[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, call the meeting to order. It is 705. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, December 18. We have a full agenda for this evening. And Peter just for the minutes, Doug Carr and Ed Weiss are not here tonight. Doug might be late. So we'll make a note if he joins in late. Okay, just to get some housekeeping underway, pursuant to the Chapter 20 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 this public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Okay, so up first tonight we have a preferably preserved hearing for the property at 56 Wareham Street. I know there's a bunch of people here on this meeting. So what I'll do is go through how this hearing is going to proceed and then if folks wish to say or make comments, you can do so. But 56 Wareham Street has, we received an application for the full demolition of this property at our last meeting. And the property was found to be historically significant. And just a reminder of what that means. It means that 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 association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in a group of buildings. So last month we had a significance hearing and 56 Wareham was found to be significant. So tonight we will determine if the property is to be preferably preserved. And what that means is 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 here that the Historical 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 in the city can determine something to be raised with regards to safety issues. So we will I'm going to take a motion from the commissioners. kind of debate and speak their piece with regards to that. At that point, I will open up the comments, the public comments, and anybody that chooses to say anything, please raise your hand or make yourself known. I will need you to state your name and address for the record. Then I will close the public comments. The commissioners will have one final time to debate, and then a vote will be taken. So commissioners if somebody could give me a motion one way or the other with regards to 56 where ham Street, you will get the process started.
[Unidentified]: Yes, I make a motion to fight 56 where ham Street preferably preserved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you Ryan is there a second second okay, thank you can. Okay Ryan, I'm going to start with you since you made the motion if you'd like to start the discussion.
[Unidentified]: Sure, I posted the MHC area form for Wareham Street, along with the MHC form B on our website earlier today for the general public to see if they want to go to our website, they can follow along with those materials. I was particularly impressed by the fact that Wareham Street is an early development in the middle of this landscape of 20th century resources. The houses in this neighborhood are characterized by many, many, many two families, but there is a pocket of 19th century buildings concentrated in this area, particularly along Wareham Street. You drive up and down the streetscape, it's mostly 19th century buildings, late 19th century buildings. Victorian styles, Queen Anne, stick style, shingle style, and the like. I think that this is an early location of development for this neighborhood, and between that and the fact that the building has a large degree of its historic fabric intact, at least from its outward appearance, I don't know how much is on the inside, but at least from the outward appearance, I'm in favor of properly preserved status for this building. Okay, thanks, Ryan.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit, I'll come to you next.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: The only problem with going after Ryan is that he always says the things that I think much more eloquently than I can. But what I would say is, having, I actually made a point of driving by and, and the thing that I would say, in addition to Ryan's remarks, is that I was really struck by the diversity of architecture on that street I think it's a really interesting example sort of a whole, you can see the evolution of Medford there. And to Ryan's point about there's a paucity of houses of that era, I think losing that one would actually lose something pretty integral to the fabric of the cityscape.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Kit. Peter, any comments?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm a little bit on the fence about this one. I think it does have some nice extant historical detail and siding, some of the windows, although covered by aluminum storm windows. I think on the first floor, some of the original windows might be there. To think about it a little bit more, I didn't find historic development of it that interesting, but reserve judgment until the final vote there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you so much. Jessica, anything to add?
[Jenny Graham]: No, I think I'm a little bit torn. I mean, I think we're losing homes around this age at like a rapid pace. So I'm a little bit nervous about that. And, you know, I agree with Peter that there's not a super compelling historical context, but also, you know, Rimby says that, you know, the early building fabric remains intact. So, you know, it seems like a potential for preservation.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks. Okay, before I go to public comments, I know the property owner here is here, Sid. So I wanted to just give you an option, Sid, if there's anything you'd like to say. And I know that I think at the time you submitted your paperwork, there were no plans that came through. And I didn't know if you had a chance to talk about what you might wanna do there. And if not, that's fine. I just wanted to give you the opportunity if you'd like to say anything with regards to this case. And just remember to state your name and address for the record.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Sure, this is said yellow from treat up group. We have done several projects and met before and we have come in front of the historic commission before. So good evening to everybody. You know, I mean, you guys are the expert you guys know, you know, from the historic significance standpoint. Like Kit said previously, if you look at the street itself on Wareham, there are a lot of multi-families over there. If you're on the left-hand side or on the other side, there are a bunch of triple-deckers as well on the street, but obviously, the single families as well. Our intention with this particular property is because the lot is so big, 8,276 square feet, so that's why you feel like we could do two units over here according to the zoning by right at the GR zone. We have done two attached townhouse style houses at 69 Jerome, which we worked with the historic commission before preserving the architecture of the old house. Actually, we went extensively over there to keep or recreate all the designs. Even though addition, the new house which we did, we had some elements bring over there as well, which was not required by the historic commission. That's the direction we want to go over here. It's too early right now. I've talked to my architect, but we haven't done any renderings per se over there as of right now. After knowing the decisions of where this thing goes, I can definitely talk to the architect and work with you guys on it as much as possible.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great. That's it. Thank you. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Commissioners, just wanted to check in to see if anybody had anything or questions for Sid before I open up for public comments. No, okay. So at this time, I would like to open the floor for public comments. If there's anybody that would like to speak, please raise your hand and I will call on folks one at a time as I see them on my screen. So I see Jerry Herskowitz, if you could unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record, please, and then the floor is yours.
[MCM00000945_SPEAKER_13]: Hi, my name is Gerald Hershkowitz, or Jerry Hershkowitz, and I live at 72 Wareham Street, and I'm also a volunteer at the Medford Historical Society and Museum.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, thank you so much.
[MCM00000945_SPEAKER_13]: Sure, thanks for the time today. So I would like to recommend the determination, I think the wording is of preferably preserved. This, so my house itself doesn't look old, but it happens to be an 1874 house further down on the street. One of the interesting things about this house and this lot is that it's on the original 130 foot by 65 foot lot. The way the houses were laid out, that leads to a bit more open space. In addition to the house itself, it's the layout of the lot and it lends to the variety, as someone else mentioned, in the neighborhood. I think that the variety of the housing styles leads to a variety of affordability and you get a mix of affordability on the street. I think this is all part of the neighborhood fabric.
[Unidentified]: Okay, great.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Is that all you have, Jerry?
[MCM00000945_SPEAKER_13]: That's what I have, yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thank you so much for your comments. Appreciate it. Okay, next up I see Jessica Reno. You could just unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_14]: Hi, I'm Jessica Reno. I'm a homeowner at 60 Wareham Street, and I just wanted to say that I chose to buy my home here because of the neighborhood. My house was owned by the same family for over 70 years. Many of my neighbors have lived here for most of their lives, such as Anna down the street, who makes the most amazing ravioli, and I hope you all get a chance to try some at our shop right on Main Street. and Elaine, who had this very home at 56 Wareham Street and her family for three generations. And as you drive down the street in the spring, you'll be awestruck by the big, beautiful trees, the uniqueness and charm of all the homes, and the feeling of openness and community. And now an investor is coming in with no ties to this neighborhood, no desire to really preserve anything about its charm, and they seek to tear down this home, tear down the most beautiful tree right in the front yard and put up a multifamily. This investor has already proven that they'll put profit before people, so I'm urging my neighbors, the Historical Commission, and the caring citizens to please prevent the demolition of this beautiful historical home.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jessica, for your comments. Is there anybody else that would like to speak? Please raise your hand or make yourself known otherwise at the meeting.
[Unidentified]: Going once. Okay, I see.
[Jennifer Keenan]: hold on one. Yeah, okay. Sorry, I wasn't able to get in touch with you guys. Oh, okay. Okay, yes. I have a couple other people here with their hands raised. But I will I will go with you if you could state your name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_08]: Oh, sure. Thank you. This is Betty Raya. LZD from 53 Wareham Street. Can you spell your last name, please? Yep. It's W. R. A. Y. A. Raya. I'm eating. He l y a z i d I. Okay, Betty, go ahead. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. We live directly across the street from Elaine, and we've been here since 2008. And, you know, we just wanted to say we felt really terrible. We just have our family living here. This house is a multifamily, but we're basically just, you know, one family unit living here with my kids and my husband and my mom. We don't really want to see anything happen. We'd love to have the house preserved across the street. It's a beautiful home. And ours is 1874. It's a Queen Anne, Victoria. And we're in this area because we love the historical element of Medford with the shipbuilding. You know, everything just going back to that time has a lot of history. And I just feel like we need to hold on to that history, as you guys well know. I did some investigative work on this house too, and I was, I hit a dead end. But, you know, we really would love to see that home preserved across the street. It just, it has significance and as my neighbors agree, I mean, we just, to see something divided and just built for the sake of profit, I mean, it's, you know, it's kind of sad and we lose that historical element and we're here for just so long and we just want to make sure we can hold on to that as long as we can.
[Unidentified]: Thanks Betty, what was your address?
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, it's at 53 Wareham Street.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 53, thank you.
[SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, thank you so much, I appreciate it. Thank you, Betty.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Nice to meet you guys. Likewise, come anytime. Thank you, I would love to.
[SPEAKER_08]: I know we're here to talk about this, but I was trying to find out more about my house, but maybe sometime I'll meet up down there with you guys.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sure, send us an email anytime historical commission at Medford ma.gov. And we'll see if we have anything.
[SPEAKER_08]: Thank you, john. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, okay, I see a hand raised from Michaela Michaela, if you could unmute yourself and state your name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_11]: Sure. So this is actually, my name is Gabe Sheik and my wife is Michaela on the line. We live at 37 Wareham Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Gabe, could you spell your last name for me, please? Sure, it's S-H-A-I-K-H. Okay, thank you so much, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_11]: And you said 30? Oh, 37. 37, thank you. Thank you. So, we've lived on the street for several years now, about four years, and it's an amazing community with just a diversity of homes of different sizes, architecture, but you know, this house at 56 in particular stands out. I would say it's one of the most charming homes on the street. It, you know, it's got a nice lot around it. And I frequently go for a walk on the street and it's just lovely to see the sun shining behind it. on a winter day. The tree is also really lovely and there's a brand new house right across the street from it, which had been under construction for some time. And frankly, I prefer the character of this home and the older homes on the street. I don't want to lose that in our community. This house has been here for what over 130 years and who are we to come along now and tear it down and build things denser, more packed in its place and take away what little sunshine and greenery is left around here. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you so much for your comments. Okay, have a hold on I have somebody else raising their ICU. I am rain. Yeah, go ahead. Go ahead.
[SPEAKER_12]: My name is Michael Reno, I live at 60 Wareham Street, and I just wanted to remark that, you know, one of the reasons that we chose to live in this neighborhood is because of its historical nature and also because it really contrasts to many of the other neighborhoods in the area, this part of sort of Somerville, Medford, You know, it's a tree-lined street with widely spaced houses that just has a very unique character for this part of Boston. You know, most of the other lots are, you know, an eighth of an acre, and the lots here are a quarter acre, and the oldest of the trees are really well preserved all up and down the street. So it would be really a shame to lose the character of the neighborhood by building it more densely.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Thank you so much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Rhea, I see you. Go ahead. You have your hand raised. Soundheria. I'm sorry, I'm probably not pronouncing that correctly.
[SPEAKER_13]: I think you got my name right. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter, I'm not sure if you can see her name on the screen, Soundheria. Yes.
[SPEAKER_13]: Sure. My last name is Muthukumar, M-U-T-H-U-K-U-M-A-R, and I am also a resident of 60 Baraham Street. I just want to show my support to not tear down the house because it's one of my favorite houses on the street and it's a very pretty house. It adds a lot of I think it adds a lot of value and character to the whole street. Kind of change not only the vibe, but also it would be like. 1 step towards more and more of these kind of multi family properties, which I'm not a big fan of. And I think everybody on the street also. would like to not see such multifamily homes because it's going to change the character of the street. I just want to contribute my support and add that it personally gives me a lot of joy looking at this house. It's a very pretty house, so I just want to show my support for not tearing the house down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thank you so much for your comments. Thank you. Really appreciate everybody that's come. Okay, I see you, you can unmute yourself and give us your name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_10]: Hi, yes, my name is Jennifer Sandlin and I am the owner of 5961 Wareham. So we are right next to Betty and Yusef and right across the street, sort of diagonally across the street from this property. I just wanted to chime in on maybe some advice or my opinion on this process for the new owner. sort of conflicted in this because I am a contractor and a developer myself, so I've been through this process a lot. But I primarily work in Boston, where the process is a little bit different. And one of the things that I think really helps is the outreach to the community. I really respect that this particular meeting isn't necessarily focused on what the developer intends to do, but more obviously on the historical You know, impact that it will have. However, it's really hard to. Have support for this project and to. Really give an opinion strongly to support it when we really don't understand what the impact of the project is going to be. So, if the developer could maybe do a little bit more. Effort to educating us as neighbors as to what it is that you're trying to do. I mean, up until this meeting, there's been nothing that was posted. Anywhere with either the historical society, or with the city to fully see if this was going to be. single family torn down and then a single family replaced if it was going to stay on the same footprint, if it is in fact two units, how are these going to lay out, how is that going to affect the tree line canopy that all of us have a concern for, how does it affect parking and maneuverability and things. And I understand he doesn't want to spend the money if he can't move forward with this. But I do think that for us to really have any sort of support, we need to understand what this impact is going to be.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm just going to interrupt you for a second and just give a little context here for you and the other folks here tonight. The Historical Commission, anybody that comes before us for a demolition review, they're not required to share with us anything about what they're going to do with the site. Our job is to evaluate the house that exists there currently, And whether or not and our determinations are made on the property that's there now what not it's going to be so well sometimes developers will give us information or share plans because they know what they're going to do or what not they're never required to and frankly sometimes our commissioners don't even look at those plans or. kind of take them under consideration because it's really not about what's going to be there, it's about what's there now.
[SPEAKER_10]: And I absolutely understand that. I'm not asking him to give that information to you. I'm asking him to give that information to us as his neighbors. If he was to come to me and say, I'm going to tear this single family down and I'm going to replace it with a single family because there's structural issues or there's various reasons that make sense, I could support this project regardless of the historical benefit to the community because I truly don't think that this property has the historical charm that you see in some of the projects that probably come across your agenda. But without really understanding how it's going to change our neighborhood, It's a thing, again, it's not directed to you, it's directed to Sid and his team that he should consider doing more outreach to us throughout the entire process before going to the historical Zoom meetings in any of his projects in Medford.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I appreciate your comments. Thank you so much, Jen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Just one point of information, Jen. On their notice of intent to demolish a building, they have to, they're supposed to fill up, briefly describe the proposed work, which it does say to attach townhomes, just for your information. That's what it says on their application that they filled out.
[SPEAKER_10]: Okay, thank you for educating me on that. I wasn't able to find that anywhere with the research that I did, but maybe I overlooked it on the sign that was in the yard or, you know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All the applications and anything we receive are typically posted on our website and available for the public to view. Gotcha, all right, thank you guys. Thank you, thank you for your comments.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sorry, one more question for Jen. Could you spell your last name?
[SPEAKER_10]: Sure, it's F-A-N-V-L-I-N.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Jessica Reno, go ahead.
[SPEAKER_14]: I just had a quick question for, for sit on the accuracy. Is it a two family or a three family that's being put in?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, well, I don't know for sure, but it says to attach townhouses on the intent to demolish a building form, but is that true, Sid?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't know that, I don't, yeah, go ahead, Sid, but I don't, if you don't know yet, then.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, if you don't know, that's okay. No, it's correct. I mean, that's what we intend to do.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Two units, okay.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Two units.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Sid. And Kit posted a link in our chat for the meeting materials for tonight, if anybody would like to link to that. Thank you, Kit. Okay, I just wanna circle back. Are there any more public comments on this project for folks that are here tonight? Otherwise, I'm gonna close the public comments section of the meeting.
[Unidentified]: Going once. Going twice.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, at this time I'm gonna close the public comments. So I'd like to come back to my commissioners. Doug Carr, I know you joined us a little late. So I wanted to give you the opportunity to speak if you'd like to. There is a motion on the table to find 56 Warehams preferably preserved with a second. And so all the commissioners spoke on that if you'd like to add anything to that discussion.
[Unidentified]: No, I'm good for now. Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Doug. Any of the commissioners have any other comments or anything based on the public comments or anything for Sid or anything before we take a vote?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'll just chime in.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Go ahead, Ryan. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. I just want to thank everybody for everything that you said. It was nice to hear that people took the time, it seems, to echo some of the comments that were found in the SHC Form B and Form A. Just for the benefit of Doug joining us late, I talked a little bit about how the residential development of this neighborhood is really reflected in the architecture, not just 56 Wareham, but the whole streetscape. Then I just want to finish up by saying that Claire Dempsey, when she did the inventory form, made a point to fill out the National Register criteria. I often look at that and there's seven different aspects of integrity on a building, which is location, design, setting, material, workmanship, feeling, and association that goes into that. For myself, I feel that this house has it all. I'd like to see a positive process here that will hopefully come out to something good.
[Doug Carr]: That's it. Ryan, if I could chime in. Thank you. I appreciate that. I did spend some time looking at the street view of this neighborhood. It's a very eclectic neighborhood. There's a lot of different building types on here. This is obviously one of the smallest buildings on the street that I can see. Most buildings look like they're about two and a half stories tall, some are three. a wide variety of decades that they're built. I think it's a quality building. I think I agree with that. I think at our last meeting, I don't think I found it significant. Do you remember the exact, Peter Miller, the vote? I think it was 4-1. Yeah, I think it was 4-1. Was I the one or do you not have that information? I don't remember. It's been a while.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's how I remember it, but I don't have that written down.
[Doug Carr]: No worries. I really appreciate the people coming out as well. We don't see this many people at most of our meetings expressing strong desires for the character of the neighborhood. So I really appreciate people coming out and expressing themselves. A lot of our meetings just don't have this level of participation. It's great to see it. So I really thank people for their thoughts.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks Doug. And I would just like to say too for the folks in the room and the folks that live on the street, if there is a vote tonight for a demo delay, I wanna reiterate that it is a delay. The owner could choose to wait 18 months and tear the house down to the foundation and there's nothing that the historical commission could do about that. Most times what happens if there's a delay, the owner of the property does work with us to go over the plan, see what we can do to mitigate the demolition and potentially lift the delay in advance of the 18 months. So I just want to let everybody know that if that happens, there will be an agenda item on our meeting for discussion of things like that. So if you're interested to continue the process, if it goes that route tonight, please keep an eye to our future meetings so that you can come in and join the discussion and see what may or may not happen here. I just wanted to reiterate that that is the process. And please keep an eye to our website and read about the process. And we welcome public participation as much as possible. As Doug said, sometimes our meetings are a little light. And so I know personally, anytime folks come out and we can help educate people on the process and get more people involved, it's a good day at the Historical Commission. Okay, with that said, I'm going to go around for a roll call vote. I'm going to call on people as I see them on the screen. Oh, I'm sorry, Jess. Go ahead. You have something to say.
[Jenny Graham]: Yeah, I just want to say that if we vote for it to be preferably preserved tonight, can we work with the developer to preserve as much of the tree line as possible since many of the residents brought that up?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, thanks, Jess. I think that, yeah, I think that considering what we heard here tonight, I think all those comments will come into play about what we heard from the neighbors for sure. Okay, all right. So we have 56 Wareham Street, a vote to find for preferably preserved status with a second. I will go around for roll call vote, Jessica. Yes.
[Unidentified]: Peter. Yes. Kit. Yes. Ryan. Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so the motion passes 5-0. The property is found to be preferably preserved and an 18 month demolition delay will be put on the property. So Sid, we'll get your letter out to you. And then at any point, if you'd like to come back and talk to us about potentially lifting that delay, you just let us know and we'll get you on the agenda. And thank you as always. And thank you everybody for your participation.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, we're gonna move on to our next item on the agenda tonight. 69 Court Street should have also had a preferably preserved hearing tonight. That homeowner has not run their legal notice yet or put their sign up in the yard. So that agenda item is tabled at least until next month. So I'll keep everybody posted on that. We do have 43 Alston Street. We did receive a demolition application for this property. Commissioners, everything is in the Google Drive, and it looks to be in order from my opinion. But if folks would like to scan it real quick, and I'll take a motion to accept or decline the application for 43 Alston Street.
[Unidentified]: Move to accept.
[Jennifer Keenan]: second you Ryan thank you Peter okay motion to accept the application for 43 also in street Jessica. Yes, Peter. Yes, yes, Ryan yes and Doug. Yes, okay 5, 0, to pass for accepting the application for 43 also in the street. Ryan, I know we already ordered a form for this, but do we need to motion for the form? OK, we're good.
[Unidentified]: OK, the standing order.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, yes, thank you. I forgot we'd change that. We have not received the application for 314 Winthrop Street. So for now that we're going to table that and we'll see if that comes in in advance of the next month's meeting. Okay, so next up we have Shiloh Baptist Church. They have asked us to determine significance for a CPC application. Doug, I don't know if you want to fill us in on this one.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I guess the CPC has really requested that we put a letter together to the state to Brona Simon. I think Ryan is the person at the MHC that we would say that this property is significant public reserve so they can. I guess expands the potential. Grantees that they could offer because Ryan you can explain this better than I can that just making that motion even if it's not on the state register. All the national register of historic places it does it does elevate its profile and allows it is it has almost an equivalence that's how he described to me of being. in that category, which will make it more attractive to other funding sources. The CPC has committed, hasn't committed yet, but it's going to commit, I think, fairly soon. It's top priority for a grant that will get them accessibility and allow them to have, I think, some public events there, some public classes over the next, as soon as the project is complete, which they don't have right now. That's a building we feel is very important. Historically, it's the place for the end of the chapter of West Medford, the Mystic Valley, which I'm a member, was born many decades ago, I think in the 70s. So it's a great building. If you have seen it, it needs a lot of TLC right now to bring it back. And this is really a first step in that process.
[Unidentified]: Great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Didn't we do something about significance for this building at one point? Or didn't we speak to someone from this church about something?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Was this about the doors? No, it wasn't the doors. It was the building next door. The tower or something?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It was the building next door?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: It was like the rectory or, I mean, the same thought, Peter.
[Unidentified]: No, no, they came to us because they needed our recommendation and support for their CPC application.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Unidentified]: So we have seen it before. We have seen it, but we didn't make a determination of significance on it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I knew there was something that we did with it, but.
[Doug Carr]: I think we endorsed the project, but not doing an official vote, if I remember correctly.
[Unidentified]: Okay. Is there a forum or are we just going to make a motion to vote? No, actually, I think that we must have done it. Just looking, I didn't check my files for the determination of significance. There's a letter of determination of significance on September 13, 2022. So we did do this.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, God.
[Unidentified]: So I'll just I'll just reiterate, we found it significant on a vote of five to zero because it is a distinctive example of shingle style architecture has relationship with Moses W man of West Medford, which relates to the entire development of the neighborhood. It's a cultural landmark for that entire neighborhood. It's age, it makes it important. And that was it.
[Doug Carr]: So, all right, so we're all clearly losing our mind because we've already done this, do I would do we want to make a recommendation to the state that it put it put on the state register is that is that different from significance in your opinion.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so what will happen so during the section 106 review process, just to circle back. The government looks at impacts to historic resources, and they look at National Register buildings clearly at a more elevated level than regular buildings. Being NR listed is important, but you can also have what they call an NRE, National Register Eligible Property. It has the same weight as if it were listed. So the government basically treats it the same and says, yes, it's important. It would be found important if they listed it. And then they just don't go through with that necessarily the listing process, because it takes months. Usually, if they award grants, the trade-off is at the end of it, usually your building, once it's restored, gets listed on the National Register. So that's usually a condition of those grants. So by making that determination, we're basically just setting it up for giving them a better opportunity to get grants and then at the end there'll be a National Register listed property there. So I support that. It's just a simple letter saying, yeah, we determined the significance. Here's our significance letter for both this, and we briefly talked about doing it for the cemetery building too. So we'll just say, can you make a determination of eligibility for these two properties and let us know? Because basically our recommendation is, yes, they are, but it's the keeper of the register's determination when it comes down to it. So I make a motion to recommend Shiloh Baptist Church at 1 Holton Street to the keeper of the National Register to determine eligibility for listing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Second. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Doug. Okay, so we have a motion on the table to find Shiloh Baptist Church recommended for mass historical And what else did you say Ryan, I'm sorry.
[Unidentified]: To recommend Charlotte Baptist Church to have a determination of eligibility to the keeper of the national register at the Massachusetts Historical Commission.
[Doug Carr]: Do you wanna include the Oak Grove Cemetery historic buildings in that or do a separate motion?
[Unidentified]: No, I'll do a separate motion for that.
[Doug Carr]: Okay, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did you get all that Peter? Is it mass historical mass historical?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, the State Historical Commission. Another MHC. Yeah, real other other other MHC yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, roll call vote Jessica. Yes, Peter yes. I have a motion to approve. I have a motion to approve.
[Unidentified]: And what was the date for Shiloh again?
[Jennifer Keenan]: It was September 2022. Yeah. I thought for Oak Grove, didn't we vote to?
[Unidentified]: We did, we found it. We found both of them significance, different votes though.
[Jennifer Keenan]: One was preserved and one wasn't, right? Or no.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, the house was a little bit less important than the complex, the service complex. I remember that.
[Doug Carr]: The house is much newer than the historic buildings with the stone facing, including the garage buildings, which are quite elegant.
[Unidentified]: Yes. Yeah, they're close. They're about the same age. The WPA built the stone building, and then immediately after that, the house burned down. So then they had to build a new house. So they didn't have any choice. Okay. So they're close in age.
[Doug Carr]: Do we find both significant, you said in previous meetings?
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Doug Carr]: Okay, that should be fine then.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Did we have a second on that?
[Unidentified]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, motion for eligibility for Oak Grove Cemetery buildings to Mass Historical. Or I'm paraphrasing.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Jessica. Yes. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Ryan? Yes. And Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes. Okay, thank you all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Ryan, do you wanna talk about the archeological cap for Thomas Brooks Park?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so I have some ideas that I want us to rush by the board, and I'll see if I can pull them up. So I made some field trips. I was particularly inspired by a couple of sites. You should be able to. Can everybody see this? Yeah. This area right here, for those of you who are not familiar with it, is Chestnut Street and downtown Portsmouth. And Chestnut Street is home to a long lost African American burial grounds that the city of Portsmouth, when they were doing some utility work, they rediscovered it. And when they did so, they basically made an effort at that time to memorialize this location. And they had to balance a little bit of that and the fact that people still live on the street. So it has some, very, very nice, like, low ground level details that I think we could maybe think about incorporating into Thomas Brooks Park. I love the fact that they use materials that are native to the particular area, granite, brick, you know, and then incorporate some vegetation. The memorials certainly take into account the fact that people are buried here. This is kind of what I expect to find at Cross Street in the future. This is one of the burials that they exhumed from the site, and then later on, when they were done, reburied here. And then this is the type of memorial that they put in place. There's a series of three that kind of wind along in this path. Let's see if I have the site plan, but I think it's not. I don't think it's in order, hold on. Yeah, there we go. Just so everybody can see, there's basically like landmarks and you follow along with a path. And I think this is kind of like an idea that we could use for the park itself in terms of what I was thinking, you know, those same materials, the same low ideas, and I'm gonna flip forward real quick. This is, a site in Charlestown. It's the site of the Precranes Tavern. Basically the highway runs right underneath this and it was completely demolished after they did extensive archeological investigations. And when they restored the surface of this location into a park, they put the footprint of the John Winthrop building right back to where it was. And this is what I was kind of thinking as sort of the load of the ground type thing that we can incorporate in Thomas Brooks Park, simply because it memorializes the house site, but it also is low maintenance. It's not really disruptive. You're not building anything. Sorry, hold on. Let's try that again. Sorry, you're not building anything, but you do have something there. And then with that, you can kind of partner it with some interpretive panels like this one, which talks about the archeology that took place there and what the particular artifacts tell you about the site. I think there were some... Yeah, there's some other interpretive panels and stuff that I had in mind that kind of talk a little bit about this. You know, like the Royal House has cutaways of what the house may have looked like for the slave quarters. We could try to incorporate something like that. Maybe that talks a little bit about the building itself if we find out more about the Brooks family. But that's sort of the basic of what I was thinking for this particular project. the cap for the house site. This is, of course, after we go down into the ground and finish doing whatever archaeological work we need to do with the house site itself. Thoughts on that? I love it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I love the stone where the house was. I think that's brilliant and I would love to see maybe a little, this might be controversial, a little tree clearing around that area. just to make it a little more open and obvious that there's something there worth looking at. But I think I love the whole kind of direction that you are thinking. I think it's a great starting point.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm in favor of selective one-to-one replacement. First of all, we could certainly weed out any invasive species like Norway maple. But for any tree that we remove that's like maybe sort of sizable, maybe we can plant stuff ahead of them, you know, their removal. Native species or species that we don't like, for example, we know that there was black walnuts on this site. There's oak. it's white or red. Planting those now will give them time to grow up and then as they struggle for light, then you can start to clear cut all of the invasive species and then the canopy will just maintain that lush feeling. Brian, I also echo what Jen said.
[Doug Carr]: I think there's some great value in the way you're approaching this. For the footprint of the building for telling a larger story of the African American presence on this site, and this obviously complicated site, as you've noted many times. Is this, this is a landscape architect needs to be hired to do this, presumably, right? I mean, to get that level. Is that correct?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we have one. I'm just I'm just setting a few ideas to feed to Peter so that over the next month, he can kind of take what we give him. So I'm going to show him all of these images as a direction and then say, let's start talking about the next steps of existing conditions and how we can incorporate those these ideas into the actual park itself. And then once he comes up with sort of a concept that we can take that to the neighborhood and City. departments that are related to this and start to have a dialogue as to what they think, what the community thinks, and get them involved. Maybe CPC should have a comment on it because one of their goals is certainly to fund things that create, both protect and preserve, but also to create things that will bring people there. This certainly will do both things. It will protect the site and it will bring people to that location.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, I think we've discussed in the past that the potential renaming of the park or naming of the slave wall, I presume that would be part of this larger conversation with the community, because that's obviously not an important piece of this.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I would say that this is, yeah, any sort of language that we put on here should formalize. So one of the things that we should do, because the city owns the site, the city should just proclamate a name change when we and the stakeholders are ready to present it to city council. So they should formally say, because in the deeds they talk about, they named this the old slave wall, and Brooks Family Histories calls it the old slave wall, but they say it's built by a slave named Pompeii. But there were other people living here. Pompeii wasn't married to the best of research, but there was a family that did live here. They were shared by the Cutter family of Arlington, and they had five children, and not all of them lived together. Arlington, the other two live with the Brooks family. So, you know, it's just, and that's the sort of thing that that monument in the African-American Burial Ground in Portsmouth speaks of, that people are close, but they're still separated by, you know, various things in their lives, like bondage in this particular case. So, and of course, we can't forget the Native populations. There, you know, there are very few monuments that incorporate them. I would 100% encourage the Native tribes to become to be approached and to become part of this dialogue into how they can help us memorialize their people.
[Doug Carr]: I 100% agree with that. It's a very complicated site and process to make this happen. The question I have is, is are we relying on the city of Medford to be the champion or do you want us to be the champion to organize this or the CPC? Or like, what's the, what do you think the best approach is to get, to get progress here?
[Unidentified]: I think we need to lead the discussion. And if other parties step forward at the stakeholder meeting to take on various tasks, then we can certainly delegate. But I think the commission, because we've been kind of leading the charge on working on this part, I think we need to take on this responsibility. And this has been our focus. So I think we just need to stick it out with Thomas Brooks Park and really finish there and show how we can use this conversation elsewhere.
[Doug Carr]: Does the RFP actually propose a name change to either the wall or the park or both?
[Jennifer Keenan]: You mean the master plan?
[Doug Carr]: Yes, because I don't think we had resolved that. I think we were still kind of batting that around a couple of years ago when we were putting together the scope of work because we knew we couldn't make that decision without a full mistake. Well, there's a little bit of a chicken and egg thing here going on, you know, but we had ideas, but I don't know if we actually said or took a position about either. Because I know, Ryan, you talked about Thomas Brooks Park being, you know, going back to the original Brooks, you know, who was the founding member of the Brooks family versus Pompeii and the complicated things going on the site. There's a lot of different forms that can take
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I think in our documentation, we don't make any effort to rename the park, but we do make sure that we call the wall Pompeii's wall. I think that that's an important thing to make a stand on and simply stop calling it the old slave wall. That memorializes slavery. We're memorializing Pompeii.
[Doug Carr]: I 100% agree. I totally agree on that.
[Unidentified]: The city has lived up to its one and only requirement by deholding which is that they are required to maintain the Pompeii's wall. So we have done that. So now the question is to have a dialogue on making sure that the city memorializes that formally if the community supports the renaming of the wall which I think they will. The renaming of the park is a little bit more contentious. The park was originally named Gorham Brooks Park in 1924 for its donor. And then at some point, very early on, newspapers start to talk about it, and they call it Thomas Brooks Park. And I suspect that they are actually calling it Thomas Brooks Park for Thomas Brooks I, who actually bought the land. Thomas Brooks of Concord. And, you know, I I don't think it's memorializing Thomas Brooks, the slaveholder, but I do think talking about those people, you know, Thomas Brooks and many, many other Brooks family members who were slaveholders, whether they wanted to be or not. Edward Brooks, who was Revolutionary War champion of that neighborhood, became a slaveholder unintentionally. You know, when his father died, they passed it right on to him that, you know, that he sold them because he wasn't going to want them. So, you know, I think that those stories just need to be memorialized in the basically whatever literature we come up with on these interpretive panels around the park. Cool. So I'm very much in favor of, I'll feed all of these ideas to Peter Headland, who's gonna- And he's coming next month to discuss, right? Yeah, yeah. So yeah, he wants to come to meet with the whole commission and just talk about some ideas, some additional ideas, of course, I'm sure he'll have some other things. And he might even have some loose sketches for us to see. So it may make sense if people are around to maybe have a hybrid hybrid meeting, Peter might have stuff digitally. I did tell him Zoom. So if he has stuff digitally, we can share it on the screen and get people's feedback too as well. So, but it may be, it may be sketches. They may not necessarily be digital or yet, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'm not sure from a room perspective, what that would look like for January, just because it's kind of close.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'll try to push him to maybe come, you know, when he comes to have some more different ideas.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So. Okay. Okay. Our 2023 annual report, Ryan and I kind of worked on this a couple of weeks ago, offline, and we have a draft to send around to everybody to read. And if you could, Can we, do we have to get that in by the end of the year, Ryan, or can we just do it at the next meeting?
[Unidentified]: No, it only has to be in June. It's really, we just do it when it's done.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But it's for the calendar year, not the fiscal year, yeah.
[Unidentified]: Right, I do it for the calendar year because then it's not deposited in the middle of the throws of budget talks, and then it kind of justifies our budget. So, you know, I, I I create documentation there as well and so that because nobody's going to pay attention to it during budget time. I also do use it for the CLG coordination paperwork. And the only thing I'm waiting for this I'll send it around all the pictures so everybody can comment the only thing I'm waiting for is the end of the year permit information so that we can continue to stress that the commission. reviews less than 1% of all permits in the city and of that we've maybe paused a quarter of that percentage for the entire year so that this whole idea of the commission holding up every permit in the city is completely dead three years in a row. Great.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so everybody can keep an eye to their inbox for that. And then we'll take any comments or anything that anybody wants to discuss next month. And then we'll be able to wrap wrap that up.
[Unidentified]: So keep that on the agenda.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, we just need to go over our slate of officers meeting dates committee assignments for next year. Let me pull each up and then I can share my screen.
[Unidentified]: Okay, hold on, I can, is that too small? I can zoom in. We should probably do meeting dates first.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, you want to do that first? Okay, hold on.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. Okay. Meeting dates. Okay, can you guys see this? Let me zoom in a little bit more. A little bigger, please.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, hold on, I know, my eyes are bad too. Is that better? Yeah. One more. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Are you on your phone? No, I'm not on my phone, I'm just blind.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, right? Move to approve. Hold on, I don't know, do we need the two meetings in October? Yes. Oh, is that our backup for the timing?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It looks like one's contingent.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, October 7th is contingent on an application. If it doesn't come in, we don't meet. Okay. So only four of us have to be there too, so. It would be nice if all seven of us are there. This works for, what about November 11th?
[Jennifer Keenan]: When's Veterans Day?
[Unidentified]: That is Veterans Day. Oh, it is? It is. It is, yeah. It's only the 11th. 11th? 11th. Yep, yep, yep. Yes, we'll be moving that one forward then. You want them, not forward, not to the fourth.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You mean out to the 18th?
[Unidentified]: Later, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Are you making these changes, Ryan?
[Unidentified]: Sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Or do you want me to make them?
[Unidentified]: No, I'll do it. Okay. Okay, so we'll have November 18th and then December 9th again.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Is everybody good with everything else?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, the dates look good.
[Doug Carr]: The only question I had is are we Are we doing hybrid next year, or are we doing 100% remote still?
[Jennifer Keenan]: So yeah, let's talk about that for a second. So I did email Alicia. So here's the thing, there is no staff. for somebody to be in person. It's a little bit of a crapshoot of if we would have somebody. Let me just read what she wrote back to me.
[Doug Carr]: That's what the CPC is doing right now, but they have Teresa who sets it up and organizes it and make sure it functions properly in both realms quite efficiently to be
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. And so the problem is that, you know, we don't have Dennis exclusively. So if there's a conflict with another meeting, then we might not have him. He might be around to get something started, but might not be able to be there in person the whole time. And or one of us are going to have to do it. So my thought was, and we can talk about this for a second. My thought was, do we want to pick, you know, I thought maybe once a quarter, and we meet in person, and then we, you know, try to plan ahead of time so that we can have support at City Hall for the, you know, for the hybrid thing.
[Unidentified]: What do folks think about that?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter, you look so, you're like, please no, make it not happen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't mind coming to City Hall. It's fun. You know, it's not hard for me to get there.
[Unidentified]: It's just, I mean, the online meetings are just so convenient.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I kind of miss smelling the sweat of those developers as we grill them, you know?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, it doesn't mean that they would, they still might just decide to do remote. If we're there, they could still be that not coming, you know, so there's no guarantee that it might still be the seven of us sitting there without an audience, which is fine. You know, I'm kind of, I'm totally open to whatever folks wanna do.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I actually think that hybrid is more difficult than totally remote or totally in person. But I don't know what the sort of technology is down there. And Doug, you say it works pretty well.
[Doug Carr]: It is, but it needs someone to run it. And if we don't have that, we shouldn't do it to be perfectly fair. I don't know if you can hear me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hold on. Dennis wants to chime in. Go ahead, Dennis.
[Denis MacDougall]: I don't know if my Wi-Fi is good or not. Sorry, I keep on trying to speak, but I'm never sure if it's going through. So if you guys want to do the once a quarter thing, I'd be fine with that. Because it's just a matter of, Teresa actually showed me how to use the little camera thing. And we can set it up in one of the rooms, either 201 or 207. And it's 1 of those 1s where if you have a meeting planned and then all of a sudden I have a conflict, we can get someone else to do it. She's been sort of showing a few of us the ropes. The only thing I would say is that in January, the Energy and Environment Committee has already claimed the hoot for that 1st meeting because their meeting had to get pushed because of the holiday. So, because your 1st meeting would be the 8th, correct?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yep.
[Denis MacDougall]: Yes. Yeah, so they've already sort of claimed it. Teresa's looking to see if we can get another 1. If you can borrow some one from someone.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So I guess I have two questions, Dennis. A first question is. Is there just one room available with this? And are there any plans to get more technology to have more hybrid meetings? And I guess number two would be, are besides, I guess, well, I guess how many other boards and commissions are meeting in person or hybrid, or is there any sort of kind of what's the party line? Like what are other people doing right now?
[Denis MacDougall]: I can just speak for the boards that I sort of staff. I think concom and zoning, they're pretty much just going to be doing remote. I'm not sure too sure about historic district, we're going to have to do some in person just because of the historic district miss of, you know, some of those means you kind of have to have in person. The bike commission has so far been remote, but I've really been staffing I just been helping them out. So I mean, the only one that I really know that's been doing it has been CPC. And that's mostly because Teresa knew about this technology, was able to get it at the end of last year's budget and say, can we get this for the office? And so we can use it for other ones, just a matter of we just have the one. And then there's only the two rooms in City Hall anyway. 201 is always available. Like that's the one that we normally have. And then if there isn't a conflict with the city council or the school committee in 207, we can get that. So if there was no school committee meeting that night, 207 is probably available.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, Teresa set up the little owl camera in the middle of the table, which gives you a 360. And it also highlights people who are there individually, which helps. But she rolled in a TV, too, to 201. I haven't done anything in 207. I assume that that TV just kind of moves up and down City Hall, is that the only one right?
[Denis MacDougall]: Yep, it's only the one so that can go in between rooms and we had that actually we've had it in the chamber sometimes putting stuff up connecting to it.
[Doug Carr]: So it's it's a my recommendation, Jen, is to is to not do this in the first quarter, but to kind of let's let's see how the lay of the land is because we don't if we don't have the support. Guaranteed it's it's gonna feel badly, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I was just gonna say maybe we revisit for the second half of the year and see how like let's how the budget talks go and do they end up staffing more rooms? Or is there? Is the governor thing is till 2025 Dennis right now?
[Denis MacDougall]: Or is it yes, definite yeah. Up until this year they were always extended one year and they. Thankfully went two years. Okay. They're always scrambling at the end of. Right. Because they always waited until the very last minute. So we had to, you know, kind of have temporary meetings just to continue things until everything got approved, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay, so why don't we, we'll plan to stay on Zoom at least through our June meeting and then let's revisit for the second half of the year.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. I have a question on it. If it was a hybrid meeting, let's say so that the commissioners were physically present. Is it a requirement under that circumstance that all commissioners attend in person or could actually some
[Doug Carr]: CPC had half the people at home, half the people in the room, and it worked perfectly fine.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, cool. I mean, I'm just curious about that. Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think it would be like if you can be there, great, but if it means missing the meeting or coming on Zoom, then, you know, from a vacation perspective or whatever.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, right. That's what I was thinking, yeah.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. We're never going to go back to 100% in person because there are always going to be, we get, we wouldn't have got the attendance tonight if everyone had been in person, for sure, for that neighborhood. There's no way we could have made it. And honestly, I travel for work. There's always gonna be people who can't make it no matter what. So it's either a hybrid or it's just gonna be hybrid or 100% remote. And those are really the only two choices going forward in my opinion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. All right. So we'll stay remote through June and we'll make sure to pick it back up in May or June on our agenda and see how we wanna tackle the second half of the year. Okay, let's look at, and so then Ryan will change the November meeting to the 18th. And then we'll send around the final sheet so that everybody can update their calendars. And Dennis, I'll send that to you for the city calendar as well. And then Ryan, let's make sure we put these on our Facebook page too as events. Okay great. Yeah, just because it's nice to have that out there in the calendar.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do we have to vote on the dates.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, I don't know do we know I don't know.
[Denis MacDougall]: No, there's no.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, we're good.
[Denis MacDougall]: Okay, posted on the city's calendar that's the only requirement.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. And just so everybody knows our next meeting is January 8. Dennis, did you have something? Or Peter?
[Unidentified]: No, I had something.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, go ahead, Ryan.
[Unidentified]: There's more than 30 days between the October and November meeting, so it presents a semblance problem. So I consider moving the October meeting to the 28th.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, that's crazy.
[Unidentified]: Hold on. So, you mean the contingent meeting? No, the regular meeting, which is proposed for the 21st, needs to be the 21st.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, but isn't the regular meeting the 7th?
[Unidentified]: No, that's the contingent meeting. Only if we have a demo application. But if we do have a demo application, I need to move the October meeting, the regular meeting, after the 7th to the 28th, just from the 21st, just because just because there's then that if we have another meeting that comes in on the next application, then there will be more than 30 days. So just trying to keep it under 30 days, which is what's required by law.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So it would be the 7th, the 28th, and the 18th. Yes. October 28th? Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. So October 7th.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Contingency meeting, October 28th, regular meeting.
[Unidentified]: And then November 18th, regular meeting. Yes. Okay. Or we meet on Columbus Day. Can't do it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Why? We're meeting remotely.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, we made it remotely, but it kind of frowned upon after. We used to do that. We used to just meet, people generally didn't complain, but city government said, if the government's not open, you shouldn't be open either, because you are a government. So, bye.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. Is everybody good with that contingency plan?
[Unidentified]: Okay. It's a year out, I hope so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Put it in your calendar. I mean, again, we'll send it around. Okay.
[Unidentified]: Let's look at... our slate of officers, hold on, let me share my screen. Do we have to vote on this, I think? I'm an officer, so I can't move to approve.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is there anyone who's not an officer?
[Unidentified]: It's just Peter, it's just technically Peter, me and Jim. Somebody wants to be vice chair, they can be vice chair for a while.
[Doug Carr]: I'm an officer and a gentleman.
[Unidentified]: We haven't opened it, well, yeah. This is Jess's last meeting. I'm very sad. A pointer to everything. Um, do we have a lady's not here, we'll have to put her on everything. She can be the person in our Minute Maid company, the person when you don't show up becomes the becomes the new, new chair of the company.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, why don't we? Why don't we revisit this next month? And then we can have a lady in the discussion.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, it's mainly just appointing the The secretary, commission chair, and vice chair, the rest of them are standing committees that can go wherever, whenever. Does somebody, are we leaving this as same as it is for now?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Do we have to vote?
[Unidentified]: No, we can table it until next month.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, yeah, let's table the slate of officers. Is everybody good with that? and we'll have a bigger discussion next month. Especially Ed's not here either. So he's on quite a few things here. Okay. And then I don't think we have to do the other page, Ryan, because that's just our terms and stuff and our contact info for the website. So we'll make sure all that's up to date.
[Unidentified]: Okay, we'll do that one next month too, just to have a good discussion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody else have any new business before I move on to old business?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, we don't have any updates on 91 Winchester Street, so that is still under demo delay. Permits, just plugging along with things that get assigned to us. To my knowledge, there's still not a new building commissioner. I don't know, Dennis, have you heard anything?
[Denis MacDougall]: I know they did some interviews, but nothing's really come with that. But I mean, Bill is still coming in and helping out and coming to me. He's been to every zoning meeting.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Yeah. I mean, I've sent him a couple of emails. I know he's there if we need him. But we're just kind of plugging away. So all good on that front.
[Denis MacDougall]: There's been interviews, but no nibbles yet.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK.
[Denis MacDougall]: Thanks for that. There's no white smoke.
[SPEAKER_12]: What is CLG searching for?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, you wanted to talk about the CLG annual report?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I'm waiting on information from Chris Bader who didn't respond to my last email. Dennis, do they have a meeting coming up? On the 11th. January? I'm going to CC you on an email. If you don't see Chris respond, can you just poke him on it? Because we're supposed to get this done by the end of the year, but the MHC is giving us a little leeway. Okay. Okay. So I'll work on that. I have it mostly done. I just got to get some information from it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Cross Street Cemetery?
[Unidentified]: Yeah, so I heard from Alicia who was revisiting the work that we had sent to her for information. So they are moving, their department is moving forward with some preliminary release of information, if I understand correctly. They're like getting some initial I guess they're going after initial requests for proposals for development on those sites, I think is how I understand it. So we revisited this whole proposal. I had done a ton of legwork looking for information from the state on if there's any correspondence or information on what the state did to exhume the cemetery. And the bottom line is we've exhausted all of those sources. So I talked with PAL. And the only way to get an answer out of this site is to open it up and to strip it down to the cemetery level and then begin the very difficult process of looking for a burial shaft and to see if they're intact. The goal of PAL is to give the city a revised proposal that would involve collaboration where the city would strip the soil. They would look for the burial shafts. As soon as they uncover that level, they'll go across the site to see how many burial shafts are intact. And that's just the top of the burial shaft. That's not going down deep to exhume. Once they have a number, the city can decide whether or not it makes sense to go further in that process or decide what they want to do with that site in the future. But that will give them the answer on whether or not the cemetery is intact or not. And again, stressing with what I talked with PAL, We're all under the impression that the cemetery is going to be intact until we get in the ground and learn otherwise. The site was buried under tons of topsoil, so there's a good chance that based on this and how MAPDOT or the predecessor to MAPDOT acted with other cemetery projects, they didn't always get everybody in the cemetery. And with no information to be had as to what's there, you know, and how they get it, we're just approaching it as worst case. So I'm just waiting on that price. I'm sure the city is going to be in for a bit of a sticker shock. Plus, they will have to, it'll be difficult because they will have to open up the and remove basically the commuter parking lot to be able to get that answer. So You know, if that means digging it up and then burying it, recaving it until they decide to move over construction, so be it. I just, you know, that's the only way they're going to get their answer. It's not going to be a small test fit or test project. It's going to be a wholesale testing of that site.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And do we have a sense of timeline on this, Ry?
[Unidentified]: Development proposals are moving forward. Dennis, are you in the know on how fast they're moving forward with that portion of the work.
[Denis MacDougall]: I am not.
[Unidentified]: Okay. It's, it's going. So we're trying to, uh, I'm trying to stress to Alicia that it's good to get this portion of it done. Um, the real question will be, can we remove the commuter parking lot and open it up? It's the back portion of the lot. So it could be done, um, you know, without disrupting the whole thing. But, uh, you know, that's the only way they're going to get their answer. maybe perhaps if MassDOT were open to it, we could try to dig on the highway side and test on that side first before we go into our own parcel because the cemetery extends right under 93. So there's plenty of green space that we could dig, but there's an access issue there. So I don't really have an answer.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Can it be done incrementally such that They could start digging and if they find something, then that might be an indication that there's more to be found or something.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I kind of hope that maybe we can find some green space even on the MassDOT side. You know, there's a fence dividing the old highway line, but basically go down where there's not asphalt to see if anything's intact. But that also doesn't guarantee that that represents an example. You know, just because they find nothing there doesn't mean they're going to find not find stuff elsewhere.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But if they did find something, might it indicate that there would be stuff?
[Unidentified]: Right. Right. And plus, you know, you'll see there they'll be looking for what they call a burial shaft. So you'll see a difference in soil. There'll be a clear differentiation. But just because the burial shafts intact does not mean that there's anything in it. Right. Right. But if the burial shaft is intact, is what I was told, is if the burial shaft is intact, there's a good sign that they're just going to have to check if they can concentrate where they check. But that's a good sign that the site is undisturbed. So that's a difficult project. It's also going to be an expensive project, and it's going to get even more expensive when they start talking about exhumation and removal. And then it's complicated by where you put them because the where they are now is full. So it will be another place in the cemetery, depending on how many people are found.
[Doug Carr]: So... Brian, given the massive footprint that it took to build Route 93 70 years ago, whatever it is, you're convinced that there's something still there, because it seemed like they would have wiped out everything beyond even the footprint of 93. So the area has...
[Unidentified]: Um, it's it's the the location of. It's like no man's land. It was the first parcel taken for construction, but it wasn't really used by the DOT transportation team to construct the highway. The sand shaker, where all the sand was brought in by railroad cars, was on the other side on Frost Street. The utility line that runs down to Bedford Square, which follows the old Boston and Main line into Bedford Square, is just to the south of this, between that and the river. Gravel Creek is on cross street because they were digging for the relocation and they didn't want to put it under the highway. So it's on the other side and there's no utility lines or anything that goes through this area. And the site is capped with about five feet of soil. If you look at the, if you stand on the railroad bed, which in itself is filled in, there's a slight embankment and some of the historic photos that I have of the area, I don't know if I shared this.
[Doug Carr]: Hold on. We don't need to dwell on it. You're being very conservative, which you should be, because this is a very sensitive issue. I don't disagree with this. It's going to take you some time to get actual action for them to actually do the investigation properly.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, it's certainly going to take, that's a big undertaking and it's big dollars. I think the city's obligated to do it, so that's for one, to clear it if they want to do it for development. Second, if we find something happens here, I would stress to the city that they should approach the state to collaborate on removal because it was their responsibility in 1956 to remove everybody in that cemetery and not that They're, you know, kind of pushed off the removal of the cemetery by saying, it's not a problem. You want to build the highway so you remove it. But, you know, I think both parties are kind of equally responsible and need to share the burden here, not just the city alone. But, you know, if the city ends up doing it, it's the right thing to do. And, you know, I don't want necessarily the defunct cemetery to stand in the way of development, but it just needs to be done right so it doesn't turn into a press disaster. Because speaking with MHC today, if they do development and they don't do anything, imagine if they didn't do anything and they hit a burial here, it could take months because MHC would demand that the entire site be calmed. So we're just trying to undertake that in advance of any sort of work that would go on here.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Brian, how many people did they move and how many people do you estimate were there?
[Unidentified]: There were 500 people moved and Wave Harvey estimated there were 2000 people buried in the cemetery. So there were approximately 461 headstones. That is the approximate number that 500 give or take that they relocated, which meant that they didn't. in my opinion, and PAL's opinion, that they didn't necessarily check anywhere else that didn't have a grave marker at the time. And that's not the right methodology. As you know, there's people that are poor, there's paupers, there's people that just needed burials that were through the city.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: People who had wooden headstones or head markers, grave markers.
[Unidentified]: Exactly. So yeah, so just I'm going to quickly share my screen just so people can see this site real quick if I can. Let's see. This is one of two pictures that I have of this entire site. Wow. Look at how different Bedford Square is. So this is the Thomas Sables House and Sables Court. So the hotel is right here. And 93, this is the Baptist church. So 93 runs right through here. And this little section right here is the cemetery. And when I say that this was a path of destruction, I do not lie. There was something like 350 homes that stood in the way of food progress. And it just keeps going and going and going. This I believe is Roosevelt Circle. This is Gillis Field, the athletic field. So it's just, all of this was demolished. And for a long time, nearly three and a half years, there was rubble, debris, earth, everything that you could possibly imagine while they built the highway from north to south. So.
[Doug Carr]: That's a school building there in the upper right.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, this is the Washington school on the corner. This is Washington square. So this building still here at the highway, the rotary route 60 rotary is right here. Right. I have pictures of the have pictures of construction standing right here looking north and from here looking south but nothing in this area and you know it's there I'm looking for the land takings because there should be based on what information I was able to track down for Somerville and Winchester and Stoneham, there's pictures of every single building that they bought and they had a committee that went house by house and they offered a dollar amount if you disagreed and it was over and under, it got sent to the state level and they decided whether or not to do it. There were houses that were moved. This was a house right here that we looked at over on Foster Court. There were definitely a number of houses that were moved and relocated as part of this project. some state of Medford, someone elsewhere. So, you know, it's a, it's a cool thing. And then, like I said, right in the middle is the cemetery, the, you know, the whole thing. And, you know, they relocated the cemetery in advance of the construction, 1957-58. And the construction started in fall of 58, right to 59, where they reached the Mystic River. And then from the date of opening 1961, I think it was finally, you couldn't get to, it just blows my mind, you couldn't get to Boston from Medford until 1971. So nearly a decade. So that's, that's what I'm working on. Wow.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Thank you, Ryan. Crazy.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, important for the city to know because, you know, and you know that if we do get people, it's going to be even more sad because that means the rest of the cemetery, which is under 93 and permanently inaccessible. You know, it's locked down forever. So other people may be left behind. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Just CPA, just real quick, Doug, when will we hear about our project?
[Doug Carr]: When are the decisions gonna come out? I think it's the next meeting in January. There was gonna be some bad news about everyone taking a haircut, but the CPC, because of the many changes that they've had at the city level of an accounting and all that over the last couple of years, It turns out they had some more money in reserve, money that had been either not used or products that managed to fill that bucket back so that I don't think anybody will have to take much of a haircut anymore. It seemed like the number of requests and the number of dollars were almost in equilibrium. So it should be pretty good. For a while there, it looks like everyone was gonna take like a 30 or 40% cut because we had put a ton of money towards Walking Court affordable housing and a City Park, City of Medford Park rehab or renovation that had depleted over a million dollars. This looks more promising than I was worried about a bloodbath a few months ago. We got to be careful next year not to do that. Obviously, we got to be a little bit- But mostly everything will get funded.
[Jennifer Keenan]: They're not looking at not funding something. Maybe people get a little less.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, there might be some reductions and, but it won't I don't think anybody no project will be left out the cold sounds like.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Okay, good. We'll look forward to hearing that.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, should be January.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Anything on the survey projects Ryan.
[Unidentified]: Winter Hill extension slash procurement project is done. I put in all the paperwork to MHC are supposedly processing our final paperwork so that that will just leave all the heights. Well, okay. Great.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, does anybody have anything else.
[Doug Carr]: Otherwise, we'll update. Yeah, Peter, do you have access to your December 5 email showing the new canopy being constructed at the old Medford cinema that we We pushed a couple of years ago that it's starting to be built. I think everyone should see the construction in action. It's a long time coming. We've been asking for it for a few months. They started installing it a few weeks ago. I think it was December 5th, Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yeah. So what's that? There was several back and forth on this.
[Jennifer Keenan]: 30 High Street, I think, right?
[Doug Carr]: Salem Street, sorry.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Salem.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. I have the email, although it's taken. Yeah, I have it here. 30 to 36 on 12.5 at 4.03.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how to zoom out. Okay. Apologies, because, oh, there we go. Should I screen share then?
[Unidentified]: Sure. Yes, please. Okay, can you guys see that? Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I don't think that's done, but. It's not. It's there, which is great. It's got a little curve on top, like the old one. And I think these suspension points are the same points that were before. I think so.
[Doug Carr]: I think it's a good faith effort to try to, you know, it's not a carbon copy, it's not a complete restoration, but it feels good. It feels like the missing piece is now back because the building, you know, had that for almost its entire history, I think.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Are they gonna put something else on there, or is it just gonna look like that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Well, the old one had some kind of these vertical skirtings that was, and I think, I mean, if I had to guess, I'd say that these rods that hang down here are gonna support something.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, and there'll be signage on there too, I think. I don't think, we asked for a drawing, but we never got it, but it's obviously in production now, so they need a couple more weeks or months to kind of close it out.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have the picture of the original one, but I don't know. I sent that around. Did you guys see that?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. Okay. So you have an idea. I wonder if they're going to try to fix any of these holes or anything. That would be nice. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And clean up the rust.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Clean up some of this stuff. Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Maybe we can send them a nice email and say, it would look really great if you could clean this up.
[Doug Carr]: Yep. I think he said that all but two of the 10 or 12 units, Jen had been sold.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, most of them are most of them are are sold.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, yeah.
[Unidentified]: All right. Thank you, Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm just trying to figure out how to on on share here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Stop share.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I just have these two screens. Sometimes I can't find it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Does anybody have anything else? All right, just the meeting minutes.
[Unidentified]: If somebody wants to, Peter sent the meeting minutes around. I'll take a motion. I'll move to accept the minutes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Kit. Second. Thank you, Jess. Okay, motion to approve the meeting minutes from November. 2023, and that's been seconded. Jessica? Yes. Peter?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? Yes. Doug?
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, Jessica, thank you for all your service. We will miss you.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you, Jess. Thanks, everybody.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We will rope you into things, and I'm gonna get you on NBELT, so don't worry.
[Jenny Graham]: It's been wonderful to serve with y'all. It's been great, but I'm sure that we'll be in touch. Yes, for sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You you will never escape our. Good night. Oh wait, sorry, it's second. Alright, motion to adjourn, Jess. Yes. Peter.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan. Yes. Doug.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Happy holidays, everybody.
|
total time: 0.8 minutes total words: 85 |
|||