[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: All right, I'll call the meeting to order at 7.05. Just a quick housekeeping item as I read the governor's statement. Excuse me. On March 28th, 2025, Governor Healey signed into law a bill which extends the temporary provision pertaining to the open meeting lot of June 30th, 2027. Specifically, this further extension allows public bodies to continue holding meetings remotely. without a quorum of the public body being physically present in a meeting room 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 date. All right with that all set We'll hop over to our agenda. We have a pretty packed agenda. We have two public hearings to start. We'll start with 47 Holton Street. I have it as Holt Street on the agenda. Apologies. It's 47 Holton Street. So this is for the benefit of both 47 Holton Street and 16 Manning Street. Later down the line, 26 Alfred Street, the historical commission has a demolition delay ordinance, which we administer. It's two parts. We receive the application and then determine whether or not the building is significant. And then for those buildings which are determined significant, we have a public hearing. So in terms of significant, What that means is that the Commission has determined it is either listed or pending listing on the National Register of Historic Places. It is or is pending listing on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places or more commonly in Medford, was built within 75 years or older, which is determined by the Commission to be significant either because it is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events, or with the broad architectural cultural political economic or social history of the city or the commonwealth or it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period style method of building construction or association with an important architectural builder either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So the commission has determined that 47 Holton Street is significant so we are having a public hearing on whether it is preferably preserved and preferably preserved meaning the commission determines as provided by subsection 48-78 that is in the public interest to be preserved and rehabilitated rather than demolished. So tonight we are going to start with historical commission motions. We're going to hear from the commissioners and I'll open it up to public comments. Those in favor of demolition, those against, and then from there we'll close public comments. The commissioners will take final final comments and then we'll have final motions and we will move forward with the vote. So commissioners, I will entertain a motion, please, if you will, on the status of Preferably Preserved for 47 Holton Street.
[Doug Carr]: I will make a motion to find the property of 47 Holton Street Preferably Preserved.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Great. And a second?
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you, Peter.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I think the Form B lays out the case pretty strongly. This is a building that's just around the corner from my house. It's a really great neighborhood full of a lot of these late 19th century. This is a unique house. This is not a design I actually have seen in Medford. So I think there's a lot in the Form B to basically hold on to this building. I think it's a good building. It needs work, obviously. It's not in perfect shape. And it has obviously, like many houses in Medford, not been perfectly restored or changed over the years. But there's enough there, original fabric, and I think it's a nice Queen Anne that deserves to remain in the fabric of the Westminster neighborhood.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Great. Peter? Agreed. I think Doug hit on the high points for me too. I think it's a beautiful home. It's got a lot of nice form to it and existing detail. I suppose it would need to be recited because of the asbestos, but nice chimneys. Also, I thought the historical narrative was pretty compelling. With Lewis Lovering, it's the builder in association with the Lovering family. So for me, this is a pretty easy choice. I think it should be preferably preserved. Thanks. Thank you.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, I agree with everything that Doug and Peter have said, I would also add that at the end of the form B, the commentary about eligible for a national register listing as part of a historic district. I mean, there's no better way to ensure that we'll have no historic districts if we completely tear down pre-1900 buildings.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: And then just for myself, because I do count towards the quorum here tonight, because we don't have Jen this evening yet. I am sort of fascinated by the history of this building, in addition to it being a Louis Lovering architect designed and built house. It is an example of a type of house built in this diverse, neighborhood. This was one of Medford's first truly integrated neighborhoods. Although there are a large number of African American families that settled in the Smith Estate and were part of the Smith Estate, they were joined by many, many working class individuals on their same social status and skill level and I think that's very important to maintain especially given that this neighbourhood is seeing intense development given the location near the commuter rail and you know if they build certainly there have been changes to this neighbourhood but if they allow every building to be demolished there is going to be no history left here so I think it's is a building that's worthy of consideration and pause while we see if there's some interest in potentially changing the building for the better. Okay, that's it for commission comments. So what we're gonna do next is we will open up the floor to public comments. If you would just interested in speaking for or against the project, just raise your hand kindly and we'll acknowledge you. And then you'll have a moment to speak and we'll try to keep comments to at max five minutes if possible or less, depending on the number of people speaking, of course. So public comments. Yeah, Sharon, name and address for the record, please.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: And manning street. I think you need to computers going here. Oh, yeah. Okay.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Jack, if you just mute yourself for a 2nd, you just got to mute your volume for a 2nd.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: Okay, let me turn mine off.
[SPEAKER_00]: Turn this thing off.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: What?
[SPEAKER_00]: You turn your computer off. Not available. Are you?
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: Okay, I'm just going to turn this off and you turn your thing off. Just turn, no, no.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: As long as she speaks up, it should be okay.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: Sorry about that.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, there you go.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: Yeah. I know nothing about this house until I saw it on the agenda, but it looks to me like just from looking at it briefly and then listening to the commissioners that it's a significant house. It should be preserved. We all know the neighborhood is important in this, for various reasons. And it is also, you know, I think Kit said it, that if you keep taking down historic houses, we're not going to have, can you still hear me? We're not going to have anything to put into a historic district if there is inclination to make them. And it's, Yeah, so I would say it seems to me it should be preferably preserved. Anyway, I'll end.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you for your comments.
[Doug Carr]: Any additional comments from the general public? If the public's done, I'd just like to respond to Sharon. I think it's a great comment, but I think Um, this board has always been very careful. This commission, excuse me, has been careful, uh, to try to balance the need for, you know, people to be able to expand the house to sometimes, sometimes the houses are just unusable because they're, they've been left to rot, you know, not every house in the method that's over a certain age is technically historic, but we don't save every house, right? You know, so we try to be, err on the side of caution and should be conservative. And often the ones that we wrote on are four nothing, five nothing votes. It's rare that it's a tight vote here because usually the evidence is in front of us. I think it's pretty obvious to not only the architects and the board, but any lay person in Medford could see that. They can see quality. Anyway, that's all. I'm all set, Brian.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: All right, just real quick, any other public comments? Seeing no hands raised, I'm going to close the public comments. Any final commissioner comments? All right, commissioners, the vote on the table is defined for significance. The yes vote would find for significance and pose the up to 18 month demo delay. No vote moves the project towards allowing demolition. So I will go around the room as I see you. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: And Kit? Yes. And Doug? Yes. And I am a yes. So 4-0. Okay. So that's all set. So we'll get the letter out and we'll reach out to the property owners and the applicants and see if we can't get them to engage with the demolition delay subcommittee, see what the plans are. I know that there was something before the zoning board, but I haven't seen anything else official. So we'll get them to come to the, subcommittee and see what the plan is see if we can't come together for resolution or work out the next steps. Okay all right so that takes care of 47 Holton Street. Next up on the agenda is 16 Manning Street commissioners. I sent around the MHC form B and apologies I failed to mention this in the very beginning. To all of those who are following along, I did put up the agenda and the MHC Form Bs and Area Forms on the Historical Commission website. Go to www.edfordhistoricalcommission.org and go to the news section. It is the top blog post that has all the agenda information and attachments for tonight's meeting. You can certainly follow along and grab the inventory form if you haven't already grabbed it. Inventory forms too are also available on the state's database, MACRIS, which is short for the Massachusetts Cultural Information System. It's where all of our inventory forms that we spent the last 12-15 years developing with consultants end up in perpetuity. Okay so commissioners I will start by taking a motion for or against preferably preserved status for 16 Manning Street please.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Point of order. Yes sir. I'm gonna recuse myself from this project due to a lack of objectivity and but I will still take notes
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, that'd be fantastic. Would you like me to read into the record all of the emails that we received while you're taking notes or to start the, before we go ahead with the motion or would you like to wait for the motion first? You're muted.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Sorry, wait for the motion.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: All right, so commissioners I'll entertain a motion please.
[Doug Carr]: motion to find Manning Street perfectly preserved.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Thank you. And a second, please. I think I have to second. Jen's here, but I will absolutely take a second. Thank you. All right. As a, before we get into the discussion about this building, I need to quickly hop over to the historical commissions email. So earlier today, we received a petition from the residents along. Manning Street and elsewhere in the city of Medford advocating for the preservation, preservation of this particular building. So I'm going to enter that into the record. Their names and addresses are listed on the petition and there's 44 signatures according to this list. In terms of the general public, I will start with the oldest email. We had, I think, 14 emails. Okay, here we go. There's an email from Milva McDonald at 61 Monument Street asking to find for preferably preserved status. There is an email from Melanie Tringali, who lives on Forest Street, requesting preferably preserved status. Email from Sharon Guzik, who is with us tonight at 10 Manning Street, advocating for preferably preserved status. Email from Megan Anderson, advocating for preferably preserved status. Email from Brian Anderson advocating for preferably preserved status. He lives just next door at 22 Manning Street. For email from Frank Perry advocating for preferably preserved status. Email from James E. King Jr. at 43 Manning Street advocating for preferably preserved status. Email from Sheila and Rob Catalo at 48 Metcalf Street advocating for preferably preserved status. Email from Mark McAnee, who lives on South Street advocating for preferably preserved status. Email from Gerald Dock Jr. advocating for preferably preserved status. There's an email from Terry Arnetta asking for preferably preserved status. And then the last email that we received today was from Kenneth Kraus at 50 Mystic Street advocating for preferably preserved status. So commissioners, having heard all of that in support of preferably preserved status, Doug, I'll start with you for comments.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, sure. I mean, the documentation for this house in this neighborhood on both the Form B for the building itself and the Form A for the neighborhood, both of which are on the Google Drive, the website you mentioned, Ryan. I think make a compelling case for this house, and this neighborhood is just really an important one in Medford's development. I never really knew it was called, growing up in Medford, that it was like Medford Square South or whatever. It's got a couple different versions of names. It's one of those odd little character of the neighborhood that I think is really nice. Obviously, there's been a hell of a lot of activity both along South Street and within this neighborhood the last 5 or 10 years as the development pressure keeps coming and coming, obviously. I think this is an excellent one to plant the flag on and say, let's pause this process and let's see if we can figure out this neighborhood and figure out a way to protect its character as best we can.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Great. Nick, you're next. I'll leave it up to the architects on the committee to comment on its architectural significance. They know far more than I do. several times a week to and from the Green Line. And what I have found really notable about it is that it is such an interesting sort of microcosm of historic development in Medford. And it will abut the South Street Historic District. And I agree with Doug. I think this is one to plant the flag on. Thanks.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Peter is out. So Jen, that leaves you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm going to be the lone dissenter here, I think. I actually would vote no for preferably preserved status on this. There was an opportunity to include this house in the historic district that got created and it didn't happen. And if it were that important, it should have been included in the historic district. And so I don't think that I'm just, yeah, I'm just in complete disagreement on this one. And I think that there was an opportunity, it wasn't taken. And that process spoke for that. And I will be a no vote on this one tonight.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: And because I count as a quorum, I'm going to put my two cents into this. I think that this building has an opportunity to be looked at much closer than we usually have for properties. It's got a lot of modern finishes on the inside based on some recent real estate photos that were taken. You know, but there's evidence of its previous past life, and as we've found with many buildings, the structures are often likely to yield important information about both how they're constructed, how they develop over time, how they change, and that information reflects the lives of the occupants. In this particular case, it's most likely a single-family building that was converted over to a two-family. This very common occurrence that happens in Medford as the city increased in density from the late 19th century when it was constructed into the 20th century. And, you know, there are, you know, clearly some, there's some originality and most likely the rest of it's sort of hidden behind multiple layers. So I'm sort of on the fence with this particular property but, you know, I think the goal of the demo delay is to consider both public comment and public feedback and to determine whether or not it's in the interest to be rehabilitated rather than demolished. And in this case, I think that the general public has spoken enough to tip this particular property in favor for demolition delay to see if we can come to some resolution that works for all sides of the table, not just the not just the proponent. So that's just my two cents on the matter. So having heard all the commissioner comments, I'm gonna open it up to public comments. We have received the petition and the 14 emails. Is there anybody here who wishes to speak for demolition or for the project that's proposed? hold on, Jack, I'll get to you in just a second. And then anybody in favor of Preferred Preserved Status, if you just want to raise your hand, it's you next. All right, Jack, if you want to start. I'll ask to unmute you. There you go. And just name and address for the record, please.
[SPEAKER_00]: I'm Jack Busemans. I live next door at 10 Manning Street and full disclosure, I'm the spouse of Sharon Busek. So I'm very biased here. But I just wanted to comment on the neighborhood. I have lived on 10 Manning Street now for 28 years. almost 28 years and I've walked that neighborhood for that time, and I've seen it transformed mainly due to these developmental processes where somebody buys up a property and the lot gets transformed. Around the corner on Walnut Street, there was a magnificent Three, you know, really anchoring neighborhood, it was taken down. And some cookie cutter, you know, house was put there. Filling the lot completely, obstructing the view of a nice, you know, mansion-like structure in the background. And, you know, I can name three or four examples of such developments, you know, within, you know, 200 feet of my house. So, you know, the theme is clear. You know, somebody will buy up a lot, a developer will buy a lot and either demolish the structure or, you know, modify it unrecognizably and maximize, you know, the footprint of whatever they put down there. changing the streetscape in the process where it becomes basically, I wouldn't call it an eyesore, that would be maybe too harsh, but it doesn't fit in the feeling of a street like Manning Street where you have houses of a certain size, certain setbacks, and all those things giving it a nice coherent whole 28 years ago. In that time, It has really changed, you know, there are some really big houses, you know, have been put up just across the street in the back of my house. And that's really changed the character of the neighborhood. So I would vote for a, I would argue for a, at the very least a demolition delay and, you know, hopefully get into a constructive discussion with the developer to try to, you know, come up with something that, you know, doesn't drastically change the character of the neighborhood. Thank you.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Great, thanks. Sharon, did you have additional comments?
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: I trust that all of you commissioners have read the letter I wrote, so I won't repeat that. I think everybody else, but I would like to address Jen's comment about not being included in the historic district. It was not overlooked. The point of creating the historic district was to capture the pre-1855 houses before they got totally, you know, Well, anyway, you know, preserve those as best as possible. And the historic, uh, district commission, uh, historical district, historic district commission at that time had, you know, just been going through the, uh, forestry historic district proposal. And they realized that they had made too ambitious of a project. So it was decided to keep it to a small number. and get the pre-1855 houses in there, and then expand it as it went on. Unfortunately, the commission itself, everybody's new on it, so they did not carry that out. So it had nothing to do with the value of this house. It had everything to do with getting those pre-1855 houses district first, because they were probably the most important ones. So just to put the reasoning behind it, it was not deemed insignificant to the historical district. It was, for practical reasons, saving these other houses first.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, so it seems like it seems like just to think about all of these buildings in the neighborhood, just like the commission prioritizes their 19th, 18th and 17th century buildings as high priority over the 20th century resources, the district commission prioritized those 1855 buildings to be the anchor of their district and with the intent of going back and making changes later. So perhaps this and other projects developing on the street might be the impetus for them to move forward before they start happening so that they can go back and accomplish their mission. But that's up to the I think it's worthy. I'd like to ask the question of how many other properties
[Jennifer Keenan]: Are there that are have this lot size that are vulnerable that were left on the table because I don't think it's an irrelevant discussion I mean this clearly this house is clearly right on the edge of the of the time the age and it wasn't added in and and now here we are with a demo on the table and You know, I don't know. I'm just really struggling with this. If it was so important, it should have been in the first batches.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: It was more important to get the 1855 houses in.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So how many else are on the cusp besides this one?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I think there are others.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: There's several on Manning Street. There's 22. There's 15 across the street. Unfortunately, I think it was 21 was made unrecognizable. As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't need to be included. These are all late century, 1870s to 1900 houses. Well, off the top of my head, I'm not recalling. There's something on Maple Street that could be roped in. And anyway, there were things on the other side of South Street as well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And how long has the district been official now, Ryan?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: There were three months. relatively recently. Also, Sharon is not on that board.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: I just participated in a lot of the research and you know what I could do to help.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Indeed, and I do think the new board is sort of motivated to do something to help the community in addition to sort of, you know, being able to administer their districts. So hopefully something, you know, hopefully something will come out of, you know, that time. And, you know, if there's a lily, maybe they'll consider moving forward with the district, but you know, our, our job is to, you know, just move forward as we always have. So, okay. Any other public comments? Well,
[SPEAKER_01]: Can I talk? This is Sid Gillett. I'm the owner of 16 Manning.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Hi, Sid. Name and address of the record, please.
[SPEAKER_01]: Yeah. My name is Sid Gillett from Treetop Group. I'm the owner of 16 Manning Street. All right. Go ahead. Yeah, I mean, I did heard, you know, I mean, you guys know better than me on historic and whatnot, but, you know, like Jen was saying, our, our intention over here is like, in past, we have tried to work. with you guys wherever it was possible in past. But the thing is, with this particular, when we bought this property, it was not just for the property. It is a huge lot. It's a huge double lot. With the current zoning changes which are coming to the city, that's the intention. The density which could be created according to that. For me, I'm just being frank over here to you guys. If you guys say it's a delay or whatever, so obviously we will abide by that. At this point, we have to wait for it. That's what it is. Because with that amount of land, it's definitely going to be, new construction over there. I just want to let you guys that this is not just a small regular lot. This comes with a big lot with this property. Just want to make sure. Thank you.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I appreciate you being frank with us and the community. I think it's important to be transparent as to what the plan is and to, again, hopefully work for all that come into place.
[SPEAKER_01]: Thank you.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Thanks. Any additional comments? All right, seeing none, I'm going to close public comments. Commissioners, any additional comments before we take a vote on this project? Okay. The motion just to refer back was made by Doug Carr for preferably preserved status, second by Kit. I will go around the room as I see you, Kit.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes for preferably preserved. Yeah. Doug?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yes. Jen? No. and I'm a yes because I have to count towards the forum. So it's three, zero approved. No, three, one. Three, one, sorry. Three, one, sorry. Great. Approved. So we will get the letter out and we will invite Sid. Sid, we'll invite you to the historic districts subcommittee to talk about your plans and we'll see if there's anything you want to. discuss, you know, to see if there's any way we can move forward. So we don't want you to wait out the 18 months, of course, you know, we want a project to happen of some kind where everybody wins, the community wins, the neighbors win. So, you know, we'll start with that. Moving forward to our regular meeting, 26 Alfred Street, determination of significance. Commissioners, I sent around the MHC form B earlier. We can start with a motion. That might go from there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'll make a motion to find for significance.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Great, one second.
[Doug Carr]: I'll second, but that's not an endorsement of my vote just to get the process moving.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: All right. Thanks. Go ahead, Jen.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, I know there was a fire here and I know that this might be kind of a moot conversation, but I think that the Form B to me at least warranted significance whether or not it becomes preferably preserved because the fire, you know, remains to be seen. But I think just based on the original age of the house and the lovely architectural description that was there and the recommendation for it being in a national register potential, I think at least warrants significance. And like I said, if it's not preferably preserved, then that's a different conversation. But to me, it was at least worthy of significance. And so I will leave it at that.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Thanks, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, Ryan, just a quick question before I give my comments. The last page of the Form B does seem to kind of talk about this is still in process a little bit, and they don't actually check the boxes. They mentioned that like a second phase of research has yet to be undertaken, but remains anticipated. It will provide a context to make recommendations. So are we expecting more information from these guys in a timely manner?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: No, I don't think so. They would go through and we'd have to hire somebody to do the national register criteria. And in terms of whether or not it's eligible, because we're a certified local government, the eligibility determination falls on us to determine whether or not we think it is or isn't. And then from there, it goes to the state and they either concur or don't concur. So we're sort of like in limbo, and we sort of rely on them. I just think maybe he or John might have forgotten to check the boxes. If he gives a criteria statement, he's saying that it is in some criteria, you know, that it's up to the actual determiners of who's determining DNR to decide whether or not they agree with him or not. And in this particular instance, I think that the level of detail that the consultants did on Winter Hill, they believe that the neighborhood largely rises to the occasion of National Register status because it is an early development and it, you know, it's sort of mainly 19th century. It relates to the broad patterns of people coming down from Somerville and developing into Medford. And then, of course, once the streetcars come in, they really accelerate its development there. uh you know i think all of that sort of plays into this house plus i'm particularly interested in the way that this house is sort of one of like less than 10 original buildings in this neighborhood on this side before 1875. So that's kind of neat. There are a lot of early buildings in the entirety of Winter Hill, but this side sort of gets, the 1875 map is very, it's filled with a lot of holes, let's put it that way. They may have laid out the streets, but they were filled with empty house lots.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I guess I'm kind of on the fence in this one. I find the argument for historic district less convincing here than I would on the South Street or even the West Medford neighborhood just based on my knowledge of those neighborhoods. But it does obviously have age going for it and some decent details. I'm leaning towards yes, but I think the prefer preserve hurdle if we get to that point, it's going to be a lot higher next month if we get there.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Great.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Thank you. Kit? Yeah. I think in terms of historical significance, this seems like a no-brainer given all of the detail in the Form B. But for me and Ann, we don't take into account the condition of the building.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: If it's not been ordered down by the building department, which it hasn't, we have to go through the process as we would any other building. I think that the preferably preserved status takes into account integrity. But integrity is not structural integrity. It's integrity of historic fabric. So that's a different threshold than significance.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: So I'd say, to me, it's significant. But I agree. I mean, whether it rises to the level of preferably preserved is another conversation. Great. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah, I find this one I'm on the fence about as well. But I think I'm more leaning towards not finding it significant because even though it does have the interesting association with tufts and stuff, I just don't think there's enough there that it would ever rise to preferably preserve. So I don't see what the point of would be of finding it significant other than just to delay these people for a month. That's kind of where I'm coming down.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: the off chance that there is a tie vote here. I'm just going to chime in a little bit and just say that I don't normally see a building that relates solidly to the broad patterns of Medford history. But in an unusual chance, this particular building does. I just mentioned the streetcar development in the neighborhood and how the early people involved with this house have some connection to the streetcar. car lines are also a lot of brick building in the neighborhood, making in the neighborhood, just north of here. neighborhood literally called the Brickyards, and one of the early occupants is a brickmaker. So it sort of relates to all of the entirety of the area, which is kind of rare. Sometimes you just see people and they sort of, you know, work afar, work in Boston, but these people really have a very close connection. And It's unusually small. I know that particular neighborhood is dense but the size of the building is really unusual and I'm surprised it didn't get added on or like enveloped by some larger building. So I'm inclined to pause for a hearing to hear what the neighbors might have to say or the general public might have to say to give them that hearing. But that's just my two cents and that's only if there's a tie vote. will I get an opportunity to vote here? So with that said, anything else before we go into a vote? Yeah, Jack, go ahead.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, this might not, if it's a tie. Well, I guess my question is, could we choose to bypass a perfectly preserved hearing? Like, can we choose to bypass it if we feel that, you know, like significance is a little bit of a formality? Like, I feel, you know what I mean?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I mean, it either is or isn't significant. And then from there, you know.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. But if we know that we don't want to preserve it because of the fire, like. I mean. I don't know. I'm just kind of I'm just throwing it out there because I don't know if there's precedent for this.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Well, if we determine it's significant, it automatically rolls into a hearing, right? Because then we've determined it's significant and therefore every significant building is afforded a discussion, a dialogue, especially because we want the, you know, it's mainly for the general public to chime in on and either support or be against the commission's determination of whether or not they should, this building should or should not be preferably preserved and therefore a demolition delay invoked on it. I mean, we can say no. You can say a building is and then the building gets the chance. I don't think it's fair to say yes, we go forward and then no, we strike down having a public hearing. I think that that's counterintuitive to the, if a building's significant, it's automatically going to get a hearing.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just know sometimes when there's fires like this, it's like, you know.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, you mentioned, I think, when we spoke, that the fire department or the city has not taken this down, right? It's not to the point where they're willing to put a big X on the building and take it down.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Right. I mean, it's damaged, but it's not overwhelmingly damaged. You know, the outside looks largely like, if you look at the demolition application pictures, it looks largely like the Google Street Views. I'm sure that there's interior damage and that's a different question, right? So that's, is, you know, that's not for us to determine tonight, but the question is, will be, if we determine that it is significant and it has a hearing, the question will be, is the integrity of, is the fabric, does it have integrity? Does it remain? Has it been changed, et cetera? Is it worthy of preferably preserved status in the interest of the public to rehabilitate rather than get demolished? So.
[SPEAKER_03]: Excuse me, is there any way that I can speak? I'm the owner of this home.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Sure. Name and address for the record.
[SPEAKER_03]: My name is Debra Zamuto. I live at 11 Placid Road in Newton. I've owned this home for over 20 years. It was the original home I lived in with my family. This house was caught fire right before Thanksgiving last year. Believe me, we had no intention of knocking this house down at any point. But this house, I have a letter which I think I attached from an engineer saying that it's structurally unfit.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: One second, she accidentally muted herself.
[SPEAKER_03]: Sorry, the house is destroyed inside out. I'm paying $150 a week to a pest control company to keep rats out of it because the neighborhood is infested. I have had to have the doors. boarded up three times from having people break into it. I mean, this is costing me a fortune to have this house sit there. I mean, have any of you actually driven by the house? This house is vinyl sided, vinyl windows. There is nothing original in this home. It has been remodeled probably 10 times before I bought it. So I feel like just dragging this out is costing me and my family a fortune, or something that, I mean, have any of you actually driven by it, or are you just looking at pictures online? Yeah, so I don't think you know when you're saying structural, like all these elements on the outside. The outside of the house is vinyl-sided. The windows are vinyl-sided. There is not one piece of architecture on this whole, I can guarantee you that, inside or out. The thing has been ripped apart numerous times. At the end of the day, there's nothing that can be done for this house. I mean, if I have to, I'll go to the building department and ask them for a letter to have it demoed. But I think I attached a letter from the structural engineers saying that the house is not sound and that it's structurally appeared. So, I'm really not getting why you think that this whole needs to be.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Right, it's not, we're reviewing the application because the building department has told us they will not order it down because they do not feel it's a public safety nuisance, even with all of that information. But, and he, the building commissioner is the only one that can override the demo delay. Otherwise, out of fairness to all the applicants that come before us, everybody has to come before the commission if the building department chooses not to order a building down. Um, you know, I think that we'll take all that was just said into consideration in terms of how we move forward. But we do need to move forward with the process one way or the other. And of course, you know, if the commissioners vote that it is not significant, then the project moves forward, you can apply for your demo permit, and it'll get released from the permit system. But if it is found significant, then we have to move to a hearing and move forward. So we will. I think commissioners, do you guys have any other questions, comments?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: We actually have the letter from the engineer.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Let's see if it's in the package.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, Kit, we get letters from engineers all the time, and everybody says that their house isn't structurally sound, but yet the commissioner, it's really his choice. So unfortunately, the letter is a little bit of a moot point.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Right, yeah. But I, you know, again, the question was raised to the building department and they were not ordering it down. So it's, you know, it's up to the commissioners on whether or not on how you how you want to proceed with significance. You want to just move So commissioners a motion's been made to find for significance. Jen made the motion, Doug seconded. So yes vote is significant. A no vote. It's not significant. And you know, yes vote moves it towards hearing. No vote moves it towards demolition. So I'll go around as I see you, Kit. Yes. Doug?
[Doug Carr]: No.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Jen? Yes. Peter. No.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: All right.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: And it's a tie. So I'm going to vote. I believe that this building deserves a public hearing. However, I don't think it's going to change the outcome, the ultimate outcome. So I'm going to vote no for this particular structure. So two to three, it fails and we will get the letter out by the end of the week and release the permit and you guys can go forward.
[SPEAKER_03]: Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Democracy in action. Yes. Yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Only the second time I have ever had to vote on a tie vote in this entire 17 year run with the commission. Rarely does it happen. Okay. Upcoming potential demolition to views. I have been going through the permit system. I occasionally flag projects. 173 Arlington street is a project that's being flagged because it's a total gut rehab. It's got some period details. So we asked that they submit information. Same thing with 46 Pinkert Street. There was proposal roof removal and third story being added to that building. Again, it's come to us as part of the normal permit review. So we've asked them to submit for information for next month. I haven't heard from either of them. There's a couple of permits that we've been sort of hanging in limbo. So Jen, maybe we can reach out to the commissioner and see if he can't push some of those permits out, especially if they've gone dormant. So okay next up Oak Grove access road stormwater condition assessment. So Oak Grove specifically the older portion but the entire cemetery is sort of getting a look from a master planning perspective and the consultant for the stormwater and road assessment reached out to us to ask if there were any preservation restrictions on the work that was being proposed there. They're currently assessing the road and what to do with all the stormwater. We, from my perspective, we want to sort of see the maintaining of the existing roads there and how they existingly handle stormwater because they were, you know, they sort of maintain their 19th century appearance. But other than that, any sort, a lot of that stuff is underground. So, you know, we'll never see it. I did ask that they sort of come up with their assessment and their recommendations and then get back to us. So they were proposing, maybe later this month, early August for a sort of quasi report to propose to the commission just so that you would just be in the loop for what's going on. And also as part of that, they are looking at like maintaining, you're asked tonight, I think Teresa who is here, they're sort of, I think the cemetery trustees and Steve Brogan was eyeballing the restoration of the World War II monument that's just inside the front gate. They restored the World War I monument a couple of years ago. The trustees are actively trying to restore their maintenance building, is that correct? That's also correct. So, you know, money is being put into our beautiful cemetery grounds. We want to sort of support them in their action. I think there will be an opportunity to comment on the upcoming seven acre development there for the cemetery that's near the Brooks Estate. Of course, with the Brooks Estate, we want to comment on that, too, as well. So that's also in the works. So sort of everybody's while the Brooks Estate is doing their thing, the cemetery is doing their thing. I'm doing my thing over across streets. everybody seems to be getting action over there. Any questions before I move forward? Okay. I sent around, so for the State Historic Preservation Law changes, I sent around House Bill 993, which sort of being debated in the House, we just need to be very careful. It works in tandem with accelerating housing production in a way that strips the Massachusetts Historical Commission and local historic district commissions of their power. And I just, I think it's important that the public be made aware of said bill just so that they can review the language and offer their comments either for or against the bill. I know we as a board can't take a political stance but individually as residents we can certainly take a look at it. is a threat to historic preservation. And it's not the first bill that's been introduced with similar language. So, you know, preservation is sort of under threat. There are a lot of advocates that are advocating for historic preservation. So, you know, our voice will be one of many, but I think you guys should take a look at it and certainly consider that as you move forward. That's it for new business. I did have one item that we took care of. I mentioned it in my email. Teresa's here because the Mystic River Watershed Association is going to be applying for an assessment of all of the four main bridges in Medford from the Mystic Valley Parkway up to Winthrop Street. Am I missing or Auburn Street even further than that?
[Theresa Dupont]: Auburn Street as well yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah so there's four bridges in total and some questions about whether or not they were nationally registered listed. They are all listed so they're covered under that. So they did not need our support but I do think it's important to voice our support for a potential project if they want it. So unless anybody has any objections this is to assess the bridges for future restoration. unless anybody has any objections, we can just put together a quick little letter saying we support the project, go forth and apply for funding. All right, hearing none, we'll go forward and do that. Anything else for new business that I, while we're here, otherwise I'll roll into. Okay, for vacant seats, I reached out to the mayor's office, no new applications yet. So I did put out that we were looking for members, if the members of the general public are interested in serving on the commission, we'll have some upcoming vacancies. We do have one open seat right now, probably have two more at the end of the year. So if you're interested in joining the commission, we'll be happy to take your resume and have a meeting with you guys and certainly encourage you to join. have all this fun that we have. Okay, I sent around for preservation ordinance discussion, I sent around a document a little bit earlier with a couple of motions on it that talk about the administration of our demo delay, and that's where this sort of falls into place. So two things. I do think, and we've discussed this for a while, I do think it's important that we reaffirm our commitment to allowing pre-screen for our buildings, that's the concrete block garages, wood frame block garages that we allow to be demolished on the regular because they don't have any sort of architectural or historic importance on the usual. But The other thing I would like to consider, which is sort of, tonight's sort of poignant because it relates to how we just discussed the house on Winter Hill. I think that we should prioritize now, as part of the demo delay review, all pre-1900 buildings and make a statement about how they are significant so that they can automatically be afforded an opportunity to have a public hearing. Not only will it give them the public hearing, but it will expedite review. I think it just, you know, nine times out of 10, we have found for significance and, you know, it's sort of, you know, rare that we find a building that's not significant. And if it is, it's because of very particular circumstances, like it has burned out or, you know, something like that. So I'd like us to consider reviewing the documentation and deciding whether or not we think it's important. And I, I think it's going to become more and more important as the demo delay comes up against proposed zoning changes. As we've seen tonight, you know, we have a project that the applicant is waiting for new zoning. There will be other projects that, you know, places that the new zoning comes up against. old buildings. So I think it's important that we make a stance so that we can sort of set the ground rules for how the demo delay is administered in the future, so that no matter who's on this board, we've sort of set a direction for the next couple of years. And then our job will be not to worry about the administration of the demo delay, that will sort of fall into place, but rather we can continue to advocate for those historic resources through zoning changes, through historic districts, through zoning overlays and all sorts of fun stuff that communities do when they have sort of made their processes like a well-oiled machine. Thoughts on what I sent around?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think it's good. I'm on board.
[Doug Carr]: Any other thoughts by commissioners? No, I think it's good to get ahead of things, Brian, that what your process you described makes a lot of sense to not have to do this a hundred times if we have the same general consensus about what we're looking for.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Then I'm going to go ahead and memorialize these two items. So Peter, just for your benefit, in the word document that I sent around are my two motions. I'm going to read them for the general public just so that they're memorialized, but they're going to be word for word. You can just copy and paste them right into your meeting minutes. Okay, so first motion. Motion to empower the demo delay subcommittee to prescreen certain applications for unassuming outbuildings. Commission shall pass on applications for any shed concrete structures or wood frame garages. This fast track for review does not extend to buildings that are distinguished or rare, including, but not limited to any pre-1900 resource, carriage houses, barns, or workshops as examples. Commission reserves the right to alter this policy if the conditions of the landscape change in the future. Do I have a second on said motion? Second. Okay, I'll go around the room. As I see you, Kit. Yes. And Jen? Yes. Peter? And Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Doug's a yes. Okay, 4-0 approved.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Before you read the other one, can I make a comment? Yeah, go ahead. and any pre-1900 buildings sort of being fast-tracked. I completely agree, but I actually wonder, sort of given the conversations that we've been having tonight, if it shouldn't be any building 75 years or older on a lot size over X, because I think what we're going to see a lot more of are any oversized lots, there's going to be an instant request for a demolition permit that will entirely raise some of these buildings. I mean, that's what Sid essentially just said.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I agree. I wonder if I wonder if we should treat 20th century resources somewhat differently. So we can say, this is going to move every pre-1900 building into a hearing. But the 20th century resources are sort of a little bit different. I know, you know, are we just trying to exclude? We're not trying to exclude the pre-1900 buildings on the smaller lots, right? You're just trying to target the additional 20th century lots on a circuit size?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, essentially, I mean, my thought is if the point is to give the public an opportunity of hearing, why not? I mean, we've seen over the last several years that some of these I mean, I'm thinking about Forest Street, actually, and what a ruckus that caused, because people do care very deeply. And the sentiment in the city right now, given the zoning changes as such, that, I mean, I think we just have to be cognizant of it. So I'm not proposing this. I'm offering it up for discussion.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Can I make a comment? I think one of the things that would concern me about that is that the lot size right now is so in flux with the zoning changes being discussed. I don't know that we could put a number on that.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, 20th century resources are sort of I, I'm, I'm sort of treating this as the pre 1900 buildings are going to go right to a public hearing to automatically no matter what it is, how, you know, as long as it's before pre 1900 that's a rare and diminishing less than 3500 in the entire city resource and that that definitely affords a affords a public hearing this doesn't change how we would approach the pre you know the 20th century buildings we would still get an application and we'd still you know order a form b review that particular building and determine whether or not it is or isn't significant i mean if it's not if it's not if it's not significant it really doesn't matter what the lot size is it's just it's the building on that lot that's going to make it significant ryan if i could chime in here the um
[Doug Carr]: First of all, I think doing this, I like that it's streamlining the process. That's something that we have been criticized, constructively criticized, as we could be doing this in a faster method, you know, just in broad general terms. From the time we order the Form B to the time we, you know, we're trying to get ahead of things. And it's, I think we've seen incremental but important progress in trying to make our process more efficient. So I see that as a positive. But I mean, we have found pre-1900 buildings not significant on this board, right? We have done that, not once, but dozens of times over at least the 10 years plus I've been here, and you, I can't remember the exact number of years. So I'm trying to balance those out. I get what you're doing, and it does jump to the one-step process, and that becomes the most important, which I think there's great value in that. But I do believe that there are some buildings that are preempted and they're not significant. I just, I just do believe that.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, no, I mean that it's a very real possibility. I think that, you know, uh... But Doug, in that instance, would we just pass on review? I wouldn't say pass on review. I would say maybe that as part of this, the commission reserves the right to still determine significance. you know, but I don't want to undermine, you know, what I'm, what I'm saying like, oh, every building is significant except for, you know, like either they, they are as a collective whole or they aren't. I mean, like the building tonight shares the same on winter Hill, right? The, the, that property shares a lot of the same characteristics as the other buildings on the winter Hill. Um, but rather than, rather than nitpick each individual project, it's just easier to send it to a hearing and it's a one-step process where the public gets to chime in. Whereas in most cases, the determination of significance is just done by the commission. So it's effectively abolishing our end of the work. to, you know, to take away, it allows us to do other things like focus on those, you know, the determinations for the 20th century resources, or even the multitude of projects that we're working on, or, you know, working with projects that we put a delay on, et cetera. I think that's, some of it is to alleviate work of the commission by just simply saying that all of these particular buildings are priority, we get a chance to, you know, to alleviate some of our own work.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think the other thing, too, because we've been constructively criticized, as Doug put it, in the past about the process taking a long time, we have tried to combine steps one and two if we know something's coming in with regards to taking an application and determining significance the same night in order to shave off a little time for folks. And so I think we're already being aggressive with hearing issues from folks in the past and trying to alleviate that process a little bit and make it a little bit speedier to move things along where necessary. And so just to play devil's advocate, do we need to also do this if we're already doing that, right? Like we're already, you know, trying to shave off that first 30 days if at all possible, if we know something's coming in and we have the documentation to do it. So is that enough or do we wanna do this other step as well?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Just an anecdote, maybe to help answer the question. You know, I was approached by a neighbor today Well, for other reasons, but he said, well, I can't do that. I have a historical commission meeting tonight. And he said, oh, the hurry up and make them wait board, right? So we already have a bad rep just amongst the public in general. They view us as an impediment to doing what they want to do. So, you know, if I could have said, oh yeah, we are streamlining it, you know, we took this significant step. So, I mean, I think I would be for it because it does really do something concrete to streamline it. I mean, on the other hand, this guy is a contractor, so, you know, I don't know if that's a totally unbiased statement.
[Jennifer Keenan]: But to your point, Peter, like, you know, we've run into this situation in the past where, you know, people claim they don't know or they didn't have the information when they were acquiring the property, if they were buying it for a project. And, you know, now it just kind of makes it a little bit simpler. It's like... you're already on the historical radar if it's a pre-1900 house. In terms of communication, in terms of being transparent and putting things out there to the community. I just feel like there's such a juxtaposition with this conversation tonight where we're trying to somewhat speed up our process, but yet the whole zoning conversation in the city is to slow things down. Well, and yeah, in many ways, this process... It's like you can't win on either argument, right?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Well, right. But in many ways, this is going to be the process that brings the two together, right? Because there's zoning, and then there's the people that want to do whatever they want. but we're the slowdown in between that gets the better project. We don't want everybody to just simply do what they want. Ideally, zoning would be worked in with design review, but because we know how fast things are moving, design review is, as far as I know, not being really considered. we're it like we are the maintenance of making sure that i know we're not design review but we're you know we're demo review to the point of making sure that the existing buildings fit in with the the existing neighborhood rather than just simply building whatever you please that fits as long as it fits zoning
[Jennifer Keenan]: but also like kind of back to the argument about the districts it's like no it's up to them to really you know kind of take a step up at this point from a preservation standpoint if you want to preserve some character of neighborhoods because now the only way it might happen is through districts, because we will still have an expiration. And as Sid pointed out, and Ryan, as you and I chatted earlier, there's way too much money on the table now with a project like that. And under no circumstances are they going to work with us. They're going to wait it out. An 18 months is not long enough for them to sit on a $6 million project. They'll wait. They'll wait with all these units they can put on. So, you know, I mean, I really feel like the burden is going to be shifting now over to the district commission because, you know, they should have a list of vulnerable lots. They should know, you know, the houses, you know, in the district that are still vulnerable. You know, they really need to step up their game, in my opinion, because it's going to be gone like that. And if they don't start, you know, stepping up and really making an effort to save some of these things, it's going to be too late. And we can only do so much. It's, you know. We can.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: They really need a consultant to do some master level planning for the entire city in conjunction with the other planning, you know, with the zoning consultant, with the historical commission, you know, to just say, you know, you know, you guys are experts. We're here to facilitate, you know, bring it all together and let them hire it. So Teresa, that might be a good, good project for them coming
[Doug Carr]: surveys we've commissioned over the past 12 plus years, isn't that basically the foundation for that?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yep, that's the base. And then it take a matter of, you know, the consultant working out, you know, what is zoning impacts? What does the housing production plan say? What would city council support versus, you know, and what are the residents say? Where are the areas that they want districts that right now that will support, you know, people just voluntarily diving into them, that sort of thing. So that's not our purview. I'll circle back to just keeping the conversation to the demo delay. For now, we're sort of a timeline in the cog. But as we come up more and more against zoning, what do we do? sure we can expedite, but if somebody, I know somebody can sit on their hands for 18 months, but we really, you know, it's not going to look good if everybody all of a sudden just does that. You know, I know, I know the onus, the onus is always on the part of the, the builder, the owner and the applicant to engage us. You know, we'll make one, we'll make effort and initial contact. And they just have to tell us whether or not they're going to sit it out or not.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter, you were starting to say something. Go ahead.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Well, it's frustrating to me that I think, well, there's this emphasis for new affordable housing, right? But I feel like that's just used by developers to make more money. It's an excuse, right? But I think the need is real, and personally, I don't really want to be on the wrong side of that divide, if you will, and be this NIMBY type curmudgeon who says, Well, it's great, we need more affordable housing, but, you know, not in my neighborhood, not in my little, not next door to me because, you know, then, you know, I think it's a really tough problem. These two, you know, social needs are kind of almost directly in conflict. And it's really hard, like, cause I feel like, Medford will just become like Somerville. And Somerville's nice in its own way, but it's not Medford. So I don't really want Medford to become exactly like Somerville. But that's what's happening, right?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I was just going to say real quick, Medford has this unique problem of being many parts of a whole. Medford is Medford, but Medford is also Malden, Somerville. uh winchester arlington you know there's and i think doug you said this to me earlier as you move from east to west the community is radically different from one side to the other north to south east to west and i think that's you know that needs to be really considered with zoning and right now it seems like it's not it's like we're the buffer to
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: the transition zone between, you know, Somerville and Winchester, you know, like exact, which is exactly what you're saying, I think. And, but the pressure is, you know, there's pressure on both sides. So, yeah.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: And the only tool is the demolition delay, which is sort of like, all we've got is a hammer. And what we really need is like, you know, some planes and a screwdriver. I mean, it's a, it's a really, It's a clumsy tool for everything that we're trying to do with it, and we're going to get the criticism from the other side, too, and we already are, that I hear, which is people saying, you know, what is the historic commission doing to protect the history of Medford? Because they don't understand that the only tool that we have is the demolition delay, and that's only good for 18 months in certain circumstances.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Right we did just so everybody knows we did get a couple of emails a couple from people in the areas being looked at right now in West Medford zoning are asking us to engage in the zoning process and then just last week the Alicia's office reached out to all the department heads asking that all the departments engage with the zoning process as well. So I know we're sort of have this motion on the table, but we should also set up sort of a subcommittee that tackles that. Alicia did send out a beautiful summary of each of the potential zonings that they're considering. There's one for West Medford, then there's a portion of it for ADUs, and then there's some additional miscellaneous stuff. So it's like a three-part system. But if we really should set up a a small subcommittee so we can engage in that and get comments back to her because they're due by the 23rd so we're really under the gun i think they i think actually they extended it a little bit longer than that but uh to give us more time but we really need to uh think about did you circulate those documents are they are they on our drive yeah i they're not on the drive yet but i can send them around okay yeah we better get moving on that
[Jennifer Keenan]: So back to the motion.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Do we want to just delay it for 30 days and jump on the zoning stuff and hold off on implementation? Or do you want to establish a slightly separate subcommittee that sort of handles all of the issues? I know that when I pinged some people for feedback, there were some questions on, oh, the length of time is actually good. you know, for the part of those people who want to mobilize to sort of, you know, support the commission in their preferably preserved and significant status, but you know, and notification sort of key. So it has, you know, passing the all night pre 1900 buildings are significant and moving into the hearing is, you know it's one thing but it also does have some ramifications you know they're still going to get notified through the signage through the legal ads but those are not really you know solidly effective manners to be notified sometimes it takes a little bit of time for word to sprinkle down so um i i i'm gonna i'm gonna put it out there that we maybe table this for a couple meetings to digest it and also
[Jennifer Keenan]: I almost might want to wait until we have a full board again to vote, but I'm just throwing it out there. And I know Ed's not here tonight and, you know.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I will now make the executive decision and nobody's opposing. So I'll table it and then we'll give it some time. We'll ask Ed to ping in, you know, and just say, this is on the table.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And just maybe see how the conversations go over the next two to, you know, one to two meetings with regards to zoning and where things are going. And then maybe it would make more sense for us to enact this or not. Are we tabling motion one too?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: No, we've already voted on motion one. That one's just a re-up of a previously established motion back in like 2017, but I thought it'd be good to update to 2025. Got it. All right. All right, so we'll table that until, what are we in? July, August, September? We'll see how the next two couple of meetings go. Okay. Cross street pilot program. I sent around a picture of one of the headstones. It's like night and day. The cemetery really does need a hefty cleaning. The cemetery consultants did offer to do a cleaning day. I asked the trustees, I asked some of the DPW guys. There's some interest in coming and learning. It's very simple and maybe we can spend like a couple of days cleaning all the headstones in advance of their preservation. Once we're sort of properly trained it's very easy to do and we'll sort of set up the consultants for success in the spring of 2026 if CPC graciously funds the full project for the cemetery restoration, which I'm hoping they will. So I'm working on the application now. It's like $125,000 all in project for the restoration of the wall and all the headstones. So that should be good. That includes a pretty large contingency, but it's always good to have contingency. So, okay. I don't have anything on the historic district commission. I think we can remove this action item for future agendas. I don't really think we need to, it's good to have a liaison, but I think we can remove it from our agenda from here on out unless anybody has any objections.
[Doug Carr]: Unless there's something relevant they're doing that we need to know about, I would say, take it off.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, great. Teresa is our staff person, so Teresa usually does a good job.
[Doug Carr]: It's good to have them all over there.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Properties under demo delay. I don't have anything. The only other thing I think we need to discuss, which is not tonight, but maybe a following meeting, is if we want to release 56 Wareham. We discussed previously whether or not they've sort of waited out, but let's discuss that at the next meeting. You know, there was like a pause on their timeline and because of the discussion that I think we've had last, like two months ago or so on the condition, we may choose to release him sooner than later. I don't have any form Bs, don't have anything on permits. I've been checking the permit system is sort of clear right now. There's only a couple of new projects that have come in. for CPC projects, waiting on the archeologists to pick a date for their dig. I just met with Teresa earlier today and Tim McGivern, DBW, to sort of get the tree work lined up. So that's gonna be December-ish time. Hopefully it'll go out to bid in, if I leave myself six months, that should be more than enough time to get all that done, so.
[Doug Carr]: Let me jump in on a couple of things on CPC. I'm glad Teresa's here because a couple of things came up at the last meeting, which I think was just a week ago, Teresa. One is that we gave some emergency funds to the folks at the armory building to do some exterior restoration. They've got a kind of failing exterior wall on their hands right now. And it was kind of a unique situation. It's on the National Register, and it's obviously private. It's not publicly owned. So it was a little bit of a stretch for us, but we thought they agreed to up their public access to that important building and house, I think, Teresa, at least two events a year, I think, for a couple of years, something like that.
[Theresa Dupont]: Two events a year for the next 10 years.
[Doug Carr]: There you go. And we wanted to kick the process off. They're going to have to find, like, this is a small fraction of the dollars they're going to need to do the whole building. And so, but we wanted to kind of get the ball rolling. But there, you know, these guys were all condo owners in a very big building. It's a very expensive building to maintain. But I thought they might come before this commission tonight to talk about just some details. They have to follow the national standards for how to restore the masonry, how to do the grout properly like we've done at the Brooks Estate and other places over the years. We'll follow up on that. So that's one item. I just want to let you guys aware of that. The second one was that there was a general discussion in our database of surveys that we've done over the past 10-plus years. A lot of people on the CPA didn't know that even existed, and they were looking to see if there's a way we could make those files more accessible by not just the macros database, because that's actually not that user-friendly from my own experience. But somewhere on Medford's website, if we could have it, just our survey results, you could search by street, by neighborhood, whatever, just find a way to have it better, to make it more accessible. Somebody who's thinking buying a house can maybe find the Form B that exists on that house right now. Unless the real estate agent offers it, they're probably not going to find it.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Oh, it's funny you should mention that because I talked with Jess Farrell, former commissioner who has now sort of set out on her own into the consulting world. And one of the things she was talking to me about was looking at something of similar nature, not for survey, but for the, City's historic artifacts in the public library. So I will ask her if it's something that they could put together as sort of like a way to display the database on our website. We do have a little bit of limitation. I know we can probably find a way to integrate it into WordPress, but it may just be easier to see if there's some sort of software or something out there that we can host. We could simply do PDFs of all the forms, but then there's all the back information of cataloging them and making keywords searchable and that sort of thing, like you're asking, and how to pull them up. I know macros is not user friendly, they have limitations themselves, you know, they have like parameters so we can get much more detail that they can, you know, like we might say, you know, say there's important architects, we can add those and call those out, you could sort projects by that to see how many buildings built, you know, so we can get more detail at the local level. But just something to think about. So I'll ask Jess to see if she wants to come talk to us about what we can do and how much said thing would cost. Because, you know, 90% of our stuff is on macros, so I don't want to duplicate efforts. But if there is a way to make it more user-friendly, I'll consider it.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, that's all we're looking for is just to figure out a plan. I know, Teresa, if you have anything I missed on that.
[Theresa Dupont]: No, I was just going to say, I think that would be a great idea too. I think people are hungry for this great information that lives in various different places. So if we can pull it together as a central repository, I think the CTC would welcome an application for a small amount of money to hire a consultant to help with that work. But yeah, I think this would be a great thing. a great thing for us to get back to the residents and this is information that they should, I feel, you know, have access to and it would certainly make it easier for CPC as we review some projects and just in general for research purposes. So, I would support that.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Anything else?
[Doug Carr]: Nope.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Um, good. So that's moving, uh, our survey projects, Sagamore Vale. It's done. I have the survey. I just uploaded it to, um, my computer. I will upload it to Google drive so that we can see it's a series of area forms that sort of break down the entire neighborhood. Every buildings, uh, has some basic information. Um, you know, and as they come up for demo or we want to expand on that, we'll add some MHC inventory forms to them. We did just get the word that Hastings Heights is moving forward. The feds were sort of holding the funding at the federal level hostage. They have finally released that to the state historic preservation officers and that will trickle down to our survey and planning project so we can start that up finally once more. So that'll be going, that's the large neighborhood between Martin Simons District and West Medford Square. So that'll fill in a huge gap of survey from what we last did the West Medford project. Um, I have no other old businesses or anything else before we do meeting minutes. Okay. Hearing none, Kit sent around meeting minutes. Um, I think they were great. Peter made some edits. Is there anything else we missed? Okay, I'll take a motion to accept Kit's minutes with Peter's edits.
[Doug Carr]: So moved.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I have a second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Second.
[Unidentified]: Thank you, Jen.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Okay, I'll go around as I see you, Kit.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: And Jen? Yes. And Peter? Yes. Doug? Yes. Great. 4-0 approved. Anything else before we adjourn?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: We actually have to approve the May minutes because we tabled them at the end of the June meeting because Doug and I were not at the May meeting. We didn't have a quorum to approve them.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I'll take a motion to approve the May minutes that I accidentally put on the website.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: Motion to approve.
[Doug Carr]: That's an impeachable offense there, Ryan.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I'm technically not the chair. Wow. Did you just throw me under the bus? Maybe a little bit. Penalty for being late, though. Jen made a motion. Do I have a second?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I did. I'll second.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: It was seconded. Okay. I'll go around as I see you, Kit.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Oh, actually I still can't approve them, right? Because I wasn't at the main meeting. One, two, three, four.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Peter, were you at the main meeting?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Okay. So Jen? Yes. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Doug? Yes. And I'm a yes. So four, zero, one abstention. Meeting has passed. Motion to adjourn? So moved. 837, a second? I got it. Kit? Yes. Jen? Yes. Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Doug?
[Doug Carr]: Yes. Are we setting up the subcommittee on the zoning before we leave?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Um, why don't I send out an email, take volunteers because there's going to be, we should do one for zoning, maybe one to tackle the rest of this, uh, just to keep an eye on the administration of the demo delay and sort of, uh, figure out all the works and, you know, have like a, why did we determine go one way or the other? So, uh, we'll take volunteers on that. Um, because we don't have a seven board. Forum is still four, so three or less, please, on your boards. So three volunteers for each board is fine. Okay, so I'll send out an email to the rest of the board. Thank you all. And plus Ed might want to participate, so we'll make sure that he's included in the conversation. So thank you all. Have a good night.
[pHtJcMxcqAQ_SPEAKER_25]: Good night.