exactly within the scope of the authority of the building commissioner. I can certainly go there. I can inspect it. I can cite it as an unsafe structure, but I would stop right there. Um, I would, you know, it would, it would be removed or make safe. Um, and so, uh, again, I, I wouldn't want to do anything that would supersede the authority of the commission, um, especially on a historic building. I've been asked to do it dozens of times in other communities and I refused, um, only because Um, you know, it undermines, uh, you know, it's, you know, it kind of, um, supersedes the, the authority of the commission to make its determination. So, um, in short, I don't want to take up too much time, but, but I would just tell you that my philosophy is a little bit more conservative than my predecessor. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, commissioner. That was very helpful. Um, Okay, is there any I just want to open it up also again for public comments if there's anyone here that would like to speak on behalf of this case, please raise your hand or make yourself known, and I will call on you. Okay, I'm not seeing anything on my end. Lee, do you have any other comments before I go back to the commissioners for a vote?
[SPEAKER_01]: Yes, please. Just clarifying, I have been trying to get my homeowner's insurance to help me fix it for years, but they're saying, oh, it's old, it's not, you know, it wasn't hit by lightning, so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Madam Chair. Yes, go ahead, Ryan. I need a point of clarification. I am curious as to the cost of demolition for this building. And I wondered if the homeowner could clarify that for me.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, it's outrageous. They have to do it by hand because it is so close to other properties and other buildings. So they're charging me 13. 13,000. 13,000. Yeah, just to get it taken down. And of course, to fix it was much, much more, even just to keep it from falling down more.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you for that information. That's very helpful.
[SPEAKER_01]: And excuse me, are you the person who did the research? I'm forgetting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, we have a consultant just to- It was wonderful. Yeah, we hire a third party consultant to help us with all Form Bs. And then it comes back to us so that we can read them and make our determinations based on that. So, yes. So any case that comes before us, we have that research done. So thank you for that. Go ahead, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I just, given the context here, I'm just, you know, usually when we, find something, you know, significant and then perfectly preserved. We're trying to obviously save the building. There is, it seems like there's very little chances it's going to happen. I can't imagine anyone trying to like take this and, you know, take it apart and relocate it, which is one of the options we always pursue. I'm just trying to understand what the, what, if we find it perfectly preserved, what the end game would be here beyond delaying. You know, I can't see it right now, given the context up here and the commissioners. comments, the building commissioners comments and the owner. Go ahead, Ryan, please.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I asked the question because I wondered if we could find a way that if the owner is spending $13,000 on the building to demolish it, if we could find a way to rehabilitate the building and incorporate that $13,000 into the building because maybe, you know, she said one of the reasons why she bought it was because of the nice lot and house and this carriage house. Maybe, you know, do a one-for-one trade where, you know, she's not necessarily just demolishing the building for the sake of taking it down. Maybe you know, and I don't know, I know in a post COVID world, the cost of materials is astronomical, but I'm curious as to if something could be done for that much money or close to it. I don't know. And I don't know what shaped the buildings. And so I wouldn't, I wouldn't know, you know, but you know, is, is a roof $13,000 and, you know, is, uh, you know, is, is framing reinforcement, all of that. And I, I don't know and then I'm, you know, but I'm curious to know. And I think that's part of the exploration right so if it's a financial hardship that you know if the numbers came back and said oh well I've got those numbers and it's $150,000 to do. what I would say preservation and rehabilitation work where it's not wholesale prop up every last stud with new framing. So you basically reframe the entire building from the inside out. That's not necessary to simply maintain a building.
[SPEAKER_01]: The quotes I got just to, I was trying to get the roof redone because that was the biggest threat. The quotes I got for that, which was before the pandemic, were 25.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, it's good information.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Brian, hang on one second. Commissioner, I see your hand up. Go ahead. Oh, you're muted.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just as a follow up, too many comments about not just going and ordering properties down. Whatever determination the commission might make, obviously, it wouldn't limit my authority to go to the property if there was an imminent threat to the private property next door and it was It appeared as though it was going to cause harm. It wouldn't prevent me. I just want to be clear that people want to use my office as a battering ram to break down buildings. It happens all the time. And so I usually try to let the determinations be run independently. And then if for some reason, let's just say that the commission did vote to preserve this building, that doesn't stop the owner from pursuing the unsafe structure pathway in which they could get a determination. Obviously, I would have to take a look at it. And if in my opinion, it could be repaired, then I would order it made safe. You know, so, you know, again, I don't want to be really involved in the decision making process with the commission, only because you know my comments or my actions might have adverse effects and so, again, I just just trying to remain right size and adjust. I want to assist the commission in any way I can. Obviously I want to assist the homeowners in the proper manner as well. And I have to make sure that the city's legal interests are also protected. So in that balance there, just be advised that I certainly would always act. There would never be any preemption for me acting on something that was brought to my attention.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Commissioner. I think that's helpful. And I don't, I think this is a different case where, you know, obviously we get cases all the time from folks that, you know, they provide letters from engineers. Oh, it's unsafe. It's got to come down, um, and trying to use it as a way to circumvent the process.
[Bill Forte]: And I, and again, that's where I don't, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So we appreciate that. And I think. You know, I think coming back to Doug's comment, and, you know, I think this is clear, it seems to be clearly a different situation here to some degree, but, you know, Lee, is there, or commissioners, anybody, does anyone else have anything to add on this case? Go ahead, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: One other thought I had was, actually sort of a question for Ryan, if he, If the sees any value in documentation, you know, if that's the only thing we could do. Well, I think, I think we, you know, if, if this building were to. If this building were to be or had a demo delay on it, I think the very first thing would be to document it, sure. And then once it's been documented, then we go through just, you know, double checking all those figures and maybe seeing the numbers and how they work out. Uh, it's possible it might be a, uh, you know, there might be a way to work, uh, work out a funding, um, kit asked if maybe it might be a CPC project. So, I mean, I don't know if they would do that, but you know, what's CPC, uh, community preservation board. It's, um, community preservation.
[Doug Carr]: It's generally. doesn't cover private residences. Cause generally the products we fund are like churches and Chevalier. And there's usually a public function and a public access accessibility components. And that's obviously not true for any private residents. So I don't think CPC is a viable option. I serve on both committees, this one and that one. It's a great program, but I don't think that's a viable one if we're looking for funding sources, unfortunately.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Also, Ms. Herringshaw, I think just so you know, our goal is never to, well, not always, but not in every case, but our goal generally is to not hold people to the full 18 months, is to come to some solution that's agreeable to all parties. And, you know, usually it takes us just two or three months, you know, So just so you know that that's not our goal to keep hold everybody for 18 months, you know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: As long as the property owners are working with us and want to come to a resolution. I mean, certainly there have been cases where people have waited 18 months because they choose not to engage with us. And that's the onus is always on the owner. So just to kind of clarify what Peter is saying. But yeah, I think it's a good question, you know, that you bring, Doug, in terms of, you know, if there's a delay, what's the outcome? And, you know, I'm sure everyone's thinking of that right now.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, the bylaw does contemplate that there would be situations in which we could say it's preferably preserved and the numbers don't work. at which point it comes back to us within such and such a period. I'm not prejudging it, but I think this is not going to kick around 18 months. And I think from what we're hearing, we're going to see this before then from a homeowner who does not want to wait 18 months and then pull the hammer.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I have to say, I find this one particularly frustrating, because here we have a building that everybody would actually like to see preserved. And I mean, it just sort of seems like, obviously, we have the tools at our disposal. I mean, they are what they are. But I think the question of what's the point of finding it preferably preserved and prolonging it is, is there some other alternative here that we just aren't thinking of? Is there some creative way?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think documentation might help with that.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Our legal standard. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead, Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Go ahead, Ed. Again, as Jen explains before every one of these hearings, our legal standard is not to substitute our judgment for that of the building commissioner of the structural engineers. It's, you know, it is strictly a historical decision. And then there are procedures for dealing when the structural, when the structural engineers and the building commissioner have a different point of view in terms of economic reality. But, you know, we're not, we're not charged, we're not charged with that. All we can do is sort of remind people that we, you know, we do listen. And we're not, you know, 18 months does not mean 18, 18 months rarely means 18 months here before we get a resolution.
[Doug Carr]: Uh, Jen, I think we should probably just move to a vote. And obviously this, we need to get beyond it and see what the next steps are, whichever way the vote goes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I think that works for me as well. Okay, so thank you everybody for your discussion and comments. So we have a motion on the table to find the carriage house at 91 Winchester Street to be preferably preserved. That has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote as I see people on my screen. Please be ready to unmute yourselves.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, to preferably preserved. Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, in a perfect world.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug? No. Ryan? Yes. Okay, so that's one, two, three. So that's a four yes and a one no. Right, I counted correctly, yes. So the motion passes for preferably preserved. So Lee, the next step is for you to meet with our subcommittee to discuss ways to get you through this as soon as possible. So I will email you so that we can get that scheduled.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Also, it might be worthwhile. I mean, I'd be willing to visit the property, but.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think, I think we should talk about that and say maybe, you know, maybe the subcommittee does a visit. I'll let, yeah, we'll, we'll, we'll get, we'll get that figured out. All right. Thank you. Okay, moving on to our next preferably preserved hearing for tonight in a rare night that we have two preferably preserved hearings. We have 17 Green Road up next on the agenda. And again, So March, we accepted the application for the partial demolition of 17 Green Road. At our meeting last month, the building was found to be historically significant. So tonight we are voting to see whether or not this property will also have an 18 month demolition delay and be found preferably preserved. So commissioners, I will take a motion when someone is ready so that we can open the discussion on this property.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: For record, as I advise the chair, I am recusing myself from this discussion because of connections I have with promoters of the project.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Yes, if you want to mute yourself and shut your camera off, we'll let you know when it's time to come back. And then I will take a motion from my other commissioners when someone's ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll make a motion to find 17 Green Road preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you, Peter. Second. Okay. Thank you, Ryan. Okay, Peter, I'm going to start with you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: What we, we did discuss this last time, um, in that. The houses are uniquely situated on a ring road. It's visible from all sides. It's a great example of the shingle style, I believe. Correct me if I'm wrong, Ryan. It's got this beautiful wraparound porch. It's got a lot of great detail on the outs, extant detail on the outside as well as the inside. So for all the architectural reasons, it's a real gem, I think, worthy of being preserved. And I know it's a partial demolition just for clarity, so they can do an addition on the end, the left end. Somebody else, Ryan, if you want to speak to the historical part. Or not. No, I was just waiting for you to finish. I'm done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I just think it's a, it's a wonderful example and, you know, it's a. It's a great period piece that kind of exemplifies Medford's development from a very rural community into a commuting class suburb. I think the people that lived here are very interesting. And I think the architecture here just kind of speaks for itself. So I think it's a great building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Thank you, Ryan. Kit, anything to add on this?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: No, I think it's all been said. I'm interested to hear what the partial demolition actually entails from the homeowner, though, when the time comes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I think this is an easy call. Obviously, it's a really strong 19th century building in Medford that's, as Ryan says, it does speak to the evolving history of the city. And I think what the owners are proposing actually is a nice continuation of that. Cause I think it's going to be an addition that's going to feel natural. And when we, when we, you know, cross all, you know, do all our due diligence on the design side, I think it will be, it will be, it will look like it was always that way if we do it right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you, Doug. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this case? Please raise your hand or make yourself known. No, okay, I'm gonna close the public comments then on 17 Green Road. Commissioners, does anybody have anything else that they would like to say?
[Doug Carr]: Would the owner like to say anything?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'm not getting, I'm not getting, I'm not seeing anybody that.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, this is the homeowner here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. I'm sorry, I couldn't see you on camera.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: No, that's okay. We're here with our architect and our contractor. You know, the porch is definitely falling apart, our front porch now. We had to put some posts up there because the roof is kind of collapsing right now. And yes, we are looking to put an addition to replicate the house. to have our in-laws move in because one is very deadly sick of cancer. So we're trying to keep the carers of the house as much as we possibly can and fix all the rot in the property because we are getting water damage inside our house and the porch is unsafe and we have little kids as well. Okay, great.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah. Yeah, so I think that's our record.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Yes, we get your name and address for the record, sir, please.
[SPEAKER_13]: My name is Stephen Bourne at Stoneham, Massachusetts.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_13]: So we are doing some demolition at the end of the house in order to expand and pull the form of the house further out, trying to replicate the roof lines, the detailing, and also take a porch. repair it where we're keeping it but then building new to extend and wrap it around the new addition and even around the back of the house now which it currently does not do. So we're trying to bring that nice detail around the back of the house where we're also doing some addition as well. So the back of the house will also experience some demolition in order to expand this dormer addition on the back of the house. But we're very conscious of the historical form and detail and quality of the house and materials. I'm just trying to extend that out further, as after one gentleman said about trying to make it appear as if it was always that way from the start.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do you plan to re-roof the whole house?
[SPEAKER_13]: No, partially. No, partial. OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Thank you so much. Commissioners, does anybody else have any questions for the homeowner or her team with regards to this one? No? Okay. Just double checking. Anyone on Nicole's team have anything else to say? You guys good?
[SPEAKER_13]: We're using this opportunity to not just do this addition, but also do lots of needed repairs on the main house as well that remains. Okay, great. And so in the end, it won't look like there's just a new addition patch to the old house that really hasn't been upgraded. We're trying to be very thorough about the reconditioning and replacement materials.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, and our porch will not stand another winter with the heavy rain that it is.
[SPEAKER_13]: Yeah, it is in pretty poor condition.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: Yeah, I mean, we don't even feel that it's safe for people to walk up the stairs or from porch. Okay.
[SPEAKER_08]: My name is Sergio De Aces. I'm the contractor. So I think it is a good idea for one of you guys to stop by and take a look on the situation of the house. It is really everything that the owner has said and the architect is true. It is falling apart. Actually, last year was able to stop from falling because it's so rotted. And the way it was built before, it's not safe. It's two by threes. And now we're trying, we're definitely gonna have to do the porches no matter what. And walking around the house, you're gonna see that probably, not exaggerating, but probably 65 to 70% is rotted. So we have to do a lot of work outside, and that's when everything came up, you know, the decision of adding because of the in-laws here that they are in a bad situation and need a place to stay. And then we would use this time to do the whole thing all together, which is fixing the porch. I do have to redo the lolly columns to support the porch. because they did it very far apart and everything is kind of sagging. So there's a lot of work to do everywhere, but you probably would like to take a look at it, even if you could just walk around the house. I think it is a very important thing for us to do. It's not really just doing the additions, a replica of what we got, but there's a lot more to do to make sure. And the idea here from the homeowner is to really make it look nice. And that's the whole idea. I have experience working on this for many years. I have worked everywhere, South end, South end, the South end, the North end. And I have some experience and I'd love to do this, but it depends on the situation, you know, that's where I am right now. So thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Serge, what was your last name?
[SPEAKER_08]: D-E-A-S-S-I-S.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And what city are you from? Medford. OK.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: And I would really, as a homeowner, I would really like to keep the characteristics and the replica of the house, but our time is ticking because if we aren't able to get our in-laws in here, how we're getting the funding, like this other lady is having problems getting funding to keep her house, we won't be able to keep the characteristics of our house because our father-in-law is selling his home and that's where we're getting the funding from. But again, he's in the hospital, he's extremely sick. So if we can't move forward on this sooner than later, we're gonna lose our funding and the house is going to be lost.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you very much for that context. I think it's very helpful. And thank you again for the opportunity to potentially come visit the property. I think that would be welcome from some of the commissioners as it pertains to that. Um, okay. Uh, commissioners, does anybody else have any questions or comments with regards to this case? Okay. Otherwise, we have a motion on the table to find 17 Green Road preferably preserved. With a second, I will go around and take a roll call vote. Tit?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Yes. Okay, so we have a 4-0 vote that passes in the affirmative. So what will happen is Nicole and your team, we will get you on with our subcommittee so that we can move you right along and get going on this so that we can get you through as soon as possible, because I understand the clock is ticking. So we will send you an email to get that scheduled hopefully within the next week.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: What is a subcommittee consist of what are we looking at for timing because we really need to know because a 90 year old person with dementia is home alone. So I need to know realistically what we're looking at, because we need to make some decisions and if I lose the funding to do this, then I lose the funding because this is March, April, May, we don't have time.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so typically we try to get a Zoom scheduled within the week so that you can talk to the subcommittee and discuss the alterations that they would like to have made to the design. And then once the subcommittee is satisfied, it comes back before the full board at whatever the next meeting is, and then the board will vote and then we can lift your delay.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: So I'm looking at least 30 days out. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Um, moving on to our agenda. We have, um, next up, we have one 42 mystic Avenue, a significance hearing, uh, commissioners. I emailed around a form B and it just scatter my things here. So last month we accepted an application for the total demolition of 142 Mystic Avenue. We have had a form be created for this property and tonight we will be having a significance hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Madam Chair, point of clarification. Yes, Ryan. When we accepted the application, we reviewed the Sanborn maps and there was a structure on here that was 75 years or older, dated to 1936, but the extant building dates to 1949 based on permits that John Clemson pulled. So it is no longer eligible for review because of the date, which is less than 75 years. So I would make a motion that we pass on review because it is not age eligible.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, that works. Ed, thank you for your second. Okay, so with regards to 142 Mystic Avenue, with regards to determination of significance, there's a motion on the table to pass on review based on the age that has been seconded. I will go around and make a roll call vote. Hit? Pass. Is that a yes or a no? It's a yes to pass. Thank you. Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan. Yes. All right. So we are passing on you for 142 Mystic Avenue due to the age. So, Ryan, you'll be able to get your demo permit and get going right away.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Awesome. Thank you very much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you. Okay. Next up, we have an application to take for the full demolition of a structure at 37 Locust Street.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to accept as to form. Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Point of clarification.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is the first time it's ever happened. I'm going to motion to amend that because it's missing the site plan, that it be contingent that we accept it, that we receive the site plan from the home, from the owner within 10 days of this approval. Otherwise, it will get kicked back to the following month.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, and just to let everybody know, I emailed him, but it was very late today. I emailed him on Friday because we were missing a rear photograph and the site plan, and then he only attached the photograph. So I did email him. It was late today, so he might have already been gone for the day. So I think a 10 day extension for that, I'm personally okay with that, even though I'm not voting. So just to let everybody know where it's at.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So we're gonna vote to accept it, providing we get the site plan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Within 10 days.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If there's a second on my amendment motion, sure. We know for sure that this is a friendly amendment. This is older than 75 years. Yeah, I'll read second. I'll read second. It is definitely older than 75 years. It shows up in the 1936 Sanborn, the same footprint. So this one will definitely be that. The other building was like in the middle of the lot. So it was a little bit weird. It sort of matched the footprint. So we sort of assumed it was the same building, but it's not.
[Jennifer Keenan]: different so but this one will be 75 years or older well i guess and i guess the op the other option based on what we have and the photographs do people want to review it Is the other option correct Ryan, we can.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, you know, so I'm of the opinion that we have a job to do as review this and, you know, it'd be good to just even have the form being give the building it's day, and we have the rest of our budget to expand so you might as well just expand it. and just keep going. I would hate to set the precedent of, oh, we could pass on review, and then people might think, oh, we'll pass on residential, and we'll pass on other things. So I would rather just give this building its day. Because if you read the form for Mystic Gap, John actually got a ton of great information on this seemingly ugly, plain, very commercial building, but there was a lot of cool stuff that came out of it. So I'm inclined to document a little bit more of the industrial history that's here and being lost slowly. And I'm assuming that maybe this site might become more commercial space for Doherty or maybe another one of those cool residential blocks that's over there. So
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Let's look at it this way. They find on Mystic Avenue the E for efficiency poster. Efficiency, let them put it in a beer hall.
[Doug Carr]: I think Ryan's right. I think getting a documentation in any building that's coming down is inherently a good thing for no matter its age.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, well, just to be clear, this one does meet the age requirements, so it is certainly reviewable in that respect. Okay, I have a motion on the table that has been seconded to accept the application for 37 Locust Street pending a site plan be given to us within 10 days.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a rear photograph.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, the rear photograph is there. Oh, we have it? It's in the folder, yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we have it? Okay, sorry.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it's there. It's just not labeled rear, but it's in the folder.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So just the site plan we need. Okay. Okay. I'm going to go around for a vote. Okay.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Vote to accept with the site plan.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, as amended.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, as amended.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan. Yes. Okay, so that's five. Oh, pass.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, I make a motion to spend $500 on an MHC form B for this building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan.
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Ryan, I agree with you about the form B for 142 Mystic Avenue. I thought that was completely fascinating.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I was surprised at the length of the, I was like, oh, look at the length of this form. That's highly unusual for such a plain building. And oh, there's tons of information.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Cultural history has its merits. Thank you, Joan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We should make sure, Ryan, that gets posted.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, it's on the website.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, it's already there. Okay, good. And before we vote on the 500 for the Form B, Ryan just wanted to double check on our budget and are there any other Form Bs we need to order at tonight?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, nothing. I'm not aware of anything forthcoming. Just keeping an eye on the fact that we only have one more meeting before our budget is up for the year. Yep. Okay. Okay. Motion on the table to spend $500 on a form B for 37 local street that has been seconded kit.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes. Open the world.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan. Yes. Okay, great. Five zero zero. Okay, running the gamut of things this evening. Okay, next up is 28 Grove Street. 28 Grove Street was put under demo delay two months ago. Everything is a blur right now. The subcommittee has been working diligently with the homeowner to come to a resolution and I think we're there. Good evening, Hoshang. Nice to see you. So Peter or Doug, do you want to jump in and kind of set the stage of how we got here tonight and maybe walk the board through where we're at?
[Adam Hurtubise]: You want to do it, Doug?
[Doug Carr]: I don't know. I don't think I was heavily involved in the last iteration. I know that we met with Hoshang. We had some great conversation about you know, rebuilding the porch, getting the railings, saving the columns. There were some really excellent moves there that we thought preserved the integrity of the building. There was some debate about the front door and the side lights coming in, I think, around the main entry door. And Peter, why don't you take it from there, because I think you're the one who wrapped it up.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, there was some Talk about the door being maybe a wood door or a faux wood door, which I think Hoshang has agreed to. We got the. Yeah, Ryan. Just a point of interest. Peter, do you have the drawings that you can share on the screen while we have this dialogue? I do. I have it on my screen here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, I was going to say I was going to ask Hoshang to share them after Peter kind of described where we're at. But yeah, if Yeah, Peter. OK, yeah, you should be able to share, Peter.
[Doug Carr]: So it's not a pure restoration of what's there now or what was built 100 years ago. There's some definitely some moves to give it a slightly different character feel, which is the vertical siding on the second floor, especially and then you see it in the top right in the lower right. Those are new elements, just a new way of treating the base. The form is the same. The roof is the same. But we're pushing is kind of putting his own, I guess, touch on this building, on his house. And we've negotiated that with him. And I think we're okay with it. It's Borden-Battens, I believe, it was saying. And I don't know, what else, Peter, you wanted to hit on?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, we kind of went around on the window pattern, grid patterns, and we're now showing these are the 12 over one, grid pattern, which the original house has. The front door is more in keeping with the original front door. It's gonna be a wood look door, which can be pre-stained, I understand. We're replicating the columns. He's actually saving the stone foundation on the porch and fixing that up. The siding is different. It doesn't have wood siding anymore. I believe he's got hardy clabbered siding with corner boards, whereas before the shingles turned the corner. So that's one departure. And then the other main departure is this vertical board and batten siding on the front center element there and the rear. This dormer, one of these dormers is an addition, but that's in the back. I think it fits with the house. What else?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter, just a question. The columns, they're being replicated? They're the ones that are there, aren't able to be saved? I'm just curious.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know what he planned. We should ask him because I had thought that he was buying new. probably fiberglass columns and painting them, but I don't know that for sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, Haoxiang, feel free to chime in.
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, that's the plan, actually. Because before we taken the column off and examine each of them to see how rotted they are, we couldn't really make decisions to save all of them. But the current plan is to have the fiberglass column with the same style to replicate the look.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, got it. So they'll be weather protected and not? Yes. Yeah, okay. And then just the only other question I had is we're keeping the side lights on the door?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, yes, yes, yes, for sure. Yes. Okay. Are those new side lights, Haoxing, or those existing? Those are existing ones. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, so we're able to keep the ones that are there.
[SPEAKER_04]: No, well, there are existing side lights, but they're going to have the new side lights with the same style, the same with the door, come with the door. Oh, you should probably buy this. As a whole set, yes. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And what's your plan actually, this is a question, for the railings, what's the material of the railings, front railings here?
[SPEAKER_04]: It's going to be a tracks routing system. It's going to be essentially just vinyl.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did I lose everybody? Are we here? No. Okay. Sorry. It got real quiet for a second. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I guess, we've been back and forth with Harshaing several times. And I feel like in my personal opinion, he's made a good faith effort to try to mitigate the demolition by, still he wants to put his own mark on the building, but we're trying to keep some of those elements give the building its integrity and kind of richness of detail. So I would recommend we vote on it, but I'd like to hear what others think.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Doug or Ryan, do you either want to chip in on this?
[Doug Carr]: I think we've reached a good point where we're satisfied with the design. We think it's respectful of the existing architecture. There's some new elements, but we think they'll feel part of the house. So we're recommending strongly that we release the demo delay and move on with the project.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. Ed, Kit, Ryan, anybody else have any comments on this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I kind of took a back seat to this design, I am interested in this well preserved neighborhood. I don't feel that this design is very successful in it's in the fact that it's, it's not really gonna integrate into the streetscape of existing well preserved shingle style homes here and it's, It's really going to stick out like a sore thumb. No offense, Ho-Shang. I think you are certainly entitled to put your stamp on it. I think you have a style and that's fine. But my opinion is that this design, the loss of materiality on the exterior, the changes to it, Even though it's got some familiar elements, I would push for more retention of existing fabric, even though they're being replaced with modern materials. That's the difference between development and rehabilitation, is that if you're rehabilitating your you can replace it with modern materials, but you're preserving the integrity of the overall. Whereas if you're simply just developing the property, you're making wholesale changes to put your own stamp on it. In my opinion, this design is not successful enough to warrant releasing the demo delay at this time.
[Unidentified]: Others might disagree.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit or Ed, do you have anything to add? Ed, no. Kit, anything?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I actually would like to see the retention of the shingle style, but I'm undecided whether I think that means we should go ahead with releasing the demolition delay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you. Ho-Sheng, do you have anything else that you'd like to mention?
[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I'm actually just responding to Ryan's comments. I remember we mentioned the Shingo style siding at our first discussion, our first subcommittee discussion. Because of the cost of those Shingo style siding, we basically saying that it's just too expensive for me to replicate all the Shingo style sidings. The quote I have for the same material for the hardy board, the shingle style siding comes three times more expensive than the lap sidings. And we moved to the other item, which is to use the fund to bring back the gray of the windows. Basically, although the windows, the quote I have is significantly higher than the rest of part of the window in the house. But that's basically, I would say, a balance of using this, how to say, found and trying to keep as much of the style as possible.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So just a question. So James Hardy's shingle siding is three times the cost of James Hardy's lap board siding.
[SPEAKER_04]: Correct. They are the same material, but it just came with different form, but the price is significantly different.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You have a quote for vinyl? Just curious.
[SPEAKER_04]: I don't know. I don't have a quote for Ryan. Why not? No. OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You mean vinyl shingles, Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. Cedar Impressions. Same thing that we allowed on Boston Ave. Yep. Yeah, but that that that house that the house does have corner boards though right Ryan boss enough. Yes, because they chose not to. Yeah, they, they, they make a corner siding but because they went with a specialty siding or something like that they couldn't do it but they make a weave corner in. in vinyl that allows you to do away with the corner boards. I mean, you know, the problem that I'm having is that every single house on Grove Street, with the exception of the large colonial revival right next to this one and the modern one that's down the street, every single house in this Delta is all shingle style. So, you know, I'm just, you know, I'm a little bit stuck that we would remove and depart so radically from what is existing style. There are elements, I'm okay with the vertical sidings, those are okay, because there are bays and windows that have those features, but the departure from the shingle style is that. But if the cost is really three times as much, then so be it. Then I will take that as a financial hardship. Okay, so some of it may be in the labor to leave the corners, you know, with the hearty anyway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, okay. Would, would someone like to make a motion one way or the other for this?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you, Ed. Is there a second?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Second. Thank you, Doug. Okay, we have a motion on the table to release the demolition delay for 28 Grove Street pending the plans being uploaded to the building department and it will in-citizen serve as we would normally do. I will go around for a roll call vote for that. Kit?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ryan? No. Okay, then the motion passes four to one, right? One, two, three, four. Four to one. Ho-Sheng, thank you so much for your efforts. So what we will do is, I will prepare your demo release letter. And then I think you did, but can you just send me one more time, send me the final plans that we just looked at just now and upload those as well to CitizenServe so that we have a match. And then I will get you the paperwork so that you can be on your way.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sounds cool. Thank you so much. Can you also upload the door? Yeah. Okay. Will do.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. Thank you so much.
[SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. Okay. Thank you all.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, okay. Next up on the agenda, we have commissioner Forte, but I see his cameras off. So he might be at ZBA. Uh, let me send him a, Oh, are you ready? You're on mute.
[Bill Forte]: I sure am.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I just wanted to make sure you were in the clear on DBA.
[Bill Forte]: Excellent.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, well, Commissioner Forte and I have had many conversations at this point, uh, since I think the first of the year. Um, and Ryan has met him as well, but he asked to come to our meeting tonight so he could meet our board. And I thought tonight, um, it ended up being a great night because we had a little bit of everything on our agenda. Um, so Commissioner Forte, welcome to our meeting and thank you so much for joining us.
[Bill Forte]: Great. So I just thought it would be really good to formally greet the commission and give a little bit of insight on my experience with historic preservation along with some suggested changes to the ordinance that I think you may want to consider. So my background, I started in the city of Newton in 2012 I was a code enforcement and we work very closely with the historic district commissions and each. There were four districts in the city of Newton, each one having their own commission. And then there was the actual historic demolition commission that would just look at properties to make the determination on general, just on general building. I'm not exactly sure what the delay time was there. In addition to that, I was in the city of Waltham for nearly eight years and very similarly written demo delay ordinance, similar to what you have here now. And so myself and Jen and Ryan had our first conversation about a property where the owner wasn't following identically to the plans that were approved by this board. And I was asked to issue a cease and desist or a stop work order until such time as we could get it back on track. And what I said to both Jen and Ryan is that because there is no siting controlling plan that is legally issued such as a controlling plan that would normally be something along the lines of a ZBA or a special permit controlling site plans. I didn't have the authority to actually stop that job because it complied with Everything under zoning and everything under the state building code on when it's a little bit different when a special permit is issued, I would have to probably look into this a little bit. You know I what I what I'm proposing in a draft change to the to the historic ordinances that on that firstly. that projects that are approved or whereas the delay has been lifted, if you will, which is the way it's kind of working now, that that plan would actually become the controlling plan for the site. I think it needs to be written by ordinance in order for me to enforce it. Otherwise, the work that you did, like you just passed Grove Street, it's advisory only. It doesn't have any legal standing and it doesn't, it would not hold up against an estoppel in court. So if I were to issue a stop work notice on that, an attorney could very easily file an injunction and get a stay of execution on my stop work order. My stop work order is summary only, meaning that it's administrative power that otherwise would have to be sealed by a judge. in the case where it happened to go all the way, let's just say that somebody gets an approval from you, you lift the work order, you lift the delay, they knock the house down, they say, nah, you know what, I'm gonna build something different. I mean, obviously, I would have to approve a permit based on it, and I would certainly hesitate to do it, but here again, the legal implications are a problem. I'm sorry, Mr. Power, you're muted.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I need to pause you there for a minute, heard, I understood this is your position. I respect this position. But what you're basically saying is that every single agreement we've had with any homeowner for demo delay for the last decade is unenforceable. And I've been asking around in other cities and towns and they are not saying that to me. They are saying a signed plan by the owner, signed by the historic commission is a legally defensible document. that they're using. And I think I need to understand why suddenly all the way we've been doing things seems to be no one void where they seem to other cities and towns are doing the exact same thing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just real quick.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, sure.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm just curious to Doug because I wonder if the method of their execution is through a contract between the homeowner and the historical commission rather than an actual filing, say, as something that's recorded in perpetuity at the Registry of Deeds. Because I feel like a contract between private parties is enforceable. It may not necessarily be enforceable by the building commissioner, but it's certainly enforceable by a court because it's a contract.
[Doug Carr]: So we're a city commission, right? We're a city commission, just like conservation commission, right?
[Bill Forte]: Mr. Powell, respectfully, you're a city commission with no authority, believe it or not. And I'm only saying that from a legal standpoint, okay? Because what you approve is not legally binding. That's what I'm saying.
[Doug Carr]: And if I find 10 cities and towns that disagree with you, what is your position?
[Bill Forte]: I would say that the best thing for us to do is go to KP Law and get an interpretation because I don't see when I'm asked the question. Okay. You know, Mr. Commissioner, can you issue a stop work notice on there? I mean, there is no authority in the zoning ordinance or in the historic demolition delay that allows me to do that. So I'm not an attorney, but I was raised by attorneys. And I can just tell you if the words are not there, it simply doesn't exist. So what I'm telling you is what I'm advising you respectfully. What I'm advising you is to make a change in the ordinance that can basically spell out the process in which you first initiated delay, and how you would lift that delay, and under what conditions you would lift that delay. You have no language in the ordinance that supports. So my thing is, if it's not written in stone, then it can't be enforced. And I've had huge legal battles in other cities and towns about this. And so I would just say that any towns that you have, you know, conferred with may not have been on the same legal standing or have the same legal background as what I've had. And I would just tell you, I don't I'm not trying to be disrespectful in any way. I'm trying to support you. And what I see here is that I don't see that the ordinance supports what you're doing right now as a commission.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I can see where Bill's coming from. I get, as Ryan and Doug point out, we would view it as a matter of contract. The problem is we see a problem. We have to go to you know, the city solicitor, then the city solicitor has to act on our behalf. It's a little, if, you know, if we had expressed authority for the building commissioner to say, if it isn't as, you know, if it isn't as, you know, if it isn't as filed with the release, you know, where is the express authority? I get it. I think, you know, we have had some issues with vagaries in the ordinance, uh, the forest court problem where, you know, we were basically given the messages I read about the city solicitor that we are not going to be, you know, if we attempted to defend an eight, a further 18 month delay, uh, we were going, you know, we are not going to get a particularly vigorous defense.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Uh, you know, if we can give you some context at as an attorney, just as our, as our, our attorney on, I mean, I get it both ways.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I get it that we would, that as a commission, we expect our, you know, expect agreements to be honored, but what's the mechanics for getting it done?
[Doug Carr]: I'm all for reinforcing our, and it's for no disrespect to you. I'm trying, I'm with you and I'm trying to make our, our zoning stronger. and to have the authority of this commission respected. And we're all on the same page for one equality, obviously. It's just, it's just, it seems odd to me that we've, you know, that we, a procedure that we've been doing for as far as I can remember, at least a decade, suddenly it seems like it has no teeth if it was challenged in court. And you may be legally right. And I'm all for, again, I'm all for trying to close those loopholes because I don't want that to happen any more than you do.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, of course. And my objective is to be able to enforce the ordinances In a manner in which not only is it is it legal and it also affords the applicant due process, but here again, you know, I have the authority to. you know, I have the authority to start work if, let's just say that there's, you know, that there's an order of conditions from a conservation commission, right? That's an enforceable order. So I have, specifically, I have language not only in the building code, but also in Chapter 143 of Mass General Law that allows me to enforce all the regulations, okay? When When an order of conditions has been violated I have the authority to shut that job down because it doesn't comply with all the laws rules and ordinances of a city or, or, you know, or the state. here again in engineering. If it fails a design, we have an engineering ordinance that requires storm water be drained underground probably with subsurface drainage and so forth. That again is also in the mechanics of being able to enforce what's in front of me here because it's more of an agreement and a friendly handshake than it is an actual binding, you know, binding set of plans. Again, I don't know, I think that the only remedy of the commission at one point would be a civil suit against a person who otherwise didn't, you know, that didn't follow their approved plan. And without, you know, without a legally binding, you know, and my thing is too, Mr. Carr respectfully, towns have bylaws, cities have ordinances, ordinances are different. They don't need approval from the Attorney General. So they're challenged at the highest level in the state. And I've worked for a couple of municipalities and, you know, to understand what a bylaw does, rather than what a city ordinance does. A city ordinance is a home rule. And, you know, you basically get to make your own rules, but they better be correct, and they better be complete. If they're not, they get challenged and they get thrown out. I mean, I'd be happy to say that
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Chapter 48, what gives us our underlying authority on the state level is not particularly well-written other than setting forth aspirations. I get it again that if it was a choice from the building commissioner who can put the thing out in 30 minutes and are going to the city solicitor and wait in two weeks, maybe. If we can get express authority there into the building commissioner, it's probably a plus for It's probably a plus for us. Again, we've seen enough projects go through in prior years where the demolition delay was only imposed after the fact that anything which gives a building commissioner more muscle to work for us is a plus. And again, if that's part of a general ordinance revision, we've been talking about some things, you know, so be it, I think it's not a bad idea.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think we're all in agreement that anything we can do to make it stronger, you know, would be great. I think it's just, you know, in the meantime, what are we doing? So I know we were going to reach out to KP in that respect, at least for right now, so that, you know, cause I think Bill, you know, we've talked about, between you and our board and anybody on community development who essentially we report to, if we all work together and go to city council with the United Front on, hey, this is how we think the ordinance is gonna best work for everybody, then I think we have a greater chance of getting those changes agreed to by them, which is what we need.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, and so to follow up on that, Madam Chair. So, so the next thing that I'd like to talk about and propose to you as a commission is in lieu of a delay and again because it's really the processes are really written out in your ordinance. I'd like to propose that the commission have the authority to accept mitigation fees in lieu of preservation of a building and those mitigation fees could be used for preservation of other properties that may be more significant. That doesn't mean that's a pay and rip down kind of policy because The authority would still lie on the commission but whereas, say that there's a significant project say the one that you just looked at it 200 Boston that the commission's ability to be able to, to accept a mitigation fee for the loss of say that the asset say it's a valuable asset. may be lost in one point. And then at the other point, although, you know, that obviously historic preservation needs to be balanced with economic drive. We don't want the city to be poor because we've saved all our old buildings and now there's no business. So we all understand that. And I certainly respect, you know, the purview of this commission that you have a specific duty here to uphold which basically is, you know, is the is the preservation of, you know, preferably preserved properties but but I think that enumerating in the ordinance that the commission may, you know, under certain circumstances by vote, be able to accept a mitigation fee depending on what kind of building it is, in lieu of the building being preserved, might be something that would not only help an applicant, but it might make the decisions a little bit easier when it comes to you know, do we preserve this building or do we let the city grow economically? Because obviously we need the tax base, you know? So that was one of the questions, one of the suggestions that I thought I would put in front of the commission to see, you know, what you think.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Are you aware of any Massachusetts, particularly urban or close to urban communities that are doing that right now?
[Bill Forte]: No, I'm not.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Bill Forte]: I would say that it could be challenged, but here again, I don't see any preclusion in mass general law that would prevent it. Obviously, this would have to be something that you would have as an option. It wouldn't be something that you would do on a regular basis.
[Doug Carr]: Commissioner DeForte, I understand it's a novel concept. I haven't thought about it. I'd like to withhold judgment on it. I'm curious why it's a good idea. I mean, we don't generally have a budget beyond our form B's and the surveys that we do. I feel that a fund for that, I'm just not even sure how we'd manage it and what we would do with it.
[Bill Forte]: Well, it would be, you know, and this is just theoretical, I'm only kicking this stuff around. I'm just trying to come up with, you know, ideas of, you know, what I'm hearing in the community, you know, what I understand your authority to be and what kind of what kind of growth the city might want to experience. in balance with, you know, obviously the need for building preservation. So, you know, in cases where you have a building that is dilapidated or beyond repair, you know, and having the ability to be able to accept funds and have it basically managed by the planning department or part-time administrator, if you will. I think that one of the ideas that I have is that I think you should have a part-time admin to handle some of your filings. Obviously, you're a voluntary board, and I know about being voluntary. conservation commission here in my town. And so, you know, time is valuable and and obviously, you know, some of these things that are handled administratively can be done outside of a public meeting. And so, you know, the funds would basically go for being able to take Monies from properties or buildings that are beyond repair or not worth saving in lieu of being able to preserve a property that otherwise might want to be preserved. I don't know how that would work or what it would look like on the financial scheme. I'm sure that there's some research that has to be done about it. But again, just an idea.
[Adam Hurtubise]: In addition to that, yeah, I'm sorry. Commissioner 40 Peter Miller here. So, are you saying that there would be this, these fees or whatever they are just hypothetical fees. they would go into a fund and then the spending of this fund would be somehow discretionary by us. We get to, I don't see how that could possibly, how can we do that? I don't think he would, I think it would have to have a very similar to, I'm assuming he's imagining it to be similar to linkage where it has very specific things that it can be used for. So, for example, that one of them is documentation for buildings that are coming down. The second might be for the creation of additional inventory forms for that neighborhood. Third might be for building acquisition. If we have a building that we really want to plant our stakes in and we can just tell the developer, we'll just buy it from you. Put a preservation restriction on it and put it back out on the market. Those, I think, are
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: are reasonable things that but it would also have to be uh defined so that it doesn't just become a city slush fund right exactly i mean i mean although people talk about community preservation that sense yes those funds could go to community preservation control right certainly we have talked about whether or not community preservation again particularly for private residences could could make grants subject again to the creation of an easement. And conservation easements are nothing new in the private sector. I mean, it's of interest. Again, I'm no expert on 40B. I'm no expert on, again, whatever chapter we get our authority from, from the general laws. But chapter 39, I think, yeah, whatever, whatever it is, I'm not sure I'm not sure that was contemplated. But again, you know, right. If you if you ask me as a lawyer, if I'm on the property owner side, you know, historic preservation law is always, you know, it always runs against taking. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court case, you know, had the fig leaf that Grand Central had the ability to sell its air rights, which made it a lot easier to uphold the idea of historic preservation. Right. And we've always worked on, you know, the fact that we're always on reasonably thin ice as to when what we do is a taking. I mean, I think, you know, and to a certain extent, while it's rarely under legal threat, You know, how many of our demolition delays actually exist? How many people wait out the demolition delay as opposed to our negotiating it away? So it's, you know, we've got a couple and we've got, as I said, we've got Shinkate's right now, which let it go. And Forest Street, we decided not to fight about letting it go.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. I guess, you know, Commissioner, I have a question for you. You know, you alluded to things you're hearing about from whoever, with regards to our board. My question to you is, you know, what are you hearing and is it what is it any different than what you heard in your previous positions. Yeah, as okay. So, um, you know, and I think, you know, you and I have talked a lot about kind of like what you know what your side here is and then maybe what is a little bit of reality on our side but I think, you know, you know, our job here is to enforce the ordinance as it stands now for better for worse. And, you know, I think tonight it was a great example. We had like a myriad of kind of situations where like, for example, I think about this fee and I'm like, well, here's the money for Ms. Herringshaw to be able to save that beautiful carriage house that we all want to save and that she might not be able to do financially. So in that sense, something like that excites me. You know, but yeah, I think certainly it would be, um, you know, we'd have to kind of be very careful about how that goes out there because, you know, I think we can all name six, six to eight developers that are just going to be like, Hey, my check, let me go.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Which we don't, I don't think any of us would want.
[Doug Carr]: I would just build on what, what. Jen said, and I would urge you, if you haven't already, Ms. Forte, to look at the annual report that was just, I think we just filed.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh yeah, it's on our website now, Bill. I can send it to you.
[Doug Carr]: Okay, great. There's a perception among some political entities in the city that somehow this board is anti-development. And I can tell you that is simply not the case in the numbers and the numbers of houses and properties that we've restricted. can be counted on two hands out of thousands and thousands of building permits that are passed your desk every single year. It's a 0.01 percent or whatever the exact number is. It's astonishingly small. We always try to work with the developers and the homeowners to be creative, to get them what they need and possibly save the building as well. there's usually a happy medium and we often find it. And I feel like, you know, sometimes it's, it's, uh, it's policy by, you know, by anecdote is, is not really a good way to, you know, the facts speak for themselves. And I'm, I'm confident because, uh, you know, you've got, I admire your long experience. I feel this commission and the city could get benefit from those years. And we want to work with you to obviously improve everything we can.
[Bill Forte]: So if I could just maybe, um, come back on, um, the chair's comments. Um, so, um, to be quite honest with you, I will tell you all of the bad that I've heard over the past, uh, seven months that I've been here. So, um, respectfully, it's not my opinion. It's just what I've heard. Um, obviously, um, you know, the process takes some time. Okay. Um, the three months, um, the three months that someone has to go through and they didn't realize they had to go through. I mean, obviously I know that if you're an applicant and you're not planning for this, And you're just a bill that comes in hot and heavy. Hey, I just closed on a house. Let me get a permit, you know, and it's like, whoa, hold on a second. You know, you have that person who's kind of bleeding out of the counter, which is Not really fun to look at. But again, when you try to explain to them what the process is, they're not seeing that. All they're seeing is, oh, my God, I got to pay another mortgage payment and I can't afford this. I think that you saw a little bit of desperation tonight with a certain applicant who You know, obviously has been going through this process now for a couple of months and frustrated obviously and, you know, so, so the process, maybe some of the process might be able to be handled in an administrative. In a, you know, in such a way that maybe an administrator might be able to look at a house and say all right these don't give off any indicators on this doesn't really look like it is and run it by run it by one or two people and see if it does have to go to hearing. In my experience, the process usually isn't a three-step process. It's usually a two-step process. So I think what I see here is maybe one extra step that might be able to be curbed with a part-time admin, someone who was a historic preservation. person someone maybe a tough grad who's who's taken historical preservation as a major, you know, that might be something like that, that might help. That's the first thing. The second thing I hear a lot about is the 18 month delay I can tell you that it's not typical. It's not usual. It does put an economic burden on some of the projects that otherwise would be going on. I know as a builder, I was a builder for almost 20 years, I could budget out a year and not heard about it. I could say, okay, all right, listen, I'm either going to make this thing look the way I want it, what the historic commission wants or I'm going to wait it out. I think a year is pretty much static across the board in any city or town. I don't see an 18 month delay. I don't even know if Hingham has that. And Hingham is very highly preserved over in Hingham. So my thing is that perhaps I feel as though, and I would recommend that the delay time be brought down to one year, which I think is reasonable. But here again, I know the reasons why the 18 months was put into effect because there was a lack of attention and a lack of adherence to the ordinance. Am I correct on that, Madam Chair? Yeah. Okay. Right. And so, you know, what I've tried to do, um, over the past six months is, uh, not so much, you know, filter everything to you or those, one of the things that was happening, um, that myself and the chair and Ryan spoke about was that a lot of stuff was getting routed to you that really didn't need to go there. Um, specifically the things that I've been sending now are, um, when you look at your ordinance, it specifically says, Any, any building more than 75 years or portion thereof okay so portion thereof would be any portion of a house that's being demolished down to the foundation that's the first. step that I think is definitely within your purview to review. The second thing is obviously cutting the roof off and going up another story. That's also another thing that definitely needs to be reviewed by this commission. And then the third thing would be any change in the roof line to a front porch. But anything outside of that really Um, I haven't been running there and I think it's working out okay I don't think that there's anything that we've missed and I'm pretty confident that we're, we're holding steady to that, but I will say this right. I think that if a process were enumerated in the ordinance that the commission will hold a hearing within 30 days of a determination that a property is deemed significant, and that deeming of significance could be by an admin, somebody who was trained to say that, yes, this needs to go in front of the commission. or even if it were by subcommittee, I think that that's reasonable if a subcommittee looked at it. Only just to maybe cut down the hearing time a little bit. I'm not saying eliminate it, I'm not saying, but what I am saying is that three months to find out that you're going to be working another three months on it, I think is really wearing on people and again, creating some economic hardship. I'm not going to say that that's the entire reason and everybody's bleeding out, losing deals and all that other stuff. That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm just looking for ways to try and improve make it more streamlined and and actually memorialize it better I think you know solid you know cemented and solid foundation in the ordinance I think that if we had. a process that was actually lined out similar to what a ZBA might have, which I know we can do through our city ordinance. And of course, you would all want to agree to it. I'd be willing to help this commission out by making some draft changes and submitting them to you over the next few weeks and just have a chew on it. And we can look into what the authority of the commission might be if there were a litigation fund that could be established. I'm thinking of other ideas too, where let's just say a building is significant, but again, stands in the way of that balance between economic growth and what's big for the city. Perhaps the commission has the authority to require the owner to build a memorial. I've seen that, where a building has been taken down, but there's a memorial. Let's just say a really nice engraved Granite statue of the building itself or something like that with, you know, historic signs. I mean, these things are projects that happen all the time with the state. and at the federal level where buildings couldn't be preserved or couldn't be had. And so in lieu of that, they built monuments and created that historic path. Those are the kinds of things that I'm thinking along. So I just kind of wanted to give you a little brief overview of what my thoughts are and certainly I'll work on them and present them to you at a later date. I'll accept any questions at that point. That's kind of my whole presentation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'd be curious to know what you feel would be some of the language in, I mean, you could paraphrase it for us, to go from being something that's unenforceable to something that's enforceable for the demolition delay. Back to the original discussion point. I mean, If it's not enforceable, I mean, with all due respect, okay, I just have to say this, and I apologize for saying it because don't take it the wrong way, but it's only unenforceable if you decide not to enforce it, right? Which you've said, you know, because we've had other building commissioners who did. Hold on a sec, Ryan. Ryan, hold on. Wait, wait, wait, wait. A point of clarification will take all precedent in parliamentary procedures. So I'm going to clarify in this case that Bill is just the messenger of his enforcement. But I think it's perfectly acceptable and the right path for the commission is to just, and for both of us in this case, is to let KP law decide what is enforceable and what is not. So he can't, he can't decide because he has an opinion and we have an interpretation and we both differ. And the only person to do that will be KP law. So, and, um, I reached out to the mayor's office to set up a meeting, to start, to discuss our many projects. And I think that will, we'll get an answer. So, um, but all right, Peter, I've said what I said, just so you know. Fair enough. Fair enough. Yeah, we've had other commissioners who have enforced these things. So it's, it's, I mean, I think. Yeah. I'm naive about this stuff. So that's what I'm saying. Don't take it the wrong way. Cause I don't mean that at all, because you sound like you have a lot more experience with this kind of thing than, than obviously I, or probably anybody on this board, but, um, It's just odd. And I think Doug was alluding to this before. It's odd that we've been doing this for a long time and this stuff has been enforced in the past. And all of a sudden you get a new building commissioner and it can't be enforced. So it's kind of shocking to me that essentially this board has no authority, has no teeth. That's what you're telling us. So, you know, it comes as a bit of a shock because, you know, we work hard. We spend a lot of hours with these, you know, developers, with these architects, with these homeowners, you know, and we're telling them this stuff. But, you know, I mean, if the word gets out about this, you know, it's going to be a disaster for this whole effort. So, you know, it's just curious to me that, you know, it's like, That's why I'm asking you, what are these words that needs to be put in? The other thing I just want to say is that our commission is not universally supported on the city council. There's a political reality that some people on the city council are just looking for a way to just end this. I'm not going to name any names, but we know who they are, right? So I'm just telling you that, like, we put this in front of the city council. Some of these city councillors are going to use this as a way to, like, get rid of the commission. That would be their preference. So I'm not kidding you. So I'm leery of it for that reason, and I'm not the authority here at all. I'm one of the newer commissioners, but it's what I see. It's what I see. If there's some language that you're saying could strengthen the commission's authority, then I'm all for that, but I would like to know what that is. I'm very curious about it or why it doesn't have authority.
[Bill Forte]: Yeah, so, so I'm just to kind of answer your question. The first thing is, the good thing is I'm not political. So I'm regulatory like that's my wheelhouse right so I focus I'm laser focused on Right, the authority having jurisdiction. So, um, first of what you said I get that that the historical commission can be, you know, can be a political issue. It's it to me it's not a political, it's not a political board, it is. It's a regulatory authority. Okay, so, so simply put, when. Your regulations don't support the actions that you take as a commission, which they don't, in my legal opinion. And again, I'm not an attorney, but I've been enforcing this stuff for a decade plus. My experience is that When the rubber hits the road and you get in front of a Superior Court judge, it's gonna get thrown out. It's too weak. It doesn't have any teeth. It's not specifically written in your ordinance. I've always learned that if you have any authority at all, it should be written in your ordinance. And if you don't have the authority, you should not be taking that action because you could be sued personally for that action. So my thing is this, is that when I render an order, an interpretation, or I issue or deny a permit, I'm solely based on fact. I don't make an opinion. I very rarely use discretion. Even though it looks like I'm using it all the time, I really don't. All of my decisions are based on factual finding, okay? And if your ordinance does not support your actions as a commission by factual finding, and I'm sure that Mr. Weiss can attest to this, you know, a judge is going to say, well, why isn't it in your ordinances? That's the first question you're going to be asked. And if you don't have it in your ordinances, you're not supported. And so, you know, I worry about a, I worry about a lawsuit against myself or you as a commission. If somebody's got deep pockets and they're crazy enough to sue the city. I mean, these things happen all the time. And my thing is this, there's going to be a big surge of construction coming to Medford, it's already happening. It's going to continue to happen. It is the next viable place outside of Boston where all of this construction and density. And, you know, we've got, you know, there's going to be a big initiative of housing from the governor there's there's a whole bunch of stuff going on behind the scenes and what I'm trying to do is help the commission tune up its authority, tighten it up a little bit, make it a little bit more streamlined and a little bit more direct with a set of mandated steps in which the commission operates. The first thing I noticed when I started to read into your ordinance is that it's mixed in with the Historic District Commission. That's a big no-no. I mean, your letters come from the Historic District Commission. It can already be challenged just on its face, on its validity. Wait a second, who's the historic district commission? You're the historical commission. You're a separate body. There's a whole bunch of things that I see in here that if I was an attorney, I could punch holes through it and see the light of day. That's my whole thing, Mr. Miller. I'm only watching out for the city's legal interests and Obviously we're all on the same team I'm here to work with you, and to try and get your ordinance to a to a point where first of all people understand it better, that it's a little bit more streamlined and a little bit more systematic for them to get through the process, right. and be able to have more consistency just in the way that the commission functions. And I think we start with the ordinance. I present some changes that I think you might be agreeable to. Certainly, we confer with KP Law on these things. And we get moving in a better direction. Not that I think you're in a bad direction, I just When I see something that needs improvement, I should speak up. I have a platform that allows me to do that and I want to use my position to help the city. That's my only goal here. If you told me just walk away and mind my own business, I would do that too. No, not at all. It's entirely up to you.
[Doug Carr]: I really like the idea of streamlining the process and having the acceptance of which we vote on and it wastes an entire month as it be done administratively or by someone with that. To me, that makes complete sense that we can press that by a whole month. I couldn't be more behind that if I tried. I think that's a great suggestion and I would endorse that 100%. Obviously, I want to see the rest of the language proposals. But I do think, again, going back to the number of properties we've actually held on to for 18 months. Is it one or two a year? I mean, it's not moving the needle and the development that you're talking about is not coming. It's been here for five or 10 years. I mean, thousands and thousands of apartments, teardowns now are three or four times what they were five or 10 years ago. It's already here. I don't know how much more intense it could be. Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I was just going to make a note on your 18-month delay. We as a commission have never held somebody to 18 months because they worked with us. In fact, the only cases of the 18-month delay are because those developers walked away from the table.
[Bill Forte]: Right. Yeah, and that that certainly is noted and and again I was only saying that because in most cities and towns, if not all a one year delay is is considered reasonable enough time for a person that changed their mind come back and work with the commission, whatever it might be 18 months is. is punitive. That's my opinion, that 18 months is punitive. It doesn't serve any purpose beyond a year. If a person's going to work with you, they're going to do it in the first three months. If negotiations fall apart and all diplomacy fails, a one-year delay, I think, is the norm anyway. Again, that's entirely up to you, and that's certainly a debate that you can have among yourselves. But I'm suggesting it only because of what I worked with in the past and what seems to have worked. I can tell you in Newton, almost invariably, there was never a person that would ride out the whole delay, the one year delay. They would automatically know what they're expected to do before they came in front of the historic commission. They would already have plans because they were used to working with the commission. They understood roof lines and aesthetics, and some of them actually got educated on the process. I watched some properties on Beacon Street be lifted right off the foundation, be made whole, added in addition, just beautiful projects. I know that this is possible and I think that Medford, I think you you have seen what's more forthcoming with the amount of demolition and construction that's going to be proposed over the next five years. I think there's going to be a huge surge. So hold on to your seats. So that would be, you know, my thing is let's, you know, let's work on these ordinances and get them, you know, get them so that, you know, it works for everybody and, you know, and we're spending a little less time you know, fighting with somebody and a little bit more time, you know, getting forward and getting, you know, getting to the, the end product, which is, again, historic presentation, I think is, you know, I'm all for it. And I think that it can all work in harmony.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: So, Mr. Commissioner, first of all, thank you for being willing to think creatively with us with us about this, because I think I mean, anything that we can do that clarifies the authority of the commission and actually makes your work easier is the best for all of us. Because I think some of what you're hearing is sort of the optics of what happens when a process isn't really clear. And anything that we can do to shorten that process that still allows us to get the form B, to do the actual work that we need to do, I think is all to the best of everybody. Because the thing that concerns me is watching residential single family homeowners who are just trying to do one project. I mean, we're not holding up large scale development here. It's the people who really bear the brunt of that tend to be single-family homeowners. And that just has never sort of seemed right. And I really like the idea of if there are mitigation fees. I mean, I worry about the optics of, you know, does it look like we're just selling the history? But the fact of the matter is that there is a financial value every time we say, you know we pass and or you know we we lift the delay and and you know I think recognizing that and if there is a way in which those those funds can be realized and and put to work in a different way that furthers the goals of this committee and frankly the city as a whole we should be exploring that too. So I mean, the one thing I will say is if we have no authority, it makes me really concerned about every decision that's been made over the last 10 years. I mean, what happens in retrospect if somebody, because it sort of sounds like what you're saying is the only reason there, the only thing that has happened is there hasn't been a challenge to what has been enforced.
[Bill Forte]: Madam Chair, if I may, through you. So thank you very much, Commissioner Nichols. I was wondering when you were going to speak up. I saw you sitting there silently the whole time, and I appreciate your input. So let me just clarify, go back a little bit on what I was saying about the authority of the commission. So I'm not saying that You know, and certainly I, my comments were not meant to, you know, minimize the work of this commission. Obviously you've set up nights and I know you're, I know you're not doing it for the paycheck, right? Certainly you have put a great deal of effort and, you know, mostly, you know, mostly everything that you have approved has gone through with little to no problem. What I worry about is when Um, you know, when, when we get challenged by somebody with deep pockets, somebody that can, you know, that has the ability to, you know, be able to challenge this, um, I don't know that, um, you know, obviously, if there was a request by this commission. you know, like, hey, building something completely different. I would just, under the authority of the building code, I would be able to stop them. What I worry about are the smaller things, you know, the roof lines and, you know, some of the adjustments that might be made, whereas a person might make adjustments to a roof, similar to what we had when Jen and I first started talking, where, you know, I lack the authority to shut it down for that particular reason. There is always a remedy to enforce the, you know, the, the, you know, the wishes, if you will, or the orders of the commission. The problem is, is that it's not memorialized in ordinance and it's in your written order. has no legal binding effect. That's how I see it right now. A ZBA order is recorded at the Registry of Deeds. It has legally binding effect. A special permit recorded at the Registry of Deeds. I think that there should be a similar, if you're putting restrictions on a property, there should be similar restrictions at the Registry of Deeds. If it cannot be done because of what's ever written in chapter in General Laws 39, I'm going to have to review it once I get the okay from you folks to go ahead and start digging into this. If there is something that prevents you from an order being recorded, then certainly, at least if it's memorialized by ordinance, and if it says in the words that the order of the historic mission shall be the controlling plans for the construction or reconstruction of a house, then I can put my teeth in it and say, uh-uh, you're not going any further. You've got to follow this. That's all I'm saying. I'm saying nothing else. I'm saying that people are respectful enough, that you've had great success with all the projects that have gone on. I'm always going to hear people whispering in the background, it's never going to be a popular thing to be on the historic commission. You know what they all say, right? you know, hysterical commission, all that stuff. I don't pay any attention to any of that. Okay. Um, you know, I understand your job is vitally important and, um, I recognize, um, you know, that, that, um, that the importance of your job needs, uh, needs better def defining a better defining ordinance in order to be able to effectively assist you in the city and it's, you know, in its mission to preserve, you know, um, preferable, you know, preferably deserve. historic buildings. I think it's vitally important. 100% on your team. So I'm sorry if I didn't mean to shell shock you all, but I've never been one to beat around the bush. And certainly, you know, I'm not an attorney, but I would just say that I've, you know, I was kind of raised by attorneys and I kind of know how to, you know, I've been a witness on a stand a lot. And I, you know, I know this, I know my purview and my authority very well. And I, you know, I recognize that, you know, that the authority of this commission Um, has to be enhanced in order for me to be effective in assisting you with it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So thanks for clarifying that. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And I think, um, I don't know about anybody else, but I, I'm fully on board with, you know, having Commissioner Forte take a first stab at some language that we can come back to and debate and kind of get the ball rolling on how we can make things better.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I was just going to say, I would wait until we start the discussion with KP law and then go from there. And then, yeah, because we don't, you know, Bill, your time is valuable. We don't want you to waste any time until, until it becomes, you know, where, you know, and maybe KP has precedent, like they say, oh yeah, here, we'll go look at these towns and, you know, we can pull things from this. There's no need to reinvent the wheel here. And then, but there is some things that we do want to add that will be groundbreaking, you know, so.
[Bill Forte]: I'm sorry, through you. Yeah, I mean, there are definitely some substantive changes that just a couple sentences are gonna really tip the scale in your favor. So, you know, the rest of the stuff you'll have to decide on your own, but I definitely know a couple sentences need to be changed in there. Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, Commissioner Nichols.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: No, no, I was just gonna say, it would be really interesting to actually read the ordinances of, I mean, it sounds like Newton would be a good one to pull.
[Bill Forte]: Waltham just to get through them. Yeah, they have express authority in there. And Waltham really didn't have it. But again, you know, I hadn't been challenged at that point. And every time I opened up my mouth, I got in trouble over there. So I just decided not to. But here, you know, it's an open field. So I've had it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, good. So I think that, um, yeah, we'll hear from KP and then we'll circle back bill and we'll, um, we'll kind of go from there and, you know, you're, um, always welcome at our meeting as far as.
[Bill Forte]: All right. Anytime I can be of assistance, um, you know, unsafe structures are not out of the question for me. I know what I said during the hearing about the garage, but again, I don't want to be someone's a battering ram. Uh, and so, um, I don't take my authority lightly when it comes to, you know, the demolition of a building and certainly, um, you know, whenever I'm, uh, when I'm ever about to take that action, I will notify the commission immediately as I did on a terror. It was a terrorist road.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah and I you know and again and I I mean I think we're all on we're like 100% obviously okay with that that's that's your lane you know and if we get a notice from you saying I'm ordering this down for whatever reason okay you know um and some I know with the previous commissioners sometimes there was a you know some I I remember one instance where it was kind of a judgment call and where we, I, you know, I call them, I'm like, you know, there was an oil spill, what do you think? And, and I, we kind of all agreed, like, okay, it was in the best interest for the property owner that, you know, there was no need for them to go through the review, just let it let it be ordered down. And And everybody can just move on.
[Bill Forte]: So, you know, again, that was, you know, in my time on the commission was always consult with you if I have a question regarding any property that I think, you know, needs discussion. And certainly, you know, I'll send it out. Um, you know, if I, if I come across that, but for now, I think we're good. So great. All right, well, thank you all for your time. Thank you. Very nice to make your acquaintance. Yeah, thank you. And I look forward to working with all of you. But thank you very much for your courtesy and your time.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right.
[Bill Forte]: Thank you, sir. Very good. All right. Have a great night.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, everybody, moving on. I just realized I forgot to put a site plan review on the agenda. I will forward it to everybody. Comments are due no later than June 2nd, which is, excuse me, before our next meeting. Where's the property? It's 285-295 Middlesex Ave, which is apparently going to be in H Mart. I don't know that there's anything there existing that's coming down.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Oh, it's going up in the Caldor space, that's right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: What? I'm trying to, I can't even envision where this spot is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's next to John Brewer's Tavern.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, in the plaza. Oh.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's like barely a member. Ed has updated himself a little bit by saying it's the Kaldor space, but I do remember the Kaldor that was in there. So, and when Ames was where Stop and Shop is now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So was it behind? John Brewer's like, is there a vacant?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, Caldor's was right next to literally right next to it. Caldor's was once that whole building, but it'll be right next to John Brewer's. I think there was a big medical space or something in there before.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, there was a medical space there for a while. I think there was some sort of some sort of fitness facility there for a while. You know, it was a lot of stuff moving around. Is Tiki Garden there?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Is that the other end? So are they taking the whole plaza down?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have no idea. I doubt it. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'll forward it around. We can take a look at it. And if anybody has any comments, we will get a letter started. So I will forward that around to everybody.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: And fitness right now. That again, this looks like crunch fitness.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, okay. Interesting. Does anybody else have any new business for tonight?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just real quick, we have a gentleman, Vernon Chandler, who's gonna be giving a public presentation at the Medford Public Library. His second cousin was involved and killed in action during World War II, and he was from Medford. His remains were never found, but he's memorialized over in Europe. And Vernon kind of went on a, a journey of about 2,000 miles across Europe following in his footsteps and he ended his journey at the memorial and apparently the memorials over there for people who were killed in action and not returned to their country have local families sponsor them to make sure that they're memorialized every year and to make sure that they're not forgotten. So it's going to be on June 1st at the library at 7 p.m. I hope you guys could come to it to support it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, definitely.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There's a Facebook event if you guys want to share the flyers up there and historical society sponsoring it along with the veteran services and the library.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So we should make sure it's on next door as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think I might have already sent it out there. But yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. And make sure we send an email blast to our list.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, that's a great idea. Yep. What's the date on that again? June 1.
[Jennifer Keenan]: There's another Facebook page called Medford, I think it's Medford MA Community Events. That's another place to share things too.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can send the flyer out with the blurb and people can share it away.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, we should ask the Historical Society to share it as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I already have, yeah, they're a co-sponsor.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Okay, and I forwarded around that site plan review to everybody, so you can take a look at it in the next week or so. Okay, any other new business before we move on to old business? No, okay. Demo delay, I think we already basically went over everything. I know that we sent comments back again on 31 South Street, so they're supposed to get back to us That's really the only property I think we're talking about now. Obviously, we went over permits and ordinances with the commissioner, so we're good there. CPA projects, Thomas Brooks Park. If you haven't driven up Grove Street, come take a look. The fieldstone wall looks amazing. Nevis is doing an amazing job. Ryan and I walked the site, was it last Tuesday, Ryan, we did? We have authorized our first set of invoices to be paid. We decided to open up another, what I'm calling a people entrance, which is a smaller entrance than a truck entrance. We realized there was a little bit of a long stretch where the wall had now been built up again, and it wanted to just kind of open up another access point for people. So we decided to put another one on the north side of Lawler Road, just to give folks in the neighborhood some access points, because obviously there's a lot of people like to walk their dogs in there and just walk in general.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There wasn't a path there before, and now there's a path.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, because the machines have been in there and they've now kind of created this new path. So it made more sense. Plus, we thought better to have a people opening than to somebody knock the stones over and create one. Oh, as what has happened in the past. But come take a look, it looks beautiful. And I didn't see anybody out there today, Ryan, on Pomp's Wall.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, they're going to finish the work on Friday and Saturday. So just so folks know, for that particular project, there was a change order to the amount of $3,500. Which is for on the back side, the stabilizing pillars that kind of support the wall from tipping over backwards just had, they may have had sandstone on it at one time, but somebody just dumped a heap of concrete or whatever on top of it. So this particular consultant felt that it would be better if, um, we had the matching sandstone and he had the option to purchase it. So I just okayed that purchase while we had the city budget and, um, the, they're just waiting on cap where they're going to finish the wall on Friday and Saturday. They're waiting for cap flashing. And then, uh, there will give me a sketch for what they want to do for the flashing between the grooves of the, sandstone. It's going to probably be a poured lead cap to kind of seal it all in together. And he said that he should not have to repair it in his lifetime, my lifetime, or even subsequent children's lifetime. So it's one and done. And he said that the wall should never need to be repaired for another century and a half. Did the brick get cleaned? Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. So the brick is stained in a lot of places due to the inappropriate patchwork that was done the last couple of times. He said whoever had done it was not an experienced mason. and it was just done very poorly. And when they disassembled the leaning portion, it was clear that whoever was doing it was just patching, because any sort of mason would have raked those joints and realized the internal core of the wall was entirely rotten. So that's why they had to rebuild the, not only did they stand up the wall straight and level, but they also made sure that the wall, at least the upper end that was in imminent danger of collapse, will never have that problem again.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, I just, first of all, it looks great. I can tell that they were, that wall was on its last legs and it clearly needed a complete rebuild. One thing that's always struck me as odd though is that the bricks, it looks like the bricks are not level, right? They don't appear to be, they appear to be like at a pretty steep angle. Is that just settlement over 300 plus years or is that something, like what's the, was it built that way?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it was definitely built that way. The road based on our excavation on the backside, the topography took a hard dip in that location and it's just been leveled out over the long course of time. And in fact, if you look at the road, the road probably had a slight rise in elevation and change in elevation there that was definitely has been altered quite a bit.
[Doug Carr]: Got it, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Can you remind us where we left things with the marker with this historical society.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hmm, I think we're going to turn it really going to turn it around or add a new marker to the backside I don't know. Yeah, Kit. Oh yeah, sorry. And Kit.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I'm like, Kit was in charge of that. You've got more to add than I do at the moment. So keep going. No, but the last thing that I said was I would have an update this month, which I don't actually, but the conversation was that the marker would be changed and it would be, there would either be one on, well, one on the roadside where you could actually see it, but another one on the inside where walkers could see it too, but perhaps with more educational information included.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, maybe now you can reach back to the society and say, listen, we're getting close to the end of the project and at least that part. And I think now is the time to bring those conversations back to see if we can get that going. Yeah, whether that happens.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I guess the first question to them would be, do they want to just simply redo the memorial, the plaque there, and incorporate it into other interpretive panels, or do they just, you know, because if there's an idea to do some sort of memorial at the house site once the archaeological work is done, so if it makes sense to just incorporate or redo or do new interpretive panels and just simply get rid of that stone, then that might be a question.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: They were open to really any changes.
[Doug Carr]: The conversation needs to be much bigger than the historical society.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: And the historical society feels that too, that they, you know, they're happy to do, provide help with any research, but they don't want to be the, the group that comes up with the, with all of the texts and especially if there's any renaming involved.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. The whole city is going to get involved in this and NAACP and a whole bunch of groups are going to have a, There's a lot of stakeholders on this, and it's gonna be very sensitive to make it work. It's not gonna be easy to figure out the name, the story, and the story that they're gonna tell there is very complicated.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so how do we start that? Who starts that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think we get a list of stakeholders together. Start with that. And then we. Invite them to a meeting. Right. Well, we say with very clear text, what the intention is, what is the project, what is the intention? And then from there, we say we need a meeting where we just have a meeting of all the possible good ideas and just let people throw out good ideas at that meeting. And then we'll focus on Maybe prioritizing what is the best of them and then going forward with how do we do it, what are the problems, etc. But we'll start with that first meeting, but we just get all the ideas on the table. So the other thing. I don't know if this is the right time, because it's like one of two battles, right? So we're going to rename the wall. There should be a conversation now, and maybe it's important to have it with this dialogue, about the Native peoples at that site as well. So if you want to include them now, and then understand that we're just focusing on the wall to start, but there will be an opportunity at the memorial directly behind it to include them. that, uh, that I think they should just be included as well now. So we can flush those out.
[Doug Carr]: I think the city needs to ultimately be the one, the umbrella to invite all the stakeholders. I don't think any other group can, can reach the parties we need. We need the city planning and we're obviously going to need fire and park department and all those departments in the city. Like they, that's Alicia and her crew, I think taking initially, it has to be in my opinion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, and I would like to maybe lean on our consultants at PAL a little bit to, you know, help us direct that conversation, but with the Native tribes, certainly Suanna Crowley, who has experience in that department, would be one that'd be willing to help have that conversation. So,
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, there might be a facilitator that is somebody who has played in this arena before that could be an outsider, which would not be a bad thing. But yeah, it's going to take a while to figure this out.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think I was thinking from a more logistical standpoint that let's just say the marker for the time being was removed. wouldn't we want the Fieldstone wall to go right up then to Pompe's wall? And I'm just thinking like, okay, they're working on the Fieldstone wall now. How, you know, is there a way to, to, well, I don't know that the answer is yes, but If we end up with a gap there, I don't know that we would want that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, there is no gap. The wall will go right up against the other wall. Right, but if the stone is there now, it won't. No, it's not in the way of construction. It's set back from the street. But then it will hide those. Well, no, because it's above. It's on the rise above the wall. So the retaining wall is going to literally retain the soil that the marker is standing on.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, then I'll have to look at it again. But we should just double check that because I get my thought is that if the stone if the markers in the way then.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, it's probably going to have to be moved back to facilitate construction. The question is, what do we do with it afterwards?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. Right. Um, all right. Well, maybe you and I can talk to me that like, look at it, talk to me this and then kid if you want to, um, talk to the Historical Society again, then maybe I can give Alicia a call and ask her about starting the wheels on this larger... That was going to be my question.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: It doesn't really sound like we're the conveners. It sounds like we're the igniters?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I think yeah, we need to bring it like if it's going to be community development. So that's Alicia and her team. So at least maybe Ryan and I can have a conversation with her about like, okay, this is what we're thinking. You know, does this come from your department? Does it come from the mayor's office? Like, where does it start and then go from there?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Okay, so I'll circle back with the with the historical society and just make sure that they're on board with that next step.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, that sounds great.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: They were they were open anything they just didn't want to be. They didn't want to be driving it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. I'm Ryan survey projects Fulton heights has started. Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then brickyards is done officially.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, no work on closing it out.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right, that's all I have unless, if we have minutes, if anybody has anything else, we can approve the minutes and call it a night. Peter sits around the meeting minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to approve.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Is there a second? Thank you, Doug. OK, motion to approve the meeting minutes from April 2023 has been made and seconded. Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, those pass 4-0. Motion to adjourn?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So moved. Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, motion to adjourn at 927. Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, everybody. See you next month.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.