[Adam Hurtubise]: Hello everybody. This is the meeting of the Medford Historical Commission, May 13th, 2024. I'm gonna read, call the meeting to order at 7.05 p.m., read the governor's statement. On March 29, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a supplemental budget bill, among which other things extended the temporary provisions pertaining to the open meeting law to March 31, 2025. Specifically, this extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely without a quorum of the public body physically present at a meeting location and to provide adequate alternative access to remote meetings. The language does not make any other substance changes to open meeting law. So for those joining us or wanting to follow us along at home, you can go to www.medfordhistoricalcommission.org, go to the news section where our agenda is posted along with all of the relevant information for tonight's meeting, and of course this meeting will be broadcast on Medford's community media and will be available after the fact. All right, we have a pretty packed agenda this evening. The very first thing up on there is 27 Allmont Street preferably preserved hearing to recap this building was found to be significant at last meeting, meaning that it is. significance means one of three things. It either has or has a pending listing on the National Register of Historic Places, is listed on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places, or was 75 years or older and which was determined by the commission to be significant either because 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 Commonwealth, or it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period style, method of building construction, or its association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So as a result, this building is having a public hearing to determine whether or not the demolition of the historic resource is detrimental to the resources of the city of Medford. And I see your hand up. Did you have a question? No, okay. All right, so with that being said, I will take a motion from the historical commissioners to get the discussion started and open the public hearing for public comment. And then once the public has finished commenting, we'll close, have any final comments from the commissioners, make our motions and move forward accordingly. Commissioners, can I have a motion please in regards to 27 Allmont?
[Kit Collins]: I'll make a motion to start the discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second. Okay, motion's been made and seconded to start the discussion. So commissioners, do you guys want to start with discussion of preferably preserved status for the building and then we'll open it up to public comment?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Excuse me, Ryan, who seconded?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay, thanks Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Eleni, why don't you start with, cause you made the motion to open the discussion and we'll go from there. If not, I can, I can read. Do you want me to recap why we found the building significant?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. Could you, cause I don't, I don't know if I was, I missed the last meeting and I'm a new commission member. I don't know if I was here for this discussion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure, so this is a really interesting building, and it's a pre-1855 resource. And in the city of Medford, there are probably less than 3,000 pre-1900 resources. Half of those date to before 1855. It's a very important time and they are rare and diminishing. So the commission really focuses on that pre-1855 date and looks at buildings really closely. It has architectural significance for its style and method of building construction. It has an open conveyance of its social history by looking at the architecture. You can tell exactly who it was built for and the type of people that worked, lived in the building. It has a known builder and let's see what else. And its history mirrors that of the surrounding neighborhoods. So it has ties to shipbuilding as a early shipbuilding family and the neighborhood too as well. That's the basic ovary summary of this building.
[Kit Collins]: I would say that it still looks like it maintains a lot of its architectural integrity. It looks pretty unique maybe compared to some of the buildings that are surrounding it. I would Definitely advocate for keeping the building. I don't know what the developers' plans are for this. I don't know if anyone knows yet.
[Adam Hurtubise]: This is just total demolition.
[Kit Collins]: Just total demolition. Okay. Have they stated any type of justification for it? Like, are there structural issues with the building?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It just says that there's structural issues, but nothing in detail.
[Kit Collins]: Okay. Yeah, I mean, I think I would support a demolition delay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thanks. Doug, you want to go next?
[Doug Carr]: Sure. I missed the last meeting, but I did catch up and read the form B earlier today. When I read the meeting minutes that Peter put together, I was not surprised that it was a 4-0 vote to sign a certificate because I was unfamiliar with this bill. But it just jumped out off the page about being how unique it is. And the details that there is kind of amazing. So it wasn't a tough call to, I'm sure, last meeting to make it significant. And I would continue that we walk down this path to pause it for a while and see what the possibilities are. I believe they're trying to propose three townhomes on this site, I believe. But that's a separate issue we can take up later.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. Thank you. Ed, you want to go next?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Again, I guess for me, I can understand the architectural significance in that area. Again, the question is, which either comes up today or comes up during process based on the application is, can this structure be saved in its current form at all? And we're not, at this point, We're not completely fully informed. Again, the issue is going to come before us one way or the other. Either it comes before us today or comes before us during the process, given what can happen during the 18 month period. So I guess I'm still have a few points of curiosity.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think that's a, that's a valid point. And if, you know, certainly something that should be explored during the discussion of mitigation, if a delay is placed on the building, that's one of the things that we would certainly want to see if they wanted to discuss how the building can't be reused. But, you know, we always encourage people to focus on the reuse of the building. And of course, finding the feasibility, that's one of the things that they'll just have to do. Okay, Peter.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Agreed, I think this one has a lot of its architectural integrity still intact. The interior photographs also showed that it has a lot of this interior detail attached. I think the notice of intent or whatever did talk about problems with foundations tilted, walls and stuff, but every house from this area has tilted walls, I feel so. So yeah, I would like to see some attempt at keeping or, you know, developing the site you know, harmoniously with the building, try to keep some part of it or something. I think it's, it's kind of a little architectural jewel in that it's got so much of its, you know, fabric intact. So I would like to try to see if it could be somehow incorporated into the new design. That's all for me.
[Unidentified]: Great. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, so we're going to open up to public comment portion of the hearing. So if you'd like to speak on this particular matter, either for or against, if you would just raise your hand and I will call on you as I see you. And I just need you to state the name and address for the record. Isaiah.
[SPEAKER_01]: Hi, everyone, my name is Isaiah Schlonegger. I live at 29 Allmont Street, so right next door. And I just want to say, I mean, for preserving the house, I think it's, we knew the previous owner very well. And he took very well, very good care of the house. I kind of always maintained it really well. And it is a nice house. And in thinking of like, When you demolish a building, there's generally some sort of disrepair, but this house is very, very well taken care of. And it is a very unique house on our street too. So I've just put my favor is keeping it as is or preserving it if we can.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. And Isaiah, just to clarify, uh, what was the number of your house on Ed's Palmont?
[SPEAKER_01]: Two nine. Two nine. Yep.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Anybody else? All right, seeing none, I'm gonna close the public comment portion for 27 Allmont Street. Commissioners, any final thoughts on the matter? All right, hearing none, I'll take a motion for, I'll take a motion for preferably preserved status now if somebody wants to make one.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I thought we had a motion.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We have a motion to start discussion, which is what we did.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Oh, OK. I thought that was a motion to find preferably preserved, but.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Melanie, do you want to change it to preferably preserved status so we can move forward with that?
[Kit Collins]: Yes, absolutely. I'll change the motion to preserve status.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll second. Doug Carr, second. Okay, motions have been made and seconded. I will go around as I see people starting with, yeah, Melanie?
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed? Yes. And Doug? Yes. Peter? Yes. Okay, motion passes four to zero. So there will be a demo delay for up to 18 months, but the commission will convene a subcommittee to reach out to the owner to see if we can start discussion on mitigating the demolition and what form that might take. All right, this concludes the public hearing for 27 Allmont Street. So we will move forward into the commission's regular business meeting, starting with a determination of significance for 18 Wedgmere Road. I reiterated the reasoning for determination of significance at the beginning of the public hearing. So commissioners, I will welcome a motion for significance for or against to kickstart discussion?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: What? Yes.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I'll make a motion to find. What's the address? Sorry, 18, 18 Wedgmere Road. Significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second.
[Unidentified]: I'll second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, Peter, if you want to start discussion. OK.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Well, this house is it's it's the same plan as my house, so and I feel like my house is significant, so I even though this one is. Covered with vinyl signing. I do feel like. It merits a look at just because it's near and dear to me, even though the plan is reversed. And I think underneath the vinyl siding, there might be some excellent detail. I don't know what the interior looks like, but that's my reasoning. I'm not super keen on the house. I think it's kind of, Typical bungalow house that there's a lot of them like this in our neighborhood this one's in my neighborhood. there's four or five or six of them that have the almost exact same plane plan in my neighborhood so somebody must have developed these all at a similar time, I think. And it does have some association with that, you know, the Stearns estate and the shipbuilding industry, et cetera. So it's kind of where I am at this moment.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. So Lenny.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I have a question. I mean, it does look like Maybe the vinyl siding is new, but the general form of the building is still intact. I was looking at the images, and it just looks like it's maintained that same shape. There are no visible additions or changes. Ryan, do you know roughly how many more bungalows from this era in the 1920s still exist? Is it a disappearing resource in Medford?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I use the number 3,000 for pre-1900 resources, but the city up until maybe, I don't know, like 10 years ago or something had some number like 18,000 homes, single and double, you know, two family homes. And, you know, some living, you know, some of that is apartment living, but literally in the 1910s, 20s and 30s, we built probably, you know, 5,000 to 10,000 homes over that period. Of that, I would say this is a fairly common style building. There's a lot of them. Their form is kind of disappearing, but I wouldn't say that this is the last one at all in any way, shape, or form. There's a lot of them.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, you know, I think there is an argument that can be made to preserve it because, you know, so many buildings of this era, the form can get changed quite a bit through, you know, additions here or there. And this seems pretty intact to me, so. And I do like the connections, the historical connections to, again, like shipbuilding and the Stearns Estate and sort of like the wider network of Medford history, I think is important.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you. Doug? Yeah, I'm intrigued by this. I guess I'm more open to, for the perfect preserve, to look at design alternatives for this house. I think there is a way to sensitively add, which I believe they're trying to do, a second floor, a full second floor to this house. It would be a massive change, it's significant, but we can, that's a couple of steps down the road. I guess my instincts are pure preservation, unlike the previous house. I was, you know, I think that house would be great if we could actually keep it intact. We don't know if we can, but this one, I guess I'm a little bit more open to looking at alternatives that might alter the house in probably a significant way for a lot of people, but still trying to maintain some of the character. We've seen a bunch of houses do that over the last couple of years, you know, add a full second floor and try to maintain some integrity and in some ways restore what was lost with the siding and other detail that might've been removed over the years. So I voted for significance, but I think it's slightly different than the previous commissioners did.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: And I would agree with that, Doug. It's not, their plan is just to raise the roof. It's not a total demo. So I think a sympathetic design could be okay.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I also agree. I don't think that, you know, I'm, it seems like for the purposes of this discussion, it's, you know, to determine whether this building has some historical significance or not, which I do think it does, but that doesn't mean that, you know, we're not open to change in the future once we see the plan. So that's a good point, Doug.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: And Ed? Again, you know, I look at this strictly from a social history point of view. The Stearns estate was subdivided a long time ago. But I think, again, that's an important piece of the city's history. Nonetheless, this looks like a raise the roof application, which means I doubt that anything is going to take, I think this will resolve in a lot sooner than 18 months, I would hope. But at this point, you know, it's been our practice to sort of keep this going until we hear more from the owner. And I, you know, at that point, at that point, again, from a social history perspective, and as also something of a neighbor, you know, I think you can at least go to the next, you can go to hearing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, thank you. Motion's been made and seconded for significance. If there's nothing else, we can move forward with that vote. All right, seeing none, I'll go around and call it as I see it. Starting with Doug? Yes. And Ed? Yes. And Eleni? Yes. And Peter? Yes. Okay, so for zero approved. So we will file the letter with the city clerk will reach out to the building owner, get them to post the sign with and pay for the legal ad. And we'll move forward with the public hearing next month.
[Doug Carr]: Brian, where they have anyone have the owners are here, obviously, right?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: at this meeting?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm not sure.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I think they were, but I don't see him now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, I think they have left. So we'll reach out to them and let them know of next steps and then we can have them come and talk about the plans for their renovation at next meeting. Okay, moving forward. Next on the agenda is 9 Trout Avenue. Commissioners, I'll take a motion for ninth row for significance or not.
[Doug Carr]: I will make a motion to find this not significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second.
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. All right, Doug, you got it. Go ahead.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I looked at this, the form B, and I think there is nothing about this particular two families struck me as having a whole or of a certain character or quality that a potential could potentially improve. It would change the, again, change the masking a little bit, but I think there's actually a chance to kind of reinvent this house. And I don't think it rises to the level I normally think of when I'm thinking of, you know, a significance that potentially perfectly deserves. So that's where I stand based on the form B. Great.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: And Ed? Again, from a social history point of view is sort of interesting, again, you know, I don't think this is a house which we use to cast the neighborhood an aspect, though. Again, there's just, you know, it's nothing particularly significant as its own. We're really, again, talking about a raise the roof, but I'm not sure there's anything which is distinctive to stop that or make it worth going to war over. Again, you know, this is a neighborhood which is to very great extent subdivision small workman's homes. This is not the best, you know, this is not the best example. It has really nothing more than having been built in the 20s. So I'm happy to support Doug's motion as written.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Eleni, anything to add?
[Kit Collins]: Not much. I do think I was looking at the photos there, you know, It seems like a lot of the original detail might have been stripped away. Like Ed, I do appreciate the social history, especially, you know, I live in a building like this that was built in the same time. It's a two family and I think that, you know, this typology, I think it's, you know, very unique to Medford and this region and I just, I just don't think there's enough there to keep it. I do appreciate that it's being replaced with another multifamily. So kind of keeping the typology the same, or at least it looks like a multifamily in the renderings.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it is.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. So, you know, I think that the two family nature of it will still be there. It'll just look slightly different. So. Yeah, I don't find anything that still exists in this building to be of particular significance. Okay, thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I think I agree with the other Commissioner's points. I think that the building could use a facelift and be modernized and still be used as a two-family. I don't see enough there either to think that it's significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. Thank you. With nothing else, and everybody has said their comments, I'll move forward with the motion as I see you starting. Just a reminder, Doug made a motion to find that this building is not significant and add second in it. So I'll start with you, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: So a vote of no means not significant, correct?
[Adam Hurtubise]: A vote of yes means no significance. So you made the motion that way.
[Doug Carr]: That's why I'm clarifying. Okay, yes for non-significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes for non-significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed? Non-significant, yes. And Eleni?
[Kit Collins]: Yes for non-significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So four, zero, not significant. All right, so Jen and I will work on a letter for that one and get that one off of the table. All right, next up, we are gonna receive a couple of demolition applications, but things are going to switch around a little bit. Okay, so just to give some updates, I did a little bit of research on 85 Morton Avenue, and according to the building department in their records, the building was constructed in 1967, so it is not eligible for review. So commissioners, I will take a motion to pass on review because it is not eligible because of age.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to move move to reject the application for 85 Morton as being not within our jurisdiction.
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Lenny second. Okay, commissioners. I'll go around as I see you, Ed. Yes, Doug. Yes. Peter. Yes. And Eleni.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, 4-0 rejected.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: And what was that date? Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So Attorney Desmond, we're all set on that property. Next up, we'll receive the application for 38 Pearl Attorney Desmond. Unfortunately, we did not get a response back by Thursday, and that's the posting deadline for the commission's agenda. So we can only accept the application, and then we'll
[Kathleen Desmond]: I have a quick question in that regard. Is there a way then that we could waive the significance hearing and move straight to the public hearing? I mean, I believe looking at the Form A and the Form B, I don't think there's, I'd be surprised if there was any question from the board as to whether or not this would move forward. to that hearing. And just in terms of time, I don't know if that's something that can be done in this instance.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Which property are we talking about?
[Adam Hurtubise]: 38 Pearl. I'm not sure, to be perfectly frank. I honestly think that that would be a question for The city's solicitor, who is KP law, I believe at this point, I don't we have never had a situation where we skip significance and go right to preferably preserve status.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I mean, just in terms of timing, you know, and looking at the form a that was provided, this is, you know. In consideration for national register of historic, so I don't know that this would be a situation where. The board would would pass on it. Unfortunately, I couldn't get a hold of my client until later in that day and make sure that he was going to be available.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, let's let's let's do this. Let's accept the application. Let's start with that. And then let's tentatively schedule the public hearing under the assumption that the commission would determine the building significance. What we could do is I guess we could publish the public hearing, determine significance at the beginning of that hearing, and then move right to the public hearing so that we can get the comments and do them back to back. The only stipulation is that we have to post the public hearing within 14 days. So I don't see why we couldn't do both of those at the same time, provided we give the public adequate notice.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: that as long as we have the consent of the applicant to go through, do both at once, and they comply with notice of hearing and the posting of the billboard, I don't see why there'd be a problem. And we don't take comment during significance hearings anyway.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, right. Right. That's mainly to determine whether the building warrants, um, additional discussion. And if the owners themselves and their representatives are asking for that hearing, we might as well just move forward with it. I'm comfortable with that. If folks want to make a motion to approve the application and tentatively file the, um, legal notice for the public hearing under the assumption that next meeting will have the significance hearing and then the public hearing immediately following that if it's significant.
[Doug Carr]: Before you make a motion, I'm sorry to cut you off, I just have a question. I don't disagree with your approach here. My question is, why would we do this all the time? What would prevent us from doing this for every single property that came before us?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, if, if we, we try to do it as a two step process, just because it requires us to post the legal ad if the hearing is warranted, but not everybody in building would warrant a hearing. So, for example, the trout. building that we just turned down doesn't necessarily warrant a public hearing after the fact. So we could do it if, you know, if we are asked by building owners, I guess, if they just want to assume that we're going to find the building significant and compress the process down. That takes a little bit of cooperation on the part of the owner, but I don't see why we couldn't do that if people asked for it. But just know, you know, there, back in the day, we weren't doing that just because there was a cost associated with the legal ad that the commission is absorbing. But now the owners are paying for that. So, you know, we certainly accommodate it if they're paying for it.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Well, and I think also just, I mean, we've had the opportunity because the, um, the form a and the form B were available. Um, so, you know, I think in this instance, the board is going to make a determination. I don't want to tell the board what they're going to do, but I've been at these hearings enough to know that, that this is likely something that the board is going to unanimously, unanimously, uh, move to the next stage. And if that's the case, then in time, we're just, we're just, you know, wasting a month of time to get before the board. So now we're in July rather than in June. Um, and, and it's a partial demolition. So, so time is of the essence. In addition, you know, we went to the board of appeals originally, um, to obtain a use variance, did that first because there was no sense in discussing it if a use variance was not going to be permitted. So there's also those time constraints to that would like to keep this moving along.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, I would agree that given where the process for this house, the existence of the form and the willingness of the owner. I mean, I wouldn't make it a habit, but I think where we've got the consent of the owner, and again, as Ms. Desmond just pointed out, there's been a fair amount of process and other public forums about this building. I don't see why we can't do it in this case.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So with that being said, I'm fine with that plan if the commissioners are, so I'll start by taking a motion to accept the application.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to accept the application as to form and to schedule tentatively a public hearing subject to the usual requirements for the next meeting of the commission with the consent of the owner.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Consent of owner. And a second? Second. Doug, thank you. All right, I'll go around as I see you, Doug. Yes. And Ed? agreed yes handle any yes and peter yes okay four zero motion passes we'll get that legal add uh to you attorney desmond and um we'll get you on the agenda for next month for both the significance and the public hearing back to back
[Kathleen Desmond]: Just a point of, in terms of the public notice, is that going to Gatehouse Media? Is that where we send it, or do we?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, yeah, it will. Dennis will- Are we responsible for that, or, okay. So what we'll do is we'll tell you the dollar amount, we'll send you the dollar amount, and then Dennis will post it on your behalf once he receives the check from your client, you or the clients. And then from there, There's the signage requirement, which we should post just preemptively just because it should be up for the public hearing.
[Kit Collins]: So, and that's it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Did I miss 3 to 5 pleasant street?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, sorry, I totally missed it. I skipped it because I went by for 85 Morton Street, so 3 to 5 Pleasant Street. Thank you. Um, commissioners, we received an application for the demolition of the building at 3 to 5 Pleasant Street. The building is a national register listed historic resource. It's been fire damaged, but, um, because the building is listed under the National Register of Historic Places. If we accept the application to move forward, it will move right into a public hearing the following month after this, provided that we can meet all of the publication deadlines. So I will accept a motion to accept the application, and we'll go from there.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: move to accept the application as to form.
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Oh, I'll give it to you, Eleni.
[Kit Collins]: Thanks, Peter.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: So I'm not. I was talking to Chuck Veneziano, who was complaining about this project, and he was like, he can't believe that this house is going in. I'm just curious, because I didn't know what to tell him. If the house is fire gutted, has it not been condemned by the building commissioner then?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So the commissioner is here, but I believe the answer to that question is no, not at this point. The commission, as you know, does not consider the state of the building, the structural aspect of the building. That's the domain of the building department. It's quite clear in our bylaw that he has the power to order the building down for public safety reasons. But at this time, it's there. I think the real question the commission gets to ask itself is is the reuse of this building as it stands right now uh any sort of feasible thing or is it is its loss going to be detrimental to the overall understanding of the city of medford um you know there's minimal information that was a part of the national register form so i really think that all we're going to get out of it is information um but you know i personally look at this, just from my standpoint, that, you know, it's going to go to a hearing and then from there, is it preferably preserved? And to me, the integrity of the building is gone because it's been fire gutted. So, we could accept the application, but if you choose not to and reject it on the grounds that it's a total loss because of fire, I would say that's an acceptable reason to reject the application.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I was just curious how that works, just because, you know, it is a national register building or whatever, but we haven't really run into this situation. So I was just, I know the commissioner has the power to condemn the building if it's needs to be condemned for safety reasons or whatever. And so I was just assuming that that didn't happen and therefore we were looking at it. Is that correct?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, right.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So do we want to, while there's a motion on the table, discuss potentially rejecting the application? Or do we want to have the, does this building warrant a public hearing?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I guess, and again, there has been talk about this particular problem. The bylaw doesn't seem, the bylaw leaves a gap where Everybody agrees it's a total loss, but nobody, you know, but, you know, but essentially who's making the decision is a total loss. Is it, you know, the insurance company? Building commissioner will not, you know, won't, you know, would let it stay in its present state, even though there's, you know, which means you're basically wasting a lot. And as has been portrayed here on the record, you've got two, you've got two condo owners who would like to get a house back. No, I think, you know, one more case for, after 10 years of experience trying to figure out, you know, some refinements, you know, refinements to the bylaw, because this is a situation we shouldn't be in. Again, you know, again, I'd rather the building commissioner say total loss demolished right now, but it seems like that's not gonna happen. And the insurers are not gonna restore it. You know, the insurers are viewing the total loss from a structural point of view. So I'm not sure what, you know, We're sort of caught in a situation which I think the bylaw didn't anticipate. Fortunately, not very often.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, right. And one would hope that we don't normally encounter this level of detrimental activity. We encountered it with 82 Greenleaf, but in that instance, much more of the building was standing than this case. Scott, I see your hand raised. Do you want to chime in?
[Scott Vandewalle]: Yeah, I just, I did want to offer a little bit of clarification. From my understanding, speaking to the fire department, the inspector who was there that evening, the chimney has collapsed, the roof has collapsed, the second floor has collapsed, so substantially gone on the inside. I'm sure if you've driven by it, you've seen the smoke and the char damage. We did not immediately declare it. condemned. We did declare it do not enter. That's what the big red X on it essentially means that was posted. We wanted to respect the position. We wanted to make it secure to the public at first and see where we stood with things. The concern more for me as we go on is that is an attractive nuisance. As the summer comes, people wander about and certainly being open to the weather, it continues to deteriorate. But But we do want to respect this process and get some feedback from you folks and sort of go from there. But it's definitely very, very difficult to salvage any portion of it. It also, I believe, has asbestos shingles on it and will take some work to remove that as well. So it's a bit of a mess. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Thanks. Other comments from the commissioners, any other discussion on Any discussion on which way you guys are leaning?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I mean, my thought is to, since the house is, it's, you know, this far from being condemned, I can tell. It's about a micron away from the edge of being condemned that I don't see any point in, you know, lengthening this process or, you know, because I just feel that there's so much fabric there that is gone and, you know, so much damage. You know, if there's some kind of documentation, that's the only thing I could think of, but maybe that could happen. kind of at the same time, you know? So I think I might be in favor. I mean, I don't know if we can do this, but to kind of like just pass on it, let it, let it go. But I mean, it is on the historic register, so I don't know.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I kind of agree with Peter on this. You know, obviously we want to be very cautious in normal circumstances, but there's no house there. There's never going to be another house there like that. And it's not salvageable. I think we would be perceived as slowing this down for no no logical reason. I would assume cut our losses, maybe take some photos and documentation, but that's it and move forward as quickly as possible so that the neighborhood can get on the track to repairing itself and filling in that important piece.
[Kit Collins]: I agree. I mean, it does seem like it's mostly gone and there's not much left to preserve at this point. It would be more of a reconstruction than preserving any kind of original home. So yeah, there is a way that we can just pass on it. So you know, rebuilding can begin. I would be in favor of that.
[Scott Vandewalle]: And if I might offer just a little bit more clarification, I know in talking to the owner, he does intend to rebuild on the same foundational footprint and rebuild essentially the same looking structure was there. It's not his intention to come in with something new and modern. So hopefully what we see will be a better version of what was there.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, it is.
[Doug Carr]: It is good to hear. And if the owner. is, you know, there's obviously some architects in this board have a lot of experience. They can, he's looking for some free advice to help get them there. You know, we have, I don't know if existing drawings are available. Obviously old photos might be something that would assist as well. So there could be some resources that we could help with.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, commissioners, The motion has been made to accept the application. But if you, if we accept the application, it moves right into the hearing. So if you turn it down, and we just reject it, then it will, will move forward, and there'll be no further review. So I'll call it as I see you on the table starting with Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: With the based on the discussion from the chair from the vice chair, no, reject.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, and Doug? No. And Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No, but I wonder if we should, sorry, I wonder if we should amend the motion to say, to reject the application for the purposes of passing on review.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure. I don't know. Let's finish this vote and then we'll amend the vote afterwards. Eleni? Now. So for 0 rejected Peter do you want to amend the vote.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes, I'd like to amend the motion to be to reject the demolition application for the purposes of passing on review. Further review.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And second. And I'll do it as I call it Peter. Yes, Doug. Yes, Ed. Yep. And Lenny.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, the motions amended. All set. Okay, so I will get the letter out for this property and they will be all set and on their way. Thank you, Peter, for calling my attention to that. I almost missed them. All right, site plan review. 400 Mystic Ave. Commissioners, I sent out the information that I received for 400 Mystic Ave. Did anybody have a chance to take a look at it?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I looked at the drawings. You know, this would be the great showpiece of Mystic Ave's automobile alley, which seems to be something which you're losing, not gaining. Other than I don't think we have a lot to say about it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, we can maybe reach out to them and just say no comment this time.
[Doug Carr]: I think that's the right approach.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I agree because it seems like. Most of the building is sort of staying there and it's also kind of like. I don't know when the building was built, but. I don't know what relevance we could have on it because they're adding a little bit more. It looks like office space or whatever back. I don't know, some kind of space, but the bank building is still sort of pretty much intact. It's now have a big Toyota sign on it.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Well, it's going to have a Toyota sign and it looks like they're going to put cars. It looks like a five-story showroom, at least as seen from Route 93. But the I'm saying it in a way they're preserving on will be allowing for 30 years ago, but that's not our jurisdiction ordinarily.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great. I'll let them know that we don't really have any comment at this time. 280 Misticab, I sent out, or I received the wrong link for it, received the link for the previously submitted information. So Dennis is going to send us out the revised packet to make sure that we have the most up-to-date information for that project. So commissioners, our comments will be due relatively soon. So we'll make sure that we get those comments off and handle that, send it off to community development.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Again, apart from your urban planning piece, the only building which was referred to as 280, which I gather is a Bank of America, had been the Bank of America building. And again, that's way post 45, I mean, just from the look of it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, all the all the buildings on that side of the street are all really post-war. There are early industrial buildings on the other side of the street and further up towards Medford Square and way down towards Somerville. But those are really just utilitarian brick buildings. There are some older, older businesses like Duff Spring is a business that's been there pretty close to 100 years now. And the little building, which is the inspectional, auto inspection place, says originally started life as a service station way down on the Somerville line. But you know, they're, they're not really anything impressive. What makes it kind of interesting is it's one of the few places that industry has kind of congregated outside of the railroad. So, you know, probably because it was just open swampland throughout most of the 20th century. So By and large, most of those buildings are probably not going to come before us for any sort of review. Any other questions on that? All right, hearing none, I'll send it out. We'll get final comments off before so that we can address that.
[Doug Carr]: Brian, can I ask a question? We've seen this before, haven't we?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I was checking the emails and I think it came before us for a slightly different review. It may have incorporated some other projects in addition to residential, but I think the latest is that this is a totally residential project now. And of course with 40B, the big thing is that they're receiving a comprehensive permit. So that includes demolition delay all at once. So if they receive their comprehensive permit, this is our opportunity to get in with those comments now.
[Doug Carr]: This was a lab project a couple of years ago, right? That's what it was two or three buildings.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think there was like a biotech labs. Yeah, opposite hurts. I think there was like a five story proposed building there. That was way too big for this proposed tiny site. Scott, do you have clarification?
[Scott Vandewalle]: I can give you a little bit of clarification. There's one building that's missing from there. It's the old staples that was torn down a few years ago. Yep, that is the other half of it. Yeah, prior to the pandemic they had come in with lab buildings due to the pandemic and a lawsuit over some other issues. They went into sort of a tolling hold and are now coming back and they are sticking strictly with 300 plus units under a 40 B. So yeah, you have seen it in various guises, parts and pieces in the past, and that's why it's familiar.
[Doug Carr]: Why is it called Medford Science Park if it's residential now? I think that's the wrong link.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's the wrong link. I think we got sent the wrong link from 2023. Gotcha.
[Doug Carr]: Okay. That explains a lot.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. So Dennis said he promised to get it out to us first thing in the morning. So I'll send that out as soon as I receive it. Okay, great. Properties under demo delay at this point I haven't heard anything for 91 Winchester Street and of course as we know we gave 56 Wareham Street their marching orders to come up with a design for the reuse of that building so we'll just wait and see if we, when we hear something back on those we'll give it before the board. I don't have anything for comments on permit subcommittee at this point. For Cross Street Cemetery, for the general updates for the projects that I'm working on there, it's a little bit frustrating because I'm trying to get the projects underway, but I'm waiting for a grant account to be set up so that I can expend uh money um on behalf of the grant and there's only two people in the city that do that and it's been a relatively painful process so i've just been sitting around waiting for nearly two months so i'm going to try to poke the bear tomorrow and get them to really try to push it because i'd like to get it some of it done before the end of the fiscal year so It would be great if it didn't straddle the fiscal year. Plus we're coming up on CPC deadlines. So, you know, they're only holding themselves up. You know, we need to have project information, you know, in order to, you know, we need the funding so that we can get the consultants to get project information so I can apply for CPC funding to move forward with that portion of it. And, you know, so.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Is this for the headstones or for the internment thing?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just for the just for the headstone restoration portion of the project. The cemetery archaeological investigation at the former cross street cemetery site is also in a bit of a holding pattern because I'm, I have to go out and get. estimates for consultants for public procurement process and it's been a little bit of a beast. So I'm just trying to get that off the ground and as soon as I have those quotes then we can move forward with a consultant but I have to go out and get the quotes first. So that also is moving forward but slowly. for cpa projects for thomas brooks park we got the funding from city council so city council has um approved the funding so now i just will work with teresa to get the final paperwork signed off and we can begin the process of moving forward with that project um that i think the other projects um take precedent over that one for now just because uh i've been working to get them on on board and underway so my focus will be to get cross street underway before i take on anything with the cpc portion of the project but with a little bit of luck you know i should be able to start you know plan specs and bidding for that project maybe in the mid-summer ish time period assuming that the other consultants are all underway i would love volunteer help. So and Jen and Kit are not here tonight so automatically they get put on my committee and you know they don't get any say in the matter. But if anybody else wants to help I will gladly spread some of this workload around. The biggest turtles are just getting numbers and dealing with the consultants and procurement issues to start. Once that's underway the consultants just kind of do their own thing. For survey and planning projects, the consultants delivered the second half of inventory forms for our review and comment. I did have a chance to review them. They're chock full of great information on Fulton Heights. So the only thing left to do is we're waiting for Massachusetts Historical Commission to provide feedback and then they can wrap up that project, hopefully by the end of the fiscal year is what we're shooting for. So we'll be back on track and then we can start a new project in the new fiscal year when we're ready, working on one of the existing neighborhoods that we decided we would go back to. And we're going to ask MHC for some additional money. Usually they have money to pass down to CLGs, so it's a little bit of an off year for us because we are working with them kind of in a close partnership, but without the normal S&P grant that we receive. So we have flexibility if we don't receive anything from them, but we'll be moving forward with some project there. And that's all that I have on those items. The only thing left on the agenda is the approval of minutes, but before I do that, is there any other old business, new business that you wanted to bring up? All right, hearing none, we'll take Peter's meeting minutes. Everybody have a chance to review?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to accept.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second?
[Kit Collins]: I'll second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second, OK. We'll go around the room as I see you, Ed. Agreed, yes. Peter? Yes. And Doug? Yes. Lenny.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I'm a yes for five zero approved. Okay, with nothing else on the agenda this evening, I will take a motion to adjourn. Oh, in a second.
[Kit Collins]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: second by the way um dennis posted the link to the 40b project in the chat okay oh yeah original filing okay yeah i'll uh i'll send this around via email in about five minutes once we're all squared away here okay motions been made and seconded i'll start with uh to adjourn ed
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Adjourned, yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Peter? Yes. Doug?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Eleni?
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And I'm a yes, so 5-0 adjourned. Thank you all. I will email that link out tonight, and we'll get going on that.
|
total time: 4.03 minutes total words: 340 |
|||