[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm going to read the Governor's statement and then we'll jump right into the regular meeting. On March 29, 2023, Governor Healey signed into law a Supplemental Budget Bill, which, among other things, extends the temporary provisions pertaining to the Open Meeting Law to March 31, 2025. Specifically, this further 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 substantive changes to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings to March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. So for those of you who are following along, if you go to medfordhistoricalcommission.org, you can see in the news section that we posted meeting materials. They should be up online. If you have any comments, you can certainly email them to us or you can participate in the meeting here or remotely. It is being broadcast, I believe, on Metro Community Media. So with that being said, we'll go right into the first agenda item, which is the determination of significance for 38 Pearl Street. We received an application for the partial demolition of the rear of the building. So commissioners, I sent around the MHC Form B and Form A. So we will be determining significance tonight. Just as a reminder for what that is, because we have another determination. Determining significance is any building or portion thereof which is not in a local historic district subject to the regulations of MGL 40C, but which has been listed or is subject to pending listing on the National Register. has been listed on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places or was built 75 years or older, which is 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 city or 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 group of buildings. So commissioners, with that being said, I will be happy to start the dialogue with a motion on significance and then we'll go from there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'll make a motion to find for significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second.
[Kit Collins]: I'll second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Is that all, Annie?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. Second. Perfect. Jen, OK, we'll start with you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, yeah, so I think on this one, uh, significance is certainly warranted. It's a pre, uh, 1900 structure, obviously an exceptionally well-preserved example of a Greek revival. Um, and also with the recommendation of it being in a national register. criteria here that the consultant has recommended for two categories, not just one. So I think all of those three things together, I think certainly checks the box for significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Thank you. Eleni?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'm going to agree with Jen. I think the fact that the building still retains much of its architectural character and integrity warrants its significance. And I don't really have much to add beyond that. It's just I support the determination of significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Kit, I see you next, so we'll go to you.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I agree with Jen and Eleni. I mean, this one seems to me to be sort of a pretty clearly significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. And Peter? Peter, you're next. Sorry.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I don't have anything further to add to the previous commissioners. I think it's a well-preserved example. This one's actually kind of a no-brainer for significance for me.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Doug, I know you just signed back on. We talked about significance, if you want to add your thoughts.
[Doug Carr]: I do. I caught the end of what Peter said, and I kind of agree with him. This won't be as just chock full of stuff that we don't see on most of these houses. It's not a close call for me. It's got a lot of integrity, and I think it's definitely worth For the 2nd, look and see if we can see if we can do something with this. I don't know what the plan is. I haven't looked at the drawings, but this 1 is definitely something we want to take a hard look at.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, we can talk about the plan after we've discussed integrity of the building. I think that's important. So, okay, with that being said, commissioners that I don't, you know, I think you guys have said it all. So, if you want to, if we don't have anything else, I'll go right into the roll call. And seeing none, I will call you as I see you. So the motion was made to determine significance in favor of significance made by Jen and seconded by Eleni. So I'll start with Kit, because I see you first.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes, for significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. And Pierre?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Eleni? Yes. And Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Nope, nothing. I think he's frozen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think he is frozen. Jen? Yes. Oh, yeah, I got Doug. Thank you, Doug. And Jen?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, for significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, five to zero, pass. Pass. I am here. Oh, Ed, I saw you. I missed you there, yes.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: And I will vote aye. Yeah, my camera is acting out.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. And Ed, yes, down there. Sorry, Ed. Ed, did you have anything else to add for significance? Sorry, I missed you.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: No, no, no, I was getting myself rebooted. So I will rest on the architects for now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. We will be going into a hearing for this property because the owners wanted to move this process along. So they went ahead and posted the legal ad for the hearing as well as the sign at the site. So as soon as we finish with 68 to 70 buildings that will return to this and have the hearing. So, um, for 68 to 70 buildings, we received an application for demolition of the building. It's gonna be altered beyond recognition. Um, Jen was kind enough to send out the MHC form B and with the packet. So as soon as we accept the application, we can move forward with the determination of significance. So commissioners, I'll take a motion to accept the application or not.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I'm accepted.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Go ahead, sorry.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Sorry.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Peter Miller, second. Okay, thank you. So I'll go around and do roll call vote. Kit? Yes. Peter?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Eleni? Yes. Doug?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Accept as a form.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. And Jen? Yes. 60 approved. OK, now I need a motion for significance. Or not.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'll make a motion to find for significance.
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, I'll go around. I will begin by hearing comments. Jen, you made the motion, so go ahead if you want to start dialogue on significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sure. I'm actually struggling a little bit with this one, because I think we can all agree that, you know, we see you know, kind of little compact two families like this all over the city. Certainly this is a nice example. So on one hand, I wanna say it's not, you know, so unique that it needs to be saved. On the other hand, I was a little thrown by the recommendation for a national register criteria on this one, but I can understand why, because it is a, you know, really nice example. here and it's in this lovely kind of South Medford location. So I'd be curious to hear what some of the other commissioners think. And also just wanted to point out, this is only a partial demo. They do want to change the roof line, which I think would significantly kind of alter the look of the house. So I'm just a little on the fence. So I'd love to kind of hear what everybody else has to say on this one.
[Doug Carr]: All right, I'll go next. I think I seconded, so let me jump in here. I actually, even though I said for significance, I don't intend to vote that way. This property, I just don't think it has enough character. Maybe it did at one time, I'm not sure, but there's been a lot lost, and there's a lot of two families in Medford that I would fight pretty hard for, but this is just not one of them. I think actually with the addition, if done right, could make this building more interesting and be an interesting re-imagination of this one. I'm on the other side, at least right now. That's my preference based on what I see based on the form B. I don't see the district's potential here. I disagree with the form B a little bit. This part is heading towards Mystic Ave. It's becoming pretty Pretty, pretty less less neighborhood and more kind of industrial almost. So, I, I think the context is a transition. So, I think let's just. I don't, I just don't see the, this 1 is something I'm going to plant the flag for.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks, I'll go to your next.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I agree with Doug. I feel like I can point to this house on pretty much every block in the city. But the one thing that's, I mean, I too was tripped up by the recommendation for the national registry. But the one thing that I did wonder about was sort of if altering this alters the neighborhood. in the cityscape of the neighborhood. But it sounds, Doug, from what you're saying is that this is already in a pretty transitional area.
[Doug Carr]: I think it depends on, and I haven't looked at the design, so I can't really say. I think a streetscape look at this building would be worthy, because most of the buildings in this neighborhood seem like they're of this scale. But I haven't walked the street. I haven't really looked at it critically. So I think it's an open question in my mind, Kit.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks Peter next.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Uh, yeah, I'm I'm of like mind. I think, um. I didn't find anything I feel like most of the detail on this house has been. And also was somewhat surprised that I think it I think it said. eligible for a historical registry only in the case of a district.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: It's strictly a district.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. I agree that the neighborhood is in transition, so yeah, I'm in agreement with the other questioners there. Just going to look at Google Maps here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks, Peter. Anna Lenny?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think I'm in agreement with everyone that it's not. I think it's been stripped down and altered so much that a lot of its character is gone. What would have made it eligible for the listing, an individual listing is gone. And the new proposal is still to keep it as a multifamily. So it's not taking away any housing units, which I think are desperately needed. So yeah, I don't really see the need to determine it as historically significant. I just don't think it's there. And yeah, these buildings are all over Medford. And there are some that still maintain some of their architectural original characteristics. So yeah. Great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks. And Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I guess, again, I understand the district recommendation in the context, again, of the subdivision, even of that area near Mystic, going back to, I presume, around the 20s, structure itself, even reflecting the fact that every block in this area, you can see the houses were built to one model and converted into something else sometime in the last 70 years. is, you know, it doesn't seem like it's worth preserving as such if all we're talking about is a raise the roof and build out the back, build out the back, you know, reno. So I would say not significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great. Thank you. Having heard from all the commissioners, I will, unless there's anything else to add to this particular property, I do just want to add that MHC just did a An analysis slash like light program on what the national what MHC looks for the national register CLGs have the added bonus of being able to do it at the local level. So we, as a CLG can determine. Whether or not buildings are not National Register eligible, potentially, and that MHC just simply has to concur or not concur. And I'll talk about the 2 that we submitted later, but they don't necessarily always have the same standards that we do in terms of. what we consider and are eligible versus them. So we can talk about the specifics that may help you guys, plus I'll send around the program because it may help you understand what John and Claire, when they do their forms and do these nominations, what they're trying to explain. Okay. So with that being said, I'll send around that information. Um, so, uh, we're going to do a roll call vote. Uh, the motion was made for significance and seconded. So yes, the significance of no is not significant. So I'll start with kit.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: No.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Uh, no.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Eleni? No. And Doug?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: No.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: No, not significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Jen? I will vote no. OK, so 0 to 6 is not significant. So Jen and I will work on that letter and we'll get that out at the end of the week. Thank you all. Okay, next step, we're gonna hold a public hearing. So the Medford Historical Commission will have a public hearing at 7 p.m. on Monday, June 10th in accordance with section 48-78 of the revised ordinances, which is the city's demolition delay bylaw. So agenda item, the first one that was up was 18 Wedgmere Road failed to post their sign as required by the demo delay packet. So we're gonna table that until next month. We're gonna send a second email reiterating that they need to both pay for that and to the legal ad that is necessary to run. So that's tabled until further notice.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: So just so I'm clear, no ad and no sign as of this month.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There's, yeah, Peter walked by this weekend and the sign was not up. So, and we did send out the day after last meeting, we sent out the notice to the homeowner that they were significant and that they needed to post the sign and they needed to pay for the legal ad. And they didn't either. They didn't do either.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, as of today, there was no sign either. I checked again today.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, we should send an email to the building commissioner and to the inspectors just to give them a heads up of what's been happening here, just so that there's no mistake of issuing a permit. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we can do that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, just keeping the, and they've appreciated that when we've done that in the past, so. Because there's no permit in our system to hold.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. All right, maybe we can do that tonight after this meeting that. or tomorrow morning. That's fine. Okay, so then, with that being tabled, we're gonna move right into 38 Pearl Street, the preferably preserved hearing. So commissioners, as I mentioned previously, we had determination of significance. The building is significant, so now we can have the hearing. They did post the requisite sign, was a legal ad posted. We didn't, to date, receive any feedback from the neighbors or anything like that. But, Doug, I see your hand raised. Do you have a question?
[Doug Carr]: Uh, it's a more procedural question. Is this I'd like the fact that we're trying to accelerate the process when we have an owner who's. Thinking with us and trying to work with, is this the new template we're going to go forward for? If so, if an order wants to get on board, we're going to use this model going forward when they're when they're willing to play.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, I don't see, I didn't see anything procedurally that says that the, if the owner wants to not wait and spend the money to post the legal ad and the sign preemptively, assuming that the building's significant, there's no reason why they couldn't do that.
[Doug Carr]: So, I mean- No, that makes sense. I just, I guess, do we need to change our website to let them know it's an option? Because I don't think that's the way our procedures are written, I don't think, as an option, unless somebody-
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, it's not it's not written that way, but we can certainly advertise, you know, I is provided that this procedure works out. I don't see any reason why we can't advertise. I mean, it seems to be working for both us and the homeowner. So no, I just.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Maybe we can just change it to say that there's a potential option. I think the other thing, too, is we need to make sure we have enough time to order the form B. And so, you know, it will just depend on when, you know, for this case and attorney Desmond and some of the other. kind of developers we work with, we sometimes will get a heads up that they're thinking about acquiring a property or asking about something, and we can order a Form B perhaps before they've even submitted their application. So I think anytime, if we can do it, I think if the option is there, if all the chips can kind of fall into place.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, in this case, too, that also works because we have the form B and a form A for this property. So it may not always be the case, but in this particular instance, you know, we could certainly work it out. Okay, so commissioners will kickstart the hearing. What we're gonna do is we're gonna have a motion to lay on the table to start discussion. We'll have commissioner comments. We'll hear public comments, any final comments from the commissioners following that, and then we'll finish up the motion with a roll call vote. And depending on which way it goes, we'll determine which way we go. Any questions? Hearing none, I'll take a motion to begin the discussion of the hearing.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I'd make a motion to find this property preferably preserved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you, Peter.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: 38 Pearl Street, that is.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second?
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks, Doug. All right, Peter, you want to start the discussion?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Same as before. I just feel like this is a very well-preserved example of a Greek revival. I agree with everything that Jen said before. It has a lot of architectural integrity and a lot of the details intact. I don't have any problem with an addition or whatever, but this one seems like we should do everything we can to keep the main mass of the house intact. So that's my feeling on it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks. And Doug, you're next.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I was just rereading the form. You know, the connection to the Shipra, the Curtis family is, I feel it's very significant. So I think that You know, usually the social side of things is I, I don't sometimes the connection is not that strong, but that's a family that, you know, it's a, it's a milestone family in the city of Medford. I think that that also helps this, but the building itself, even if didn't have that, I think I would still be looking for a perfect because this one is. It's just it's such a clear. Quality building, it has a lot of integrity and I think. There's a way to adapt this to whatever we need to, whatever the architect and the owner wants to do that is sympathetic and respectful and still allows them to make the changes they need to update this building, I think.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Thanks. Kit, you're next.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I don't have a whole lot to add. I mean, this one seems to me like a perfect example of why the commission exists. It is historically significant. It's architecturally significant. It's in great shape. And what is the inventory of houses of this era in the city? Ryan, you with your encyclopedic knowledge of this. Probably less than 1,500. To me, it's clearly preferably preserved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Eleni, you're next.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I don't have much else to add. It is a no-brainer for me. The Form B was pretty thorough in what's original and what changes have been made. It seems like the changes have been minimal and it looks like the house is in excellent condition, so I don't really see a reason to change it significantly or demolish it. I think it's just a beautiful house. Like Kit said, this is the reason why this commission exists, to preserve houses like this. Yeah. Great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed, you're next.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Again, I think given the intent seems to be to maintain the streetscape, build up a little and build back a little. You know, again, it's worth preserving, and I think we're really talking about design review to make the preservation work. So, you know, that's sort of where, you know, I, you know, this is worth preserving, and we can do it with some design tweaks fine. So that's where I am.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. And Jen, you're last, but not least.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, I agree with everything, especially what Doug said. I think there's a way here, and certainly we worked with this property owner in the past, and come with some good resolutions to, you know, preserve the front, let them extend the rear that we need to in a way that will be, you know, uh you know honor the structure that's there but allow them the density and the units that they need to make their project work for them um so i am hopeful that um you know we can uh i think we should it should be preferably preserved and we can come to probably a nice resolution on how we can all move forward and not have them wait out 18 months great thank you
[Adam Hurtubise]: Next up is the public comment period. Nelson, I see you have your hand raised. If you want to speak, name and address for the record and we'll be happy to hear you. Comments.
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Nelson Rivera. My office, 264 Salem Street in Medford. One thing about this property, I know this property is historical. We intend to preserve the entire structure in the front. We're not even going to replace the siding. The existing property, we're just going to paint. the existing structure. Only thing we're going to do in the existing structure is replace the window. We intend to put a historical window with the grids on. And the addition is going to match the front house as well. We're going to use the wood clapboard on the back as well to match the front clapboard.
[Doug Carr]: Sorry, Nelson, could you repeat the section about the windows?
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: I didn't, my- The windows, only thing to do over there, we have to replace those windows, the existing windows. The windows kind of have asbestos on it. And we're going to replace the existing windows of the existing house. But we're going to remain, everything else is going to remain the same. We're not changing the siding, we're not changing the trim. We're just going to paint the existing house. And the addition to the back, we're going to add wood siding, wood clapboard to make the existing house.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you. It looks like there's six over six windows. Are you saying that they all have asbestos and they all need to be replaced?
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: They have asbestos on it, yes. They test positive. That house, all of my time work, that house is the one we found the most asbestos. All the ceiling walls has asbestos on it.
[Doug Carr]: So can you match the aesthetics of the 6x6 with a modern window?
[ZQDZZh_VfdI_SPEAKER_02]: Yes, we can get the wood with the same, like, profile, the wood profile. We can get the same window, the wood profile. You know, metric existing over there. Yeah, thank you. We just did a house in Arlington historical home was be able to met the windows close enough.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Any other public comment? Kathy, I'll just give you the opportunity if you have anything to add.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure, I just want to let the board know that we've been through the zoning process on this. The lot's a very large lot. There was no dimensional relief required. But what we needed to do was get a use variance. So if the use variance wasn't permitted for the two families, then it wouldn't make sense to come to historical first. do a plan for two family and then find that the use for variance wasn't going to be granted. So in this instance we went to the Board of Appeals, got the use variance and they did some tweaks to the design already. It was going to be an L shape coming out away from the existing building and the Board of Appeals wanted it to at least be consistent with the existing dwelling. So we reduced the size of the The actual edition I can kind of if you want to share the screen, I can show you the portion that that. That is going to be. Where the addition is going to set. I can.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I have to make you a co-host. Which I may. Um. Hold on one second. Dennis, are you there?
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think Teresa is there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Teresa is also here, but I don't think Teresa is currently a host.
[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, I'm just a co-host right now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we've maxed out on host. So I just want to see if there was a way that he could revoke one of our... Could she email it to you, Ryan?
[Doug Carr]: He can put it on the screen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, can do that if you want to do that. I have the application.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Dennis just texted that his computer is frozen.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And it's page six of the plans. I believe I submitted those. That will just give you a sense of where the addition is located and what is being added.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Sorry, I was muted there, but I have the plans up on my screen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, go ahead, Peter. You're co-host then.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So it's page six of the plans, Peter, that shows the addition.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Hold on one second. Okay, can you guys see that?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yep. So that's, those are the renderings, but this shows you page six, the portion that is, here's the original, and this is what the proposed addition is to the rear of the structure.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Not a huge change in terms of massing, but very minor in terms of style that it's all going to match.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Here's the before and after massing. Before and after massing.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I believe the addition extends the property 10 feet to the rear. or roughly approximately 10 feet.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Before and after front, no change except for the window. Well, that's it. You guys seen enough or? Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think I'm happy.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm curious. From our architects, Peter, Ryan, I know sometimes in the past, you know, we haven't been super excited about like a big box. And I know when, you know, if zoning approves something and we maybe wanna make a change, just have to go back before zoning, I'm not sure how that works. So I'd be curious what the architects think of the design before.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Uh, not to sway anybody's vote, but I'll say I don't have anything to add. I'm satisfied with the vote. I just would ideally like to monument that we looked at this project and we had a hearing and that that this is the design that they're going with and sticking with. That's somewhat already taken care of because it's been ZBA approved. But I think from our standpoint, that's where that's the only thing left that I think we should do. But everything else to me seems fine. But I don't speak for Doug and Peter. So.
[Kathleen Desmond]: If I could just add on that point, I'm not so sure, and I'd have to go back and check with Dennis, but there wasn't any dimensional relief requested or we met all the dimensional requirements. It was strictly a use variance that was required in this instance. So I'm not sure if it was still within the dimensions, if it was tweaked somewhat, that that couldn't happen. But I'm not quite sure, but it was only a use variance and not a dimensional variance that we sought.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We have to go back to the board. It is not something we would want to have to rewrite completely.
[Kathleen Desmond]: At least could be discussed.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. Yep. Doug Peter comments and then they'll get to Lenny.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I mean, it is sort of an it's kind of an extrusion now, but. I don't know, I mean, I think it's a compatible design. I don't know what else they could do. I would have liked to see the L-shaped one, but I wouldn't go against zoning because there's some good characters on that. It does seem like the change in plane from the front to the back is so minor that it now appears to be just one continuous box going from the front facade all the way to the back. And I'm not really liking that, but I do really like everything else that's happening here. So I guess I wish it was a more pronounced transition between the front mass and the back mass, because You know, it doesn't really, it really reads as a single volume, not as, you know, an addition and a main house. To me, that would be my architectural criticism, but I'm not sure how strongly, and I would like to hear from Doug and others anyway.
[Doug Carr]: Peter, could you clarify what that, That notches, it looks like it's inches from the elevations I saw when you were sharing.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, let me look at the plan here.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Usually architects do what I told. I do that not only to break the plane just a little bit, but if the building is not square and they're building a new addition that is square, it allows for the discrepancy in lean of the existing building. Right.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: On the left side, the setback, from the new mass to the old is one foot. On the right side, it's currently flush, and it will maintain its flushness but get taller. So the one foot offset really doesn't do it for me in terms of breaking up the mass. So that's my architectural statement, but, you know, I mean,
[Doug Carr]: I mean, I guess we're obviously getting into the weeds a little bit here, but if you're going to make an extrusion, make an extrusion. I think it's so close to being an extrusion, you might as well just do it. I mean, I know that I agree with what Ryan is saying, that this logistical, maybe it's an expansion joint or a little soft joint, so the two parts can move a little bit separately structurally. And, you know, I think as a map, and clearly the zoning board said, basically, they want to see the extrusion. They didn't want to see the left turn and the dog leg. Right according to Tony Desmond.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I think it had more to do with the square footage of the second unit. They wanted the square footage of the second unit to be within a certain, you know, as a second unit, not as two single. I think the issue the zoning board had was the original drawing appeared to them to be two singles rather than a two family. So we rolled back the square footage so that it was more of a true duplex versus something that looked much larger. And there was a split on the board, but that was the ultimate decision.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: My preference would be to see a stronger break of more than one foot and push the addition further into the backyard. But I think we're getting ahead of ourselves here. We still need to vote on preferably preserved and hear from all the commissioners. So I just feel like we can visit that. I mean, I do have some issues with the design as presented so. I'm not satisfied with it so personally, but if I can be overruled, but.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, just a clarification, because I'm just looking at the existing condition site plan the side yard setback in this location is the 7 and a half foot standard. Okay, because that yeah.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I'm inclined to agree with Peter. I don't think that it's enough of a visual break. And from a preservation point of view, I usually don't like to see new additions that like mimic the historic building like to the exact letter. I do think that there should be some kind of you know, an addition should be done in, you know, a different architectural style or language, different color material, something, or providing some kind of break in the massing so they do read as, so it does read as an addition instead of just an extrusion of the original building. So I think that would wouldn't compromise the design of the original building so much if the addition kind of read more clearly as a contemporary addition and not just a continuation of the original building. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Who did I miss? I haven't missed anybody. Anybody else for public comments while we have public comments open? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public commentary period. Thank you all commissioners. Any final comments before we go into.
[Doug Carr]: Roll call just that it seems like there's obviously a cross section of opinions here. We're not speaking as 1, which is okay. I think there's a solution here. So I think. You know, if if the vote goes towards, you know, the direction I think it's going in, we're, we're probably looking at 1 quick design meeting to solve this problem. I think we're not looking at a long process at all.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think that's fine. Great. So with that being said, the motion was made by Peter to find preferably preserved status at 38 Pearl, Doug Carr second. So I'm going to do a roll call vote. Yes is preferably preserved and we'll vote the demo delay. No will allow the building owner to move forward. I'll start with Kit because I see you.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Eleni? Yes. Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes. With the understanding that this is going to go to a design committee pretty quick.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes. And Jen?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, preferably preserved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, 60 approved. So Tony Desmond and Nelson will get the letter out to you and will send this right to subcommittee, which is me, Peter and Doug. If you want to send over what was, I guess I guess it'd be good to see what was done and submitted to the ZBA initially, and then we'll have your plans to start with and see if we can't come up with a solution relatively quickly. And and we'll go from there. you. Thank you all. All right. Let's see back to the agenda. All right, that concludes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, Doug has his hand up.
[Doug Carr]: Oh, yeah, Doug, go ahead. Yeah, Ryan, given Eleni's comments, I think she should either replace me or join the subcommittee, since she clearly has a strong opinion about that. I wouldn't want her opinion not to be part of that subcommittee.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure, OK. Eleni, we'll switch Doug out. Doug can help out on a couple of the other ones, and we'll switch people out as we need to. That sounds perfect. Okay, returning back to our regular business meeting. So there's a couple of things on new business. The fire department is going through some design, design iterations, and they're actively soliciting feedback from various departments. The one thing that Jen and I thought of is that it might be good now to ask the city to document the 1960s safety complex that was, built as part of a major urban renewal project. So they entirely demolished the neighborhood that was there to put that building up and to put the public safety building up. So I think it would be good to have a little bit of information before it comes down. There's a form that exists because it is a significant Medford modernist building. It's one of the newer buildings that they built in the 60s. So it is important to Medford. Do I believe we should save it? No, absolutely not. But I think that we should ask them to document it as part of the process so that that's done. Is there any other thoughts on things that we might ask for? Do people want to be involved further with the new buildings design and comments? Because we get a lot. We're on their email chain in the city department.
[Doug Carr]: Have we seen that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: They sent around, I think, an initial concept just for the site. They're at site plan. I don't think they're at full building design yet.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it's just a concept for a site plan, and there's been a lot of back and forth, especially with engineering, I think, and Tim's group there about curb cuts and road width and things like that.
[Doug Carr]: It's not overly exciting right now. There's nothing yet other than a site plan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, because I think part of it is that they want to, I think they're talking about establishing money for further design and things like that.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Sorry, where's the site?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Union Street, corner of Union Street and Mystic Ave, the existing major fire station. It's going to replace that building.
[Doug Carr]: Got it. One of the most dysfunctional buildings I've ever seen in my life.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Nobody ever said it was a good design.
[Doug Carr]: It just didn't age well. It was fine when it was built. It just didn't age well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. So we'll make sure we ask for documentation as part of that. And we'll keep people in the loop as that design process moves forward. All right, next up 400 Mystic Ave. 400 Mystic Ave is, is or was before the Community Development Board. They're gonna ask to demolish the older portion of the building as part of their redevelopment of that site. It is the former Ballaroo skating rink, so I think a lot of people are interested in it. There's a lot of chatter about it on the community board, so I think we should do an MHC form. A, that covers the new and old building, because I think the old building is important, but the new building is also worth documenting, too. It was former Century Bank headquarters. Someday it will be historic, maybe, if they don't tear it down beforehand. So, you know, I think we should appropriate maybe $1,000 to have that site documented. Any Ed West moves? And a second?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, second. And this is the little gray building that they want to take out. Didn't we already review this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we'll have to review it because it is 75 years or older. Supposedly, the people that bought that building moved it to the site from somewhere in West Medford. Supposedly, it was a MTA bus building that was no longer needed, so they cut it into sections and relocated it. I have no idea where that information, I know where the information came from, but I have no idea where the bus building may have possibly been, having looked at aerials and whatnot. So I'll be interested to see what the consultants come up with, if anything. And in terms of on the inside, I know that Century has gutted that building multiple times. So obviously, I don't think anything remains from the Ballaroo period. But it is the shell is old enough to review. So it should at least get a review.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Who was the second on that?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Me.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Jen.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, sorry. I made the motion. Jen seconded.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I think at the very least, we're going to need either documentation or a plaque may make some sense, but I acknowledge I'm ahead of myself.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I also want to point out, because I think it's an important landmark, the river, it was the building before it was built for the bow lover was actually built as a boathouse. So the river was quite literally right at that location. So, you know, it's hard to imagine now with the river being behind the highway, but it's kind of cool, cool landmark to kind of pinpoint where the river once was. Okay, so we have a motion to spend $1,000 on an MHC form A, motion made by Ed, seconded by Jen, so I'll take a roll call vote, okay?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Peter?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Lenny? Yes. And Doug?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed? Yes, let's roll. And Jen?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, 6-0, motion passes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hey, Ryan, can I just bring this back to the fire station real quick? Yeah, go for it. I was just going back through those emails. There's actually going to be a design meeting on June 21st. I can't go to that, but if anybody from our commission would like to go and sit in, I don't know. I don't know that there's a time, or maybe it's on Zoom. I can ask. Teresa, do you know by any chance?
[Theresa Dupont]: I believe that it will be on Zoom, and I can certainly get that information and share it back with this group.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. If somebody wants to sit in and just be there and listen.
[Doug Carr]: Somebody from this group should be there. I'm actually going to be traveling for work that day, so I don't think it will be me, but it'd be great if somebody could just be eyes and ears on that one.
[Unidentified]: Yeah, I can try.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That would be great, Peter, because I'm actually leaving the next day for vacation myself. So I'm going to be slammed that day. All right. Thanks, Teresa. I'll circulate that Zoom meeting around once we get it. And if anybody wants to, Peter and anybody else wants to sit in, that would be great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Continuation of appropriations 179 Main Street. The owners asked they want to put a significant addition on the rear of the building. They want to maintain the front very similar to Pearl Street, but we haven't really seen much in terms of. an application from them. They were just out there in the planning stages, so we figured it'd be good to have a form be done for that building. It is a mid-19th century, pre-1875 structure, so I think a $500 appropriation should round out the last of our spending for the year.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Motion to spend $500 on a form B for 179 Main Street. Second. Yeah.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Agreed it. I had seen something to the effect or that was under at this point was under contract.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Um, that's a good question on whether or not they own it. I mean, they haven't submitted anything formally to us yet. Um, so they just were asking if they could put on a large edition. Um, I don't I don't know if they had actually physically acquired the building yet at this point.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I've seen the listing and the listing sort of, I think, you know, if you believe the Internet, the listing said was reaching the under contract point. It's too close to me not to look at.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I see 51324 listed for sale, so I don't know if, Jen, you can look it up by any chance, but. To see if it's under contract.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It is under contract. Scheduled to close on June 28th.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, so I think that I think we should still, you know, I would think we should assume that they're going to apply for a permit once they get close on the property. They'll start the design and we would probably want to influence that design before they get too deep into it. There is a rear L on this building already, but I think they probably just want to do what the other ones do, which is extrude. So if we can get influence on the design before they spend too much money and time, that would be good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's an 8000 square foot lot.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so. It's pretty big. Uh, OK, motions been made and seconded. I'll take a roll call vote to spend $500 on the MHC Form B kit.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Delaney? Yes. Doug? Yes. Ed? Yep. And Jen?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, 6-0 approved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, don't forget about the church.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I'm going to do that right now. So, just a quick update before we dive into the church. So, 2 things about the national register nominations that we put forth for the church and for the Oak Grove service building. So, for the church. I'm going to send out the NR program that MHC put together. The church is not significant because it's a church. In fact, being a church automatically disqualifies it as being in the National Register program. What makes it significant is its association with the community and its architecture. It has to be both significant for the above and beyond just simply being a church itself. And in the case of Shiloh Baptist Church, MHC concurred with us that it is important to that community and it is an important work of architecture. So MHC found that the building is National Register eligible. So that should help any of the people there who are working on grants because that puts it at a higher level than other buildings. In terms of the Oak Grove service buildings, MHC did not concur with us that those buildings are significant because they are much later than the initial Oak Grove Cemetery. they are suggesting that we do is document the entirety of development at Oak Grove Cemetery and if we so choose we could make a stronger case because they don't relate to the original cemetery and the original cemetery buildings that were there that they replaced are gone. So we would have to make a stronger case that the later sections that relate to those buildings are just as important as the earlier cemetery. So I think at this point they did not concur, but more work could be necessary to get them to rise to the occasion of the NR. Okay, so they didn't tell us any of this. I had to find it all out on the inventory form, so I'll send those around so people have them for their records. So And then the biggest one that I disagree with is, you know, which may help some of you guys. Artificial siding of any kind automatically dismisses a project or a building or a site from being considered for NR eligibility. I and many architectural historians do not concur with that status because many of the buildings use it as a covering, but also its architectural language is often still legible underneath the siding. So that's where MHC and most architectural historians differ, but that's what the NR says at this point. This is a reminder. All right, so we have a consideration for an architectural easement for Shiloh Baptist Church. Teresa and Roberta Cameron are here to talk about it. Jen, did we send that around?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Um, I don't think so. Sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I sent it to well, I sent it. I read it and I sent it to Doug. I know that. Um, but Teresa, if you want and Roberta, if you guys want to summarize the general, I think this is an important moment because it sets the precedent for what we decide to do for the rest of. The other buildings that this would potentially be working on, so. I think it's important to understand what it is and where we're going and how we. How we, uh, how we implement them.
[Theresa Dupont]: Certainly, and if you want to.
[Roberta Cameron]: Sure, yeah, so I'll summarize why we're here. Why we're. asking the property owners to put a preservation restriction on the property and asking for the city to be the holder of that preservation restriction. So the Community Preservation Committee has given a grant of initially $150,000 and then an additional $150,000 to the Shiloh Baptist Church for preservation of this building. The grant was initially for a preservation architect to do a needs assessment to identify the highest priorities for improvements that are needed to preserve the building. It's understood that the windows, really remarkable stained glass windows throughout the building, are a very high priority for restoration. to keep those windows. But in the meantime, it was determined that making the building handicap accessible would enable them to continue providing services to the community as the church building was originally built for that purpose. And so the city's CPA funds are being used for the installation of an elevator initially And we hope to support the church as they continue to raise more funding, perhaps from the city in the future or from other sources, national or state grants or nonprofit organizations that have grants for historic preservation to try to preserve the windows and the rest of the building. So with the CPA funding, in order to ensure the investment that we've made in the building. To protect that investment, we want to have an assurance that the building is going to be preserved in its historical condition for the foreseeable future. As is a best practice commonly used in many CPA communities, For a significant grant, the committee made a condition that the owner of the building put the building into a preservation restriction. And the preservation restriction requires a third party to hold it. And what many communities do is that the community, through the historical commission, is the holder of the preservation restriction. And that still has to be approved by MHC, but the city actually holds the responsibility for Tracking the building to ensure that the conditions of the preservation restriction are met. So what we would like from the historical commission is to have a discussion about the historical commission fulfilling the responsibility in the future of holding the preservation restrictions. for buildings that the CPA has funded, and also to look specifically at the criteria that have been included in this draft preservation restriction to determine that these are the criteria that you would want to apply to that building to ensure its preservation going forward.
[Theresa Dupont]: And I would add that this is something that we're looking to implement on all non-city entity awardees that hold physical space that is of a historic nature, just to clarify that. The city can't hold its own restrictions, unfortunately. That would be great, but that is why we are in this application. Just wanted to add that.
[Roberta Cameron]: And I would just add one more thing. The reason why this is coming up for the first time, even though there have been several other grants given for preservation for historic preservation in the past is that in all of those cases, the buildings already either had a preservation restriction or they were local historic districts. Or in one case, it was a very small grant and we decided that the small grant wasn't commensurate to the value of the preservation restrictions. So it wasn't worthwhile in that case.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: One question I would have would be, given this is church property, is there any issue that a city body rather than a body not part of the government holds the easement over the use of a church building or potential changes to a church building?
[Roberta Cameron]: So the way that this has worked in the city of Somerville, where I work, and have facilitated preservation restrictions between church organizations, other nonprofit organizations in the city, is that the criteria are actually very similar and the process, the procedure of the city managing its preservation restrictions is very similar to the procedure of a local historic district. So basically, from the city's perspective and from the grantees' perspective, It is the same process and it's treated the same way as a local historic district, except that this is in perpetuity and not by ordinance.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: But, you know, if, for whatever reason, it was decided the religious use had come to a natural end, doesn't that, you know, will that create a conflict? insofar as the city is now trying to judge whether or not they can do so.
[Roberta Cameron]: I see what you mean.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just a clarification, Roberta, before I do that. I did send out to everybody just so you guys can look through it on the fly, unfortunately. But yes, the draft preservation easement, but then also on to build on Ed's note, if they're going to be putting an elevator, I believe one of the things was that we would be excluding maybe some review of the interior. So does the preservation or could the preservation easement extend also into the interior so that we could maintain those character-defining spaces? Like, for example, Shiloh Baptist Church was found to be architecturally significant for not just the exterior but the floor plan and arrangement of interior spaces. That was a unique characteristic of church buildings and the floor plan at the time. So I'm not sure how interested the easement holders going to be, whether it's us or some others on the interior, or if we just care about the exterior look and feel of the building, but I'll let you guys.
[Roberta Cameron]: From my, from my personal perspective, and I think that this is. This is generally applicable the the city's interest in the building is preserving the exterior and ensuring that this space any improvements to the interior are. are based on the functionality of the space, not on the religious use. So the religious use may change in the future. In fact, the city will not pay for religious iconography or any preservation related to specifically the religious use of the building. The preservation is to the exterior envelope and to the building's functionality as a public community space.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, Doug, your comments?
[Doug Carr]: Just a couple. Obviously, a restriction needs to happen. The need is clear. I don't think anyone's doubting that. But as you were speaking, Roberta, I did think that, you know, I thought objectively the Historic District Commission is a better candidate for this because they deal with these issues on a day-to-day basis. We kind of go, you know, kind of more global, more of the city across the whole city, individual buildings. We actually don't have a lot of, at least I don't, hands-on experience on enforcing restrictions. We could learn, I think, but I think they may not be the right body for another reason, for functionality or capacity or whatever. I'm just saying we should think about it and think about everything because it's obviously this group. I don't know what it entails. Is it only when their renovation we get involved and we review plans? I've been on it the other side, because the Brooks estate has had it, but we just submit our plans. I don't actually know what they do with our plans. It's kind of a mystery. So there's a bit of a learning curve here, unless anyone on this commission has experience enforcing it. Go ahead, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so I think that there are proactive and reactive easement holders, so depends on what you are. The government tends to be reactive, so you approach them, and Mass Historical is the big one, you approach them with the work, they have a certain timeline and deadline to react to it. If they don't, it gets automatically approved. If they do, there's some back and forth until you come to a resolution and then you go forward. And then there are the proactive easement holders, which I find are probably infinitely more successful than the reactive ones because work never goes under the radar for those easement holders. So that's Historic New England and the National Trust for Historic Preservation are probably the two A-list ones. They both require some form of endowment to go along with the easement holder because they actively administer them. Every year they go out and they send somebody out to inspect them, they check whether work has been done, and they also hold themselves to reacting on a quick and timely manner to get, you know, approvals and they serve as a resource to help the easement people that own these properties. So I guess in some way I see an easement going hand in hand here with some sort of funding source, right? So I guess a big question for me is, you know, if we're going to be administering these types of properties can we use CPC funding at an administrative level to administer them? Or can CPC, if CPC holds a preservation easement for properties that they've awarded funding, can you guys use your own funding for administration of your own easements, right? So if you guys are holding them, for example, and you have the funding, rather than pass it along to us necessarily, you can just approve your own administrative funding and administer the easement yourselves. I'm not opposed to holding the easements at the historical commission provided there's the resources necessary to back them up but I don't know if the city currently has them so I feel that as of right now, unless there's some sort of permanent and perpetual funding source for it to back up both staff and administration beyond city budget, then I think another easement holder would be the way to go at this point. Jen?
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is probably the dumbest comment on the planet, but my I don't know how we can be considered a third party. We're all the city, and so I don't know how a city can police the city in that respect if it's supposed to be held by a third party.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Right. We're theoretically city employees, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. No, not theoretically. We are city employees.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: That was going to be my same exact question, because we are the city.
[Roberta Cameron]: Right, so this is for this reason, we cannot put preservation restrictions on city owned property, but this is a privately owned property. So, we would be the 3rd party for the privately owned. Properties.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right, so we couldn't do it for any city. Correct properties, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: But if we were if we had a working relationship, say with the National Trust for Historic Preservation, who has the preservation easement on the Pinkham octagonal house, they could hold the easement. Say we give funding to. The city fire station and that there are normal go to they could hold the preservation easement on the city fire station because they are a separate entirely separate organization. They really are a third party in that instance. So I guess that's how I see it.
[Roberta Cameron]: I have not personally done this research, or maybe I have and it's been a long time, but it's my understanding that they are not only require a large endowment to consider holding a preservation restriction, but they're also very selective because they don't have the capacity to hold restrictions on as many properties as would like to offer them.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I guess it comes down to, I guess the important question is funding, if we can use CPC funding to administer, because that will help. We could earmark a certain dollar amount every year to fund either a secondary staff position that has the added bonus of doing other CPC work, but could help with administration of this and other grants, but also being the, person who helped shepherd the project through when it needs approval before whoever holds it, whether it's us or some other board.
[Roberta Cameron]: That's actually a very reasonable request, and I'd be interested in discussing how we might be able to arrange that. Teresa?
[Theresa Dupont]: Yeah, I was just going to share that that would be something we could easily budget in because it's a known amount and presumably we'd go to the same consultant every time. That would be something that we could be very open to discussing and I think we could find a solution there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Other thoughts from the commissioners? Do we need additional time to approach this idea and review the easement?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, I'd like some time to review the document. And I apologize. I didn't look at that before tonight. But can we is it for a Roberta and Teresa, if we put this back on our agenda for next month? Is that too long for you guys?
[Theresa Dupont]: Or the that would be completely fine. And very agreeable. You know, as you know, this is getting this from start to finish recorded. MHD approval, it takes some time, so. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So then we can come back next month with comments on the language of the easement.
[Theresa Dupont]: Perfect, that works for me.
[Roberta Cameron]: Okay. Maybe I can just give a brief summary of the process of obtaining the preservation restriction is that we first prepared this rough draft, which will get your input on that, where we've gotten the input of our legal services on the draft preservation restriction, then we will be sending it to MHP for their input, and they'll most likely send back feedback that we'll use to create a final preservation restriction. Once they've pre-approved that final, then we begin circulating it to be executed. We would then ask for the body, whether it's the Historical Commission or the Historic District Commission, would vote to accept it. City Council would have to vote to accept it. The property owner would have to sign it, and then we would have to have signatures from everybody across the city, and then send it to MHP to sign it, and then It can be recorded at the registry. The process can take years. So we're at the beginning. And hopefully, we'll get something on the books sooner than later.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I guess just to Doug's earlier point, I mean, in addition to a little bit of time to review the proposed easement, I think it would be helpful if we could get a little more understanding of what it would entail for the Historical Commission to hold easements generally. And is there somebody that we can talk to at one of the organizations that you referenced that could just give us an overview of like, what is the responsibility? Because I don't think anybody wants to take on something that we can't do well.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can, I can ask if Carissa Demore is still with Historic New England, I can ask if she'll come talk with us. Maybe that will be a good reason to have a special meeting with both us and the city departments that are involved with this to review what they do and what sort of time that they invest in these easements that they currently have. And she's a Medford resident, I believe. So I think getting her here will not be a problem. So if we can just find a convenient time. So I'll try to reach out to her.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That sounds great.
[Theresa Dupont]: And I'll help coordinate that, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That would be great. Any other questions?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: This is probably a stupid question too, but what's the point of the easement just to make sure that the building's integrity is maintained? Or is it a vehicle by which other funding can be obtained or something like that? Or what's the purpose of it?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It gives us the legal mechanism to enforce rules and review over the building. permanent in perpetuity. It runs with the land as opposed to with the building. So it's a perpetual review. And in addition to that, I think, yes, it does make certain funding types easier. For example, if they decided to approach Mass Historical Commission for preservation funding, there is a requirement for an easement on there. But usually, if it's a modern easement, they don't put an easement on top of an easement.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But from a CPC perspective, it's also a way for them to ensure that the funding that they're being given by CPC is used for historic preservation, which is what they've applied for. Did I get that correct, Teresa and Roberta? Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Oh, yeah, there is a there is a recap. I guess that's important. There is a recap mechanism in there that recaptures the funding if they choose not to do that over a certain time or if they because they have to hold the property for a certain period of time to as well, right?
[Roberta Cameron]: And I would just note that the preservation restriction that we've drafted only covers the exterior. It doesn't extend to the interior of the building.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And is this for this property specifically or, okay, so if there was another one in the future that like say a private homeowner was getting CPC funding for historic preservation of their own home that we've all deemed worthy of that, then a brand new document would be created for that specific property with that preservation easement or restriction, excuse me.
[Theresa Dupont]: Correct, but just to clarify, CPC funding isn't available for privately owned residential homes. Not yet anyway.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, but I guess. Yeah. Okay. But it's specific to this particular project and not. This is not a blanket easement that we will have. That you guys could decide to apply to other projects in the future. It would be a 1 off that and then anytime in the future, something else would need to have an easement. That would be a separate thing. Yes, we'll approach it on a project by project. Yeah.
[Roberta Cameron]: We use a similar template. In fact, we have 1 that we're working on close behind this 1 for the Isaac Hall house. Okay, great anything else.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, no, this is a good start. I think.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we'll review and provide comments and feedback and we'll regroup next month and see if we can't come to a resolution for any tweaks and go from there.
[Theresa Dupont]: Great, thanks. Thank you all so much.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Teresa and Roberto, as always.
[Theresa Dupont]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great. Thank you all. Any other new business before I move right down to old business? I already heard none. Site plan review, 40B for 280 Misty Gav. I haven't heard anything on that. I don't think that's moving forward yet. They might be in the process, but that's going to take a while. For properties under demo delay.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Hey, Ryan, on that 40B, I could be wrong about this, but it seemed like the plans were the exact same as some plans that we looked at years ago, except for the date.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Dennis, yeah, I see your hand raised. I believe we sent around the revised set after the fact.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Well, when I looked at the revised set, it didn't look any, I had the old set and I couldn't see any distinguishing difference. So if we had comments from the old set, they would still apply. That's all I'm saying.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I don't know if I. There was a link and then I followed the link and I looked at the drawings and they were identical to the as far as I could tell the old drawings of a couple of years ago, so I don't know if they just if it was a mistake in the link or if. It looked like the same exact, you know, 10-story canyon courtyard building that was in the, I remember seeing these exact same plans.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Dennis, I see your hand raised. Did you want to chime in?
[Denis MacDougall]: Well, there's actually two parts. One, that is the exact same plan that was submitted for you. They changed absolutely nothing. And second, they're actually going to be withdrawing the 4DB, so it's, It's good. We just have to actually wait to actually have a hearing to do it in. So we got it. We received it after our last hearing. So hearing the end of this month where we received the letter to withdraw and we'll vote to withdraw. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. So just the, so no project or just the, just the exact same project that they were originally planning without the 40 B portion.
[Denis MacDougall]: No project at all there. They're going to cause they own a bunch of land there. So they're probably going to look at trying to do something, More, but nothing the 40 be there on a mystic is is done. Okay. All right. Not officially because we haven't voted on it yet, but. Unofficially, okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. So we'll, we'll wait. Basically, the commission will wait until a new project comes out and then we'll provide comments accordingly when that comes out. Okay. Okay, project under demo delay. I haven't heard anything from the Carriage House. 56 Wareham Street, they sent over plans. Peter, I'll read your comments after this meeting. And if we want, we can see what else we can do to those and maybe bring them to the commission. I think, you know, if we have enough business, maybe we can have a small meeting between now and next month you know, if we feel that we've 56 Wareham is ready to go before the commission, then we can bring it to the commission halfway through rather than have it at the next meeting.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: So, I don't know, it's still pretty schematic. I felt like Doug, you looked at it, right? I thought it was, I mean, I kind of liked the design direction, but I felt like it wasn't like refined at all. It was just kind of, it was still fairly block block Massey, but I don't know.
[Doug Carr]: I think you're right, Peter, but I think we want to let them know if they're on the right path. I think that's worth having a conversation for a few minutes, but I think everyone should take a look at it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we can certainly do that. Then for 27 Allmont, I believe the consensus there, we got a loose sketch and we didn't like the idea of the sketch, so we're sending them back to come up with something a little bit more creative that saves more of the property, which I'm partially inclined to do for 56 Wareham. I thought that was part of saving the more forward half, but I like the rest of the building, so I think that that just needs a little bit of work. And then we can send it around. I think probably both projects will end up being very similar in approach. And those approaches should serve as good precedents for the rest of the city on how and what type of development does we want to encourage for densification. So the commissioners will have it there once we settle on the design. All right. uh cross street cemetery project so i've been told that uh the funding is all in place for the headstone project so i just have to meet with teresa um and get that off the ground and get that off my plate so that that can finally go forward um there is actively coming together the RFP for the archaeological dig. I know I said I'd do it last month, but I've just been waiting for the other headstone project because that has grant funding that's timely. So that one had to get done first. So that one's up in the air, but in the works. For CPA projects, we did get phase two Thomas Brooks Park funding. So that is going to go out the door as soon as those other two projects get off of our plate. For Peter Headland's project, that's kind of been in limbo. I have to work with Dennis. I'm going to reach out to either you or Teresa to send it to all the department heads. to get that out. So for commentary, but I need to provide a little summary of what we're looking for for comments. And it's just the archaeological protection project with a note that face more comments on the work going plan for phase two will be coming along soon. And then survey projects, the consultants are working on final edits for the survey project for Fulton Heights. So that should wrap up by the end of the fiscal year. So that project will be done. So a lot of stuff is trying to end and begin at the same time. So it's been a little bit of a juggle, but it should be good. And that's all that I have for the projects that are ongoing. Any other old business that I missed? Doug, you look like you want to say something.
[Doug Carr]: Well, as of last Thursday night, Enbelth has a new president. Tom Lincoln retired, and Jen and myself and other board members spent the last half year finding a new appropriate candidate. Her name is Carly Nesson, and she lives in South Medford. And she's the next generation who will take on the Brooks Estate Challenge, just so everyone knows.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. And if everybody comes to the picnic on July 13th, is that that Saturday, whatever that day is, July 13th, please come to the picnic, meet Carly, meet, you know, hoping to get some fresh blood up there this year and some new faces.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, it'd be good to, you know, Doug, I'm always willing to look for updates and publish updates. It'd be good to publish that information that you guys have a new president and maybe speak about the. Where you guys are in the road design work and. You know, where other projects are, it would be good to know what's up with the. You know, I know the cemetery trustees are looking at their parcel and the expansion of the cemetery in that area. So just be good to know what they're up to, you know, so that the whole community is on the up and up with what's going on there.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, makes sense. We have a CPC meeting tomorrow night. Teresa is going to be coming to two nights in a row. Teresa, it's a big week for you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, and if, you know, if there are other things that people want to bring to our attention, like I don't, you know, the Royal House, you know, if this program is going out of the Royal House, Historical Society, we always look for stuff. I know Abby is still in the background and still will occasionally ping stuff on our Facebook. So always happy to take cool history programs that are in our community and share them. So, okay, anything else? Hearing none, I have meeting minutes. Peter sent out meeting minutes. Any questions, comments, concerns? Hearing none, I'll take a motion to approve.
[Doug Carr]: Motion to accept the meeting minutes as distributed.
[Kit Collins]: And a second? I'll second. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, I'll take a roll call vote. As I see you, Kit,
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Did we decide that if you weren't here at the previous meeting you could approve?
[Adam Hurtubise]: You can approve it. If you just want to vote present, that's fine. That's understandable.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I'll vote present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed? Yeah. And Eleni?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Doug? Yes. And Jen?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Present.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ryan votes yes for five and two present, no opposed. So you're good to go, Peter, thank you. I'll take a motion to adjourn, unless we have any other business. I don't think we do.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Will we conclude our business by adjourning?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, Ed moves to adjourn, Doug seconds. Okay, roll call vote. Debate.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Peter.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed. Yeah. Lenny.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Jen. Yes. All right. Motion to adjourn approved. Thank you all. Have a good night.
[Kit Collins]: Thank you everyone. Bye.
|
total time: 2.8 minutes total words: 252 |
|||