[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, welcome everybody. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, February 13. And before we get started, I'm just going to read our disclosure that we are required to have for our electronic meeting. 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 tonight we have a full agenda. We're gonna start off with a couple of significance hearings. So we will start with 28 Grove Street to start for my commissioners. Last month, we accepted an application for demolition at this property. The application was accepted. So tonight we will determine whether or not the building is historically significant. And I will remind everybody what that means. The definition of historical significance is as follows. It is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or the Commonwealth, or it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or associated with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So commissioners, I sent out the link to the form B for 28 Grove Street, and I will take a motion one way or the other for this property when someone is ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, point of clarification.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, the MHC form B's are also available on our website.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Just anybody wants to follow along.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You just have to go to our blog page and the meeting materials are the last post.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And that's for the next case as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Yep. And on that, I will make a motion to find 28 Grove street, historically significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second? I'll second. Thank you, Kit. OK, Ryan, I'll start with you for comments.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, George W. Woodland did the development in this neighborhood. It included both Grove Street, Johnson Avenue, Tyler Avenue, and it's extended over to Sagamore Park and Sagamore Ave. And most of the houses built during this time period, as John Clemson notes, they're large and commodious and comfortable housing geared towards, you know, I would say white-collared individuals that were using the train, the Boston and Lowell line to commute back and forth. He himself is both the builder and the developer and the architect, so that's not common and that somebody undertake all three patterns and the number of housing that he built is well documented. In fact, his architectural books that he used, I guess, were presented to or brought over to on loan to the historical society within a reasonable amount of time. I think it was in the last two years. And they had the opportunity to at least possess those and copy them for a time. So I find that even just by itself under criteria A, which is an importantly associated with an important architect builder, both by itself and in this group of context of buildings, it's important. There's probably other reasons, but that's just my kickstart to the discussion here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's it. Thank you, Ryan. Kit, I'll come to you next since you seconded the motion.
[Kit Collins]: So what I would say in addition to what Ryan has already said is that compared to a lot of the other properties that we look at, it's sort of remarkably original. So it seems like I know we can't comment on on sort of the state of the building, but it's largely intact. So it's a good example of everything that Ryan just described.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Yes. And as somebody who drives by that house every single day, I would agree with you on that. Ed, do you have anything to add?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Again, as a recent pedestrian by the place without realizing it was necessarily under review, it was impressive. And I think, again, if you're looking at the, again, Grove is a subdivision, and also the role of the architect, I think, you know, it certainly passes significance for.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I agree. When I look at the details, not so much about the developer and the owner, but just the details, you know, the elements of craftsmanship. This is a unique building in Mexico. I don't think I've seen anyone like this, and that's what makes this one, I think, fall into the significance category for me, you know, whether it's some of the shingling or the stone foundations and piers. This is stuff here that is unique, and we just don't see every day. It's not a cookie-cutter building by any stretch. So many of the ones in this neighborhood are well-crafted, unique houses. And that's obviously of its time period at the beginning of the 20th century. So I think this one's a pretty easy call for me to be put in a significant category. I hope we can come to a resolution quickly to bring this one back from what it clearly is, which is in tough shape, obviously. That's not our purview.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just a point of clarification. On the form B, the recommended for listing in National Register of Historic Places is checked. Usually there's some backup to that. So I didn't know if that should have been checked.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I noticed that as well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: If it was meant to be checked, because usually he'll then back that up for these reasons or whatever. John may have, he sent me over another form. So he may not have just, he may have just not copied over the thing because it's included maybe in another form. He did a form for a property on Sagamore Ave. Let me just see if I have that form. Otherwise I would concur with the other commissioners. although it has fallen into some disrepair. It is largely, most of the original siding is, and detail has been preserved and hopefully can be brought back.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Um, I had the same question too, on the national register checkbox and was looking for that information on the last page. So we'll get clarification on that. I think regardless, you know, um, the significance is more than warranted here. Um, but Jess, any comments on this one?
[Jenny Graham]: I don't have anything substantive to add. I agree with the other commissioners and have the same question about the national significance piece, so yeah, thanks. Okay, thanks.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it's not included on that Sagamore Ave form, so I'll have to, maybe John was thinking, yes, we haven't done inventory for this little neighborhood, so maybe he was thinking about doing it and just didn't get around to it yet.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, we'll clarify. I mean, obviously, before the form goes to the state database, we'll make sure that if that it was checked in error, or if it is accurate, and we'll have them put the criteria in on the last page.
[Unidentified]: Right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, all right. So we have a motion on the table to find for significance for 28 Grove Street that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote from the commissioners as I see folks on my screen. Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. Okay, so the motion passes six zero. So the building is significant. We will have a preferably preserved hearing next month. So for the property owner, we will send you a legal notice that you will need to post a sign on front of the property and we have to post the legal notice in the newspaper as well. We'll need you to bring a check to city hall to cover those costs. I will send you an email with all of the details and your hearing will be on our next meeting on March 13th.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Hi, this is Tasha. I'm the owner of Sungate Grove. Just a quick question. For next month, what should I do to prepare for the hearing?
[Jennifer Keenan]: There's nothing you need to do to prepare. We will be voting whether or not the property goes under an 18-month demo delay, and we will take public comments at that meeting as well. But there's no presentation or anything that you have to do.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Okay, so there's no record review for the renovation schemes?
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, we don't talk about what's going to happen to the property. We evaluate the property as it exists. And then if and when there's a demo delay, then we will discuss ways to mitigate the demolition and to lift the delay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, so the next meeting we'll review the detail for the next step.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Next month will be a preferably preserved hearing, which is the final step in the demo delay process.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you. Okay, next up, we have a significance case for 91 Winchester Street. I will not review the criteria since we just did it. So commissioners, I will take, just to clarify this for the carriage house at 91 Winchester Street. Commissioners, I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[Unidentified]: I'll motion for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan.
[Unidentified]: I'll second for purposes of discussion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. OK, Ryan, you're up.
[Adam Hurtubise]: In reviewing the history of this property, it's kind of interesting to see its association with the adjacent building, and although the adjacent building is no longer there, this one is still standing and it both house and carriage house are kind of maintain the same. look and feel and scale on this pretty generous, what I would say is a pretty generously sized parcel for this neighborhood. In looking at the carriage house itself, It, it maintains its outward appearance it's had some alterations obviously there's a block garage attached to it on the left hand side that staying. But it seems like the building has, you know, maintained its siding and other than the issues noted that with the roof. It seems like it's an okay. okay appearance in terms of how much historic fabric it has. So for that I seem and you know John Clemson and myself constantly mention that these buildings are rare and diminishing simply because they're outbuildings and they often go the way of the wind with development and you know that they are important reminders of a different time. And sooner or later, there's gonna be none of these buildings left. So to maintain them as best as we can is helpful. We'd love to see them rehabilitated, not necessarily reconstructed, but if they can be. But if they can't be, then having something similar, replace it so it maintains that feeling and setting would be a great help. We start here with determining significance and I find it significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Ed, anything to add?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I'm not going to go beyond where Ryan is. Again, I understand the carriage house issues are always with us. I also understand that we will probably be hearing more about what can and cannot be done in the next few weeks.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you, Ed. Kit, anything to add here?
[Kit Collins]: Really nothing that hasn't already been said. I mean, it just strikes me that it is one of a limited number of examples and a diminishing number of examples of these kind of outbuildings.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Kit. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: The building itself is actually one of the better looking carriage houses I've seen in terms of most of them, by the time they get to us, sometimes they are falling down, foundations failing, been unoccupied for decades or longer. This one looks like it's actually in reasonable shape. I know we don't consider it a condition, but it seems like it's a fairly straightforward possible renovation product. Obviously, we'll find out more about it, but I do agree with the previous comments that it seems like it's very, very much intact. It's had some alterations, but the original character and fabric is there. So I'm definitely leaning towards significance. I'm surprised that this, is this, can you remind me if this is a teardown or a renovation?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Can you remind me? Total demolition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Actually, they wanna keep the cinder block part I believe.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And the pad, yeah. Yes, they want to keep it for a patio.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, and put a patio where the carriage house is, which I'd be more in favor of the opposite of that, trying to keep the carriage house and make a patio where the cinder block one is, you know, but.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I completely agree, Peter. We're tearing down the wrong side here.
[Doug Carr]: I mean, when I see something like this, I just screams like automatic in-law apartments, you know, kind of additional housing, which we're desperate to have in the city. But I understand I'm still getting ahead of myself, but I'm gonna definitely lean towards significance on this one. I just don't see another path.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I would also like to point out, you know, it may be a small point, but the fact that this is oriented gable end to face the street is actually extremely unusual. This is probably of, I would say, if there's a hundred or so of these buildings left, I would say 95% of them were constructed the other way where the door is on the long end. And this is, somewhat unusual. And the building's kind of narrow. It's not deep. So it obviously had some sort of unusual use. And I'd be very interested to see the inside at some point just to see what it looks like now to see if it was changed and reoriented at one point. But it's just unusual to see that. And that's usually indicative of more agricultural barns up in northern New Hampshire and Maine.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter, anything to add?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I knew the former owners of this house, so my kids used to play in this yard on occasion, but I guess I have a sentimental attachment to it as well. I don't know if I should recuse myself or not, but it's a charming little, you know, property, you know, and I think The carriage house is a big part of the charm of this. It's almost like a little rural farm in the city. I think it should be preserved because it's a special little place. Unusual for our city, this little arrangement. It's all for me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Jessica, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: Not really great comments from all the other commissioners. I agree that, you know, it seems like it would be a great ADU and it's, you know, a really nice example of a diminishing building type in the city. So just agree with everybody else's comments.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you so much. Okay, we have a vote, excuse me, a motion on the table for 91 Winchester Street, the Carriage House for significance that has been seconded. I will go around and do a roll call vote as people are on my screen. Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: Aye.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica. Yes. Okay, so the motion passes 6-0 for significance at the Carriage House for 91 Winchester Street. So again, for this property, we will have a preferably preserved hearing next month. We'll send an email with all the details and that will take place on March 13th. Okay, next up, we have a chunk of applications to take tonight. Commissioners, I sent around links to all of the applications that I'll just take them here in order. So you should have links to all the materials that are on the Google Drive. So I will start with One Clematis Road.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Motion to accept the demolition application.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. I'll second. Thank you, Kit. OK, motion on the table to accept the demolition application for 1 Clematis Road. Ryan. Yes. Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: As to form, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: and Jessica? Yes. Okay, so the motion passes 6-0. We have accepted the application for 1 Comatus Road. Next month we will hold a significance hearing for this property. And then we'll do all the form Bs at the end of all the applications for whatever we need here to order those. Ryan, can you take lead on the next one?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I'm going to recuse myself from 86 Suffolk Street, since I am listening the house across the street so I'm gonna just duck out for a few minutes here let Ryan take this one and I will be back.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, commissioners we received an application for 86 Suffolk Street, a building which is the owners have submitted because of the amount of renovations that are going to take place. I did start to run this by the subcommittee. two members of the subcommittee feel that this is not, it's not necessary for review. So if the rest of the board feels that we should pass on review because of the, I think the design is pretty sympathetic to the existing house, that we can just pass on the review and they can move forward with this project. Motion. Oh, unless, should we have discussion first, right? Yeah. You can start with a motion to get it on the table if you want. Okay. Motion to Um, bypass the, uh, demolition application and, uh, approve the project or whatever, move them, move ahead.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I think the technical as technically we're just going to say, it's not motion to reject the application only because it's not within jurisdiction.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, I would, I would pass on review. We've used the term pass on review before. So I think that's acceptable just because it is under our jurisdiction. If we, we wanted to, but we're just passing on the review. That's fine with me. Okay. Thank you. Um, so Peter made a motion to pass on review and West second, or is there a second, another second, just so I have it. Okay, Ed seconded. So any further discussion on the matter? Hearing none, I'll move forward with the vote. Yes, we'll pass on review. No, we'll move forward with the application to review. I'll move forward with the people that I see in order. So starting with Kit.
[Kit Collins]: Yes, to pass on review. Okay, Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Jessica? Yes. Doug? Yes. And I vote yes. So five to zero passes on review.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: And I voted yes, I thought.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Yes. Thank you.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Six to zero then? Six to zero. What's five to zero?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, I voted, but yeah, go ahead. That's fine. All right. So the project we'll move forward. We will put together a letter that just says we've passed on review at this point and we'll, is there a permit in the system? I don't think there is at this point. If there's no permit in the system, when you guys go and upload it, what you'll do is when we send you the letter that we have, just upload it with that and we'll automatically approve it when it comes to us. Unless things significantly change, but I'm assuming if you're at this point, you'll be a-okay and move forward. All right, good luck on your project. Thank you so much. Jen, if you're there, you're welcome to come back now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hello.
[Unidentified]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, okay. Thank you Ryan for pitching pinch hitting on that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, okay, so the next.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do you want to do these all together Ryan, so I would like to start with 230 Boston now.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, let's start with 230 Boston Avenue for the demolition application here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'll motion to decline 230 Boston Avenue because it's not in our jurisdiction. It's built in 2002, confirmed by aerial reviews.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Aerial reviews confirming that the structure was not there until 2002? Correct, yeah. In that case, I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan and Ed. And just wanna bring it back real quick. So was there demolition of a building in 2002 or it was just a vacant lot?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it's just the side yard, it was used as parking.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, okay, so it was a new structure built in 2002 on vacant land? Okay, and this is 230 Boston Ave. Okay, motion to reject.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. So what is the precise wording of the motion? That's a motion to reject the application for 230 Boston Ave because it's not in our jurisdiction. It's constructed in 2002. Okay. So it's outside the date.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it doesn't meet the criteria basically.
[Unidentified]: Correct.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's probably a more tactful way to say that. Um, does not meet a definition for review for us for, yeah, for the historical commission. Okay. There is a motion on the table for two 30 Boston Avenue to reject the application for demolition review that has been seconded. Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica? Yes. Okay, so the motion to reject passes 6-0. Okay, so for the other three that go with this kind of overall larger project, we have 67 North Street. There's an application in the folder. I had the applicant do individual applications because they are all individual buildings. So we have an application for 67 North street. We have an application for two, two, two Boston Avenue, and we have an application for two 36 Boston Avenue.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to approve all three. Move to second as the fourth, second as the forum for all three.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan and Ed. I just want to make sure the commissioners all had a chance to look at them since. This is a little bit of outside of the ordinary in terms of how we vote for three at once. Give me a thumbs up if you're good to vote. Okay, I don't wanna rush anybody. Okay, all right, so we have a motion on the table to accept the application for 67 North Street, 222 Boston Avenue and 236 Boston Avenue. Ryan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jessica. Yes. Okay, so those all pass 6-0. Okay. Form Bs. Ryan, we need one for 1 Clematis.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We do not need 86 Suffolk. And do we need any for North or Boston? Nope.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There's an MHC area form.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Okay, so alright so we're satisfied as to that because there was an attachment which I will not comment on further trying to explain the properties.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, there's a fairly detailed MHC inventory form that includes the entirety of the American Woolen Company, includes 200 Boston Ave, these properties. I think there's a one-story taxpayer block and a three-story triple-decker across the street that was once owned by the corporation as well. There's also, I'm going to include it in the Dropbox, just so people can know about it. The American Woolen Company actually started down by, the U-Haul facility, which is actually in Somerville. So there is an inventory form for it. It's a little bit older, but it's in Somerville. So our surveyors didn't do it at the time, but you guys can have it for information.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Was that part of American Wolves?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Yeah. The whole thing. The surveyors just stopped at the town line because the property straddles both Somerville and Medford. But for this application, this is all in the Medford. Yeah.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: industrial archeology was something I had some interest in. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So just to clarify, the applicant hired a private consultant to provide information on the buildings and determine significance. I asked him to remove that piece of paper from his application that we did not need it. He insisted on leaving it in. There it is. Regardless, we will discuss these properties next month. Thank you, everybody, for that. Go ahead, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we need to vote on the... Oh, yes, sorry, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: The Form B, ordering a Form B for 1 Clematis Road. Can I have a motion on that? So moved. Thank you, Ryan. Is there a second?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, motion to spend $500 to order a Form B for 1 Clematis Road. Ryan? Yes. Ed?
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica? Yes. Thank you, thank you so much.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Are those still going at 500, Ryan? Yeah. Yes.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Okay. No supply chain problem yet.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, did we get a commitment for 500 to the end of time?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, well, it's paying more than the state pays. The state pays like a quarter of that inventory form. So I think the consultants are more than happy to keep taking it. Not that we're overcharging. Believe me, we're not overcharging for the work that they're doing.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: All right, let's lock it into 2030. OK. 75 years. Let's not be conservative. You can't demolish for 75 years, can you? So if you can demolish it, you can raise it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: RAISE. Before we go and talk about the annual report, I just wanted to mention the item that didn't make it to the agenda, which was the site plan review for the Raising Cane's restaurant. I sent it around to everybody. It's really not in our purview because again, it's being built on a vacant lot, but I didn't want to speak for the commission. and tell them we had no comments in case anybody wanted to comment. So I'm just kind of opening the floor for discussion. If anybody has anything or concerns that we want to send as a board back to planning and development, we can. Otherwise, certainly if anybody wants to comment individually and as a Medford resident, you can. But just wanted to put that out there for discussion.
[Unidentified]: I saw Peter's note and I concur.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I agree. Okay, great. Yeah, I would kind of was in the same boat. Like we commented a lot of things and if there's nothing being torn down and it's being built, I think we're good.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: And it has given us location, no effect on anything else we would care about. I mean, the cold storage building, Apart from its own merits, again, there are a couple of things you at least I thought you should ask questions about some.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, agreed. I just know that everyone's excited that this is coming to town so not the vegans my household. I have never tried their food, so we'll see. I look forward to it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Someone approached me with that question. They were like, I have something really good to tell you. Are you a vegan? That was how they phrased it before they went at it. And I was like, nope.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. I will let Amanda know that we are going to pass on comments then for that. Thank you, everybody. OK. Doug circulated the annual report, a draft version. Um, everybody, I don't think, no, sorry. Oh, that was my bad. I'm sorry. No, no, it's okay.
[Doug Carr]: I wanted you guys to take a first pass at it. Cause I, it was pretty rough beyond the, um, you know, the form B stuff and the summary of the, uh, demo delay, I think was pretty clear, but there was a lot of stuff there that was definitely a first draft material. I thought maybe you and Ryan. take a pass at it first clean up a little bit because it deals more with the budget side of things and things that I don't really have a lot of information about and then I think we send it out to everyone, you know, tomorrow, and then resolve it by the next meeting or in between meetings as possible.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Doug I thought your breakdown of permits was really helpful so.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, just so everyone knows, we, you know, what Ryan gave me some context here, there's over 2,000 permits the city pulls together every year. We look at about 200 just to see if there's a, as a sniff test, no serious review, and only about 25 get really demo delay. So there's, you know, and of that, you know, we're talking about what, eight or nine or 10 at most that actually put preservation restriction, I'm sorry, actual significance in roughly preserved. So it's, we're talking about like 0.3% of properties in Medford that get a permit actually get either halted or really seriously reviewed at a point where we're looking at design or mitigation. So when the city council or the mayor asks these kinds of questions, it's good to have that context that we're really not touching 99 plus percent of products that are going on in Medford.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: which for a town this old is, I think, anything low.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, there's, there's realistically only, uh, I think less than 2000 pre 1900 buildings in a city of about 18,000 housing units, give or take not. And that's pre like all this mega construction and all these big developments. So, um, you know, it's a small, we're reviewing a small fraction of those and even the buildings up until the thirties, those aren't usually coming down. Those are being rehabilitated. So.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. So I, I think the, um, I mean, you'll see it when it's distributed next couple of days, but I want this document to serve as a kind of summary for what we did, but also kind of to the layperson and to the city council and mayor to kind of, it's a political document, you know, what we're doing, why we're doing it, and how we're trying to work with the city to help, you know, defend things here, but be reasonable. And I think our record proves that.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: It's advocacy, and I think we shouldn't be ashamed of being advocacy. Agreed.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, and I know, I think it was one or two years ago now that, you know, we got called to the carpet. It's for city council on something. And we were like, they were asking all these questions. It's like, it's in our annual report, which is on our website. So I don't know that any other boards are doing annual reports. I don't know if they're supposed to be or what, but
[Adam Hurtubise]: point of clarification. Yes, thank you Ryan. There's a motion on city council table to resume doing annual reports for the city of Medford. So, I think that that would be a great thing to, you know, if it was done annually December to December like it used to be that sets the stage to report what all these departments are doing then leads into the discussion of what do we need for budget next year and yet we should not be the only ones to do it every board and commission should be doing it so everybody knows what's going on most importantly the administration and city council but you know definitely for the general public as well. would suggest that we... Does CPC do an annual report every year? You must.
[Doug Carr]: They do. Yeah, they do. But I think that to your point, let's just send this to the city council when it's ready. The mayor, let's just not put it on our website.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, we send it to the mayor every year.
[Unidentified]: The councilors too?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Must be in the binders. Not normally, but we can. I think we should.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, we post it. It means available for anybody to grab.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it is.
[Kit Collins]: But yeah, I mean- And it's easier to get, it's easier to look at something that's already in your inbox.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, they won't find it.
[Unidentified]: Such an optimist.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, great. Yes, well, Ryan and I will look at that. We'll take a pass at it. We'll circulate it. And then hopefully be wrapped up by next month at the latest. Thank you, Doug, for spearheading that. Does anybody have any anybody else have any new business for tonight? If not, we will move on to old business. Okay. Moving on properties currently under demo delay. We did meet with 31 South Street after our last meeting. We have not heard back from them. So I think they were reworking their design a little bit. So we'll wait to hear from them on that. And have not heard anything on 33 Third Street. Doug or Peter, you haven't heard from anyone on Nelson's team about South?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, I was, I was curious if, if anybody had, I haven't.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Yeah. I know they have a few projects going on, I think, so they might have been tied up on something else. Okay, permits and subcommittees. The permits have dwindled significantly. So I'm going to check in with the building department to see if they're really that little coming into the building department or if they're not for some reason not getting assigned to us anymore.
[Adam Hurtubise]: um we're averaging one or two a week they're definitely approving them because i have seen i went in to check on a building that i saw under construction um folks should be aware um that there's a building on that we approved on emerson street that um that's the one doug that john anderson emailed us about i think it was 88 there's nothing left of the building they have completely reconstructed it They got a reconstructed to make it look like the building, but they basically said oh everything was rotten so they took it down. So, I'm a little bit perturbed that that didn't get run by us but I'm not going to stop the project because they're already going.
[Doug Carr]: So, right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, we approve we have Jen and I approved that project because there was no external changes. But, you know, the there was no documentation that suggested a roofline change or anything like that, that they were working within the bounds, there was limited demolition. And now with the picture that was sent to us by Will Tenney, there is no building left. So it basically left the foundation and rebuilt the entire building from the ground up. You can't tell what's there on the first floor, but I don't think that there's anything there.
[Doug Carr]: Is there any way to get documentation of how they got that approved from no demo to a tear down?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Let me see if while we're discussing this, I can go into CitizenServe and see if there was any discussion of it.
[Doug Carr]: And Ryan, while you're doing that, just thinking ahead for next year's annual report, is there any way to extract information for, you know, like some of these CA soft, the softwares you're using now to know exactly what we did, how many times we did, looked at something, touched it, reviewed it, approved it?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Jen, there must be a way to, we can run reports that tell us how many permits have been created. I don't know how, we must be able to generate an activity log for our stuff.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, but here's the thing, here's the thing, Doug. So sometimes things come to us before there's a, they've applied for a permit. Okay. Right. And then when the, and then, so say they go through their process, then they apply for their permit and we just approve it. So that's gonna come on the report as like, oh, that was a report that came in and we just approved it, right? Not that it was flagged, not that it was held for whatever reason. And then you have the opposite where you have folks apply, it triggers them kind of getting rerouted to us because we flag it. And then, you know, it goes through the process there. And then sometimes what happens is that, so say like they apply and then they go through the process. And like, let's just say where we work with them, they go through demo, preferably preserved. And then say we work with them for three months and then it gets lifted. Well, at that point, they might have to apply for a new permit because the other one's expired or it's changed. So then the existing permit, gets deleted or never gets approved, right? Just kind of hangs out there. And then a new one comes in and it will just get approved immediately. They don't really necessarily tie back to each other. So the system isn't perfect in that sense in being able to, and I still think, and I think they're still bringing other departments on board because some permits get routed to everybody and their brother. And some are just very simple and they go to us in the building department and that's it.
[Doug Carr]: HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator, Staff Policy Center.: : Okay well i'm not going to create work for anyone if you don't think there's any useful metrics if we just do how many permits men for did per year and how many we actually looked at roughly. HAB-Jacques Juilland, Moderator, Staff Policy Center.: : Like we said about 10% is what we thought we did this year, based on ryan's assessment. I think that tells a story, that's all we're looking for.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Definitely. I think we can probably kind of run, we can at least pull the number of permits we can, I think we can get some rough data from that, whether it's perfect. I think if we just correlate with what we know we did manually, I think kind of looking at both of those sets of numbers will tell a story.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Question. You know the list that you sometimes have me help with the permits, right? So the list that we see, of address, address, address, that becomes the workload of the ones we screen. Are those all the permits or are those permits have already been pre-screened to go to us by the commissioner or something?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think there, I think somebody manually has to assign them to us, which is really not what we talked with commissioner Moki about. And, you know, we had said, just, just send, like, put it automatically, like flat, just send it to us. Like anything building, we don't need gas, we don't need electrical, you know, but anything building. Cause it's just easy for us to bang out, like approved, approved, approved, you know, And so I don't know what's happening now in the sense of like, was there a staffing change at the building department? And they don't know, you know, I'm not sure what commissioner Forte has talked to the team about, you know, I don't know if he knows any historical or has any knowledge of the conversations that we had with commissioner Moki.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, um, that's what I was wondering with the new commissioner, like if, well, quote unquote new commissioner, if, if he was just being more selective or somehow something was falling through the cracks or something.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'll touch base with him because it could just be that, you know, information didn't get relayed to him from Commissioner Moki during the transit. And I know there was a gap there, obviously. They didn't overlap. So, you know, I'll reach out to him and we'll get that. Because I can't imagine the permits have dwindled. I know they're down, but they can't be that much. They can't be down that much. Okay, well, we'll figure that out.
[Kit Collins]: Can I ask a question about 2527 Emerson Street? When the commission looked at that property, it was sort of before my time on the commission, but it's clearly a vastly different building than what it was. And in those cases, what happens? I mean, what was the determination on them or on 25 Emerson Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: If anybody remembers, was the subcommittee looked at it and they were doing just a general rehab and the exterior of the building was basically remaining intact.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. And it's, it's gotta look similar, but you know, they, um, they've asked the historical society for a historic plaque. And I basically relayed that there's no history there anymore. They want a plaque that will say 2023, cause that's what the building is. You know, that's, uh, that's, that's what they did. You know, they took out all the history. So are they, are they sort of recreating it or we don't, that's obviously the plan now. I mean, you know, I'm okay with that because they're recreating it, but, you know, also, you know, a heads up saying, you know, this building's got to change would have been nice. And we probably would have said, yeah, that's great. You know, thanks for letting us know. But also, you know, we could be like, you know, we could hold them up and make them go through the process and, you know, do what we did with every other building and say, you know, you know, hold up, you know, don't do this. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. For example, Kit, if somebody just applies for a permit and bypasses us altogether, it's supposed to be a two-year stay of permits on that property, zero permits for two years. Even when we had some pretty egregious cases, the building department just didn't enforce that rule. So again, we have a new commissioner. I don't know what his take is on things.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it was a little bit mad that Moki wouldn't enforce the halt of permits for Logan Ave, the carriage house that went down, because they blatantly lied on their application saying it was a concrete block garage when it was actually a whole carriage house. And then again, when that second building came up and basically was condemned because of the development that was going in there, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, there was that one that was the house on Prescott Street, the garage.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That one too, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And then 22 West. Yeah. So we had three pretty significant cases that just didn't.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. And we should, you know, we should make it known that, you know, gut rehabs should be coming to us for review. It doesn't matter the, you know, it doesn't matter if it's interior only, you know, work, you know, that still needs to be run by us. You know, then they have our sign off on file. that's what developers were doing. They were changing it to, oh, this is every wall is still standing, but we're changing it up and leaving nothing but the studs and the sheeting. And that's not how the administration wanted it administered. So that's what we've been doing. And we'll keep doing it.
[Kit Collins]: Well, it is pretty disheartening to see. I mean, it's just the, the, I don't know if the rest of the commissioners have seen it, but John Anderson sent a photo of what's happening at 25 Emerson street now. And it, I mean, aside from the fact that it's now a three story building, as opposed to a two story building, it looks like it's, it doesn't, I mean, it has a mansard roof, but other than that, it doesn't look a whole lot like what was there. Hmm.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No. Yeah. Well, I think, you know, moving forward, we'll just have to, I think, be a little bit more discerning on some of these. And, you know, maybe in hindsight, that one should have come before the commission for review.
[Kit Collins]: And you can only, I mean, you can only assume that what the information that you're given is what's actually gonna happen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, and the challenge is like, you know, they upload plans and then they change them and then there's no, no one's, you know, no one's looking out for that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it's a shame too, because this building, it is documented with an MHC inventory form, so we do know what it looks like. It's a shame because for its early date, 1889 to 1890, there's a possible architect, William B. Thomas or Frederick D. H. Thomas, and that's, again, early architects are unusual, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, well, we will have more discussions on this. And I will keep you all informed once I talk to the building commissioner. Okay, CPA projects, Thomas Brooks Park. We sent an email last week out to the neighbors and we posted on our website and on social. The work there is starting. We've been blessed with good weather. And so the contractor is starting some of the tree work there, which is the pre-work. needed in order to access the both the field stone wall and pumps wall so that the contractors can get in there and work on the wall. So Ryan was great enough last week to walk the site one more time with Aggie, our tree warden and the contractor. They tagged all the trees that are going to come out so that the historical trees will be highlighted. not getting choked out by the scrubs and invasives. And they started today doing some of that work and they are, I think, working by diameter of the trees because there's lots of stacks of small trees all kind of taken down. I think they're going to work and make bundles of trees to be discarded, so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, I just have a question for Doug and CPC. Maybe this has to go before the board Abby's projects that she had approved at Oak Grove never took place, but it was, there was money allocated for, uh, tree replanting. And I wonder if maybe we can redirect that funding. Um, if it didn't just go back into the general pot, um, maybe we can redirect that funding to replant some of the. Oak trees that are going to be taken down as part of this project.
[Doug Carr]: I think it's a good idea, but I don't think the process is that clean because once the approval was given for a project, if they don't end up spending it for whatever reason, it does. It's not really transferable because the city council has to approve it. The mayor has to approve it. And the CPC, there's so many layers that I think legally that would be a stretch.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, so, so because we haven't, I don't think we've actually formally given it back, but I don't know. If the, the, um, M memorandum of agreement has a performance period. Um, but if it does, then we could, we could look into that. I think we should maybe formally give it back so that that opens that up and that we revisit that project or a project there. And, um, you know, perhaps move forward with a more work at Thomas Brooks park in the future.
[Doug Carr]: I think it's worth doing that exact approach because I wouldn't be proactive in saying. we'd like to give this back and direct them towards trying to redistribute it. Because there's monies, it's not a lot of money, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: How much did we talk? I don't remember actually, because it's been three, four years possibly, but I will find out right now.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, but if it's a small grant, it could be off a different calendar. Right now, we're actually in the final, approval stage for the round that just ended last fall. But there are some off-cycle reviews, and that could be one of them.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's a lot of money. It's $16,000. Would that help you this year with your funding?
[Doug Carr]: Every little bit helps, honestly, because there's always money flowing back and forth. One of the Brooks Estate products we ended up not doing because Once we got into the road redesign, we realized that the parking lot and other things we were doing would be wiped out. We just wouldn't make any sense logistically to do it. So we gave that back. We said, please take it back. Will we consider it a future date? This could be a similar situation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Um, yeah, I just, I, we're focused on the park right now and, and this, this project's not, you know, the trees Medford did the survey there and there was other stuff going on. So I think we probably should just safely give it back and then, you know, re-approach that project if we do it in the future.
[Unidentified]: I think so.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. So, uh, I would make a motion to, uh, give back the, uh, $16,000 to the CPC and, uh, write a letter to that effect to Roberta Cameron.
[Unidentified]: I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Motion on the table, um, to refund the money back to CPC for the tree work project. Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jess. Yes. Okay. The motion packs is six zero 16,000. You said Ryan.
[Unidentified]: more letter on the pile.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Okay, yeah, one more letter. All right, great. Um, so yeah, so the tree work is ongoing there and The contractor had originally said that they were going to start the wall work second half of March. So we'll see how the forecast goes and perhaps they'll get started earlier if we continue to have spring in February. So we'll see how that goes. Ryan, any update on the survey projects?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, we have multiple updates. So I got phase. So, financial stuff seems to have straightened itself out. We have phase three A and three B inventory forms for the current brickyards project. Winter Hill is done that we received our reimbursement for that. And the city had a problem with funding for Fulton Heights, and they took it out of the community development budget, and we're moving that contract forward. The only thing I have to do which I'm doing on Wednesday is working with the consultant to re-establish deliverable dates given the long delay. The project was supposed to start in September, here it is in February. We have to move the dates forward so it's clear as to what she's signing as a contract, and then they can start work as soon as that's done. We hope to wrap up brickyards within the next month or so, depending on how reviews of the inventory forms go.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Awesome.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And we're going to take a break.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, yes. Yeah. So because of the mishap with all the financial funding going back and forth, yes, we desperately need a break because there's been issues with projects. So we're taking a sabbatical from this for a little while so that things can catch up.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. So that'll be good. We'll catch up on everything. We can do another batch of filing at the library and we'll be all caught up by the time we apply for our new one next year.
[Unidentified]: New business master.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. What will be the new one? Bolton Heights is the next. Okay. Bolton Heights. Yeah. That gets pushed off. until the next- Not pushed off, but we're starting it now. It was supposed to start back in September.
[Unidentified]: Oh, well, I'm confused.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So there were three projects simultaneously happening. We're trying to close out Winter Hill. So I put everything else on hold because of the issues with that. John was owed money for that because the city never paid it because there were financial issues. We got that one closed. The active project right now is Brick Yards. we receive three A and three B inventory forms. So covering a huge amount of buildings, nearly 150 buildings. And we're just reviewing for comments. And once we get those back to them and MHC, the state level gets their comments back, that project can close out. The upcoming project is Fulton Heights, which is the last of the neighborhoods that we need to survey. And that one, we ran into an issue where because the city hit COVID and delays our funding evaporates at the end of the fiscal year, we ran into an issue where they didn't have any money for that project. So because project funding does not simply roll forward like it had been doing in the past. So because of that, we had to, they had to come up with an $18,000 match. So they have come up with that $18,000 match. So we should be able to move forward starting tomorrow with the accounting portion of it and Wednesday by the dates. And with any luck, I'll have a signed contract by the end of the week. Okay, so then what's going on sabbatical? So the next survey and planning grant we were invited to do for 2023-24 season upcoming next year, and Jess and I chose not to move forward with it because even though we were invited back It's just been a titanic amount of effort in order to move anything along. It's not the consultants. It's been problems with the city and the administration not answering questions. So specifically, I'm just going to call them out, specifically the finance department. Everybody else has been helpful. The finance department's been the problem here. So. OK, so that would be like East-West Medford or something? Yeah, that's the one that we were talking about, yes. OK. We put it off, we'll do it another year.
[Jenny Graham]: And I imagine we'll be working on Fulton Heights past the end of this fiscal year, right? So, you know, it won't be that long of a sabbatical actually.
[Jennifer Keenan]: What month do we have to apply?
[Adam Hurtubise]: We get a notice in November for the short app and then we have approval letters to invite it back for long app in December and then they are due first week in February, I think.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we'll apply in November and get awarded the spring of 2024 for work to start July 1, which is the FY 2025 calendar.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, and it's their fiscal year is off. So it seems like we're, it seems like they're lagging behind or we're lagging behind, but it's, it's weird. It's weird. They use, they use a different date than we do. So I don't know what's up with that, but it confuses. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Well, thank you again for everybody for your continued work on that. It'll be nice when it's. The last one contracted is underway and then we can be like, okay, caught up and everything's back on schedule. Okay, does anybody have anything else before we go to meeting minutes? And Peter circulated the meeting minutes.
[Kit Collins]: Just to go backwards a little bit to Thomas Brooks Park. Yes. And to follow up on the conversation about the plaque. Oh, yes. I reached out to the Historical Society and they're very open to a new plaque with, as a matter of fact, they had some concerns about whether the information that's on the existing plaque is actually accurate. It's not.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know whose bright idea it was, but I completely agree with everything that was said in that email, which was that some people believe that the African-Americans in West Medford came from the royal estate, and it's not true. They may have been descendants from slaves, but they definitely come down from Canada and portions of Canada as immigrants with the large waves of immigrants that were coming to Medford at that time.
[Kit Collins]: So the Historical Society, it sounds like, is very open to moving the plaque, a new plaque, a new name for the wall, but wanted it to be a community effort. and with accurate information on the plaque.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There are, I think, I think it's important to, you know, the wall itself is a great memorial to Pomp, but in doing research for this, there's actually Pomp, he never married so far as I could see, but there was another woman that was there with him. Thomas Brooks himself also had a family there he had a second family of slaves that married. that married into a family in Arlington Heights. And they had several children and you can follow kind of their lineage. And they too, it seems like because of their location that they were both living on the estate at one time. So there's more people than just pomp in indentured at that particular site. So I wanna make sure any sort of memorial to the slaves there also includes them.
[Doug Carr]: If I could just add in here, I think what we're talking about is much more than a plaque, it's a sign. It's a sign independent of the wall, because the plaque is only, what, 12 by 14 inches? You can only get so much on there. We need much more context. The type of sign that you see, you know, that, Ryan, that you helped design in Method Square, you know, at the new park there, right near the Salish material ground. It tells the whole history of the, area, and the rump, and the square, and all. You need that level of detail. So the plaque has just got to go the way, you know, it's just, its time has come and gone. I did present this idea to the Medford, the Mystic Valley branch of the NAACP, of which I'm a member, and two or three people raised their hands, they want to be part of that conversation. when it occurs. Honestly, the Executive Director of the Royal House is another key person on here. I don't know if anyone's contacted the West Medford Community Center, but there's an obvious one there. Neil Osborne, you know, others, and anyone else, any citizens of Medford who want to participate. We need to have a really large cross-section of people to talk about the wall, the park, and the appropriate names. Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I also want to bring up an important thing that came up during the archaeological dig. It is very important that we acknowledge the Native Americans that were here, living right there. And I think that that is just as important as the slaves that lived on that site. So I think working with, perhaps if I can loop in Sue Anna Crowley again, to have her connect us with the tribes, because they To be perfectly honest, there were some people that were a little bit upset that we used the name Missy Tuck for the new elementary school. So perhaps to heal that a little bit, we should start this dialogue too about acknowledging the Native Americans there and including them in this particular site and then, you know, go from there. Ryan, what kind of artifacts were discovered about Native Americans? So there, without getting into details, so there were no nothing big. So to say from the treasure hunters, a lot of chipping debris. So the the there were fragments that range from like little tiny like pinhole size fragments up to maybe like this big that were the chipping debris for points and artifacts and things like that. The big stuff the historical society has because the land was actively farmed so like bowls and stuff like that that had all been harvested because it's active farmland. The coolest thing was there were six shards of Probably six to 10,000 year old clay pottery that came out of that particular site. So, and it's sitting right on top of the, there's a very rich glacial till soil that's like, like beach sand that you would see in the Bahamas, it was beautiful. And, and then right on top of that is the earthy layer that was deposited by all the, the stuff that followed in its wake and it was right there in the top and I, you know, I got to hold it in the hands and I was looking at it with the archaeologist and I was like, this looks like chimney parging and she goes no it's it's actually much cooler than that it's native pottery. So, yeah, so that's, you know, and I. amazing to see what came out of the ground. So there definitely was a campsite near there. Of course, we know the natives are buried there. So, you know, nearby, just down the street, so to speak. But, you know, it's important to acknowledge that that was their land first. And maybe I can see some interpretive panels throughout the park that says, you know, if you start at one end of the park, it's mystic native land, and then it goes into the Brooks family a little bit, they get acknowledged, then the slaves that are there, and then maybe even a discussion of, towards the end I envision some sort of discussion of the balance between, that people made between freedom, but perhaps not free, right? So even though the slaves were granted their freedom, they still struggled. I know personally from researching Pomp that he did attain his freedom, went to work for the Governor Bellingham Carey family, but he was back and forth still between Medford, and then he disappears from the record. He was probably a man of about age 70, but you know there's no stone for him, the only memorial to him, wherever he was buried is this wall. So he and others are, it's important to remember them, so.
[Doug Carr]: Okay, so just remind me, because I lost track of the origin of this conversation. I think we have a community meeting about discussing
[Adam Hurtubise]: So there's two discussions. So first is simply renaming the wall that I think is instead of calling it the slave wall or the old slave wall, we simply rename it Pomp's Wall and have that discussion. Then there's the further discussion of when we start to talk about flax and historical research, what do we want it to say in the park? What do we want the park to convey to the general public? So that's the Native American, including Natives and including the NAACP and all of those organizations. And then from there, I think we can have a discussion about renaming the park. I'm kind of torn because I feel like the park is actually named, it was named Gorham Brooks Park for the trees, mainly in his association there. He didn't really have as much association with slavery as Thomas Brooks did, but I actually think that Thomas Brooks that's referenced here is actually Thomas Brooks that was first to live on the site, not necessarily the slaveholder that's there. So I'm torn, but that's just my opinion. If other people feel that we should rename the park to something else, like, you know, maybe, you know, memorial, you know, calling it a memorial park or something like that. I'm, I'm game to have that discussion. You know, it shouldn't just work because of one person, you know, it's a, it's community landmark.
[Doug Carr]: Okay. Is there a record? What do you think the time frame is for this conversation and who's actually organizing?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is it us? I think we should be the leaders of that. But I think I think we should start by saying, here's the history of it. And, you know, where does it lead? You know, if somebody else wants to take the lead on it, that's that's certainly fine. I just want to be the initiators and say that said. You know, with the work that's going on in the park. I mean, I see this being at least a year long process is not something we have to rush, we can start off by broaching the idea because you know some people. If you give people time to digest an idea, it's more likely to be successful. So, you know, if we put the idea out there and let people think about it and really think about whether it works or not, then I think it has a large chance for success. So maybe we have our first meeting within the next six months. Well, once these projects gain traction and stuff starts to wrap up, then we can focus on those discussions.
[Kit Collins]: I mean, to whom are we reaching out? I mean, is this, we're convening?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I think there's three organizations. So I think the Historical Society would be one partner. I think Doug has, you know, his contacts that he reached out to. We can include the Royal House Association. We can include the Native tribes and say, you know, what do we do to acknowledge that and leave it at us. So there's five organizations really that are there that take it. I couldn't imagine, that might be too many. Is it too many, or is it?
[Doug Carr]: No, it can't be too many. But City of Medford, at least a couple of people from the City of Medford need to be part of this discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, yeah. Well, isn't, yeah, I seemed to, I looked up afterwards some of the people and they were familiar names. I've heard Jennifer Yanko before. That was a name that somebody that I had worked with years ago, so.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, she volunteered for the NAACP as did a few other people, including the new president, and Ed LeCon, I believe, also. There's some people there with some long history and some really thoughtful people there that will be part of this discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. And of course, the neighborhood should know about it, should know that it's happening, all the neighborhoods, not just the immediate close to the neighborhood, but all of West Medford, all of Medford.
[Doug Carr]: This feels like you said, we need or five, six months to pull together a history, a presentation, the issues, you know, there's like several hours of discussion here before we even start talking about the changes, just to kind of lay the groundwork.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I've been researching the history. The history could just be an hour-long presentation all by itself. And maybe that's what kickstarts the dialogue, is that we have just a whole thing about letting the neighbors be interested and then just say, hey, next meeting, we're going to have this conversation. And so people are prepped.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It might behoove us to think about it as a couple of series of meetings, because A, we still have to present the findings from the dig. So maybe that's like meeting number one. And then the end of that meeting is like, oh, the next meeting is going to be about, you know, perhaps renaming the wall, bringing more of this history that Because here's some tangible pieces we found that ties these two subjects together. Now we need to bring in the experts, right? And then what exactly happened here? And then part three is, OK, now we have all this information. What's the best way to share that with everybody moving forward? An interpretive panel? A renaming? Other markers within the park? Oh, and by the way, this all potentially ties up to Brooks Estate as well.
[Unidentified]: Really simple.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: No big deal. It does sound like the right sequence, though. I mean, you know, we can we can sort of bring up, gee, there's an opportunity to rename the wall and potentially rename the park and to get some educational materials out there. But if nobody knows, I mean, that seems to me the first step. The research that you've been doing, Ryan, seems really critical here. And the presentation of what was actually found during the dig.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And we had so many people stop by during the dig, right? And that were there and volunteers that helped us. And so you know, with now that kind of the next phase of that work happening this year, which is so visible because now that the trees are being cleared and you know, the work is going to be happening, anybody that drives by there and the folks that live across the street are gonna be like, what's happening over here? So it almost makes sense to be like, okay, now we can start sharing some of this information and let's have a good discussion about it.
[Unidentified]: Sounds like a plan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So with that being said, Ryan, we're still waiting for the final report from PAL.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I would expect it probably March, April for a presentation around May. That's what we're shooting for May is the presentation for preservation month to give them plenty of time.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, so with that being said, why don't we maybe sketch out from there, like, okay, if the presentation is going to be May, then maybe the next meeting with some of these other stakeholders and the history presentation, you know, is it too quick to have that happen in June? Or do we wait till September, like get through the summer?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think, yeah, part of the part of the open debate there will be what happens to the, you know, so we can have that conversation but also that some of that conversation may drive like what do we apply for next with the CPC funding. So like if the drive is going to be changed the name. rebrand the park, we should have in our budget plans for new signage, new interpretive panels, and, you know, more tree, I wouldn't say thinning is not the right word, more tree restoration, so to speak, so that we can have like core historic, historic landscape restoration is the word there, so that we can start to plant appropriate trees for that site.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug, when is the next cycle due? September, I think it's September. Those initial kind of like one page jumping onto it.
[Doug Carr]: Let me double check. It's definitely the fall.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I just don't remember if there's an earlier version for the... Yeah, I was just going to ask you, I mean, if we could submit those anytime just ahead of time to save you guys the... Oh yeah, I wouldn't wait.
[Doug Carr]: I would submit it as soon as it's ready.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, Jen, we could get together a one-page summary sheet and basically submit it to, I was going to say Danielle, but Danielle's not going to be the point person there forever, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, we should, yeah, let's go back and look at the master plan and be like, okay, now that we know that these other things are going to be happening, what's the next phase look like? You know, cause I know we had talked about maybe like some other things before we did the signage and whatnot. But maybe we change the order around, which is fine.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. The fact that the wall openings are changing, and there's going to need to be some path work. But because the wall openings are becoming their final locations here, that's, I think, going to be important. People are going to resist, especially up at that far end.
[Jennifer Keenan]: They're already tied off. Oh, are they? Okay. They tied them off with caution tape, I think, to prevent, not that you couldn't drive through it, but to, you know, to kind of send the message, like, don't drive through here. I think also to protect their equipment.
[Unidentified]: Right, right, right.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But, but I think, I mean, crosswalks are going to be high up on the next list.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So anyway, we can talk about that offline.
[Unidentified]: Cool.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we'll continue that discussion there. Does that help you, Kit, in terms of? Yeah, that does help me. Okay, okay. Okay, does anybody have anything else? Otherwise, we can go to approving the meeting minutes that Peter circulated. When someone's ready, I'll take a motion.
[Unidentified]: Motion to approve the January meeting minutes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jess.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Doug. Okay, motion to approve the minutes from January, 2023. Ryan. Yes. Ed. Yes. Kit. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Jess. All right. Thanks, everybody. If there's nothing else. Yeah, go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we want to have a couple of meeting dates that we're meeting in person?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I was gonna say is through March. So it's through March. So I know for March. We can stay on Zoom. I was going to touch base with Alicia to see if the state has come down with anything new yet. My guess is no, but they're going to have to because at the end of March, it expires as of right now, from what I understand.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Does the city have any laptops or anything like that? Because if they do, I mean, we can just put the laptop there and with a good webcam, just plunk ourselves in front of it. have a hybrid style meeting.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I don't know. Would that require, yeah, is that going to require action by the state as well?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, Dennis is messaging me that he has nothing from the state as of yet. I think we're just going to have to wait a little bit to see what, if the governor comes out with any directive and then, you know, is the directive, oh, the cities and towns can make their own calls. And then we have to check with mayor Lungo-Koehn. So it's definitely out here in my head. So I think kind of, again, I mean, it could be like you're back at City Hall starting April, no ifs, ands, or buts, and that's that, I don't know.
[Doug Carr]: But the city is not set up for a hybrid meeting in any of those rooms that I'm aware of.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean you can do it with a simple, I mean we do it in my organizations with just a laptop and the webcam and I just put the webcam looking down the table and you know it's a good quality so it picks up on everybody's sound.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But again, we just don't have the bandwidth to monitor the room, monitor the chat, monitor our email. You almost need a director. And we don't have those, what are they, the owl cameras or whatever they are? So it's not up to us to solve the city's hybrid meeting.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Without one of those, I can tell you, I was at what was a hearing where five members of the body were in the conference room. Traditionally, four or five were remote. Everybody, all the participants, all the people speaking were remote. From the point of view of somebody who was stuck on Microsoft Teams, not knowing who was speaking on behalf of the body. you know, what, you know, was a problem. You need to have a room set up. So at least speaking, people expect the Hollywood squares or however you choose to call it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I think the other challenge for us is, you know, theoretically, you know, you use council chambers, but we meet the same night as school committee and many months, the nights overlap. So that, you know, that obviously their meeting would take precedent. So, you know, that's the challenge, I think, where we meet on Mondays. You know, if we met on Wednesdays or Thursdays when perhaps those spaces are more available, it would be less of an issue. So I will reach out to Alicia and I'll keep you guys posted. Okay, does anybody have anything else?
[Unidentified]: Motion to adjourn.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, motion to adjourn.
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Okay, motion to adjourn 826. Ryan. Yes. Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, dinner time.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Yes, I'm disappointed that Ryan's cat didn't make an appearance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, he's here. He's here. Hey, I've been throwing him off. He's here. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Yes. He was on pregame. You guys missed it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Yeah, he was definitely here. Right. Good night, everybody. Thank you. Bye.
|
total time: 3.13 minutes total words: 289 |
total time: 0.61 minutes total words: 63 |
||