[Adam Hurtubise]: Good evening all. This is the September meeting of the Medford Historical Commission. I'm going to call the meeting to order at 7.02. Read the governor's statement and we'll be off and running on our 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 the remote meetings from March 31st, 2023 to March 31st, 2025. So this meeting is being recorded by Community Development. It's also being recorded by Medford Community Media. So and of course you will be able to get all of the information that we are seeing up on our website at www.medfordhistoricalcommission.org. If you go to the news section, you can follow along with the appropriate MHC forms and information that we're reading. All right, so first up on the docket is 18 Cherry Street determination of significance. So we will be determining significance for three buildings tonight. So I'm going to reiterate what that is. It is a step. the first step in the demolition delay review process. There's two steps. We determine whether or not the building is significant, and I'll go over the definition. If it is, there's a public hearing component which gives the public a chance to chime in on if the demolition of the building is detrimental. If it's significant and if it is detrimental, it invokes an 18-month, up to 18-month demolition delay. If it is not significant or not preferably preserved as part of that process, the demo permit is issued and the applicant is on their way. So the commission will be determining whether or not these buildings are significant and by definition that is it is either listed or subject to a pending application for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, has been listed in the Massachusetts Historic Register of Places, or was built within 75 years or older, which has been 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 association with an important architect or a builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So commissioners, I sent around the MHC form B for Cherry Street. I would like to welcome a motion to kickstart the conversation and we'll go from there.
[Kit Collins]: I'll move to start the conversation.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Do you want to make a motion for significance or do you just want to open the conversation?
[Kit Collins]: I just want to open the conversation. I do have a question, Ryan. This might be something that you can answer. Under the architectural description for 18 Cherry, it says in the second paragraph, despite alterations, this is among the earliest buildings constructed in East Medford on the north side of Salem Street and serves as an important document of the neighborhood's earliest phase of development. Do you know how many houses in that neighborhood still remain? Because I do understand that this building has gone under several additions, and it's changed quite a bit over time.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So this East Medford has some 900 pre-1900 buildings. It's the largest amount of buildings anywhere in the city of Medford. I don't know what, how many of them are pre-1855. I think it's more than half, so there's a huge concentration of that, but the thing that I always go back to is that Neil Larson and Claire Dempsey and John Clemson always call our attention to the fact that pre-1875 buildings are rare in the city of Medford. I mean, there's probably 2,000 pre-1900 buildings in the city of Medford, and of that, half of them, maybe 1,000, are pre-1855. So there's only 12 or so 18th and 17th century buildings in total in the city. So there's very, I would say, you know, maybe five or 600 total in the city. So it's a small and getting smaller number.
[Kit Collins]: Okay, thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, motion's been made to open discussion. Do I have a second just so we can continue with the conversation?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I'll second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Let's see, Kit Nichols, second. If there's no opposition, we'll start the discussion and the dialogue. Landy, why don't you continue with your, why don't you, because you started with questions, so why don't you kickstart the discussion?
[Kit Collins]: Okay, yeah. I mean, you know, I think the question for me is that now, I didn't know that there were so few pre, you know, 1875 buildings. in Medford, but it has gone through a lot of change. There have been a lot of additions. I don't know. I'd be open to hearing what the other commissioners have to say about this.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, if I could chime in here. Can you give me a sense of what's being proposed for this project? I'm just trying to understand that a little bit. It might change how I'm thinking about it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think it's schematic at this point, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was six townhouses, but I don't think there's any formal plans or anything at this point.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, yeah. I mean, the question which arises for me is, I look at the application because of how terrible it gets. And what does zoning permit there? I mean, this is all, you know, the building itself, and I think even the form being made clear, the hospital as it currently stands, you've got, you know, it's reported to be a two-family with parking for 13 and a substantial driveway space on the premises. You know, what's permissible there?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm not sure. Sid, I don't know if you've looked into it at all. Most of this district is SF2, so you can do singles and duplexes. You may be able to subdivide the lot there. No, it's in SF1.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Hi, good evening, everyone. Can I chime in?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, go ahead, Sid.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, so it's Aspermayer, Tony, whatever. initial due diligence we did, it's a GR zone.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, so it's general residence, okay.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, so two families are allowed. And right now there are two lots which are a little over 9,000, so the total lot is over 18,000 square feet. So that's why we were saying that we could do, you know, two to two, you know, six units over there. Also, again, I don't know, you have forms, so you might know that. But when I was buying this thing, I mean, on public record and everything, it says 1920 built this building, you know. So I don't know where 1800, I don't know. I mean, on city SSR card or everywhere, it says 1920 built, you know.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we tell people the city assessor's records are not the, you know, they're not the most accurate, but a lot of times it defaults to 1900. And, you know, or it might have the date that they added water and sewer to it, depending on how late it is. So it's definitely a 19th century building, at least the forward half, you know, the back half is a 20, clearly a 20th century addition.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I mean, right now is just a single family. And then there are Tons of garages all around, and then there are tons of paving all around. So that's what the existing property is right now.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: When you talk about the two lots, are you talking about more land that's beyond those garages? kind of what we see there.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: No, so there are two lots, like an oversized lot, you know, like 9,000 plus. So I don't have exact number, but if you add them, they are like over 18,000. And in GR's zone district, if you get 6,000 square feet lot, you are allowed two units, you know, in each lot.
[Adam Hurtubise]: There is a, there is a site plan in the application.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, it looks like about the screen so we can see it. If you don't mind just to get a sense of the diagram. I know it's conceptual. It's early.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, there's no, it's just existing conditions. If you just want that.
[Doug Carr]: Oh, no, that's okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, no, no plans.
[Doug Carr]: And look, said this might be a question more for you than anyone else. But are we saying that. In the city of Medford, you can take any 2 lots side by side and combine them and be able to put 6 townhomes on them.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: No, no, I'm not saying that I'm saying. In a GR zone, a 6,000 square feet is the requirement, you know? So if you got 6,000, I can do a two-family over there. Just pull a apartment and go in. I don't need to go through. Yeah. But you're combining two lots to get you... We're trying to... Over here, the initial... Right now, what my attorneys are doing, they're trying to divide it into three. Three lots. And they're doing an A&R for that. We don't meet the lot with requirement, except everything else on that. So, you said you haven't hired an architect yet or done anything in any detail? No, not the architect yet, because we just closed on it. And now we are just, yeah, I just closed like,
[Doug Carr]: Let me give you my thoughts on this just based on what this conversation. I personally don't think the property is significant. I think it's worth documenting because this building does seem to cover quite a bit of the last 170 years in terms of its aggregation over time. I personally don't think the building, in my mind, falls into significance. I do think it's important that whatever goes here is at least sensitive to the scale and context of the neighborhood. That's something that we don't really have any control over. The city doesn't really have what I'd call a detailed process unless we put demo delay on it. Then by default, we do have that. I don't want to do that, but I do want to protect the neighborhood to a degree and make sure that whatever is designed there, and you haven't obviously designed it yet, so you can't tell us that. But does it feels like it's not going to be a monster in the neighborhood, something that is reasonable and scalable and feels like it wouldn't stick out like a sore thumb to the neighborhood. That would be my primary concern.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Sid, are you thinking these townhouses will be one side-by-side-by-side? Are they connected in any way? Are they all detached?
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: No. They're going to be in two and two, so two, and then a U-shape, almost like a community. For that, we need to go in front of the board.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So is there any way, because I can see on your existing plot plan, and if people want to pull it up, they can. The existing house is already on a 6,000 square foot lot. That leaves the remaining land, mainly the two garages, any chance you can find a way to just avoid the house altogether? Because obviously, if somebody were just living in that house, and it seems like it's, I don't know how it's set up, but if the whole back half could certainly be demolished. rebuild, build up, whatever, you know, if we could find a way to avoid that, you know, I'd be okay with just simply, you know, foregoing the rest of the design for the rest of the buildings there, you know, especially if you can find a way to creatively reuse that building, given it's already on a lot and, you know, Something's already there. But anyways, that's putting the cart before the horse. That's just something to throw out to you for your thoughts. Doug, anything else before I open it up to the rest of the commissioners?
[Doug Carr]: No, I'll say thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Who wants to be next? All right, go ahead, Ed.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I guess I'm with Doug on this. This house has gone through a lot. It is, no one is arguing that the block is a district. I just took another look at the, you know, took another look at the Google Maps images. Clearly, older designs and some more designs in the block, but there is simply no consistency. I could see documentation, and I understand that our authority is specious as to that if we find no significance. But I can't say that This is a lot it's on, and a lot is one unit. And with what's been done to it over the last at least 70, if not 120 years, that there's much, you know, the preservations really, this structure's made today.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Kit, you want to go next? So I was really curious to hear what the other commissioners would have to say about this one, because I have to say, I mean, reading over the Form B, I'm persuaded that it's historically significant. but in service of what? I mean, there are, as has already been said, there are other buildings, not yet, I understand, a diminishing inventory, but other buildings from this era, it's on a huge lot. And it's been so changed over the years that Even if we found it historically significant, would anybody ever know that looking at it?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right, right. I mean, just because something significant doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be found preferably preserved. We've had plenty of those cases. We left it somewhat up to us, but also to the general public if there is enough care, you know, that they can certainly chime in right in. influence, et cetera. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. I mean, I don't find the, even though it is old and it doesn't, but it doesn't exhibit its oldness, I guess, or its historical quality. Cause it's been so altered and added onto and all the windows are been changed. Um, And I agree that the only significant part is sort of that front part, or the most aged part. The other back part was done in the 60s supposedly. So I guess that would be sort of my wish too, is if somehow that one little part of the building could somehow be saved as kind of like, I mean, if it works out. to be somehow kind of set the tone or be incorporated within the new design. You know what I'm saying? But I don't see any value in keeping all these garages and asphalt. In fact, they're kind of like detrimental. And I think the need for housing in the city, you know, would merit it. So, um, I guess, you know, push comes to shove. I don't think I would find it rising to the level preferably preserved. I mean, I think it is historically significant just because of its age and the fact that it's still there, but I don't know. So I guess that'd be my wish, too, is to kind of like see if that part of the building could be kept somehow or acknowledged or, you know, I don't know. Rebuilt at a different part of the site or something, but to try to keep the character of it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I don't know I will I will say that The shed row of garages here is particularly interesting. You know how we had this discussion of like, okay, we don't care about garage block buildings or anything except for if something exceptional comes up? I'm not advocating for preservation of them in any sense, but they certainly should be documented because this is probably the only one Uh, like this in the entire city, that's this many garages. Um, you know, there have been public auto houses that we've. Reviewed, but there tend to be larger, more industrial buildings. This is a more residential work scale. So, um. I, I think no matter what we do, we should certainly advocate for some level of documentation for this building.
[Doug Carr]: If I can circle back, I just did a Google street view and went up and down the street on both sides. This is actually the smallest building, I think, massing-wise on the street by far. A townhouse properly designed like Sid's proposing, I actually think can be made to work. I actually disagree with Peter a little bit here that I don't think Saving that small massing is going to, I don't think it's going to fit well into the plans. If I could just play it out. In my mind, I think that would be a challenge and would would would kind of make that site really challenging to make work. And I don't, I don't actually think it's important because I think that if you look across down the street, you know, there's a lot of. two and three-story buildings that are bigger scale. I think, again, a good design from sitting in his architect, whoever that is, and we have some good ones in Medford who do this kind of thing. I think it can be made to work well to make the neighborhood not feel like it's being overwhelmed. If every house in this neighborhood was this scale, I would disagree, but it's not. They're all bigger than this. You know, so I think there's an opportunity here to kind of bridge both worlds.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, I think I agree with Doug and that, you know, the. The only sort of original feature of this building is. the front end and it's just kind of the form, sort of like, you know, how it looks. It's been stripped down. There's, you know, new windows, new everything. It's just kind of like just that little shape is sort of the last remaining historical detail. But it is also kind of at a scale with the rest of the neighborhood. So I don't know if like in the design process, there's a way that the architect can pay homage to the, you know, original shape of the older building somehow. Um, so the, like, the impression is still there, but, you know, it is a very big lot and you can fit, you know, if you can fit six townhouses on it, I think that is, uh, um, something that Medford needs is more housing. So, yeah. Yeah. I don't think it's really, uh, worth. Yeah. So.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Uh, commissioners, you want to make a formal motion then, uh, for, or against significance?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I will move against it.
[Doug Carr]: Before we do that, Ryan, I guess I would like to ask maybe Sid if he would, as an advisory role, bring whatever design he has before us. I don't want to veto it. I just want to give him some free advice from the various architectural experts on this. We don't want to slow down the process. I don't. I don't think that's part of the motion, Ryan, but I think it can't be. But I think I would like to just ask as a good faith effort to think about documentation, to think about bringing us just some early concept designs just to have us kick the tires and make sure that the neighborhood's going to be in a good shape.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Absolutely, Doug. And I mean, this is not our first project and this is not the first time we are here. Usually, you know, Yale was there and whenever, whether it's 69 Jerome or 75 truly, we have worked with you guys and we have done whatever more than what is needed, you know, like in 69 Jerome, whatever. the design and we kept it all throughout the building over there and we will be. The problem over here is that even though the lot is big, we still have to go in front of the zoning. So whether they're going to allow that, the six townhouse, so right now we don't even know whether that or if they say no, we do like three lots and we are only allowed to do to two families, so either are options. We are not very clear yet, but once we know that direction, I'm happy to, you know, like whatever homage you guys are saying, you know, we'll definitely do that. I mean, absolutely.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: So you have to go before the ZBA anyway?
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, if you're asking for six townhouses and the way we are asking it, like, because right now, if you divide the two laws, we can divide the two laws, but then we can only fit two, two, two, three, two families. But if we want two townhouses, and then the way I prefer, so that you can enter in between, and then you have two townhouses each side, and then you have one, two in the front. Something like that, we have to go in front of the board for a variance. OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. Ed made a motion against significance.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second. OK, a little round roll call vote. Kit?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: A vote for against significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So that's a yes vote. Eleni?
[Kit Collins]: Yes for or against significance. Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, no significance.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Five, zero, approved. Okay, we'll get your letter, Sid, and keep us in the loop.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Sure, thank you. Thank you, Sid.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Next up, Ian.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, I got one more.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 106 Alexander. Commissioners, I sent out the MHC form B. We need to receive a demo application and determine significance. I'll take a motion to receive the demo application as complete.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I will move to accept the demo application as complete.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second?
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK. Motion's been made and seconded. I'll do a roll call vote, Kit. Yes, Lenny, yes, and yes, Peter, yes, yes, yes, OK, 6, 0. Shall we kick start the discussion? Is it 5-0 or 6-0? I guess you can do 5-0. I don't have to vote.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: OK. Whatever. Normally.
[Adam Hurtubise]: commissioners, you want to kickstart the discussion on this property?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Okay, I will keep my motion as to not significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second.
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, Ed, if you want to start discussion.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I did not get a detailed chance to look at the B. I saw the form, I saw the pictures, and I know the block. And in my view, we're not dealing with the House, which looks like it's going to need strong commentations of it. And it's in a block where, other than the social history of, again, working in these houses in Medford in the 20s, there's really not much to say. I just don't see it. Thanks, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm agreeing with that. I don't see a lot here. There's been a lot of alterations. The building itself is, I think of some of the 1930s buildings that we have found significant, Ryan, over the years. And they haven't been many, but they've usually been gems. And this is just clearly not one of those for, I think, obvious reasons when you look at the form.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: And Peter.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Uh, yeah, I, I agree with that. I, I don't have much more to add.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Nothing. Sorry. No. I mean, I think everybody said it like we've got a million of these. Yeah.
[Kit Collins]: I agree. Yes. It's just, yeah, there's nothing significant there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, said anything to add on this one?
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Nope, I'll go with everybody else.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, most have been made and seconded. I will call the roll call vote. Kit? Yes. And Eleni? Yes. And Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, Peter?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Todd?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 5-0 approved. All right, Sid, I'll get you your other letter out, and we'll be good.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, thank you, everybody. But just one off-topic thing. 56 Wareham, I know it's not on the agenda. Last time we sent the, you know, iterations and suggestions, and not this meeting, last meeting when Yale was there, it was like it was okayed that that was a thing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think the only thing we were waiting for is to see if Yale can pull back the size of the addition back towards the forward massing of the house. So it doesn't look so much like the additions eating the house. That's the only thing. I'm pretty certain she can do it because there's a dividing wall between the If I looked at the floor plans the last time, like, the master suite was there, and then there was some additional height in the back. I'll send her an email tonight.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, just if you could send so we can... And then you guys can do it, and then we'll get it to the subcommittee and approve it.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think there was some tentative okay for that.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, guys.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thanks.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Good night.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Good night.
[MCM00001781_SPEAKER_01]: Night.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. Next up on the agenda, 110 Brooks. Same deal, we need to receive the application as complete and review the MHC form B for significance. I'll take a motion for receiving the application.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Motion to receive the application.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second. OK, we'll go around for completeness. Yes. Lenny? Yes. Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, that's the form.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: 5-0. We're approved. All right. Commissioners, I sent out the MHC form B. If you want to kickstart the discussion, I'll take a motion to find for significance or against. Doug, you want to make the motion?
[Doug Carr]: I'm kind of cramming here looking at the drawing, sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Oh, it's just a kickstart discussion.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: You know, I will move to find a significant just on yes, significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed West moves for significance. And a second?
[Kit Collins]: I'll second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. just so you guys know, you can change your vote just because your motion for something doesn't mean you have to vote for it. Well, I understand that. I'm just making sure everybody understands that, you know, you can, you can say one thing, but you can turn around and do another or be convinced otherwise. All right. Motion's been made and seconded. So why don't we start with Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I would say I would like to hear from the architects on this. It is an interesting design. It looks like the form has survived a good deal of on and off over the years. I think the form being made clear that as we're looking at it now, we're looking at it without the siding, which had been there for years, which is evident in these pictures. So I think it's interesting whether it's compelling is what I'm willing to listen to on both sides.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Oleni?
[Kit Collins]: Yeah. I do think, again, it's stripped down. But I do think a lot of the original form and through the window openings still reflect its original design. And it looks like in the plans that the applicant is essentially keeping the structure as is. It's just putting new siding, new windows. uh, but it's, it's going to retain its same form and sort of, um, overall design. Um, but yeah, I mean, I think that it is interesting and it could, um, I think with, you know, a little, uh, TLC, um, can bring it back to life while still kind of maintaining that sort of like original historical quality.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. Uh, Peter.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I kind of concur with Eleni on this one. I mean, we've had similar projects to this. The one on Grove Street, this one reminds me a lot of the one on Grove Street where it was kind of re-skinned. all new siding, and all new windows, et cetera. But also, we were able to influence that design to keep some of the nice elements that might have been lost, such as the stone foundation of the porch and stuff. I'm talking about Grove Street now. But it's a similar form of a house. And this one has the nice columns. and you know the window patterns and stuff so um I feel like If that one was worthy of significance, then I feel like this one was. Also, on the form B, again, it's due to, you know, the box is checked for recommended for listing in the National Register. Although, as with a lot of these, it's, you know, because it would contribute to a future historic district. And, um, I believe there was, uh, somewhat of a significant architect on this one or builder guy, Aaron Gould. Um, so I think it has all those things going for it that, you know, the other projects we'd looked at tonight didn't really have. So I think I'd be in favor of at least going for significance on this one.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Great kit. Yeah, I agree it's significant. I guess my question was looking back at the application for demolition, what more is going to be done that hasn't already been done? because it's removal of all interior and exterior finishes to exposed framing.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That's been done. Yeah, to clarify, the building department let this slide by and this should not have gone to full demolition permits. So we are implementing a process to prevent the disconnect of interior demolition and then later exterior demolition because it's a way that applicants, not these applicants, but other applicants have been trying to circumvent the process. So I would just make sure that and just know that the building department is working to correct the issue and we're working together on the issue and that something like this shouldn't happen again where it just kind of accidentally slips through the cracks. But, you know, the bottom line is that in terms of administration, there's been some back and forth. And KP has said that we have, we as a commission have the right to interpret the bylaw as we see fit. And it's not up to the building department, it's up to the building department to help us enforce it. And they have the right to enforce it. And in this instance, you know, this would have been a reviewable project right from the get go.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: OK, that's actually really helpful context. So I'll just stick with historically significant.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug, anything to add?
[Doug Carr]: I'm kind of with Peter on this and that it feels a lot like that grocery house to me scale wise and quality wise. You know, if the city made an error, and no one's perfect I don't want to, you know, the city has been really improved its process in the last couple years and work with us I don't want to. you know, say anything negative. I just, you know, I just also don't want to penalize the owners for, you know, for following a process that perhaps wasn't clear or that was sidetracked by no actions of their own, if that's an accurate statement, right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, no, they didn't do anything wrong. And, you know, it's difficult sometimes because, you know, sometimes you have to open up and it economically just makes sense to go through and demo everything all at once so that you have a clear and consistent picture, as you know. But also there's a line because you're losing if we go through and document the building, you're losing any and all evidence that we would normally capture as part of this process. So a lot of times it does tell us phasing and how much the building has changed. And sometimes you'll find that many of the interiors are intact. And, you know, although our purview, we keep to the primarily to the exterior, you know, sometimes it's worthy to maintain all of it. So.
[Doug Carr]: Right. But we given where we are, I mean, aren't we really just looking at, at potential design review, design advisory at this point? Cause that's, I mean, we can't undo what's been done. Right. Yeah.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I mean, I mean, in fairness from the other side, you know, had living in a house, which went through this process long before there was a condition, you know, exterior, you're calling exterior cladding demolition in this case, probably appropriately only because of what had been done to the house in prior periods. But again, I've been, you know, I've replaced planting in my house at least once, but with identical, I hope identical, identical materials of contemporary, those that contemporaneously avail. You know, is that demolition or not? I'm just paused a bit, but I think, you know, this is worthy of what, you know, this, you know, even if it's just dealing with the planning issue, I think it's worthy of our keeping.
[Doug Carr]: Ed, do you mind turning up your volume? I'm having a little trouble hearing you. No, okay.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I don't know if I can get, yeah, it was just, again, it just seemed to me from the application, understanding that we have no, strictly speaking, no jurisdiction over interior renovations, that what was being done mostly was you're probably improving existing platting, and you're calling that demolition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I mean, historically, we have looked at all portions of it. Yes, I think the predominant thing that we look at is the exterior, but I don't think that we care so much about the interior. We understand that these buildings are not museums. But I think in terms of reviewable demolition, sometimes the interior demolition, even though we're not reviewing it, it does trigger the demo review process. So, but yeah, in this case, I think it's mainly just, you know, if we go through the process, I, I treat this just like we would, you know, the property on Forest Street that it, you know, we're looking at significance as if it were starting the process fresh so that we're not penalizing anybody and is the building significant and then go from there for preferably preserved if it is significant. That's, that's how I take this process. So.
[Doug Carr]: I, I agree, but I feel like we should do everything in our power to accelerate it just so that it's we're, we're being fair.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, and we just so you know, we have no desire to hold this project up. That's, it's just that, you know, that's whatever, for whatever reason, this got, you know, we should have had review from this from the get go. And it kind of slipped through the cracks. So, you know, we're interested in trying to expedite it and move it along as quickly as possible. I guess. For myself, I don't want to speak for any other commissioners, but I just don't want to if there's some good bits on the building that it would be nice to save. I mean, it would be nice to save those if we could just. I guess that'd be my preference.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, let's get through the determination of significance that we can discuss what the next steps are. How's that?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Sounds good.
[Adam Hurtubise]: That sounds good. Circling back. Did I get to everybody right? There's no additional commissioner comments. Ed made the motion for significance with Eleni seconded. I'll go around roll call vote. So a yes is for significance and a no is for no significance in this case. Kit?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Eleni? Yes. And Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes, significantly.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Peter?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And Doug?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay. So it's 5-0 pass. So what we will do is we will have the legal ad ready to roll. So because of the holiday next month, we actually meet earlier than we would. So there will be a public hearing on October 7th. But I would suggest that we can send the proposed design perhaps to the subcommittee for any sort of preliminary comments that can be brought up during the normal process of the hearing for the public hearing. so and there's also a sign requirement i would be more concerned with the legal ad because the deadline for the paper is in two days so we will get you that legal ad tomorrow and if you get us the check down at city hall it'll get published in the paper and there'll be absolutely no delay otherwise it's off until the end of october otherwise so We're trying to expedite, so we will get you the legal ad tonight so that you can get that in the paper. You have 48 hours, so that's plenty of time, I'm sure, to get down to City Hall and drop off the check for the legal ad, and we take care of the rest of that portion. Then there's a sign requirement, but the sign has a looser deadline.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm sorry, not to interject, but what exactly is the legal ad?
[Adam Hurtubise]: We will send you a notice for the public hearing on October 7th, and it has to go in the newspaper. So all you have to do for that is to bring this down to City Hall to Dennis McDougall, a check, and I will send you the dollar amount for what it is. I don't have it off the top of my head. If you can, and if you get it to me in the next 48 hours, that's the deadline for the paper for the October 7th meeting. So.
[SPEAKER_00]: All right, at some point, would I be able to speak about. You know, coming at this from the as the owner of the property.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I'm certainly happy to have comments. I was going to say normally we take them at the public hearing and kickstart off the October 7th hearing with your comments, but we're happy to take them now so that we can also, what we were going to do is send the design drawings that you guys had proposed to our subcommittee and get some initial feedback ready and prepared for that hearing in case there were any potential changes that the commission would like to see. So I don't think there will be many but you know.
[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, okay. So my name is Adriana Cardenas. I'm the owner of the property. My husband and I purchased the property last fall and it has been definitely a ride the past year trying to get to this point. We bought it with the hopes of fully renovating it into our forever home for our family including our five-year-old daughter. My background is in architecture. I have a degree in architecture as well as a minor in art and architectural history. So upon purchasing this home, I at first glance fell in love with its architectural character and style and have always maintained my position in trying to restore it to its original architectural character as best as possible. There have been obvious, you know, slight changes to the, you know, to the design. But overall, I really tried to, you know, achieve the architectural style design with the renovation. What the pictures don't show is that the house was in a serious state of disrepair. And for structural issues and whatnot, we've had to make different, you know, concessions of what we can afford. Um, and, you know, there's been a lot of concessions, but also we're dealing with a huge issue in the backyard as well with Japanese knotweed and it has become a $300,000 additional investment that we were initially planning on. So there's been a lot of little extra expenses here that have been coming about for us. Um, We are not developers. We've become friends with the, you know, community. Everyone's really excited for us to move here. But as I've explained to the building department, upon learning that we were going to be put on hold until this delay, and unfortunately we were not told in time to go to the last meeting, so here I am today, we're going into a financial hardship at this point. So it is, you know, we do request as quick as possible the decision, if that's October 7th, You know, that's what we'll have to do, but we are severely under the gun here. So I'm just trying to understand the steps that are going to entail, because every moment we wait is less likely that we will be able to afford and see the project through. And I would like to think that the front of the house, again, does reflect the original architectural style to most of the degree. The rear of the house, as you can see from the photos, that was not original to the design. That was an addition made in 1978, which was structurally falling off of the house when we purchased it, and so that had to be removed, which is why the back of the house, that is not historically significant, I would imagine, or it isn't 1978. Now, I've never done the historic review process before, So what I'm hearing now is that, you know, there's going to be this legal ad and I'm going to familiarize myself after our meeting. But does this mean that we're going to have to get a determination? on October 7th and then wait or how does this work? I mean.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So where? So so any building so two step process. So we just did the determination of significance. Any building that's determined significant gets a public hearing. It's the affords the public the opportunity to chime in. That's you. That's your neighbors. That's anybody interested in in buildings and what goes on in the city of Medford to chime in on if the demolition is detrimental to the cultural resources of the city of Medford. And that's where the commissioners weigh. the pros and cons of this project and whether or not it's preferably preserved. And if a building is preferably preserved, it invokes an up to 18 month demo delay, during which time we would try to come to a resolution that would mitigate the demolition, meaning that we would find a design alternative that would work together with both sides of the table here and come together on a design that that is suitable for this building or, you know, or if we say it's not preferably preserved, then you get your permit. So our goal is to sort of expedite that process. I think we're taking some of our comments that we may have in that meeting, and we may normally would have included with a subcommittee and do that over the next, what 20 or so days that we have between the next two meetings. Because we're meeting earlier than we normally would. So we will work to expedite that process and just to save you time so that we can finalize things immediately after that hearing, whether it's advisory or actual stuff that we would work into a demo delay. And so if you read through the packet that we provided you that you guys filled out, it has our entire timeline on there and it explains the process in great depth so that you guys know where you are. Our goal is to not wait you out 18 months. Our goal is to get you off and running. in some way shape or form uh at the latest probably you know a few weeks after the October 7th meeting at the latest but you know it could be that the building's not preferably preserved and you get your permit on October 8th.
[SPEAKER_00]: So that would be the goal. Now the fact that the house is already demolished is what's making me very concerned is the fact that at what point like you know it's already been demoed fully demoed um So how does that play into it? Because in my experience, usually that happens prior to demolition.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, normally we don't face that issue. So I think the commissioners will certainly take that into whether or not the building is preferably preserved, right? So that's, you know, is the frame. You know, enough of a storyteller to explain the history of the building, or is the benefit the design project that you guys are doing? That's 1 of the things that they're going to weigh at that meeting. Right guys. I think you guys can chime in and say, that's certainly something that will be weighed. It's certainly something that we have weighed before we have had cases where. Certain people have gone above and beyond the initial scope of work because either buildings were rotten or stuff like that. It happens, things change. So we just want to move your project along through this process. It's just a process that we have to uphold to be fair to everybody, not just you guys. I understand there's a hardship, but we would undertake this same Review, whether it's you or a developer or somebody else that's coming before us, like the developers that were here. So. We, we treat everybody equally on the same playing field.
[SPEAKER_00]: No. I completely understand this. This is, as you can imagine, it's just quite a surprise for us. We were ready for building permits issued on the 1st, and we didn't understand what the delay was. And here we are. So. I respect the Historic Preservation Commission and the interest in preserving these homes. I just obviously am stuck in a hard spot, as you can imagine, being the owner and designer, everything trying to get into it. All right. Thank you.
[Doug Carr]: Thank you. Let me ask a question. This is one building permit that's covering interior and exterior, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: I believe it was. The building permit? Yes.
[Doug Carr]: Since we have no authority over the interior, why couldn't the interior portion be a partial permit awarded by the city right now? Since we're only talking about the exterior, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: That is the exact, that is the exact, I mean, we can ask the building department, but it is exactly the type of conflict that we're trying to avoid. I mean, They can, I mean, I don't see why they couldn't separate it, but also the, the interior, you know, other than the. The framing, I mean, impact what they're doing to the building impacts the exterior. There are not a lot of changes to the exterior, but I mean, they still got to put in and what happens if things change because of minor discrepancies, little things like that. Right. So. And yes, that good separation of permit is the exact type of thing that we're trying to avoid. Leading up to, I mean, after the fact, after it's gone through the review, certainly if we're reviewing, there's no reason why they couldn't, you know, the building department couldn't pull it, but it is a process, right? Because they have to reestablish a new permit and withdraw their existing one, which is something that they don't wanna do because then it also has to go through all the boards and commissions again, so. So, any other questions? You know, you're welcome to email us. Jen and I are always on the, you know, generally at the email. So, we're happy to answer any questions between now and then. And I will confer with Jen on this project and make sure that we get you the legal ad and a clear explanation as to what the next steps are. So, that will go out in an email tonight.
[Unidentified]: Okay? Okay. Yep. Great. Thank you.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. All right. I'm going to let, so that concludes that. So let's see what's next on the agenda. Salem Street Burying Ground. So I'm going to let Jen in because Jen's here.
[Unidentified]: Hi, Jen. We'll wait for you to connect.
[Adam Hurtubise]: You're muted.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi, sorry.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, that's okay. You want to take over the meeting?
[Jennifer Keenan]: No, you can keep going. Okay. I don't know where you're at.
[Adam Hurtubise]: We're going to talk about Salem Street Burying Ground. We got an email from Veronica and Dean Morris and the cemetery trustees. They want to replace the aging flagpole in Salem Street Burying Ground. The proposed The proposal was originally to replace it at the same location. The base is somewhat deteriorated. So, as a result, asking them to pay special attention to maybe designing something that's a little bit more in a better location. It's a 35 foot flagpole, which is, I think, a little tall for that location, but I don't know it's hard to tell because, because of the trees on the site, I don't know what's currently there now I think it's like a little 15 foot flagpole so I'm not sure why so but the bottom line is. both I think D and I agree that we've asked the city to hire an archaeologist to monitor any sort of excavation that's there given the age of the cemetery and given that we don't know where burials are in that location and what sort of subsurface remains underneath the existing flagpole. So we're just waiting on them to go forward with that or not and see what the next steps are. That's the only update that I have on that. Medford Historical Society. Jen, you had met with the members of the Historical Society?
[SPEAKER_00]: This is a reminder.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I had a meeting a little more than a month ago now with Meg Bowen from the Historical Society, and she had reached out to me to talk about partnering with us more on their events and their programming that's going to be happening. really looking at next year because they're putting their calendar together. Of course, I said we would love to partner where it's appropriate and however we can help them both bolster traffic to events, help support them online with social media reach out, emails to our list. We didn't really talk about any specific programming. Actually, no, I lied. She did bring up something.
[Adam Hurtubise]: The house program?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. You know what? Hold on. Let me I know exactly where this piece of paper is that I need to refer to. So give me one second. I will be right back. I want to go grab it because I would like to make sure I have the right info.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, that's fine. I'm going to circle right around and related to this Doug. Have you heard of anything from the discussion on Sarah Bradley Fulton? Because that's sort of.
[Doug Carr]: No, other than there was. I don't know a minor. Kerfuffle was doing a few parties there, but about a grant getting some money, I believe, from the state supporting it. I don't know. I never heard a resolution for many of that from the various parties. I was just copying a few emails, and then all the activity just stopped. I don't know where it ended.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Maybe we should see where, if you would maybe reach out to Laura and see where things are. I'd be curious. I do know, because I was asked by Teresa, if it made sense to put some money towards. you know, Medford's Revolutionary War stories, Isaac Hall, Sarah Bradley Fulton, and maybe doing some digging, deeper digging on those individuals. And I think that's a great idea, certainly worthy. So I had them, had her reach out to John Bell, who's a very well known and respected Revolutionary War historian in the Boston area. So I think he's, might be interested in helping with that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So yeah, sorry to circle back. So the Historical Society is planning an event on December 3rd that is called Deep Time, the Early Archaeology of Medford and Greater Boston. And Ryan Suanna Crowley is going to be their speaker. They have that confirmed at the library, so they wanted to know if we wanted to co-sponsor that event, considering that we just had a dig and we could kind of talk through some of those things. So I think that that's definitely a good partnership there. And then they're basically talking about They have some programming scheduled for early 2025, but then they're looking for topics from April through November next year. Their goal is to have one event per month. Doug, we talked about potentially doing like the art and architecture lecture again, the Brooks Estate one. And really, you know, They're open to ideas, they're open to us bringing them ideas and co-sponsoring or anything that we can do to support them. And I think anywhere we can partner in and kind of bring visibility to Medford history and some of these, what I always call consumer facing events, like getting in front of people and helping. So if we have any ideas for programming, they are all ears.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I think on that note, there, and Teresa sent this out too as well, just as kind of like a poking the bear, because Historical Society was researching this. Medford's 400th anniversary is going to come up very quickly. And I think it's going to take a lot of effort from a lot of people to make that happen. And especially if we don't want to be overshadowed by Boston, which is going to be doing things in the same year. So if we we should probably plan on a collaborative meeting with all of the groups, the Brooks Estate, the Royal House, Historical Society, the commission, and anybody else that's involved, the mayor and start thinking about fundraising for that, starting with private and then just working with the city government and city council now to start planning on how to fund that in the future, because that should include some big things like a parade, fireworks, and music. If we start to plan now, we might actually have and be able to raise some sizable money.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, Meg also mentioned that next year is the, what is it, that Paul Revere's 250th. So she asked us if we were doing anything for that. And I said, we are not planning to do anything. She should probably check with the Chamber of Commerce on that. But yeah, I think both of those events are. you know, obviously the Paul Revere 250 is gonna be in, you know, six months-ish, so that's not a lot of time, but the Medford anniversary in a couple of years, certainly we have a little bit more time to plan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, there's an American Revolutionary War 250th anniversary every year from now until now for like the next seven years, so. And our big one is next year and the following year, because we get from April 1775 to March of 1776 is when they move, and then they go down to New York. So that's our big hurrah, and then that's it until Boston 400. And I'm sure there's a bunch of little towns that are turning significantly older.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So should we just circle back with Teresa and just say, hey, like, we should get a meeting?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, we should put everybody in the same room, have a meeting, certainly get some public collaboration, because I'm sure there's some people from the general public who will love to donate their time to make that happen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And they'll have to be some conversations from somebody about some sort of budget.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I would say, yes, we should start talking about like, you know, with the council about what is the budget outlook so that we can plan for some actual city funding? And then where can we go in the meantime for grants, building up fundraising? Can we get some big sponsors, etc? I mean, you know, things that bring in tourism will be better, you know, could be mutually beneficial. For example, the people that own Chevalier, you might want to plan some specialized things around our history, and maybe they'll be interested in contributing. But there's restaurants and, you know, other big things in there that might be works. Who knows, maybe maybe Medford's Great American Beer Hall, when they get up, up and running and successful, they can do something. So
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think they're already pretty successful based on the traffic I saw last week when I tried to go and couldn't go in.
[Doug Carr]: There's a CPC meeting tomorrow night. I will bring this up. I know Teresa in the past has. you know, brain dump, just a bunch of ideas that she was thinking of, um, that we haven't gotten very far, but I'll, I'll bring it up and mention that this, this commission is interested in, in supporting it, but coming up with a framework, a structure, a schedule, something that makes sense. Um, so I'll bring that up tomorrow night, uh, with the next CPC meeting.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Great. And then on that note, we have the preservation and changing climate event. Chen, you brought that up. That's coming up at the PV Essex Museum. Teresa also mentioned that there's an affiliation if we want to attend that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mentioned it briefly last month, but I know we had a few people missing. So that event is, it's actually this week. I think it's Wednesday. It's a one day event. And yeah, I think we would be able to go in at a discounted rate if anybody was interested in going or heading that way for the day. So just let me know if anyone's interested. If not, I'm sure there'll be other ones in the future and we'll keep an eye on the programming there.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And then I set out a few weeks ago, but I'll just remind everybody that Jen Dougherty from the Massachusetts Historical Commission sent around some workshops. They have the Basics for Online Research for Historic Buildings on Friday, October 18th, Determining Architectural and Historical Significance on November 19th, and Best Practices for Developing a Strong Local Preservation Program on December 9th. All of these are electronic. They're all recorded after the fact, but it's sometimes great to be there in person to be able to ask questions. So I will resend those around if people want to join in on those presentations. There are daytimes, you know, 10 and 1 p.m., but, you know, I, you know, if you can make it there only for an hour. So it's like a good lunch and learn. Okay, anything else before we move on to minutes?
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, just hold on. I just wanted to know. Hold on something. I just went out of my head. Forget it. Moving on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Was it on programs or? No, okay. When it comes back after about July meeting minutes, then that's fine. All right, July meeting minutes, they were tabled from the last meeting. Peter sent them around. Peter, these were not the ones that you guys were discussing changes to, right? Okay. I can take a motion to approve July meeting minutes.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to approve July meeting minutes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second. Jen, you got a?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Sorry, I'm like, yeah, a second.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Who made the motion, sorry?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right, roll call vote. Kay? Yes. Ed? Yep. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jen? Yes. Doug? Yes. Melanie? Yes. All right, 6-0 approved. Okay, any other new business before we move on? Nothing. Old business properties under demo delay. I don't think we have anything. The carriage house for 91 Winchester is coming up, but I don't think there's any movement on that from the homeowner. They have not reached out at all. I have sent my email while we were talking about 56 Wareham, so that's going out. Subcommittee, I'm going to be reaching out to you about 27 Almond Street. They want a meeting with us. They don't have any design yet. They just want some feedback as to where to go with the design. They are in a similar situation with SID, but they're under demo delay, so they need some direction. Form B's, order preemptively. So on that note, I ordered earlier today a Form B to document 55 Myrtle Street. The subcommittee passed on review, I understand, on that one, but we'll do the documentation on that one just so that we have it, so that there's a record of the building. For buildings upcoming, I have a list of 42 Franklin Street, 161 Main Street, which will also include the building next door because it's related to it. Then we're in the process of reviewing the permit for 254 Salem Street. So we might as well have a form be preemptively prepared for that as well. I'm gonna hold off on ordering them until more movement is made on them, but, because I don't want our budgets, that will bring our budget up to a $7,000 expenditure, so that's nearly half of it. So I'm just, I have it like tentatively if we need it. I don't think we need any formal motion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, Jen. So $254, whatever that one was, Nelson's. Yeah. Thank you. I did approve interior demo on that today. They did say that they're not changing any windows and they just, I think they just wanted to start on the inside. So I think that one will definitely be coming. I think depending on what they want to do, you know. So we might want to just order that one is my thought.
[Adam Hurtubise]: All right. That's fine. I can get that out. Is there any other motion? No, I don't think we need a formal motion. There's a standing order just to do it. So I was just bringing it up in case there was anything else that's on anybody's radar. And I have your 161 Main Street, which will include the house next door, because that building, the green building, is a carriage house that relates to that house. So might as well do both of them.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And we are all caught up on permits otherwise as of today. Great. I did remember the thing I wanted to mention. Yep. Teresa send around an email about survey planning grants.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, yeah, well, let's save that for when we get down to this.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, sorry, yeah, sounds good.
[Adam Hurtubise]: OK, yes, that's that is on the list. OK, any other? So if anybody else has anything in the neighborhoods that they're checking out, you know, if people see stuff for sale, you know, certainly just ping me and Jen just so that we can take a look. And if we see something that we want to bring or call attention to, we certainly can. I don't think we have anything at that point, other than we're all caught up to date.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We're all caught up. I'm still trying to work with the building commissioner. He asked me to come meet with the staff, which I'm happy to do. He's got a standing meeting every Wednesday at four o'clock with his team, which is perfect because that's typically the day that I stay home and kind of is my day off. So of course my schedule in September is a little crazy, but I'm working with him to just go meet with his team and just continue to have open communication and rapport between them and us. So I'll keep you guys posted on when that gets scheduled. But otherwise, I think we're in good shape.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I think we mentioned this during the process of reviewing Brooks is that that we're in a good place with the building commissioner. We just have to make sure that we just fine tune the fine tune the process to make sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and what he explained to me was that there's really no way, at least as of now moving forward, that anybody in the building department can kind of bypass us. It's just the system's not set up that way anymore. As something gets categorized, which from when a permit gets applied for, there's this kind of line between minor work and major work. And anything that's considered major automatically has a route assigned to it that is all departments, including us.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, so we can no longer be blamed. You know, if somebody says, oh, the commission's holding up. Nope. Every department's holding you up because we get right. Department gets review.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. And I did reiterate to him if, you know, just to remind people when they're applying that it is 30 days to get through all city channels. You know, I mean, I try to look at things depending on my schedule at least once a week, if not a little bit more frequently, depending on if I have a few minutes in front of the computer, et cetera. And sometimes one of the, you know, inspectors will just kind of send an email like, hey, can you look at this one real quick or whatever? but otherwise we try to move them right along, or at least we reply and say, we need some more information or et cetera, so they at least know we looked at it and it's kind of in progress. So yeah, so I think, and they're in the process of working with the assessor's department to put in ages of properties. One of the things we talked about too was that, You know, there is always onus on the property owner, right? It's not, you know, some property owners, you know, it's like... They have to put in things that are truthful and accurate to what they're doing. If they need to look up the age of their house or whatever it says on the public record, it's not always just up to us and every other city department to, for lack of a better word, police people. There is some self-policing that goes along with that as well. And certainly the onus is on the person applying for the permits to make sure that they're Uploading plans and making sure their descriptions are accurate and, you know, that's how they can get things moved through quickly when they're doing all the things that they're supposed to be doing on their end.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Great. OK, good. cross street cemeteries. So the city has hired, uh, land and faint, uh, fan and leaner, um, to conduct the survey of the headstones. So, um, they completed the first phase of work, which was digging, um, at the base of the stones at cross street cemetery in West Medford, uh, at Oak Grove cemetery in West Medford to determine how the stones are placed, um, in for majority of them. They are concreted in a single line trench, which makes it extremely difficult to repair them. So that will be taken into consideration as the cost estimates and construction and scope of work are developed. For the rest of them, those big monuments that have just simply shifted and toppled. A lot of them are just free floating if they thought that their base was sufficient enough to support the monument. And then there's a few individual stones that are just kind of like out there that need replacing. We do have, thanks to Jess before she left, she did transcriptions of all the original epitaphs and documentation on the stones. So we know what they say, even if we can't read them anymore. And for some of them, especially the military ones, they're missing the top stones. It might be certainly within the realm of responsibility of both the Veterans Department and cemetery trustees to replace those stones and restore them to original condition so that they're actually marking the people that are buried there. um that gets us to uh that portion so they are they are actively documenting each individual stone that requires work now so that will be happening over the next couple of months so that with the goal of having a list of work that needs to be done to each stone a priority list and then how to approach cpc for some of the funding and maybe getting some budget money from the trustees and whatnot so Um, there's, as they've explained to me, there's multiple years of work. There are many, many years, many, many years of work to make that back into sound condition. And Salem street will also need some work. And, of course, we're discussing the larger cemetery too. So, um. Flipping to the other cross street site, so I've sent Alicia some information. They're going to issue the RFP for the development project. So I think within some amount of time, so they are anybody that's. bidding on that portion of the project is aware that the city is conducting due diligence at the former Cross Street Cemetery site. We are in the process of hiring an archeologist. The contract's being drawn up, and as soon as Fiona okays that, I can send it to the selected consultant. So the only thing we're waiting on is we have to re-bid the excavation work. It came in too expensive, so as soon as that's done, then hopefully we can move forward with opening up the ground there and seeing what is underground. So that will be a bit of an adventure. Any questions before I move on? Okay, Thomas Brooks Park. I'm working with Peter to come up with a new date. We're going to go with a digital only meeting because we can't find a venue in the city because even though we built a bunch of venues, we can't find a suitable venue to have a public meeting because everybody's busy. So we'll go back to a digital only meeting and invite the public and get that notice out. So that's next on my agenda. Jen will work on that maybe a little bit tomorrow if I can. get that together.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, we're thinking the second half of October.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So but we're we have to just check with Peter on a date. But yeah, every the library is booked literally every night in October. And so yeah, done more design.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, it's mainly just getting public feedback. Now, we asked the city for feedback. There was no feedback from any of the departments. Fine, it happens. Now we want to tell the public that we have this plan and that we got phase two money so that we can tell them all the things that we have said that are coming are now going to be coming, like the sidewalks, the crossing improvements, the curb cuts, safe travel. signage, etc. All of those are going to end another round of archaeology there to finish off that art excavation.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Does this include the ideas for the archaeological cap or whatever that we talked about with the pathway?
[Adam Hurtubise]: It doesn't include the construction that's under a separate small grant. That's just a design and that will be a phase unto itself, but I would like to think that that might be a good 3rd phase, if somebody is willing to carry the torch there. So it's mainly just the path. Paths and interpretive signage at that point, and maybe some earth and landings.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But I think the point of the meeting is to share the idea about the CAP with the public along with everything else.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: The path and the interpretive signage and stuff.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, to show them that, you know, in addition to all the things that we promised, we're also trying to recuperate the site.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I'm just curious, but those aren't in this next phase of monies. What you're hoping to do next is the crosswalks and that stuff?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes, because people are inevitably going to bring up... Yeah, people are inevitably going to bring up that, okay, well, if you're yes, why are you looking at a path when, you know, you said you were going to be doing all these things? Well, we're going to deliver on those things. So Okay, survey and planning projects, Fulton Heights is done. We have to discuss, not now, the next survey project and where we want to go. And then on that note, Teresa asked us for some ideas. She threw out some ideas on where we can apply S and P funding in addition to just historic survey, they will also plan pay for master plans. So, like, they brought up. Potentially funding the Oak Grove master plan and using the 16,000 dollars that we received for that project for the trees to be the seed money to also get some. funding for a survey and planning grant for the rest of the cemetery as a whole. There's been some planning efforts there, so I don't see why they wouldn't favor a project like that. And Medford is a CLG, so 10% of funding will automatically go to CLGs. So CLGs are usually guaranteed to receive a grant. The big question is if we'll receive more than one. from the, you know, it's possible it's happened before, but we also don't want to necessarily be competing with ourselves. So. OK, so we'll say I think we should send out that email to the entire board and have them review and provide comments and see where we can go, because that application is usually due in November. The short app.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So when do we have to figure out what our next? survey projects is going to be, or do we know?
[Adam Hurtubise]: So that's kind of immediate. I will send out some suggestions. How's that? Because we can do a project this year because we have that grant that we, you know, we have the matching portion of the grant money, so we can. We're going to be doing a smaller project this year. This is mainly for 2025. So this is June of next year is when it will kick in, so we're thinking ahead a little bit.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so should we, you wanna throw out some ideas and then I can put it as an item on our next agenda to chat about if it's too crazy?
[Adam Hurtubise]: No, we should maybe start a Google Drive doc and then just have a list of ongoing like ideas that people can dump into and then we'll have it. And then we'll, maybe you, me, Teresa and a few others can meet. see what's feasible, what's not, and what we should do. Because the app, like I said, that short app, it's very short. And then they invite us back to do a long app whether, you know, so we should do a long app. It's just a one page. So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, that sounds good.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, great. Yeah. Approval of meeting minutes. So we have the last two meeting minutes. I was not at the last.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, we just did July, right?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Right. So this is this is August and the August special meeting.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Move to approve both both the regular August special.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second, with with edits that Peter made.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: With the edits circulated, yes. OK.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second. Second. Okay, I'll go around roll call vote. We're approving both meeting minutes at once. Kit?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Ed? Sure. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jen? Yes. Lenny?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Okay, it passes 6-0. Any other business before we adjourn?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I had one more thing.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Sorry, who was the second on that?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I was.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just wanted to mention real quick that the Brooks Estate Board of Directors, we are looking for an administrative professional to help us. We have a little bit of grant money for a brief kind of five to six month contract. The applicants must be Medford residents. So if anybody knows anybody that would like to potentially throw their hat in the ring, the job is posted on our website. I posted it on some social sites as well. Or you can reach out to me or Doug or Carly, the president at Brooks Estate.
[Adam Hurtubise]: John, you missed it. They're close to the owner of 110 Brooks Street is a has an architectural background and art history background. So you may want to.
[Unidentified]: Oh, I know you can't, but I can't.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, well. I will mention it to them just on the off chance that they are, you know, I know that the house construction project is going to certainly keep them busy, and I'm sure that they're busy in their professional lives, but you just never know if they're there right around the corner from the Brooks Estate, so it might be a good fit. So great. And one last question. Some other architect on in. It's a way in, right, Doug? Have another architect and point of view on the board. So just thinking about you guys long term, that's all.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, Peter, who was the lady who was doing Dennis McDonald? Oh, that's early on.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I forget her name.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, hold on. It's in the email. It's, um, Oh, hold on. It's a D C a D I T H I. She's the housing planner for the last name. M O O G O O R. M-O-O-G-O-R.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: M-O-O-G-O-R.
[Jennifer Keenan]: O-O-R. So two O's, two O's. Okay.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Anything else? And good luck, we hope we find somebody. I think you will get an applicant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, we have a couple so far, but we just want to make sure we kind of put it out there far and wide.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, I was going to say, Lenny, does the PhD still have their practice lab for job posting? So that would be a good one for there, even for, you know, because I feel like it's not overly demanding. So it'd be a good fit for some students that need work.
[Kit Collins]: Yeah, it could be. Yeah, I mean, you can send the job description over. Okay, I mean, it's more of an administrative role. I think they're looking more for, you know, something that relates directly to one of our degree programs, but I'll run it by them.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, Jen, yeah, Tufts University. I don't know how loose you are with Medford resident, but Tufts University has a museum studies program, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It's not our rule, it has to do with the grant that we got. Yeah, of course.
[Adam Hurtubise]: But I mean, if a student, there are occasionally Medford students, or I don't know who would classify students that are at Tufts University as a Medford resident, but I mean, if they're here for 180 days,
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, they will be for the duration of this contract.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So I can see if I can look up the person for that, the community contact. They just emailed us, so I can see if I can get them.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, I think we would love to connect with them anyway on other things. So feel free to send an intro, and I'll run with that.
[Adam Hurtubise]: I can do that. OK, motion to adjourn?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Motion to adjourn.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And a second?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'll second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Roll call vote, Kent? Yes. Ed? Long night, yes. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Jen?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Lenny?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Adam Hurtubise]: And good to go. 6-0 approved. It's not really a long night. It's only 8.30. The night is still young. There's been later nights.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Sorry, who was who motioned and who was seconded?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I motioned. Eleni was second.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yeah, just just looking ahead because we have the meetings coming up. So we will be having the October 7th meeting, just so you know. The two properties before that were not significant, so the only one we have is the hearing. So provided we don't take an application on October 7th, there will be no need for the meeting at the end of the month, and we'll go right into our November meeting. But that remains to be seen. We'll see if we receive an application in the next 20 days.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I don't know if you already went over this just to remind everybody, because the Columbus Day, we had to kind of jigger our calendar a little bit between October and November. So we have on the calendar the 7th, the 28th, and then I forget the November date, because we had to fit everything in within 30 days. Oh, yeah, we moved November up a little bit because of the- We moved it back, I think, because Veterans Day fell on a Monday as well. It was like a trifecta this year.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, I won't be here for the October 7th team.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hope you're going somewhere good. Yeah, are you going somewhere good?
[Doug Carr]: Europe. That's good.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Husha, just going to Europe.
[Adam Hurtubise]: No big deal. November 18th and then December 9th. November 8th.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I may not be here. Yeah, I will not. I may or may not.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: All right. All right.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Thank you. Well, have a good night.
|
total time: 3.44 minutes total words: 299 |
|||