[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. This is the Medford historical commission today is Monday, April 10th, 2023. We have a very busy agenda tonight. So I'm going to call the meeting to order. It is 701. And I will read our little online meeting approval statement. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting of the City of Medford Historical Commission will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by using the Zoom link provided for in the agenda. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Okay, so up first tonight, we have a preferably preserved hearing for 222 Boston Avenue. Just to remind everybody how we got here. This is April, so February, we received an application for the full demolition of the building at 222 Boston Avenue. Last month, we had a significant Vote for that property and based on the form a the property was voted to be historically significant. And to remind folks what that means to be considered historically significant. It means that the commission felt the property was importantly associated with one or more historic. persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or the Commonwealth, or that it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So as I mentioned last month to to to Boston have was voted historically significant based on that criteria. Tonight we will determine whether or not that the demolition of the property will be detrimental to the city of Medford. and coming back to the definition of preferably preserved, that 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 folks, the commission does not and will not consider the building's condition or any safety issues when determining whether a building is to be preferably preserved. Only the building commissioner can address those concerns. Okay, so just to give folks an idea of what will happen, I'll take a motion on the property. We will go around and have comments from our commissioners, then I will open up the floor for public comments for anybody that would like to chime in one way or another on this. We will close the public comments, we will circle back to the commissioners, and then we will have a vote. So commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion for 222 Boston Avenue, I will take it.
[Unidentified]: Go ahead, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: I make a motion to find 222 Boston Avenue not significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you.
[Doug Carr]: Sorry, not perfectly preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, thank you.
[Doug Carr]: Sorry, not perfectly preserved. Sorry, apologies.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Doug. There's a motion for not preferably preserved. Is there a second?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Second for discussion and using the wording as used.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Okay, thank you, Doug. Since you made the motion, I am gonna kick off discussion with you.
[Doug Carr]: Sure. I know last month we thought about this a lot. I think it was finding the building significant was actually the right approach because what it did, what it's supposed to do is slow down the process and let us look a little bit more closely both at the building, at the context, at the neighborhood, and the potential for what could go there in the future. I know that's something that is impossible to categorize right now. But after doing all that, I would love the building to be saved and incorporated into a larger development. That does not appear to be on the table at this moment. So my instincts are to document this building and ask the proponents to basically help us with that, because there's a cost associated with that. But basically let this building go and try to shape the product that will come someday, whenever that is. And it's something that fits into this neighborhood, fits into this context. And it's something that is beneficial to the city because I do think this is an excellent development site for the city of Medford. Those are my thoughts.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Ed, do you have anything to add?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I was aware of some of the things Doug raised, even though I was not here last month. I would, again, agree that probably we're not the best people to work through what this project needs. It has not been, for many years, wherever the history was, part of a unified site. Its connection to 200 Boston, which I think is the more significant building, even with all the changes as recorded in the area plan, is not very strong. You know, it had again it is showing signs of a modified structure, the raisin detritus for that region, which was the Boston low railroad, the spurs that you know the freight spurs are long gone. Subject to, again, I think some concerns Doug has raised with some of us about whether or not this design is going to work. It's going to be working through about four or five other city agencies as well, and they're probably as well qualified to get the thing done right from a development point of view than we are. So I would vote for not preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Ryan, I'm going to come to you.
[Unidentified]: I agree with everything that's been said.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You are a man of few words tonight. OK, that's it. OK, Peter, do you have anything to add on this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I still think this building has has merit in and of itself. I think it's it has integrity. It has, as we talked about last month, it has an association with this Woolen Mills Complex, the other buildings, 200, and the U-Haul building. So I guess my wish would be or would have been that somehow this building could be incorporated into a new development. So I kind of still feel that way. That's all for me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Kit, do you have anything to add?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I think just to say, I mean, I think the building as we found last month is historically significant. I mean, whether it's preferably preserved or not is the topic of this month's conversation. But I would say that regardless of what happens to it, I mean, clearly the parcel that it sits on is an important development opportunity for the city of Medford. Elaine McLaughlin, COB): Although I, I would like to whatever happens and whoever develops it, I would like to see and hope that the whoever the ultimate owners are would would give a nod to the history of that area in some in some way shape or form. Because, you know, I think that so much of what we try to preserve ends up being purely residential and there's such an important commercial history to the city as well, that deserves, you know, we can't preserve every building, but it deserves at least to be acknowledged.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's a great point. Thank you for that so much. Jessica, anything to add.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I mean, I, I had trouble with this vote last time on significance, it was a really tough call for me to make then I think you know we review a lot of properties on this commission and it while I agree that it was is historically significant. We've reviewed a lot more historically significant properties than that one. That was how I was feeling about it last month. I just really appreciate especially Ed and Doug's analysis and additional thoughts around what parts of that piece of land that property should be preserved. And yeah, I agree with Kit, too, that it would be really nice to see some level of preservation happen anyway, even if we pass on it being preferably preserved today. I hope that whoever does take over that property will do something in the spirit of preservation.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess. Okay, those are all of our commissioner comments for now and I will circle back to everybody after we hear from the public and Attorney Desmond, I'm not sure if you'd like to make any comments on behalf of your client or if the client is here tonight. I'll start with you and then if anybody else here would like to make a public comment, please either raise your hand or just make yourself known and I will call on you after I have Attorney Desmond speak.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I don't have any comments specifically in this regard. Just for the record, for the public comment to include the letters that were of support for the development of the property be put into the record, one from the city of Medford Economic Chair, the Medford Chamber of Commerce, and then the petition, so that that's in the record. And with respect to documentation, we have had some conversations about that. I don't know what the cost is that the board is looking at, but certainly that's something that my client is willing to do.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, thank you. And yes, we are in receipt. We had a letter from Victor Schrader, the business development director here in Medford, with support of the project. We did receive a letter from Maury Carroll, who is the president of the Chamber of Commerce, in support of this project as well. And then we did receive a signed petition from over a hundred residents in the nearby neighborhood that all has been, all of our commission board had access to that. We got everything on Friday. It's in the Google drive if anyone has any questions, but I think everybody reviewed it. So yes, that is definitely a part of the record tonight. And thank you for reminding me on that. And as of, well, let me just double check our email. I don't think we've received any other particular emails on this today, at least. But before I, yeah, nothing in our inbox right now. But again, if there's anybody here on the call right now that would like to speak in favor of or against this project, please either raise your hand or take yourself off mute and let me know and you'll be afforded the opportunity to speak. Okay, I'm not seeing anybody here. So at this time, I will close the public comments. Commissioners, does anybody else have any final comments? I'll just I'll just go around one more time, as I called on folks before. So Doug, I'll start with you. Do you have anything else to add on this?
[Doug Carr]: Um, yeah, just a couple of things. Uh, attorney Desmond, I would urge you to talk to Ryan Hayward because he's got a lot of experience there about the cost and level of documentation that we'd be looking for. I think it's around a ballpark of four or $5,000 total for the building of the scale includes drawings and photographs. If you have existing condition photographs or, um, drawings, that certainly makes it easier. Um, but anyway, we could, we could put that as a separate sidebar after this meeting. Um, I would say that the other follow up piece I'd like to add is that, um, I've done a lot of thinking about, about the proposal and I wanted the commission. I'm going to, uh, ask the commission to put, to basically put a letter together the city of Medford to help guide this proposal going forward. The things we feel are important. Uh, some of the challenges of the existing design, which I won't get into at this meeting. But I think there's definitely room for improvement. There's a tremendous opportunity for development in this site, but it needs to be done right. And I know the city has a very thorough and robust process. And once we get there, once the land issue is settled, and we have a real program and all the things we're talking about, there'll be time to review all that stuff. We're just gonna moralize some of our thoughts and concerns into a letter to the city of Medford so that they're taken into account when the future development gets to a level of being presented to the city of Medford. That's my final statement.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Again, I would join with Doug that this is a continuing process just because we don't delay demolition doesn't mean we're going to not ask for input when we're going through multiple, you know, this this project is going through multiple reviews one way or another. Whether or not it's a current design, you know, and again, whether or not this design is a one which actually ends up being built.
[Unidentified]: So just saying, you know, we have to figure out what the best tools are.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed and Doug. Yeah, and I agree. I was actually thinking about this today. And certainly Ryan and I can chat a little bit about this, but my thought was that we add it as an attachment to our letter with regards to not preferably preserved. And that being, the reason being is that if the property is transferred to somebody else and that letter is provided as documentation of our vote, that the attachment is with it on our comments of what it was. So that it's not a separate piece of paper that doesn't get passed along with any future buyers or transfers as this property might change hands. Um, so, uh, I think just to make sure that it's as it as noted on that piece, because that will be the kind of the linchpin, I think of a, of the not properly preserved status and the vote from tonight as it. Goes down the line.
[Doug Carr]: And just to clarify, um, chair, Jennifer Keenan, um, this, this letter would be advisory. It would not be a condition of anything. It's advisory to the city, to the owner, to the public at large. Right. Is that correct?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean the well the the letter goes out with our decision from tonight. And then I think if it's is an attachment to that letter with here's our thoughts on this site moving forward. Again, it will just kind of be there as part of the record.
[Unidentified]: Okay, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Attorney Desmond, yeah, go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Just so I don't lose my thought on this, in terms of timeframe on the documentation, is there a timeframe as to how long that will take? Because I know you're going to coordinate with one of your consultants or contractors.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, there's no third party involved. It would just be us.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, as far as I don't think Doug we're looking to loop anybody else in on that it was more, more of your thoughts to Ryan on the documentation side usually for something this big I don't think we do it in house. Is that correct right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I'm gonna, I'm gonna send a list of consultants that they can reach out to. And we'll, I'm just going to type up a brief list of things that I'd be looking for.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sorry, Attorney Desmond, I just want to clarify. Are you talking about the documentation of the letter of the vote?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Or are you talking about the documentation of the building?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I was talking about the documentation of the building. Sorry. OK. Yeah, we'll get back to you on that. Yeah. And then the letter shouldn't take us more than a couple of days to get to you. Sorry. No, no. Thanks for clarifying. Ryan, do you have anything else on this? Nope. Okay. Peter, any last comments?
[Unidentified]: No. Kit, any last comments?
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica, any, anything to add? Okay. Okay. With that being said and attorney Desmond just checking. Cause your hand is still up. Are you good? Okay. Okay, all right. Then with that said, we have a motion on the table to find 222 Boston Avenue not preferably preserved. A yay vote means it can be demolished. A no vote means you don't want it to be demolished. So I'll go around a roll call vote as I see people on my screen. Peter.
[Unidentified]: No. Kit. Yes. Ryan. I'm going to abstain from voting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Ed. Yes, not referral preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. Okay, so we have three yeses, one no, and one abstention. Did I count correctly? Sorry, yes. Four, one. Four, one, and one abstention.
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So the motion to find for not preferably preserved passes. Okay, so that will close out 222 Boston Avenue. Thank you everybody for your comments, your homework, your due diligence. Thank you to everybody at the city who helped us with information so that we could make this important decision. Thank you to Attorney Desmond and her client. And we look forward to a great project here, whatever that may be in the future.
[Unidentified]: Okay, moving on on our agenda.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, hold on.
[Unidentified]: I'm just making a note of the vote for 1-1. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Moving on for the rest of our agenda this evening. Um, again, we were supposed to have another preferably preserved hearing for the Carriage House at 91 Winchester Street. Um, we still have not been able to get a sign up there, and, uh, I know the owner has been working with her contractor, so that is once again tabled until next month. Moving down the agenda, we have a significance hearing for 12 George Street up next. So again, let me just circle back real quick because I know it was a few minutes ago before I read this definition. We have three significance hearings tonight. So just to remind folks what the significance hearing means. If a property is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or the Commonwealth, or that it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So we did reach out to our consultant. We have form Bs tonight for all three properties. So we will start with 12 George Street. Commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion on 12 George Street one way or the other, I will take it and then we will go around for comments.
[Unidentified]: Move for the purpose of discussion to find 12 George significant. Thank you, Ed. Is there a second? Gotta have a vote. Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. OK, Ed, I'm going to start with you on the discussion.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: All I will say, it is a neighbor of mine.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kind of.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Close enough if I'm walking to the subway. My concern would be that, yeah, there's some changes being made. It's not a total demo. It's been a goat gland house for years with or without our jurisdiction being involved. If you look at, you know, they've made some changes which look strange. And I'll just leave it at that. You've seen the pictures. And I'm really not sure where I'm coming out on this yet. I think more departments say I'm not.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. If you have more comments, I can circle back around. Ryan, can you jump in?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, this is a particularly interesting example of Queen Anne architecture. I'm intrigued by its design. It's a little bit weird. And in terms of the neighborhood itself, the area around George Street, particularly this little neighborhood developed in a very quick and rapid cessation starts with the immediate streets around Royal House proper. And then once they get into that first row, the neighborhoods around each side all develop all in the late 19th century very quickly. So this is kind of like the first pass. And it's hard to imagine this particular house and the others being out in like a field, like kind of blocking in the Royal house and then the rest of it all being open at one time, but that was the very end of Medford Square at one time. So it's kind of like early first wave development that happens in this neighborhood. So I'm in favor of retention of as much of this building as possible.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Peter, who's up next?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think this was recommended by our documenting consultants to be contributing to a potential historic district, to be on the National Register of Historic Places. So not every building in Medford gets that. I also find it architecturally is interesting. I have a feeling it was quite a nice house at one time. It's obviously been covered up by unsympathetic additions and vinyl siding, et cetera. And I believe the demolition proposal is not a total demolition.
[Unidentified]: Correct. It's definitely partial. Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I'm a little bit on the fence about this too. I think the development proposal is pretty sympathetic. So I'm not sure which way to jump on this one, but when the time comes to vote, I'll let you know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Yeah. One thing I wanted to mention and Ryan, I don't know if you can ask, uh, john about this is, I mean, I was reading this and it's like, oh yeah, it's not, he didn't check off the national register. And then I get to the end. I'm like, oh, it is national register. So I, there was another form recently that the same thing happened on. So I'm not sure why he didn't check the box on page two.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I, I noticed that as well. And, um, it would be nice if the, you know, the second page and the ending pages were in agreement on these forms, maybe should bring that up to them. Yeah, he probably just missed it. Yeah, if it has the NR criteria in the back, he feels that it's, he usually feels that it's, he would not provide it if he didn't feel that it was warranted. And this is a part of that, the George Pearl Stearns area, that MDFBC that he mentions is an area that was surveyed as part of this larger project. So the whole neighborhood behind this building, which is shown in the map on continuation page 3, has all been surveyed. It's all relating to that neighborhood. That's where the NR comes in.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So then why wasn't this one part of that initial survey? I'm just curious, do we know?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I'm willing to bet that if I go back and look at that form, it is, it's just, it probably didn't have its own inventory. It probably didn't have its own MHC form B, but it's probably on the MHC form A, which I can tell you in about 30 seconds.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I was just curious, because I know sometimes we already have forms that they've already been done on a survey product or part of an area.
[Doug Carr]: Peter, could I ask a question since you spent a little time looking at the drawings? I spent most of my effort on the 222 Boston Ave. You said the design that's being proposed is generally sympathetic. Do you think it will look like a historic Queen Anne when it's done with the proposed design alterations?
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's a tough question. I mean, he preserves the turret. Um, I think he's putting or whoever the architect is, is altering the front, uh, room or whatever mass to, to be something a little bit more ornate. Um, I think it's gonna, uh, let me say it, it will probably look more like a Queen Anne, but you know, I don't know if it'll get all the way there, but I think to me, I'll just say that I thought that the proposed design was an improvement, definitely an improvement over what's there now. So it keeps the turret, you know, there's a big kind of somewhat boxy addition on the back, but it's definitely in the back.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So just do you have anything else Doug on regards to the Form B on this one?
[Doug Carr]: Just that I think the building has lost so much integrity that I'm leaning towards no right now. If the design seems reasonable, I'm not sure if we want to spend the time to really finesse it or any much, because I feel like, I mean, I live in a Queen Anne, and when I see, I'm sure if I saw a historic photo of this building, it would look like about 20% of what it looks like right now. So bringing it back, but it's not going to ever be what I understand a kind of, I don't really see it contributing much actually because it'll be so different and it'll just be a different animal at the end of the day. It's, you know, it's not truly a restoration, it's more of a new adaptation. which this commission is on board with. We've done that for dozens of buildings. We're not purists when it comes to architectural styles. We've been very generous, I think, to make sure that we try to accommodate people's 21st century needs on their revised projects and still respecting the architecture. I just think there's not enough architecture here to start with, is my personal opinion.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: One question I had, which I could not raise last week because I wasn't here, is there any zoning related connected with this? Are we the last word?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Attorney Desmond can chime in on that. Go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I can answer this. And actually, I kind of have a question of procedure to that regard as well. So we filed the application under CAVS LLC, Inc. They're not the owner of the property now. It's a purchase and sale agreement with two contingencies in the project, the first being historical and the second being zoning. So in order to meet the contingencies, we're running the applications. concurrently because anything that we did with regard to historical wouldn't change the footprint of what we were looking for in terms of zoning relief, so that answers your question I guess my, my concern is and I think when I filed the application. I sort of asked this question is that we're not the owner, and this isn't a situation where you've got a total demolition of the property. So I'm assuming because we were allowed and I don't like to make assumptions like this, that because we're allowed to put the applicant as cabs LLC that we can then transfer the property and that that decision of the board will go to cabs LLC and not the homeowner.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But I mean, part of the application was a permission letter from the owner to start. And that's all we ask is that if it's in the process of being sold, that the owner has given permission. So that's fine.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I have the plans, if you want to take a look at them I have them on my screen.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I think we have them in our, our Google Drive to have we had an application, just wasn't clear from the paperwork where there is going to be any need, even if you're keeping the footprint where there is going to be something or other before this before the busy.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, there is. What is the relief they're going for at zoning?
[Kathleen Desmond]: So the zoning, this is an apartment one district where three family would be allowed, which is what the intent of this is to do. We have width and lot area and some issues that would have to go before them for determination as to whether or not it could move forward. Sorry.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So going from a two to a three, basically.
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: Thanks for that clarification.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, Ryan, did you, I'm just curious if you found anything before I go to the last.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's it's on the area form. It's just not, it wasn't individually documented.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Kit, do you have anything to add on this? Yeah, I think this is a, this is a hard one.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, it's not a, it's not a total demolition, the plans keep a at least the outline of the original building. And yet I'm sitting here thinking, you know, if we passed on every building that had unsympathetic siding and additions, I mean, we passed on everything in Medford.
[Unidentified]: Jess, do you have anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: I think I, you know, I agree. I know that we're not really supposed to be making decisions based on future plans, but I agree that the plans are an improvement and I love that it's changing from a two family to a three family. I think that's exactly the kind of development that we need in Medford with with historical preservation added in. And I kind of feel like a vote for it not being significant today is a choice that we'll have, we'll get this project that is actually a restoration project moving quicker.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So here's a question I have that I'm just kind of gonna throw it out here to my commissioners with regards to the national register recommendation. If we don't, if there's not much here to start with, kind of using Doug's words, architecturally, and then these changes take place, for better or for worse, you know, that's subjective. Do, does it still rise to the level of national register eligible and or part of a historic district? And does that matter? How do we feel about that? Because that's, you know, that's just something to think about, because I was honestly, when reading the form B, you know, I was thrown off personally, because I, that box wasn't checked in the beginning. And so I'm going through kind of reading it like, yeah, okay. You know, there wasn't a ton here for me. And then I get to the end and it's like, oh, okay. This, this could change things. So I guess I'm just curious how other folks feel about that.
[Unidentified]: Well, I mean, I'm not an expert on this, but.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't think that the proposed design denigrates the integrity any more than it's currently denigrated. So if it's eligible, I don't know, it would be further altered, but it has been quite altered. So, you know, it seems like an equivalency there. I don't see that it's, much less viable. If it's viable now, it seems like it ought to be then, but I don't know. I mean, if it was in a historic district, then I suppose the people who ran the historic district would have more stringent requirements about how it would be altered. So they might on a hypothetical, they might say that it should be more of a restoration. Maybe you could put an addition on the back, but they might go for more of a restoration look. I don't know.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I guess when I see the box contribute to district, but not itself national register, You know, again, it's a functional problem. And we talk about it, I think, five, six times a year as to whether or not if this wasn't a, you know, it's a, you know, whatever you think of the house, you're really talking about doing the district one house by one house, which is structurally not what we're supposed to be doing. And, you know, it's just a mess. I mean, I give a division of responsibility sometimes, does not contribute to, it doesn't help the decision-making.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And I guess thinking about as it pertains to significance, does it change at all, whether it's significant or not, right? In terms of as it stands now, is it significant or not versus any changes that could happen. I'm just kind of posing the question.
[Jenny Graham]: Like, can it become more significant through restoration?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Or kind of, yeah, or I guess, you know, significance versus preferably preserved or not, like, I think maybe the, it's the same conversation, perhaps on 222 that we had, we just had on 222 Boston Ave that it could be significant, but it might not be preferably preserved. if it were to go that route. So I think it's bringing it back to this definition tonight and the purpose being, is it significant or not? And then moving forward from there. I guess I'll kind of leave it. Ryan, Doug, does anybody else have any comments on that?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Well, I guess it prompts a question for me, which is sort of to follow on what Jess said, which is, is there anything that could be done to the design that has been proposed that would make the building itself more historically significant? I mean, aside from like a complete restoration of what it was originally, which is never going to happen.
[Jenny Graham]: I have another question to add to that question, which is, would it be possible to put forth a motion to vote on it being historically significant, yet also passing on any further review at the same time, or can we not do that?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I don't think we, once we're in the process, so like if it's significant, it goes to the next step. you know, and then it'll either be preferably preserved or not.
[Jenny Graham]: So the only time that we can pass on review is at the stage of receiving the application?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Okay. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Before, once it's in process, it's got to finish the cycle. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody else have any comments on this one? Otherwise I will vote. Okay, this one's gonna be interesting. Okay. There is a motion on the table to find for significance for 12 George Street that has been seconded. As I will go around to folks as I see them on my screen, Peter.
[Unidentified]: I'm gonna say no on this one. Okay. I'm tempted to be like, I haven't made up my mind yet.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Can you?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'll come back to you. I'll come back to you. Ryan. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: No. Ed. No. Jessica. No. And Kit. I think it is historically significant. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay.
[Unidentified]: The two.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm sorry. I lost count. What was that?
[Unidentified]: Two to four, I think.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So failed.
[Unidentified]: Two to four. Is that right? Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So 12 George street is not significant. So that project can move forward. So attorney Desmond, I will get you that letter this week. Thank you so much. All right, thank you everybody for that lovely conversation, very important. Okay, next up, 28 Winter Street. So again, we have received an application last month for 28 Winter Street. This one is not, this one is also partial. And we did receive a full form B on this one. So I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion for not significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Is there a second? Second. Was that Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. Ryan, you're up.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. It's a tiny building. It fits within an age group that we would review. I think it's been butchered. I feel this one's been more butchered than the previous one we just looked at. So I'm not in favor of any significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Uh, pretty much the same. There's no integrity here. I feel like, uh, a fresh look at this house can probably be a, an improvement. I wouldn't want to perfectly preserve this building or as is because it's, it's not preferably preserved in my opinion. So I'm not, I'm going to leap ahead and say no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you, Doug. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh yeah. I feel basically the same, uh, pretty common billing type. I believe it's lost most of its integrity, very simple building. I think anything they could do to it would probably improve it. You know, again, it's difficult when you've seen the plans, you know? So all I'm saying is like, if this is not a great building, maybe it's not that great to replicate it exact form on the same site. So anyway, I'll just have said that to the powers that be out there, but yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Hit, anything to add on this one?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: No, I, it's, I feel like this one's a little bit like a Lego, you know, there are lots of red bricks.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: It's Lego on one side and Meccano on the other.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed, anything else to add?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I just said everything.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Jess?
[Jenny Graham]: Nothing to add, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right, this seems like an easy one. 28 Winter Street, motion on the table to find that it is not historically significant. It is not historically significant. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yes, not significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica. Yes. OK, so the motion passes 6-0.
[Unidentified]: OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So Gina, I will get your letter off to you this week. Thank you so much, as always. Good luck with your project. OK, last up for significance tonight, we have 17 Green Road.
[Unidentified]: Motion for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Motion for significance on the table.
[Unidentified]: Is there a second? I'll second. Okay, thanks, Peter.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Ryan, go ahead.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think In my opinion of reviewing the building, this is a really important example of its style. It's unfortunate that the architect is known, but it was obviously well-designed back in its day. And I find that it has important associations with the important people that it relates to. The Green family owned the grain elevator that's being rehabilitated over next to the Craddock Bridge. the family played an important part in Medford's 19th century development. So here's a perfect example of how they continue to live in the neighborhood. And I find for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Ryan, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Agreed. I think the building has a high degree of integrity. Many of the original materials. I mean, I know there's probably new replacement windows and roofing, but it appears that a lot of the woodwork, brickwork, siding are intact or have been replaced in kind. So architecturally, I feel like it has a lot of integrity. It's a beautiful house. It's on an interesting site. And I found that the history of it was compelling as well. It's quite an early building. So that's why I would like significance for this one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Yeah. Also, it was noted that it meets three criteria for a national register, which I don't know that I've ever seen a form that has three criteria. at least not recently. So that really stuck out to me on the form B for this one. Doug, do you have anything to add on this?
[Doug Carr]: Just that you're right, Jen. It does reach a lot of criteria that most buildings that come before us don't. I think what makes this unique in my experience is there's very few buildings in Medford residential that are really visible from all sides, public, the public domain. So it makes the building, even though it has a front, it really has, it's visible from all around. And that makes it quite challenging and unique and beautiful because it's well-designed. And I think the, you know, the upcoming addition will be equally well-designed, but I think we were in this process. So I, I've, I was certainly thinking it's an easy call to call it insignificant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, thank you.
[Unidentified]: Kit? I don't have anything to add. I think it's sort of clearly historically significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you. Ed?
[Unidentified]: For a reason, for a number of reasons, I'm going to go present on this one.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Ed. Jess?
[Jenny Graham]: Um, yeah, I agree with the other commissioners. Um, I was just looking through macros. Is that how you say that the database, uh, on this and, um, Ryan is correct. There are very, there are way less examples of this architectural style and, and Medford, it looks like just from that data. And so, um, I definitely agree that given everything else, including that, um, this should probably be significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Okay, we have a motion on the table that has been seconded to find for significance for 17 Green Road. I will go around a roll call vote. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Ed? Present.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica? Yes. Okay, so the motion passes five and one abstention. So next month we will have a preferably preserved status for 17 Green Road. So I will email the application, excuse me, the property owner, the applicant with your instructions to get ready for that next hearing. Thank you so much.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: We have a quick question for 17 Green Road. We were talking with Bill, the commissioner. Are we able to get a demo permit to start our foundation?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, it's not something that typically happen just for time.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: And I think our architect is here to speak for the replica that we're trying to do and improve the home because it is rotting. And we do have three little kids that is unsafe.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I understand that. I mean, the building commissioner is the only person that can make a determination with regards to safety. So that's not something that we are under the purview to do. So I would encourage you to talk to him further on that.
[Unidentified]: Did you guys review the designs that we sent in?
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's not something that we would do really. I mean, they're in the folder, but it's not something that we typically do at this stage.
[MCM00000625_SPEAKER_09]: So can I'm sorry, can you help me understand what next month will under will bring ahead, is it just.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The next month would be a preferably preserve hearing if you were on the beginning of this call, it was the similar situation to. 222 Boston Avenue. It is a public hearing to determine whether or not the demolition is detrimental to the city. And that if it is found preferably preserved, then an 18 month demolition delay would be put on the property. And then obviously we'd be able to talk about how we can mitigate the demolition and lift that sooner rather than later for you.
[Doug Carr]: What I would add just briefly, Nicole, is that the sketches that you showed, and we're getting way ahead of ourselves here, obviously, because we need to follow the process that Jen outlined, but the sketches that you showed us about a potential design were well received by the subcommittee who normally reviews that. So once we get to that point, we feel that that process will be very quick. So we would urge you to kind of make those changes? I mean, if you could make them now, and if we don't find a perfect preserve, you could immediately implement those changes. But if you do, you'd be coming to the table with a design that we think is looked upon very favorably compared to what is initially shown in the drawings that you distributed to us a few weeks ago.
[MCM00001105_SPEAKER_13]: Yes. And I should say that those changes have been made in the map that was submitted.
[Doug Carr]: Okay, good. Then I think we're getting as fast a process as we can right now, but we must follow the process.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you all. Um, okay. Next step. We are accepting, uh, we have a demolition application to start the process for one 42 mystic Avenue. Um, commissioners that is all in the Google drive and I'll take a motion to accept that application when someone is ready.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Motion to accept the application as to form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Is there a second?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second, or whoever.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can give it to you, Jess, if you want. That's OK.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You can have it, Peter. Okay, motion on the table to accept the application for 142 Mystic Avenue. This is for a total demolition to put up a beer hall, which I don't know that anybody on this commission would be opposed to.
[Doug Carr]: I can provide more detail if you want.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think we're good right at this stage. We just take the application and then next month will be significance. So but I appreciate that. But your application was very thorough. So I appreciate that.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, motion on the table to accept the application for 142 Mystic Avenue and has been seconded. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes, to accept the application. Kit? Yes. Ed? Yep. Ryan? Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica? Yes. Okay, thank you. That motion passes 6-0. Ryan, do we need a form B on this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so moved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, second. Okay, motion on the table to spend $500 on a form B for 142 Mystic Avenue. Peter?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Spended, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Brian?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica? Yes. All right. Okay, so next month we will have your significance hearing, Brian and you'll be on your way. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Sounds good. Yeah, just just reach out.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Our next meeting is May 8. If you want to put that on your calendar.
[Unidentified]: Absolutely.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And just email us if you have any questions.
[Unidentified]: Will do. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Okay, moving on. Okay. Commissioners. I sent around the annual report that I think is in pretty good shape. If anybody had a chance to read it, make comments. Otherwise.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I read it. It looked good. And I was not going to, you know, given the time constraints. I was going to hold my top otherwise, but look good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And we always appreciate your edits.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: We gotta get this one out.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I hate to use this pun, but it may look like the Palm's wall, but as some of you have seen, it may need additional work is what I've been saying. So, you know, little changes can be had afterwards if need be.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think it came out pretty good this year.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We got it down to five pages, Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it was pretty concise, I thought. I like the bullet points.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I think it has a really nice kind of overview of what we did for the year. And I think looking forward to our goals for this upcoming year, I think we're pretty consistent about putting out our annual report. And I think a lot of other boards and commissions don't do that. So thank you to Doug and Ryan for all your help on pulling that together.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I had one partial suggestion, but I couldn't figure out how to word it. There's one bullet point that talks about that due to good faith efforts, certain properties were, certain demo delays were lifted. And I was trying to figure out how to say it So it didn't seem like, well, maybe the words like expeditiously or something, I wanted to have it communicate that there was a time aspect to it that these things were not hastily lifted, but expeditiously lifted. You know what I mean? Rather than just say, oh, they were lifted because it doesn't give any indication that you know, I don't know, probably, I mean, maybe no one will ever read it, but.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I mean, does it make sense to say something to the effect of like the, you know, the owners were engaged and, you know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And thereby, you know, we're able to zoom through the process quickly or something. I don't know. That's what I'm trying to.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The whole point is that the owners were engaged and that they, came to us and wanted to move things quickly. And I think, you know, so when we say something was lifted after two months or three months, it's because, you know, the owners were pushing for that and then we helped them along, right? Is that where you're?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's what I'm trying to get at. So that there's an indication that if there is that joint effort, if you will, it sometimes can go quicker somehow. I don't know, I don't know how to say it in a way that sounds like it wasn't hastily done, you know, it wasn't hastily done. It was done in a concerted way, but you know, it was substantially less than 18 months.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: This, this, this was the bullet point on point two, a number of demolition delayed properties saw their delay lifted or to continue to good faith efforts. I would almost say basically we appreciate the efforts that owners have made to address commission concerns which permitted the expedite release the property from demolition delay. I couldn't have said it better.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, can you email me that sentence because I of course just went right out of my house. Or that, right? I mean, I think, I mean, just to be clear, Peter, you're talking about the overarching paragraph on a demolition delay, not the individual ones on each.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, that kind of, yeah, that it was one of the page two was like one of the first three or four or five bullet points there.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: All right, just let me, I can get it open. Okay, we can shoot the comment.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If it could come later, that's fine too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just, yeah. Okay. The, the word doc is in the Google drive. If you want to just edit it right in the Google.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's in the under annual reports.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody, I know Doug sent in that there was a typo as well, which I'll fix. Were there any other comments, concerns, things missing from the annual report that we need to put in?
[Jenny Graham]: I wanted to note that on page three where it says inventory forms are available on the MACRS database. Most of them are not, so that's just not true.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, they take a while to get there. They do get there eventually, but it can take what Ryan, like almost a year sometimes to get there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, they're up to date through Winter Hill, which is the most recent project. And they're working on, because they're done with scanning stuff, they're mostly on, they'll be online.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do our individual ones get there too? Yep. Not just the survey project?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep, in batches, but yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. And those ones people can find on our website.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, so I think we can make a note, Jess, that, can you remind me, I'm sorry, which, where was that again?
[Jenny Graham]: Maybe we should just add, you know, like what Ryan just said, you know, inventory forms are available on MACRIS or through, oh wait, it says that, or online through the Historical Commission website. Sorry, that was my poor reading.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, yeah, I mean, they eventually all get to MACRIS, it's just a matter of how long the state takes to get them up there.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Um, okay. Do we need to vote to approve this?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Is there a motion to approve the annual report with these changes?
[Unidentified]: So moved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Is there a second second? Thanks, Ryan. Okay. Motion to approve the 2022 annual report with the minor edits we discussed tonight. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Yes. Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica. Yes. Okay. Passes six to nothing. Thank you all so much. That's a nice thing off of our plates.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody else have any new business? Oh, actually, before we move on one more thing I wanted to ask. I know we talked about this a little bit last month and do we have any new comments on 200 Boston and have the site plan review. Otherwise I'm going to email planning that we're good with our original set of comments from 2021. I know Peter, you might've had some updated comments or.
[Doug Carr]: Oh, I thought I turned those over to Doug. I thought. Yeah, I didn't think it was worth reading the letter. Not significant enough as change, you know, they were an improvement. So I just said, let's just keep the letter as is.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, great. Thank you for clarifying that. I just didn't want to forget.
[Doug Carr]: Jen, I do have some final photos of 130 Boston Ave, which is complete now and in the process of being sold. I'll save that to the end of the meeting now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did you go take a tour?
[Doug Carr]: No, I didn't take a tour. I just took some final photos of the outside. Somebody's purchased it already.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. No, it's closing this week. I've been keeping an eye on it. I'm curious. I was using it as a comp, so I was curious to see what he was going to get for it. I tried to get out of his agent. She wouldn't tell me. Okay, does anybody have any new business? Okay. All right, moving on to old business. Ryan, you wanna talk about things currently under demo delay?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, maybe we should just talk about South Street to date.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug and Peter, have you guys reviewed the drawings for South Street?
[Unidentified]: 31 South?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Do we get new drawings recently? Back at the end of March. I can pull them up here so we can discuss them. I made some comments and sent them. Yeah, I think they sent some stuff back. So I made some comments on the second round of drawings. I think that maybe the commission should see where we're at at this point. I'm not convinced there that I'm not convinced that the design is far enough along, but I think the whole board should review it at this point. So yeah. Cause the last time they had done it, they they'd made a, somewhat of an effort to put a slope roof on that back wing, but it was so shallow that it's still, it's still- Yeah, why don't we look at where we're at?
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Ryan, you should be able to share your screen. Yep. So I think folks can see this design, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: The 31 South.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, is there a date on these plans?
[Adam Hurtubise]: In Reno? Reno, 31 South Reno, dated 3-22-23. So here's the rendering. This is, I think one of the first, I'm a little bit annoyed at this project just because on one of the first go rounds, they took their existing condition drawings and elevations and wrote in a whole bunch of ways, not significant, not historically appropriate, blah, blah, blah. And we get it. There's been changes made to this building. But I feel like the proposed design Um, which here's the latest. I feel like this proposed design does nothing to rehabilitate this building, but rather is just simply a new structure. So the, I think the commission. You know, with the subcommittee needs to decide whether this is a new structure or whether this is going to be a rehabilitated structure. Um, because if it's going to be a rehabilitated structure, we need to push harder for retention of some of. the existing features that are there. I take no issue with the choice of materialities and some of these changes, but there are things in here that I've been asking for. For example, this is the front facade on South Street. It would be great if they could retain that window placement. I think it's kind of interesting that they proposed this dormer change. So I'm less, you know, I'm inclined to let that roof line go and change, you know, but they, it doesn't, this architecture is all over the place here. That's just my opinion. I know they're trying to do something that's modern here, but this is not a modern house. So I'm interested in seeing more pushback. I mean, they did, I was just looking at my red lines and looks like they did. I don't know if it's successful. But, uh, they did the stuff I asked them to do so. I mean, Yeah, I mean, I don't, I don't care for this change, but you know, maybe some. Yeah, I don't think it's so successful. Yeah, like this is, this is okay. But some more traditional window placements and designs rather than, they're just thrown in every way that they possibly could be. There's, I mean, there's sure there's rhyme, but there's no symmetry to this facade, you know, features that are currently there. when you look at the existing, you know, they're there in loose format. So, and like I said, I take no issue with taking advantage of this upper space. That's perfectly fine. But, you know, retention of this front box where it's facing the street might be, you know, worthwhile in making some of those bigger changes towards the back would be great. So I'm just curious where others feel. I mean, are we not going far enough? Is this far enough along? Doug, what are your thoughts?
[Doug Carr]: It feels like we need one more round. It does seem a little confusing. It's kind of not modern, not historic. It's kind of this weird twilight zone in between from what I've been able to see. So let's try to make one more pass at it. I don't think it will be too much more to kind of get this in shape.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think the roof line is better versus the total flat roof. And my thing is, I think, and which is, which, is it this upper right or upper left or down? What can you see when you come down South Street, which is the view?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So this is the front that faces the street. This is the side that you're going to see on that court.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. Okay. I mean, for me, I think it's always retaining like, okay, is the house that was there, is it even recognizable? I don't know that I get that from, I agree with you on the window placements is really on this front view right here. I'm less worried about the side view. I think that looks okay, but I think there's no recognition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, this window placement back here is okay. This is perfectly fine. In fact, I love that this aligns. It's maybe missing a window here to make this feel a little less big. this is very unsuccessful, these pairings. So even just breaking them up into multiples, get rid of, you know, you could keep that one and maybe do one in the middle and then, you know, three across. I mean, that's a very traditional pattern for this type of house. You know, even though there were two existing, you can still break it up and do it in a way. Plus having something, even if it's faked in this gable where there was one right now would be a huge help. Because right now it's just a blocky gable.
[Doug Carr]: I think what Ryan's talking about is just good design, I don't think it's necessarily historic it's just trying to make it a better design.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Working with, I guess, like, is it. How much of that is our purview I guess is like if somebody wants to come along and buy this and it's ugly.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So rehabilitating by putting back some of the more traditional elements that were in this building is, I would say, certainly well within the purview. I mean, like I said, I'm pushing for the four window arrangement here. And if that's not going to happen, I mean, that's a huge, this is completely crazy. I don't, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, I think I defer to you guys as the three architects. And I think, I don't disagree with what you're saying. And I think if everybody else is cool with it, if we can try one more round and see if we can't, if they'll either do it or come to a more of a consensus, then that's fine by me.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Although I have to say, I mean, having seen what they proposed initially and seeing this, it feels much more in keeping I mean, just the roofline feels much more in keeping with what was actually there. So that feels like just a real positive development, although it does feel like it's in the past.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's better. It's definitely better than the first iteration, for sure.
[Unidentified]: It's, yeah, I mean, it's less odd.
[Adam Hurtubise]: than it was before, but it's still pretty odd, you know?
[Unidentified]: I don't know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I wish that that, you know, on the upper left corner there, where I had him try that gable, and then, so at the very back by the pine tree, yeah, right there. So I'm wondering if that, in this particular facade, if, and then there's one window where Ryan said they're missing a window, and then maybe the gable roof, so maybe there could be an actual dormer, and then the gable roof picks back up, so it reads more like a dormer, so it's less of an impact. Maybe that would make it seem more integrated or something, I don't know if they have the headroom for that. Yeah. Even if they had the roof line come across here, that would be helpful just to do something. Something. It is quite an odd. Yeah. I think they're just trying to mimic the modern design next door and this is not new construction. Yeah, I don't know, like, I, there's just things that like, if you're okay, so for the upper right hand corner, it's just bad design. If you're, you know, they say they can't do any shifts on this facade, I guess they can't but having that dormer, you know, with that gable. I just, it's just very odd. Like if somehow that Yeah, it's somehow the mass of what was below that gable poked out or something, even if it was like a bay window that went down, didn't touch the ground. I guess he said they aren't allowed to do that by zoning, but. No, I would, I would just do a shed dormer right across this. I think, and I would not have it go all the way out to the edge here. I would bring it in a little bit. and then have it match some of these windows down below. So you have nice, you know, four, four and four. And if you need to break it up, you break it up in the middle or you recess it back. So it looks a little bit better. You know, this is just, this is just weird. Yeah. Well, if you want to take a shot at it, I don't know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so I think the consensus is you guys are going to send one more round of notes back to them. And then hopefully by next month, we'll be in a better position to vote. Hopefully, maybe. We'll see.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, I feel bad because we they did basically, most of what we said for him to do it just, it wasn't successful. You know? So I don't know how to It's hard, you know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do you want me to, should we set up, do you want to set up another meeting or do you want to just send notes back?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, Ryan, do you want to make some notes? Yeah. Yeah. We need to, we need to make some notes and then translate it back into red lines again. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Okay. I don't know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. If we could, Get something back to him. Do we think we get it within a week? Just so that we can give them the opportunity to make one more pass before the next meeting. Our next meeting is quick because it's the way the month falls, it's early.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think we can do that. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then I don't know if there's any, do you guys want to talk about 28 Grove Street? Or do you want to I know you guys, we talked a little bit about having another.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Now we need to I think it's a it's in process, we there's some things that need to be hashed out there, so maybe we'll throw out some dates towards the end of this week or next week for a meeting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: yeah i'll email you guys after and let's get that scheduled so that. I can get that set up with the property owner. He's anxious just to be done.
[Adam Hurtubise]: He's working on that house. He's redoing the whole roof.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, he was stopped on Friday by the building committee.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, he was, was he?
[Jennifer Keenan]: He still didn't have a permit at all.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, he was going to town.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, there's a whole backstory there, which I can fill you in on. Okay. He's been fined. I'll just leave it at that. Okay, I think that is it for properties under demo delay. Um, and then, um, Permitting, um, and processes. So the building commissioner, I've had some great conversations with him. So has Ryan. He's asked. To come to our next meeting, to introduce himself to the commission. So we can have an open kind of forum with him. Talk about the ordinance. He has some ideas to make it better. And if anybody has any specific questions that they would like answered, just be prepared for that. But he's very much looking forward to talking to us. And I think everybody will agree that he's a pretty great guy. So I'm excited that he's in our city and kind of on our side and really is looking forward to working together with everybody. Go ahead, Brian.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I was just going to suggest maybe we have that outside of a normal business meeting. I would be willing to come to a special meeting just to meet with the building commissioner. So there's nothing else on the agenda to distract us.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, he asked to come to a regular meeting, but I'm whatever people want to do. If we want to hold a separate separate, a separate meeting, I can propose that as well.
[Doug Carr]: The question I have, Jen, is could he bring some discussion points or agenda, bullet points or things that he's curious about, just so we can start thinking about those subjects prior to the meeting, whenever.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I can tell you specifically, you know, we definitely want to talk about the ordinance. You know, his position is, it's, we need to make it stronger. We need to put some better definitions around partial demolitions specifically. I've talked to him a little bit about that. So I think kind of coming at it from our position of there is some subjectivity sometimes, especially maybe when it comes to gut rentals, doors, windows, that, you know, I think part of, you know, If, if we're proposing making changes to the ordinance. I, you know, his, his position also is that he'd like to have some legal filings put against decisions that we do so that they're more enforceable. on his perspective because he wants to be able to enforce the decisions that are made here. So he's looking at it maybe from like a ZVA perspective where there's a filing in land court made against the property. So he has some great ideas and he's also he worked very hard on getting Newton's ordinance from where it used to be to where it is today. And so he had a lot of great ideas in terms of ways and things that he's been successful with in other communities.
[Unidentified]: He came from Newton?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, from my understanding. Yeah, Newton and Waltham. I'm not sure if most recently, I think most recently Waltham, but perhaps before that he was in Newton. Yeah. So I guess, do we want them at our May meeting or do we want to have a separate meeting? I mean, next month we'll have, we could potentially have two preferably preserved, but then we'll only have one significance. And if any new applications come in.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: New applications are fast, we're talking, You know, if we were, if we're willing to work till not work till 845, you know, we're probably probably gets 45 minutes to an hour.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, I think the preferably preserved hearings might not take that long. Again, and that's assuming that 91 Winchester Street comes to fruition. And then the significance on Mystic Ave, which was the application we took tonight. I don't know that those three things will take more than an hour per se. So then we could have, and then unless anything randomly new comes in, but we should have a decent chunk of time to talk to him.
[Unidentified]: I'm happy to do either.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, if we have a short enough agenda next, it might be useful for him to see us actually at work.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, that's actually a good point. Why don't we do that? Because then if we feel the conversation starts to kind of flow, and maybe then we say, OK, we're going to set up a special meeting to continue the conversation and only focus on that, seeing how we start off Okay, and then at least we'll know too that depending on if we have applications come in, what our June might look like. So we could either continue it to June or set up a special meeting if there's further discussions to be had.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, I will get him on the agenda for next month then. Um, CPA projects, Thomas Brooks Park is moving right along. The DPW did go in and do some more tree work after our vendor did, so we got confirmation that that happened. Palm's Wall, if anyone has driven by, is in the process of being restored. It's going to be put upright again. Yay. We got the mayor.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I said I warned people it was going to disappear for a while. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So there's been some rumblings online. There's been a couple of emails, but it's all good. I mean, thank you. Ryan did a nice blog update on the websites. We've been able to put that out there in the interwebs for people to read. And, you know, all the comments have been fairly positive and like glad to see it's being taken care of and restored and And then the field stone wall work started today, the actual wall works, they're starting at the north end of the wall, which is right before the bridge going over the train tracks. And then working their way south down towards like Jackson and Newton roads at that end. So take a gander drive by over here every once in a while and you will be able to see the work that is happening. It's going to be and then just just to let you guys know that the final phase of the Brooks Estate field stone wall, it has also started. So there's wall work happening on the other end of Grove Street right before you hit Winchester. That field stone wall is almost completely rebuilt there as well. So Grove Street is going to look pretty good in the next few months.
[Doug Carr]: It's going to be like, hasn't looked this good in a hundred years when we're done, I think, between these two projects. It's pretty amazing, actually, that people who live in the Pacific Rose, the Brooks Estate, have been very complimentary of what they've seen over the last couple of years. And this is going to be the same, I think. It's a nice piece of infrastructure that is beautiful.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Some guy walking by said to me earlier today, he's like, oh, I've lived here since 1956 and the wall has looked exactly the same since 1956. It'll be great to have it look nice again.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I think too that just, I mean I really would like to thank the DPW because our tree vendor did some great job kind of kind of clear cutting some of the trees in order for the mason to get back there and work on the wall but then the DPW came in. and cleared more of kind of the invasives and some scrubs and some dead brush and then all of a sudden you come around the corner and it's just kind of wide open in the park now and I mean obviously the trees haven't bloomed yet but it's going to be beautiful once you know now it's more sunlight can get in there and the trees will you know trees that were being blocked are now going to be able to thrive again so we're it's it's looking real good over here so it's it's it's wonderful.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Anybody want to help volunteer for phase two CPA application?
[Jennifer Keenan]: When do we have to get that in by for her?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, there's a bunch of rolling pieces. So I talked with Peter Hedlund about doing a design sketch for the house site, which is going to kind of preemptively lead into a bigger archaeological dig. And the tree vendor said that we did a walk through the park and a lot of the historic trees need a lot of pruning. So there'll be more complete tree work. Next, next up is just focusing on the historic trees and pruning them of all the deadwood so that they're safe, because the park is actually really not safe right now. So, there'll be a lot of deadwood removal and And really those are the major things and then maybe signage on either end of the park actually telling people that it's a park. I think it would be the three, the three key components of that next round of CPA funding and I think Alicia told me in years past, you can receive the ironically named park grant. For city development for public parks. And so that would be a good one for this may also be good to get the, the tree department as a way to maybe work with the city with some of their budget to help out with some of their work, but the tree vendor was perfectly willing to give us a number for what they thought it would cost them in a reasonable amount to go through and manicure the historic trees to get them safe.
[Unidentified]: So
[Adam Hurtubise]: So that's, that's basically phase two eligibility in for that, we can do it whenever so as soon as I have a loose idea of a stronger idea of what I want. can put that in. I'm working and waiting for Peter to give me a number for the little area, basically what I'm going to call the house site plaza area design so that I can approach CPA for their rolling grants. Doug, what's the limit on those? Is it 10?
[Jennifer Keenan]: That was 5,000.
[Doug Carr]: I thought it was five.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. All right. It's somewhere in there. Um, I know for bidding, it has to be under 10, so it'll probably be somewhere between there. So, um, I, we may approach you guys for that design and the eligibilities are in the fall Doug for next year.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right.
[Doug Carr]: Right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Or is it like July or whatever?
[Doug Carr]: I think we're trying to streamline the process. So it's, it's just a one step process, because people kind of understand it now. So we're working on that now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Well, you'll keep us posted on that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Sorry. Ryan, was it a dead deadwood removal signage? And what was number three? A larger archaeological dig. Okay. Sorry, kid.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: No, no, I was just going to ask. So you were asking for volunteers, Ryan. I'm happy to volunteer. What exactly do you need?
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, so I'm going to work with some of these consultants to get numbers and figures together. We'll need to put together an application, but the very first thing is that small application. So once I have something from Peter, we can start on that. OK. Those are on a rolling basis.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I'm happy to help with that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, great. Jen, you're going to get looped in because you started this whole project.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, no, I'm happy to keep going. I think, you know, yeah, that's my strength sometimes is the written word. So I'm happy to work on the proposals.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great. Wordsmiths and it's gone, but we'll have him look over things, too. I'm sure it'll all be good, though.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it had to jump off. But I think we're pretty much almost wrapping up soon anyway. But thank you Kit for helping with that. Yeah, I think just the paperwork for CPA is a little getting, you have to write the proposal and then you have to go before the board and talk about your project and then they have to vote. So it's a little bit of a process, but it's all good. It's all good. And I think continuing on phase two and three of what we've already done will be looked at favorably instead of just doing a little piece and then shoving it in a drawer and never coming back to it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Peter, Peter Hedlund was impressed. He goes, yeah, many people do a master plan. And then they sit there going, how can we afford this? We had a master plan where we had a funding in place. And now we just like, wow, you guys have already done three out of the nine components.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So yeah, and Peter Hedlund was the landscape architect or architect.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, landscape architect.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yep. That helped us with the master plan. So That's just to give context for Kit since she was not on the board then. And we have the master plan, which I will, I don't know that you've seen it, Jess, either. I can, it's probably in the Google Drive, but we'll circulate it just to refresh everybody on what was in that and then kind of look at, you know, the next phase.
[Unidentified]: I don't have anything to report on the renaming. Oh, okay.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I hope to have the next meeting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think now that the that palms wall is being actively worked on that will come, you know, sooner than later. So I think that would be great if But we'll get we'll get there. I think, yes, there's an update next month. I'll be great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So one of the things that we talked about with the memorial. at that park and the renaming was to turn the house site into a memorial that kind of leads you through the park's history. So you can come up as a guest, as you formally would as approaching the 18th century house. And then when you're in the house, the four walls can represent different periods of the park's history. And then when you're leaving, you would leave out the back door as some of the other people who had inhabited the site would. So you get both sides of the story, so to speak, physically walking through the house site. And we imagined it would be similar to the way that the Memorial Park is on the corner of Riverside Ave, where you kind of are walking through as a journey, and that along the way you see the memorials to the different people that had there, the Native peoples, the African Americans, the Brooks family and all of that that comes into play so.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, is that a change from the master plan concepts from a couple years ago?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, we had talked about just doing something to memorialize the house site. And it's just kind of growing into how do we interpret that particular house site. So it's just a, it's just an idea that's out there. I'm sure we would need to run it by but it's a way to acknowledge some of the archaeology. And then, you know, we've got back some of the archaeological reports and and there are still questions that remain and so before we do anything to memorialize that house we want to do. What we did was kind of like investigative archaeology is there stuff there now we the bigger project is answering the remaining questions that we have for you know. You know, what is the house? How deep was it? What are their outbuildings?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Can we like, cause we found so many artifacts and now it's like, can we find the perimeter of the house? Are the, you know, are the, is the footprint still there? Is it, um, yeah, just doing more to uncover more of what was at that site since the dig, the initial dig was so successful. Yeah. So it's a little bit of a morphing, as Ryan said, from the initial plan just called for one dig, but now I think it definitely warrants, can we actually find the four walls of the house? It would be amazing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. We, and there are trees in the way, but we had talked about maybe clearing some of the trees around that particular area so that we can surf for ground penetrating radar. GPR is only good in wide open areas, but you know, we found the approximate house site. We know where it was, but there had to have been other outbuildings. What's missing is all the small little structures that are associated with it and the privies and the wells. So that's, just, you know, that, and there's no surface remains. So whether they just did a really good job manicuring it after they dismantled the building, I don't know, but they're definitely out there, so.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: To be continued on CPA projects next month. Any updates on survey work, Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have the contract ready to go. I just had some questions about funding again with the city. So as soon as I have those, I can present the contract to the consultant for Fulton Heights, but not until I get final answers because I thought I had answers, but apparently I didn't. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did we get, is Brookyards done? Do we get, are we in receipt of that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: They're in the process of finalizing their final.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right. I just want to keep the agenda updated so that when that is actually delivered and finished, I can take it off.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, is the ball in my court to email them for that meeting, Ryan? Or do you want me to do that? To meet with the commission to review the project, the Brickyards?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, no. We did that and we reviewed, basically MHC said, great job, had a few comments and just the consultants just in the process of making final changes.
[Jenny Graham]: So you already had a meeting. Okay, cool.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Yeah. We didn't really have MH. I didn't see anything that was worthy of us commenting. Um, the biggest hurdle we're facing is information, trying to get information out of the city for, um, the public housing development. But I think we may have that. We may be fixing that next week.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I know this is probably a lot of work, but I was just wondering if they would be open to. And putting like archived links or permalinks in there and the citations.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I can ask them. I don't see why not. If they have the information so that we can so that we can access it or people who are interested can access it, I'm assuming.
[Jenny Graham]: You know, yeah, links are dead within like, you know, so link rot is a thing. So we will not have access to those links into the future, most likely. So I think it would be good to get an archive link so that we can, you know, access those citations in the future. I really appreciate the citations a lot.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it's surprising that they're not using permalinks because that's both of those consultants are trained in academics and they would know better. So I'll bring it up. I'll bring it up when I talk to John about the other project, the Form B that I have to send him.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Anything else on survey? Is we good?
[Unidentified]: No, I think we're good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Peter circulated the meeting minutes before we vote on those I just wanted to mention that there's some upcoming events for m belt in the Brooks estate that we're looking for volunteers. I put a bunch of events on our Facebook page and on the website. We have a bird walk coming up this week and then another one the beginning of May, we have our spring spruce up at the end of April, and an open house on the same day, which is the 29th, and then we're looking forward to our picnic in July again this year. So if anybody would be so inclined to either share the M-Belt events to your network on social or share our website with the events on our website on the blog, I would be most grateful. We're always trying to get new members, new volunteers to help. And it's, you know, it's an exciting year for m belts with the wall being worked on we're working on access drive. I know, Zach, who was our representative city council representative who's on our meeting right now, but also at m bell he's working to get us money at the state level. to do some work up there. So always just trying to improve that space and get more folks up there to make it more visible. So people will want to save it and preserve it and make it a function space for the future.
[Unidentified]: Did you say two birding events?
[Jenny Graham]: Yes. I will definitely share the word about that and bring lots of birders.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So I just got word yesterday of a birding event that's happening on Wednesday. But then there's another one on May 6th. Both are early spring migrants.
[Jenny Graham]: Um, so, you know, I went to the Brooks estate just this weekend to bird and I can I can confirm that the early spring migrants are already coming in.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, they're very the park is I had walked in there the other day and there are various lots of chirping and noise going on in there right now. So. Then that owl is loud, man, I don't know what he's talking about, but the owl is very loud. So thank you, yes, some great events happening. Whether you're a birder or not, come in and take a walk and enjoy the grounds.
[Unidentified]: Okay, meeting minutes. I know Peter emailed them out to everybody. Motion to approve. Seconded. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Motion to approve the meeting minutes for March, 2023. Peter.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Yes. Jessica. Yes. And Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So five zero passes Peter. Ed is no longer with us. Well, he's no longer at the meeting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed has departed his virtual form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Motion to adjourn? Yes, I say if anyone has anything else. Motion to adjourn 842.
[Doug Carr]: Before we do Jen, just two quick things. One is, I was talking earlier this week to you, I couldn't find in the meeting minutes at any time this year where I was reappointed to CPC for another couple of years representing this commission. Do you remember that happening?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think we just kept our slate of officers the same from last year, which is on our website now, right, Ryan? Hold on, I have a list right here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think there was a list. That I appended to as a separate thing onto one of the months.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it's usually January.
[Doug Carr]: It's not part of the January minutes, is it Peter? It's a separate document.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can't remember if I, I think I tried to merge them together, but it did something to the formatting or something. Well, CPC is asking for something here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hold on. I can share this with you. Hold on.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So we have this, which you're right here. Okay. PC 2023. You want me to email you this document?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. Why don't you do that? And I'll just, I'll just forward that to them.
[Unidentified]: That should be enough.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. And who did we update? Who's our kid? Are you kid? Are you doing the historical society representative or did they have to appoint you? They appointed you, right?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I don't know. We have no idea.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. Oh, I'll update that as well.
[Unidentified]: Um, all right, Doug, I'll send that to you. You're on me. I'm all set. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Was that it? Was that all you had?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'll send around photos of 130 Boston now. We don't need to go over them now. I'll just send it around to everyone separately. So you can see the final version.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, okay. I mean, I think it came out great.
[Doug Carr]: It came out tremendous. To me, it's a big success for this commission that we were able to get that. Considering where we started, it's turned out very well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, yeah, like I said, I'm dying to know how they did with the sale. So.
[Unidentified]: Over a million, we know that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, yeah, I mean, yeah, for sure.
[Unidentified]: Tiny house. Yeah, but it's brand new.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great location.
[Unidentified]: No kidding.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, motion to adjourn 844. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Ryan?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jess? Yes. Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, see you next month, everybody. Thank you.
|
total time: 3.97 minutes total words: 377 |
|||