[Adam Hurtubise]: Hello everybody. I'm going to call this meeting to order of the Medford Historical Commission at 7.05 p.m. I'm just going to read the governor's statement real quick. 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 alternatives to access to remote meetings. The language does not make any substantive change to the open meeting law other than extending the expiration date of the temporary provisions regarding remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. All right, with that out of the way, we have a relatively light agenda under new business. 69 Court Street is I believe that they have basically abandoned their proposal for their public hearing at this point. So Jen and I are probably going to discuss taking this off of the agenda from here on out, but they have made no effort to post the sign. the public hearing requirements. So we're going to take it as the project's abandoned at this point. Okay. For next up, 314 Winthrop Street, a determination of significance. So last month we received the application for the major remodel at 314 Winthrop Street. So the project has to go through review. Tonight the commissioners are determining whether or not the building is significant based on the MHC inventory form. For the general public, the MHC inventory form is up on our website at www.medfordhistoricalcommission.org. If you go under the news section, it is the top blog post that has the information there. And in terms of determining significance, the commission is answering the question. Basically, it's a building outside of the historic district, but it is either subject to or pending listing on the National Register of Historic Places. has been listed or is pending listing on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places or was built 75 years or older and which is determined to be significant by the commission 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 association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So commissioners, I'll entertain a motion to kickstart the discussion and we can go from there.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Without committing myself, I will move to find it significant. So yes, it's significant. No, it's not significant.
[Unidentified]: Great. And a second? I will second. Point of clarification, Mr. Chair.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Sure, go ahead. Do we know anything about, there are two buildings on the site about the, is this, that's my understanding this hearing is just for the house. Is there, I'm just curious if there's any plans for the garage which I think is a dwelling as well or convert a lot of a few of what accessory.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we know, I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
[SPEAKER_00]: Do you want me to speak. Yeah, just name and address of the record for Peter say okay so so much of a jelly 49 being rock road. Lynn mass. So we're basically working just on the main house, and we're bringing the garage back to a garage, because we were told we were not allowed to have it as a second dwelling unless we were living there. They did a lot of funky stuff that was not legal or not through the building permit, so we're going to bring it back to its original garage.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: So it's just going to become a garage, you're going to tear out all the residential functions in there?
[SPEAKER_00]: Correct. So you could see that there was a garage door. So we'll put a garage door back and then they lifted like a dormer on one side. So we'll take that back down. and then so we'll leave the garage but then there's also like uh an extension to the garage but we want to leave that as like uh extra storage okay thank you for that clarification it is not going to be built in a manner which permits conversion to an adu under current code so no you are correct unless we live there um that's who would apply for an adu
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Are you the owner and the developer or?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yes. Yes. So I'm Salvin Shelley as Mars contract and the contractor and flip my house is who owns the property.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: So you're the contractor.
[Unidentified]: Yes.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: OK. Thank you. OK, thank you. You're welcome. And could you just I'm sorry, could you tell me your address one more time?
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah. Forty nine. Fayton, P-H-A-E-T-O-N, Rock Road, and that's in Lynn. Thank you.
[Unidentified]: I grew up in Method, though. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. Okay, commissioners, can we kick-start the discussion? Ed, you made the motion. Do you want to start?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I think, one, am I correct that the form B did not contain any discussion of historic district?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no. No, this building is particularly kind of by itself. There's not really much.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: No, I understand, but usually there's, you know, quite often the box is checked. I mean, again, that to me is the issue. The age of the story makes sense. The last 20 years, I mean, the last 10 years since I saw the note as to how a transfer got made after the prior owners died, it's great social history. It's significant social history, but not, to me, compelling. I mean, there's some stories there, but if you look at Winthrop Street as a whole, you know, it's not, you know, it's not contributing to street, you know, it's the streetscape there is entirely lots of, you know, lots of big front yards and lots of trees. And I don't think you can say it's much of a whole HWHOLE. And the, It just does not strike me as being highly compelling for significance, but I'm willing to listen to the views of others.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I actually tend to agree with that. I think the house has some interests, um, you know, as a tutor style, which is not, we have a, we have some of those in Medford, not, not a lot of them, but the, um, The odd thing about the form form B is the extent to which they went to the political and social views of one of the owners. I thought was somewhat unique from what we've seen. The evil of divorce was a phrase that caught my eye. And, you know, so I guess this potential social. I wouldn't want to have it be a positive contribution to saving this building because I just don't think that attitude has survived the 100 years in between then and now very well, to be kind. But the building itself, I know there are plans to basically make it unrecognizable compared to what it is now, with the stucco and with the more or less one-story or really small scale versus what's being proposed. My instincts are to try to let this house become re-imagined in a way that I think could make it a positive contribution. I do think though it does set back, when I look at the site plan, it does pretty much align with a lot of the houses along that street. I don't think it's out of sync with them at all, but I don't think what's being proposed is extraordinarily insensitive to what's there now.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great, thanks. Lenny, you want to go next?
[Unidentified]: Sure.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I was just looking at the Google Street view. I'm not so familiar with the street, but yeah, I mean, it does seem like most of the historical significance is, you know, tied attached to the residents. It just seems like the house has changed quite a bit. And I think it's important to sort of reinvigorate it and, you know, kind of bring it back to life and get new residents in there. So I don't think the historical significance is really sort of outweighs the plans that the developer has.
[Unidentified]: Great. Thank you. Okay.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Well, as always, I so appreciate the views of my fellow commissioners because I was sort of wondering as I was looking over the materials today about sort of the particular architecture and the Tudor style influence that came in in the 1920s and 30s. And I mean, I certainly can think of a whole bunch of examples of that within Medford. I mean, I will only just say that I do think I looked at it and thought, what a great starter house. We have fewer and fewer of those. I just note that in terms of smaller homes that are starter homes, we have fewer and fewer of those within Medford, but maybe condos are the new starter home.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: As I read it, it was being conceived of as a one family for now. And that, frankly, and I did go to the public record on this, because it was referred to in the form B. This is not gonna help affordable housing under any circumstances.
[Unidentified]: Thank you. Peter, last one.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: When I first looked at this house, I thought, oh, what a cute little house. And it seemed a shame to me. But if you look at the realtor photos, the house has been really severely abused and compromised, both inside and out. I think a makeover is required. I do travel up the street pretty often. I think it does fit in. I think there are a fair amount, especially at the left side of the street. I guess it's the southbound side, but going north, if you look at the left side, the side of the street that this house is on, along that stretch, there are a bunch of houses that have steep pitched roofs. They're not all Tudor or whatever, but there does seem to be a cohesiveness. There are some that don't follow this rule, but there is this cohesiveness of roof slope. of a fairly, you know, 12 over 12, you know, fairly steep roof slope. And it does, to me, kind of lend an air of a neighborhood-y-nish to it, even though it's probably the busiest street in town, and there's definitely probably not that much hanging out going on in the front yards. But so I do think it's in need of a makeover, and I can't argue with that. Having looked at the proposed design, though, I wish, my wish would be that the proposed design kept some of that Tudor spirit in it, because it totally negates the Tudor spirit. So, you know, of this steep roof with these kind of, you know, I forget the word where there's one gable enclosed in another one. Help me out, my architectural friends. But nested gables or whatever. So I wish that the proposed design had held on to that, because I feel like there is kind of this feeling of that cohesiveness on that side of the street. And I don't think the proposed design takes that into consideration. So I have no problems with the height of the design. It's just the kind of style of it seems like just a very bland, super bland house. So anyway, that's my one kind of reservation about letting this one go.
[Doug Carr]: So anyway, I just felt I should let me chime in there Peter that's a that's a really good point I think about. I grew up in the United States, which is just around the corner, so I didn't actually walk down the street a fair amount in my younger days, so I know what you mean about the scale that's out of the street is pretty.
[Unidentified]: small scale, steep, you know, setback, roughly the same thing.
[Doug Carr]: Do you, and this is kind of an open question here, do you think there's a way to adapt the design to get some of the architectural language that you're talking about while still maintaining a kind of integrity of the context, if you will? Because that's what we'd be talking about is an adaptation without changing the play.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I don't think, I think it's, I think it would be a kind of a, Just the way the facade is treated somehow. So it kind of acknowledges that steep gable front, you know, idea facing the street, I guess. I think it would just be a kind of a roof shape, you know, idea. I don't have any particular Thoughts along those lines. And I don't even know if the question was for me or if it was for the developer, but, um, or for the, for the contractor, but, um, I, I also. Don't really feel like the house is significant enough to. You know, try to hold on to the front facade and leave it as is or anything like that. I'm not saying that I'm just kind of. I'm just feeling like stylistically. I wish the proposed facade kind of. You know address that I guess or kind of tried to make some attempt at. Acknowledging that I don't know how else to say it. Anyway.
[Doug Carr]: I mean, if we let it go. So can we cut to the chase and ask the developer if he would consider, without changing a square foot of his building, working with the subcommittees to try to just get a little bit more of that design element that you're describing to see if we can come up with something that still maintains his exact floor plan. Is that possible, Mr. Chairman? So I actually never knew that
[SPEAKER_00]: I had to go through this whole entire process. So that's why we drew this. We just wanted a beautiful home because the home that's there now, it's, you guys know what it looks like. So I have a, there was a property that I started looking up because I, 132 Trancroft, So that, that, that I'm willing to just raise everything as long as I can get a second floor and have that still have that Tudor style in the front. Yes, we are. I could, I could definitely have the architect draw something.
[Doug Carr]: That would be awesome. Yeah, it would be, it wouldn't be. It's a condition and just be you working with us. We don't want to slow you down at all. We could do get this done in like a week or two, I think, Peter, don't you think? Yeah, we could.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I think, you know, if you're willing to do it, that that would that would be awesome. You're not obligated. We're not.
[Doug Carr]: Not a condition of what we're voting on, because I think the commission is pretty much heading in the other direction, but we wanted to see if we can tweak things if that's if you'll entertain us.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, so let me let me double double check with the architect and make sure you get drop, take all the angles and the front of the house trying to leave that that design, leave that alone. To me, the most important is getting the headroom up in the second floor because like, there was a spiral staircase inside that went up to the second floor, and it didn't do anything for us. So actually, there was a bunch of weird stuff that was going on in this house. Maybe not on the good side. So we could definitely raise, as long as we could raise the walls, and get get some headroom upstairs.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Totally. I mean, I think it's just a matter of. This kind of style of the front facade a little bit, you know, like I don't see needing you could take this whole yellow thing and jack it up on, you know, the ten feet up in the air, you know, that I guess just it's just kind of like that, the feeling of it a little bit. Anyway. Just a suggestion.
[SPEAKER_00]: So, if we do, if we did this, and I get the architect to kind of do it quickly. Well, why will we have to wait all another month for the next the next meeting? Okay.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No, in fact, you know, we're going to vote on this and okay. You know, it's probably good. I think I know which way it's going to go. So.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, we could accomplish this, we think, in 1 or 2 quick meetings over the next few weeks, but you would still get your, you know, it wouldn't take long to turn this around and we wouldn't have, I don't think we'd have a need for another meeting because it would be advisory only.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, that's fine. Yeah, I'm I'd be fine with that. So do you guys want to go ahead and vote and then I'll, I'll just I'll send the subcommittee the contact information and you guys can take it from there and work on the design however you however you so choose.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Can I can I just make one last comment before we move on and I'm in agreement with everything that with with the, the tenor of this conversation. But I just wanted to point out that you know a lot of the time, a lot of times we have buildings that come before us. there's not a lot left of the streetscape to preserve. I just want to say thank you, Peter, for bringing it up because this is exactly how we wind up with not enough of the streetscape left to preserve. Thank you, Peter, for bringing it up, and thank you to the developer for being willing to entertain this. Because I think it will, if we can come up with a design that actually acknowledges what was there, it gives us far more fabric in the future to work with.
[Unidentified]: Definitely.
[Doug Carr]: It doesn't need to be a copy of what's there, it needs to be sympathetic to it.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: That's the difference.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Commissioner is ready to take a roll call vote then. Any other discussion? Okay. I'm going to just go around the room. Just a note that Ed made the motion to find for significance. So a yes is significant and no is not significant. I'll start with Peter.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Kit.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Delaney.
[Kit Collins]: No.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Doug.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: No.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: No, not significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. So, five to zero, not significant. So, we'll get that letter out and then we'll put you in touch with Doug and Peter who will take care of the design portion of the work with you guys. Okay. Thank you.
[SPEAKER_00]: Thank you, Salvatore. Thank you. Thank you, guys. God bless.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, next up site plan review for 48 to 64 commercial street, the fellsway innovation center. I sent out architectural, the architectural package seems like a modern building. It wasn't anything present there. I think there is a building that's going to come down, but it's just like a block building. It's nothing historic. Do we have any comments?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: For record, since I do do business or the family does business with council, for the developer, I'm going to recuse myself in any substantive comments.
[Unidentified]: Noted.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Anything else from anybody else? If not, I'll just say that we had no comments on the project.
[Doug Carr]: I'd just say one, not for official comment, but this is like the third or fourth lab building that has come before us. And as far as I know, none of them have broken ground in the past couple of years. So I feel like this is probably aspirational is the way I'd say it. I'm not opposed to design or the concept, but I'm still waiting for the first lab building in Medford to be built. And I've been holding my breath for three years.
[Adam Hurtubise]: It seems like they did a lot of, it seems like they've done a lot of legwork here. You know, it seems like they did test borings and they've got, you know, a lot of site information and it's a smaller-ish building in a location that's actually pretty active. So I'll be interested to see if they actually go forward with their proposal. Okay, great moving on to walk in court. I sent around response, which I'm pretty disappointed with. So, basically, said that they're not the final review authority. There's another authority as. under HUD that is responsible for the review of historic resources. But to me, their letter basically gives that authority by saying they don't believe that the buildings are NR significant, which is disappointing because this is what we pay a consultant for, and the consultant did a lot of work on these buildings, researching them. So I will be interested to see what that organization says. But do we want to send any response to the MHC letter?
[Unidentified]: or is it not even worth our time?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I would think that they really did downplay the local history piece of it. It was strictly for them a late 40s project, which they thought was uninteresting for its own sake. I think they did ignore the local history piece, which I think is deserving of some greater respect, but I'm not sure how that's going to sell to the feds.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, it sort of jeopardizes all the other projects that happened around that time period, right? So the Works Progress Administration projects that were built in the city of Medford, Chevalier, the post office, the DPW yard, the cemetery buildings, the cemetery walls, all of those projects took place just, you know, what a short decade before this project. So it makes me wonder if they'll think any of those are also significant as well.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Well, I mean, their take was sort of rocking a hard place. We are dealing with a functionally obsolescent project with another couple of hundred units of affordable housing coming in, in theory. And as I said, they were just sort of acting as if there was no, again, and I'll put it this way, precisely social history behind the site. which at least deserves some recognition as they go forward with the next piece. Right, right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, well we'll let it sit and we'll see what the next organization comes up with and see if they say anything about the history of the building. I mean, the form is pretty comprehensive, so.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Who did you say was the authority?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It's...
[Unidentified]: It's a division of HUD. Hold on, let me. Oh, okay. Is that at the, what level of HUD?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Is that at a federal level?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, yep. Basically, the state is saying they don't have final authority. It's the responsibility of the North Suburban Consortium, acting as lead federal agency. Basically, they're giving the highest level of federal funding to this project, so they're the ones that are responsible for undertaking the environmental review. So basically the state has passed it up to the feds. So what are we hoping to achieve? So we're hoping, I was hoping to achieve just a determination of adverse effects so that the demolition and the agreement that we have with this, with this group for both the mitigation and the archeological monitoring is memorialized in what they call a memorandum of understanding. So it's a legally binding document that they are agreeing to do it. I suppose we could also do, or should consider doing that ahead of any of these things. We could do it on our own level, but it's just easier if the state does it, because they just have a template, they drop in what we want, and then we sign it and where everybody is good and it looks good. So that's all I'm hoping for. I'm surprised that the state didn't even try to do that, but you know, if they're passing the buck, maybe the feds will do it.
[Doug Carr]: What's their documentation? What mitigation is under consideration right now?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Just the photo documentation of the entire site before demolition.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[Doug Carr]: Sorry, Peter, go ahead.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, that was my question too, just what the, what was, the documentation, I thought that's what we're, that's what you were going for was this documentation, right? Just to have a kind of a comprehensive record of it for posterity or whatnot, right?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Well, I think it should ideally go a little bit beyond record because as the report points out, the canal ran through there. It was part of the post-World War II readjustments There's stuff where you could certainly argue for lack of a better word, interpretive materials being placed on a new site just to explain, yes, this has been senior housing in Medford since the late 50s. Historically from the 1840s, etc, with the canal, with the Medford's piece of a low industrialization.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, to be to be honest I, I know that they're the house you know the buildings are approaching 75 years old. The Housing Authority is planning to do more development right so the, the entire. Riverside development is going to be demolished for high rise housing to densify to increase the density on the site and to provide more more housing in a limited area. And I'm sure they'll consider the same once they get into it down at Willis Ave. So, you know, these areas are going to change and, you know, they won't be recognizable. And then what's to say other communities across Massachusetts are not going to continue to modernize. So this is just making sure that there's some sort of historic record of it and that, you know, if people want to study this type of movement, that they'll have something to study.
[Kit Collins]: You don't get what you don't ask for.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Right. Right. Or in this case, you don't get what you don't continue to ask for.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, I think it's important just to stress that and maybe maybe I'll just resend the letter to these folks at a higher level just to see just to make sure they know that we're still interested in the.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I think you got to, yeah.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sure, okay, I can do that.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, we're not trying, I mean, I think we all see the value and the importance of the renovation of these units and the addition of additional units. We just want some sort of acknowledgement of what came before. That's what we're here to do.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, we don't want to slow this down at all, but what we're asking for will not do that.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Right. And I mean, how cool is it like to live there and to know what was there before, you know, like, come on, it's a win-win for everybody. Okay, great. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, let's briefly look at the district. So I did not have a chance because I just got it the other day to send out the district report, but I will do that tonight. I will share my screen.
[Unidentified]: Let's see if I can share. Can everybody see this?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, so this is the proposed district. It captures most of the pre-Civil War vintage housing. It extends from 23, 23 South Street all the way up to 114 South Street. You'll recall 23 is a property that we looked at. It was being considered for development. They ended up selling off this, The parcel next door and they didn't end up going forward with the demolition of that building 31 we've looked at for demo review. Most of these are. Just, I guess the owners aren't putting up any sort of resistance I guess is how I understood it that most of the people in this district are supportive of it, or just haven't said anything so. I'm the district. So commission voted to move this to the planning board to get their final thoughts. And then from there, it can go to city council. So if we're interested in supporting them, now would be the time to plan for supporting them at city council.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: That's on March 5th.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's their intended day to be there. That would be the first reading. Really, I'm not concerned about the first reading. Just getting it on the table would be nice, but it's really the third reading that's the important one, because they could balk if everybody doesn't show up. But I don't, you know, I don't really know. I do think it's important that this district, at least if they have the people and supporting them, then just let them establish it. I do think that there may be some legal challenges to this. There seems to be a lot of erratic, erratic boundaries. But but that's I guess that's the way of it. So There is a potential missed opportunity, though, to maybe capture some of the green space that DCR controls. But other than that, I don't really have anything else to say. Jen did point out that nine nine Toro Ave, which is actually two houses. It's nine to 11. It's on a 10,000 square foot lot. It came on the market today. It can potentially be torn down and two houses put up and it's zoned general residence. So it could be two duplexes. So there's a good chance that a developer might try to get it. So.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: He's got to move fast.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, you know, and, you know, I think 54 whatever this one, I think it's 54, 54 South Street, the development there I believe is fully permitted at this point. So I don't even know if the district would stop that, but you know, that's out of my hands.
[SPEAKER_02]: That's the yellow one, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[SPEAKER_02]: And then 48 is the purple one?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yep. 48. And 48 South is, the owner is very supportive. She's one of the instigators. 10 South Street, that's, she's supportive definitely. So. You mean 10 Manning? Yeah, 10 Manning, sorry, yeah.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: One observation from the meeting, Brian, The guy at 23, I could see putting up a fuss. You know who I'm talking about?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Yeah. The new owner, I guess that home sold, it was, I think it was owned by Kenworthy, then Nelson Group, and now it's got a new owner. So yeah, I mean, the house is not really that well-preserved, so. Is that the one we looked at? It's a it's uh we looked at 31 cell street but we have looked there was no formal demo application but we did look at like the design proposal that proposed to wipe out that open lot 23 and 19 to build that giant or to build a ginormous building basically I mean 30 31 is demo pretty much I mean it's been
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: re rewrote it hasn't been cited yet but they've done all the building you know like the windows and i guess just getting back to 23 for a minute um i'm not advocating this but i wouldn't want to see the the district get torpedoed because 23 comes in and gets all the city councilors riled up and starts talking, going on about its rights and stuff. So that's all good, but if push comes to shove, I would just suggest that maybe he gets excised from the district so that, you know, it'd be like, I wouldn't want to see one guy torpedo the whole thing, you know, because I didn't see anybody else, you know, browsing about it, but I could see how he potentially could, you know, anyway, just a thought.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, they've already excluded one person on Manning Street. That's why the boundary is kind of erratic here, I guess. But and these houses along here were also excluded because there was not a lot of age. But.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, that's I would I mean, I think it should be in the history, I think it's a good house, you know, it could be recited and it could be a real nice contribution to the fabric. But I would say You know, I wouldn't want to get the thing lost just because this guy goes on the war path, you know?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I am supportive of this district, because I would like to see them get one done. Yeah, I would just want to let you guys know that we did receive the inventory forms for the Bradley Hall estate, so that's all the houses between Governor Zav and Forest Street, right behind Medford Square. That is the most important residential neighborhood in the entire city. It's so well preserved. I would highly advocate that that one be next, if this one passes. Or just simply letting them ask in the city who wants to be in a historic district, because you might as well take whoever is interested, you know. So, but, okay. Any further thoughts? Do we want to formally make a motion to support this?
[Unidentified]: So moved. Seconded.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second, OK, I'll go around the room as I see people, Peter. Yes, and Kit. Yes, and Delaney. Yes, and Doug.
[Kit Collins]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed. Aye, yes. 5-0 approved. Okay, I'll get the brief letter out to the HTC and we'll go from there. Okay, any other new business before I move on to old business?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: You said there were going to be some personnel changes on the HTC?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I mean, there always are, but... So Fred Sewell resigned. The mayor has appointed me. basically a compliance officer working with the board to make sure that they're in compliance with all the rules and regs. So Fred's resigned. I'm hoping to have a meeting with the HTC earlier the next month, but probably next month, although it's looking more and more likely that the HTC is not going to meet. So I don't know why, but I'll work on that. So they're going to be looking for new members. We want new representatives for the district. We need some additional expertise. They just lost their architect. So we're going to be looking for an architect on that board. And, you know, making sure that they do all the things they need to be doing. So anything else I missed? Just working down old business. I don't have any updates on properties under demo delay. I don't think there is anything other than the Winchester. We've asked Wareham Street to consider saving, at least looking at saving the forward portion of that building before they simply go right to the option of full demolition. I don't know whether he will or won't. entertain that option they seemed pretty interested in simply starting anew but I think that's a I think that's a mistake that's a bad precedent for us to get into so we should certainly push him a little bit while there's time to to at least look at moving that building around and moving it forward then putting some addition behind it but I'll see what he comes to the table with you know Jen only sent him the the note last week so So we'll go from there. We didn't make any progress on permit subcommittee or the demo delay subcommittee yet. So that's on the radar. We'll meet sometime this month. for Cross Street Cemetery. The cemetery trustees and I are working on two grants. We've applied for a CPC small grant for one half of the project that's coming to CPC, Doug, so I'll... I'll see you guys tomorrow. And then we have a second grant out to Freedom's Way National Heritage Area, and if all goes according to plan, that'll bring the project costs down to a grand total of $1,100 to the city, and that That cost, Jen and I agreed that the commission would probably shoulder just to keep that project moving along. There seems to be more than enough money in the budget to cover that. The benefit is if we cover it now, the consultant will be able to do their work for the cemetery headstone restoration assessment. Then from there, they can apply for CPC funding in the fall to actually move forward with the restoration work. expressing the project on a much faster timeline, that's all. In terms of the archaeological component to the other side of that, I put in Alicia Hunt's hands the revised proposal from PAL. Basically they proposed in order to get the answers on whether there's a cemetery there or not, they excavate three trenches across the site and if they hit any sort of burial, coffin furniture, coffin fragments, cultural material, etc. Below the historic soil level, they'll stop digging and that will be your answer. It was about an $18,000 project, not including the city's contribution to actually donate the actual excavating equipment and personnel to do that. So it's probably going to be like a $25,000 proposal, all told, all in. So I left it in Alicia's hands to fund, but I'm following up on it on a regular basis because I don't want it to be forgotten. So that's where that's where that's at at this point. Thomas Brooks Park. Thomas Brooks Park is two things are underway. We're just waiting to hear back from CPC with the final allocation of funds. So I can't say anything about that because it's up in the air. But I will say Peter Hedlund is on the move with his proposals. He has some stuff and he's looking to come to the table next month. So we should expect him back here with some sort of design. to look at the archeological cap and interpretive site.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, the only thing I would say there is that, remember, they slightly cut the funds because they thought the city DPW or somebody, I presume, could contribute something on the tree trimming and the cutting back of the alley and various areas. We talked about that, I think, that night. If that turns out to be not possible, I mean, we go right back to the CPC and say, you need to fund us at the full amount because they made that assumption without actually talking to anybody in the city, which is not great, but that's what they did. And we'll see how it pans out.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can make do with that. That's fine. Yeah, yeah, I will push the city to rectify some of the situation, you know, some of the costs that was in that project proposal involved cleaning up things on the site that DPW took down during the ice storm and just kind of Got it off of the Grove Street and put it in the park to get it out of the way. And, you know, the consultant, it's not that was not the previous consultants responsibility to do that. So we just, you know, if they can clean that up and clean some of the tree trunks up and, you know, some of the debris and there's a. a little human, a little kid sized fort now made out of materials that, you know, I don't want to encourage people to continue to make forts, but it's kind of cool. But it's also really large and seems to get bigger every time I go there. You know, I I think if we can clean that stuff up, that'd be good. And that'll just clear the way for the developer to just focus, not the developer, the tree guys to just focus on the historic trees. So.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: You have to love that it's a living park though.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah. I mean, the trees are a cultural resource. They're witness trees, right? They're 150 years old. At least some of them are much older than that. Because oak trees, especially red and white oaks are really slow growing. So, you know, some of those trees on that site are really, really, really old. And it would be nice to get some. There's a lot of Norway maples, which are highly invasive, so it'd be really nice to get some actual trees that in there that that are native to New England and actually belong on the site. Be good. Okay, so for survey projects, just as I mentioned, I will post all of the inventory forms that I got for Bradley Hall Estates. So, as I mentioned, that's that we've been waiting for that product for a while. The consultant did a, basically, we had a chunk of money that we needed to use and the consultant finally delivered the product. Probably one of the most important neighborhoods really a bunch of well-preserved houses, a lot of them pre-1880s, many of them architect-designed. The history there is just very mind-blowing. There's so many different layers that are going on. And then now that that's done, the consultant can turn their attention to Fulton Heights. They're heading into phase 3B, so they're about to submit a whole bunch of inventory forms for us to review, which will be good. The challenge is that Fulton Heights is so diverse and so wildly developed that they're just having a challenge as to what specifically they're actually going to inventory. You know, they keep picking subdivisions and doing a little bit of research on them and then learning a little bit. One of the coolest things is that they are focusing on an area known as Tar Paper Village. So Tar Paper Village is a lot of the people, the first occupants built their own homes. You know, they were not fancy. And then they kind of developed somewhat organically without almost an architectural style. They were very vernacular. So they did find a little enclave of buildings built around the same time. So they've kind of inventoried those. They're working on that in the quote-unquote village center, which is the top of the hill at Fulton Street where the commercial district is. So we should expect a good product out of that, and the project's just moving right along once again. So we should be in good condition. That's it for old business. I don't think I have anything else. Does anybody else have anything I missed? Okay, Peter meeting minutes, sent them around. Did anybody have any questions, comments, concerns? All right, I'll take a motion to approve.
[Unidentified]: Move to approve. A second? I'll second. Great.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, and roll call, Peter? Yes. Kit? Yes. Oleni? Yes. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Ed?
[Doug Carr]: Thumbs up. Great. 5-0 approved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: With nothing else, I'll take a motion to adjourn.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Somebody's got to do it, so moved.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'll second. Okay. And roll call, Peter? Yes, yes, Lenny yes, Doug yes, and yes, good night, I'm a yes, so 6, 0, approved to have a good night.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I well, thanks everyone have a good night that night.
|
total time: 0.68 minutes total words: 55 |
|||