[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, welcome everybody. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, September 8th. I'm going to call the meeting to order at 7.04. I'll just read our little statement here. Pursuant to Chapter 20 of the Acts of 2021, this meeting of the City of Medford Historical Commission will be conducted via remote means. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by using the Zoom link provided for in the agenda. No in-person attendance of of members of the public will be permitted, and public participation in any public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Um, okay. We have a full agenda tonight, so we're going to get started. Um, first up, we have a couple of demolition applications to receive commissioners. We sent around links earlier. Let's, uh, we'll go right down the agenda. We're going to start with 41 mystic Avenue. Uh, we have, uh, yes, Brian move to approve. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Kit. Okay, I will go around for a roll call vote as I see on my screen to approve the demolition application for 41 Mystic Avenue. Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, motion is approved for zero. The application is accepted and we will have a significance hearing next month. Point of clarification. Yes, Ryan.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Because of the timeline, we're having a meeting on October 6th. Is that correct?
[Jennifer Keenan]: We are, yes. October 6th, because the following Monday, or because of the Indigenous Peoples Holiday slash formerly Columbus Day, it screws up our schedule to get things in our 30-day timeline. So we are moving our meeting up to October 6th for next month. Okay, moving right along. Demolition application for 121 Second Street. Moved to approve. Thank you, Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Motion to approve the demolition application for 121 Second Street. Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. That one is also approved for zero. And we will hold the significant hearings next month on October 6th. Do we have forms for those, Ryan?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I have a form for Mystic Ave. I don't have one for 2nd Street.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Will John be able to get us one in time?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, should be.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, yeah. I mean, it's almost 30 days from today. So, okay. Okay, moving on to our agenda, we have three determinations of significance tonight. We received applications for demolition last month. And again, I'm going to go right down the agenda. But before I do that, I'm just going to remind everybody about the definition of significance and what that means. It means that the property 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 that it is historically or architecturally important in terms of period, style, method of building construction, or association with an important architect or builder, either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings. So, moving on to 4648 Pinkert Street. Commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion and then we can start the discussion.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Motion defined for significance with the caveat that I'm going to shoot it down.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Is there a second?
[Doug Carr]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you, Doug. OK, Ryan, I will start the conversation with you.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: There's a lot of. These types of buildings, these two families in this neighborhood laid out by George McCormick was very prolific land developer. made housing very affordable, put up a lot of, rather made land accessible to developers to then put up these buildings. And this is a sort of a nice looking two family, but there's a lot of them. So I don't necessarily think it arises the occasion of significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Doug, I'll move on to you.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I echo everything Ryan said. We have a lot of battles over buildings that are our close calls, but this doesn't feel like one of them. So I think we should just cut to the chase here as quickly as we can.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. Peter, anything to add?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No, I'm just curious about the addition that's already on there. Did they get halted?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: So for this particular project, we signed off on the zoning submittal to the building department with the understanding normally that a building permit comes. And when that time came, because things change during the zoning process and zoning approvals, when that came, I put a note on it that they needed to apply for demolition. And by the time the building department saw it, they had already issued the permit and demolition had occurred. So this is a pause, but it's a pause just to collectively get through the process at this point.
[Adam Hurtubise]: So, okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So yes, it was stopped, Peter. And I think, you know, I'm hoping, I'm hopeful that if and when the zoning conversations get reengaged at some point, I mean, I just. It's just unclear between zoning and historical. We need a citywide flowchart to be able to educate people and help them through the process.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I just halted during the zoning process now. It just gets to us faster, that's all. I just don't like interjecting on another board's processes, that's all.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Right. Just curious. applied for a variance to get the full three floors or is that the new zoning quote-unquote?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: There were variances required.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'm assuming it was either a lot size or yeah, that's what the variances were for. I don't think anything on the new zoning is in effect.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah. No, there's definitely zoning in effect on this side, but I don't think this property was there at that time.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I was just curious if a lot of the, depends on the zone, I guess. I guess there is a full, some zones they do allow the full three floors, but most are two and a half. So that's why I was curious about it anyway. Yeah, I don't have too much more to add. I think it is a nice building. It's got some nice detail on it, Like you say, it's not an uncommon building type, and I doubt if it would rise to preferably preserved, especially now, since the roof's torn off. So I don't see the point in holding it up any further.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Kit, anything to add on this one?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I don't have anything to add. I think it's already been said, and there are lots of houses in Medford that look like this. Old, but not significant.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. I just wanted to point out that on the form B there was a recommendation for a national register, you know, potential for a national register. And, you know, that in reading the form B, that just made me kind of, you know, pause and read this a little bit more closely and really think about it. But I think if it sounds like we're all in agreement, so that'll be all I'll say about that. Okay, we have a motion on the table to find for significance for 46-48 Pinker Street, and that has been seconded. I'll go around for a roll call vote. Ryan?
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so the motion fails zero to four. So we will send out a letter by the end of the week and get these folks on their way with their project. Okay, next up we have 10 Irving Street. Again, we accepted the application on this one last month and tonight we're going to have a same determination of significance. And so commissioners, when you're ready, I will take a motion on this one to jump off the conversation.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Move for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Ryan.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Peter. Ryan, if you'd like to jump off the conversation on this one, that would be great.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: So I went back and forth with John a little bit on this particular building. It relates to the Usher family of West Medford who developed this intermediate block and of who is associated with the Usher block on the corner of Playstate Road and High Street. I'm concerned that given the style and size of the building, that this perhaps actually may be the Usher building that was shown on the 1855 map of, walling map of Medford, and that the date that John assigns for it, 1889 to 1898, was the date that it was moved to its current location and appears here. I did take a look at interior photos to sort of get a sense of what remains for interior fabric and historic fabric in this building, but that's a discussion for another time. In terms of its relationship with the landscape, I feel there's a strong case for significance here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Peter, I'll come to you next.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I found this one to have a really interesting history too with this family that is pretty significant in the town. I also found that Playstead Brook reservation really interesting. There must have been a stream going back there anyway. Um, and the house, I think, even though it's like buried behind a lot of stuff, like bad stuff, I'll say not in the not in a sympathetic style, like the front porch or whatever was filled in with brick, got the brick pillars, and then there's a kind of horrific I guess you don't really see it from the street, but the back porches are not so great stylistically. But if you look at the center part of the building, it seems to have a lot of nice detail. And it seemed like something could be made out of it. I'm kind of on the fence about it because of all these alterations and stuff. But I'd like to hear what the others have to say too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Doug, I'll come to you next.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm kind of on the fence in this one. My sense is to pause to understand it a little bit better. The Form B does make a pretty strong case, more than most of these that we see about the historical connections. Is this a teardown or just what's going on here? I just look for some context, if you don't mind.
[Jennifer Keenan]: It is a full teardown. It's currently a four-family.
[Kathleen Desmond]: That's a four-family. If I could add some context, if you like. Sure.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kathleen, can we just get your name and address for the record, please?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Sure. Kathleen Desmond, attorney for the applicant in this instance. I think, and it's been alluded to by Peter a bit in this, the additions on this make it difficult to do any kind of a renovation to the property that that makes sense based on the layout with the front porch and the side porch and then the rear porches that are in back. I think the client believes that it would be more simplistic to be able to tear it down and start over with respect to this based on the layout and how all the additions have been added along. Also, there has been some issues with the foundation. I think it's a double foundation. I don't know if he's on the line. He was going to try and join. But I know that that was one of his issues. So in terms of just being able to create, it is currently a four family. I know this has it as a three, but it's being used as a four. And I looked at the assessors, and it's a four as well. But in terms of just being able to make sense of the layout and what he wants to do is expand on the units, the current edition after edition makes that. makes that difficult.
[Doug Carr]: Attorney Desmond, can I ask a question? How many square feet is this building right now?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Do you know? The existing house?
[Doug Carr]: Yes.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Heavens. I thought I pulled the card. It should be on the application, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hold on, I can look it up. I have the application here.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So 1,170 square feet. is the existing, you know, the one story, that's not the total gross area, but that's the lot area of the structure. And it's two and a half stories.
[Doug Carr]: It must be really small.
[Jennifer Keenan]: When it was sold, so it was sold back in 2024, and they marketed it as just under 2,200 square feet of living area, but that was approximate, and it's on a 9,100 square foot lot.
[Kathleen Desmond]: That would include the two floors and the half story probably.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Correct, so it's one two-bedroom, two one-bedrooms, and one studio.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I mean, that's... That's amazing. They can fit four units in there because it just doesn't seem right.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And this is kind of a tandem project as well, because depending on, you know, how this proceeds and where we proceed, there's going to be a discussion with the building department about, it's a preexisting nonconforming structure because it's more units than is allowed in a general residence. So under section five, if they kept the same square footage, it would be an issue of, just being able to replace it as a right, or then having to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals if they wanted to increase that to make four units that were more livable. First of all, and it is a large lot, you know.
[Doug Carr]: Obviously you can build, physically build more, even if maybe that may be a challenge in the zoning. First of all, Dr. Desmond, it's been a while since we've seen you. Welcome back. Thank you. You were a regular for many years.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah, I was.
[Doug Carr]: And you had a string where you're there every month for a while there. Yeah, that's true. What does double the foundation mean? That's a new one for me.
[Kathleen Desmond]: I'm not sure. That's why I was hoping my client was on the line. We had a conversation about it. I'm not sure exactly what that is, but he indicated that there's more than one section to the foundation, which makes it difficult. And I didn't quite get it. I don't see him on.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and there's no one in the waiting room either.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah. And I had kind of said that that may be a question if it comes up that needs further explanation that I don't have.
[Doug Carr]: Understood.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan or Peter, have you ever heard that term?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Wait, what was the term?
[Doug Carr]: double foundation double foundation almost like it felt to me like there was a foundation and then it was encased in another one, which is.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: yeah yeah to me that that's a usual normal practice if the rebel foundation is failing they just encase it with another one inside.
[Doug Carr]: Inside or outside.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: usually inside. If it's outside, that usually indicates that it was some sort of step down, and they've removed the grade against the building.
[Doug Carr]: And so, yeah, I mean, to Peter's earlier point, there was a time in so-called Place Dead Park, where they stream came through there. This is the continuation of that stream. Both are obviously long gone now. But I think that could be the source of some of the problems with the foundation, if they have any.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And I don't know if it's so much of a problem, but that it's double and that creates other issues in terms of building, I guess. That's my understanding. That creates some issues.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I'm just, I have to ask the question, who has access to Playstead Brook Reservation? Is that just common space now shared by all the neighbors? Because it obviously contains the Brook culvert, but I was curious as to what's back there and who maintains it.
[Kathleen Desmond]: No.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Okay.
[Doug Carr]: I don't know. It goes under houses. I mean it goes under structures. It's been there a while.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, yeah.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I'm gonna have to check this out because I didn't even know it was there. Go ahead.
[Kathleen Desmond]: And then if I could, I had one question on it being moved because the Form B has it being moved and is there going to be Or where can we look in terms of whether, I think, Ryan, you referenced the fact that this may be something other than what the Form B author indicated it was, that you think it may not be the property that he believes it to be?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, is the house occupied? Because a walker would probably be useful to see some of the framing.
[Kathleen Desmond]: details because I believe it is occupied. I could find out from my client and get back to the board on that point, certainly.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah. There are usually some pretty indicative features that would set it apart from the mid to late 19th century. Yeah. Just looking at the shape and scale, it's exactly like 333 Winthrop Street, which is an 1855. building which would predate the date of the building here by 25 years, which would put it squarely on that 1855 map.
[Doug Carr]: Ryan, are you saying you think they moved it from the location of the present Usher building to this location to build that building?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, most likely. Yep, that's when all that development sort of happened.
[Doug Carr]: I don't know if this building will rise to the level of protection, the next level, if beyond significance, but I do think, I think there is finding out a few of the kind of detective sleuthing issues that we're talking about here. a little bit more detail about the brook, a little bit more about the foundation. Documentation is really what I'd be looking for. I'm not sure. I won't speak for anyone else on the commission obviously, but that's my interest in it. I just want to understand what this is and the actual data, if there's any difference. To me, that's worth pausing just to get that information and potentially re-evaluate in 30 days.
[Kathleen Desmond]: So, if the board likes, I can try and find some dates that would be available. For an inspection, you know, there, I believe it is tenanted. So that makes it a little trickier, but. You know, we could certainly attempt to do that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think that would be helpful, but before we do that, I'd like to ask kit if she had any comments on this, because she has been the only commissioner that hasn't had a chance to speak. So kit the floor is yours.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, no, I agree with Doug. I mean, I was on the fence coming into this meeting, but I think we all have enough questions and there are enough sort of curiosities about this building, both in terms of its architecture and its history and where this stream was that I think we should take a pause.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, thank you. I know. Yeah. And I agree with everybody. I definitely think that it warrants a little bit more research here. And personally, I think a tour would be great, especially the basement and just walking around the exterior and just getting a sense of, you know, the lot and where it is and and whatnot. But so I think, Attorney Desmond, if you could get back to us with some dates, that would be great. Commissioners, does anybody else have any comments on this one before we take a vote?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I was just going to say, if you look at the shot on the Form B that goes up the driveway, you can kind of see how the foundation is. It looks like there's rubble down low and then stucco above it. It looks like maybe it was built to the inside, although It's not a super clear photo, but you can kind of see the shelving of the foundation wall there. I don't know if that's what he's talking about, but it would be interesting to see what's going on in that basement.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, I see exactly what you're pointing out. Okay, we have a motion on the table for 10 Irving Street to find for significance that has been seconded. Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit? Yes. Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so this one passes 4-0. So attorney Desmond, let us know on those dates and then we will get you the information for the public hearing for, which will be October 6th and for the legal ad and for the sign out front. I think this one is a good one too, if we get public comment, so.
[Kathleen Desmond]: Okay, terrific.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, next up we have 173 Arlington Street. So again, we accepted the application for this one last month and we have a significance hearing tonight. Commissioner is the paperwork and the form B is in the file. And I will take a motion when someone is ready.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Motion to find for significance.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. I'll second. OK, thanks, Kit. OK, Ryan, if you want to jump us off again, that would be great.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Sure. It's a small Moses Man Cottage. Moses Man's really well known for his high style decorative Queen Anne Victorian buildings. This is a much smaller, more modest example of that, but Moses Man is responsible almost single-handedly for the entirety of development south of High Street. That includes Arlington Street, Jerome Street, and all the other little developments along the way, and it's importantly associated with an important architect and builder. So I'll leave it at that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Kit, I'll come to you next.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: And in addition, and obviously my architect colleagues know far more about this than I do, but it's remarkably intact. And it has all sorts of original detail that's still there, easy enough to preserve. And I have to say, I think the fact that it has a twin right next door makes it particularly interesting.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Can I say something, or?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Hold on, sir. I'll come to you.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Great, thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I would like to point out for the commissioners, if you, I know it's been a while, maybe since you've looked at the application, this is a partial demolition. It's an interior gut, removing the rear addition with dormers on one side and a, I think, shed dormer on the other side if I have that terminology correct. So just want to point that out that this is not a total teardown on this one as opposed to the last case we just heard. Doug, I'll come to you next.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I, I kind of agree with, with Kit and this is, this is an interesting building. I'm glad where it's looking like it's going to be at least partially restored and maybe re-imagined. I don't think there's any issue. We've seen plenty of partial full shed dormers come through this commission and we've hardly ever blinked at those. So my instincts are, you know, if it's, This is one of those things, a judgment call here, if we want to go through this process, but we're happy with the design, like, what are we doing here? We should think about that. But that may just be the pause we need to kind of make sure we like what's coming down the pike on this building. But if it's what you described, and I haven't really looked at those plans in a while, Jen, since they were sent out, but if that doesn't sound to me like it's
[Jennifer Keenan]: There are plans in the drive. So if you go back to the application folder, there are some proposed, at least there's elevations there. Yeah. Okay. Peter, I will come to you next.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yeah. I mean, it sounds like it's a fairly modest intervention. that the owner wants to do. And that it probably will be mostly left the massing intact and hopefully enhanced. I think the front porch could use some work as well. I would be curious to see those elevations. This building and the building next door has the, this dormer, window dormer, if you want to call it that, or whatever you call it, that breaks the eave, which I think is kind of an interesting feature. And it's on both houses. So they kind of make a nice pair. So I'd be interested to see if that feature was preserved in the new design, because it's kind of a distinctive feature. Other than that, I mean, yeah, I think it's worth a pause just because I haven't seen the drawings. But on the other hand, I am a little bit on the fence about this one too, because it seems like such a small intervention. But anyway, it'd be good to know more.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, so the applicant is here. Mr. Foote, if you could please give us your name and address for the record, and then I'll let you have the floor.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: I'm Don Foote. I currently live at 35 Myrtle Terrace in Winchester, and I own this house in Medford. So just to be clear, my wife and I are going to be the end users on this house. It's not a flip. We're going to rehab it and have my daughter live there for a while, and then move in hopefully in four or five years. I specifically, we had to get a zoning variance to extend the rear of the house. The house is tiny. It's 910 square feet. And we asked for a very small rear addition in the exact same profile of the existing house, just pushing back 12 and a half feet at the 19 foot width of the house. The goal was to create a three-bedroom, two-bath house as opposed to a two-bedroom, one-bath, tiny house that is just not functional by today's standards. The problem on the second floor, and I do love the house, we're maintaining the front facade completely, although we will rip the plywood decking off and the collapsing front porch that's been there. I mean, the house is a complete wreck. The fact that it was called in good condition and The form that was filled out, I really question that. It's a complete mess. It hadn't been, I mean, the foundation walls are collapsing in the basement. It was just a lot of issues with this house. But my wife and I both loved just the overall look of it. We were trying in our design and our request for the zoning variants to maintain that and not try to build some giant addition on the rear, which apparently my neighbor is going to be doing that shortly. So I think what we're doing is way more in kind of in cahoots with what the existing house looks like. So that's our goal. We're not trying to create a giant mansion here. We're just trying to make it a 1,350-square-foot, three-bedroom home. So that's really what we're asking for. We just want to get going and build it. And we do. So that's where we're at. Thanks.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you, that's very helpful.
[Doug Carr]: Jen, would it be worth spending two minutes to show the elevations that are part of it? I just looked at him while Mr. Phuong was talking and I agree with him. Sure. I can do it or you can, it's up to you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I can do it, I have it right here.
[Doug Carr]: Okay. Because I think it is a very sympathetic intervention. You're saving the important pieces. You're expanding a little bit. And a 1,350-square-foot home is tiny by any standards in Medford, I think.
[Theresa Dupont]: Can everybody see this?
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, there's the front elevation at the top there, the rear, and the back. And then they have both sides. And you can pretty much see what's new. And the dormers are obviously new on either side. But the mass thing is pretty much there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan, did we get this application? Or was this diverted by a permit application to us?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I flagged this during the zoning process and then the. Asbestos remediation took place and I doubly flagged it with the building department. It's got right on nature, yeah, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm just thinking that if we if this had come in and What if these went to subcommittee, like it might've just been.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I seem to think that the original plan may have been. Larger and more.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: This is the only plan we've ever had. We only had one plan.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: The only one must have been the gut rehab then that flagged it.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: So yeah, we, we never. We weren't trying to make this into some other building. We were just trying to do something that was reasonable. In fact, in our zoning variants, they were shocked at how little we asked for. I mean, because we asked for a 12 by 19 two-story addition. When did you get approval from the zoning folks? A couple of months ago. So yeah, we've just been waiting on this now. I mean, yeah, I mean, like I said, our goal was to do something that was not to wreck this house. We like the house. We love the house. But it's just not functional by today's standards.
[Unidentified]: Yeah.
[Doug Carr]: I guess my instincts here are to just speed up the process. As someone who's served on many of these subcommittees, I don't think I would change much on the drawings I see, so I'm not sure other than making it significant and calling for a perfect preserved. To me, it's just slowing down the process of something that I think I'm already at the end line here myself, but I defer to the other commissioners obviously if they agree or not.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I agree. I mean, it sounds like what Mr. Foote is saying is that they're trying to preserve it.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: We are. There's not many of you Mr. Foote. I would agree. I would say, you know, go for it. I'd like to make one advisory comment about the design though. Go ahead Peter. Take it or leave it. Well, let me ask you a question. The long shed dormer on the, I believe it's the left side of the house. Correct. Is that dependent upon the layout? Could it be flipped to the other side?
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Uh, well, actually the way the stairs work, because the stairs, if you're looking at the house from the front, they, they start on the right hand side and go up to the left. So, okay.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: So, so the answer is, is yes, it is planned dependent. Yeah. Or no, whatever. So it needs to be on that side. Um, I guess then, um, I think it would be cool. Like for the shed, the little shed dormer on the right side, then. I'll, my advisory comment is I'd love to see a gable roof on that. So it would kind of like mirror it's next door neighbor.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Yeah. Yeah. I don't have an issue with that. It's just, I don't want to wait a whole month.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: It's not a binding thing. It's just, that'd be my, that'd be my comment.
[Doug Carr]: Wouldn't that give you more space too, Peter, in the room itself, if we did it?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Well, yeah, I guess you could say.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Depending on how big it is, the existing dormer that's on the other side of the house now is tiny. And it goes into the, I mean, it's so, that barely gives you enough room. The reason we're putting that dormer on the other side is because we have to have a window in that, what is going to become the central bedroom. You have to see the second floor. So you have to have an egress window, obviously, in a bedroom. And you have to have a window. So it has to be a dormer that's big enough to have an egress window in it.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Right. No, I was just saying, it would be like the two little dormers are talking to each other across the driveway there. I'm a gable.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: I promise I'll yell out the window to the other dormer.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Whatever. Take it for what it's worth.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Hi, Ed. Our other commissioner just joined us. Ed, we're discussing 173 Arlington Street, and we were about to take a vote on significance, but I wanted to just give you the option if you had a comment or had anything to say on this one, or you can abstain from voting if you choose.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I think I know where I'd be or I will abstain for politeness sake.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. Okay. Um, does anybody else have any comments on this one? Otherwise I'll go around for a roll call vote. Okay. We have a motion on the table to find for significance for one 73 Arlington street that has been seconded Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit. Yes. Peter.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Wait, what are we voting for, for significance?
[Jennifer Keenan]: We are voting for significance.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Okay. I'm gonna say no, because I think I want this to go forward.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: No. Okay, tiebreaker.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: We have a tie. Can I ask a question? I mean, can we find it preferably preserved? because that's essentially what we're saying and move ahead, do we have to wait the month?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: You need a public hearing for that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I don't think we can, I know this was like, I also had this, and I apologize, I should have asked this before we voted. I don't think we can find yes for significance and then not have a public hearing.
[Doug Carr]: Right, that's the process.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Right. It's either yes, the building's significant, so it's afforded a public hearing, or no, it's not, so that you could move forward with the project, but also can move forward with demolition entirely. Not that that's the plan, but it could be.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Well, the plan is to do what is on my plan.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Understood. Understood.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: But not everybody. I mean, that's what I applied for a building permit for. I can't do anything other than that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it's okay. I'm happy to, I can vote and make the tie break. Or is, does anybody, are we good? Am I allowed to vote, right?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, okay.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: My vote- No, no, no, no, not present, so that will always make it- Correct, you're, yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: My vote is no. So the significance vote fails two to three with one abstention. two to two, one abstention. No, sorry, two to three, one abstention. So sir, we will get out a letter to you that your property was found not significant, and you'll be on your merry way.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Oh, thank you so much. Thank you. My wife's been listening the whole time. She appreciates it also. Thanks so much. She's on the edge of her seat.
[Jennifer Keenan]: This is, I think, one of those cases where it was a little bit of like, We wanted to put the pin and say, yes, it's significant, but then we wanted to skip the second step, which we can't do.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: I respect, but I like the house. Like you said, we're not trying to destroy it. We're trying to enhance it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Preserve it, actually.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: Thank you so much. Appreciate it.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Have a good night.
[MCM00001767_SPEAKER_13]: You too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, that was an interesting case. Okay. All righty. Does anybody else have any new business before we move on to old business? No? Okay. All right. Fantastic. Ed, just to catch you up, our meeting next month is October 6th because we have that weird, like, all that happens every fall with Columbus Day or Indigenous Peoples Day and then Veterans Day in November. So, yeah. Kit, I did get your email, so no worries there. Okay, moving on to old business.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Madam Chair.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, Ryan, thank you.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Motion to suspend the rules and take something out of order. Go for it. Well, you need to do a roll call vote.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, okay. Sorry. Motion to suspend the rules and take things out of order. Do I have a second?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: I second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Doug. Okay, roll call vote on that motion. Ryan.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes. Peter.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug.
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed. Yep. Okay. Motion passes. Ryan. Thanks.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah. So in, in terms of vacant seats, I reached out to Ted Blake, who is here tonight. Hi, Ted. And he's a Somerville school teacher, lives in the South Street local historic district. And sorry, Teresa, I poached him, because I don't think you guys reached out to him. So the commission needed some new members. So I thought Ted would be a good candidate. So I just wanted to have him at tonight's meeting so he can see the full broad spectrum of everything that we do. And I wanted to give him a chance to introduce himself to the commission.
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, I've been living in Medford Hillside for over 10 years. And last year I moved on to Toro Ave, into one of the more historic homes here. So I had that interest there. And last spring, I think the city put out a call for Hey, we're looking for people to join some of our various boards and commissions and things like that. And I was interested in this. And so it's some of what I teach in Somerville. I do a lot of local history things. My students were not necessarily architectural history right now, but I'm doing actually a whole semester course in public history right now with my mostly 11th graders.
[Jennifer Keenan]: That's awesome. Thank you. We're so glad to have you. And tonight's a good meeting to observe. We have had a little bit of, you know, two out of our three kind of nuts and bolts. type cases where we're taking demolition applications, we're reviewing for significance. So that was a really good kind of mix of properties and votes and you get a little flavor of what we do most months. And then, you know, we kind of have some ongoing projects and other things that we tackle from month to month as well. But yeah, it's a good meeting to be at. So we're so glad to have you.
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_05]: Thanks for having me.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Commissioner, does anybody have any questions for Ted?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Just curious.
[Jennifer Keenan]: We're a fun bunch, so you should totally join us.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I live in your neighborhood, too. Which house do you live in?
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_05]: 11 Toro.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: OK.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: And have you ever researched your house?
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_05]: A little bit. We've done a lot of, actually, more snooping on the previous owners who have quite a weird history as well. Part of the reason why we ended up with the house, it was in foreclosure and I think the guy didn't pay his mortgage for 20 years and basically it was back if you remember say the big short when all the mortgage default swaps were going on. I think he figured out that no one could prove ownership of his mortgage and refused to pay and eventually I don't know. I think that we've done a lot of searching on him. 2008, is that what you're talking about? Something like that.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I mean, that is a very common technique to prolong foreclosure is to ask the lenders to prove that they actually own the debt.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yep. Says a lawyer.
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_05]: I don't know, my wife did a lot of research on the previous owners. And the other thing that brought me to it was just in the Medford Library once and kind of the, I have two young kids and so we're often going to the library. And just on the dollar bookshelf, it was the, when we were there last year, it was the, from the 70s, from the, this commission put out a book of like your home in the streetcar suburb.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Streetcar suburb.
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_05]: Yeah, and I picked it up and I was looking at, doing some of the architectural history of Medford.
[Doug Carr]: Nice. Jim, this might be an odd time to discuss it, but aren't there a fair number of people on this board, this commission, who are considering exiting soon?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, we have some turnover coming, and so we are definitely looking to kind of refill. I mean, we had Eleni leave, and then, you know, Kit is hanging on for voting, but, you know, she has asked to step back. And Ed as well at the end of his term this year. So yeah, we're definitely in a point where we know about some seats that are turning over. And, you know, there's other folks who are here that have been on the commission for a while that might like to do something else. And if the opportunity arose, you know, to somebody that somebody wanted to fill our seats as well, then we could shift around a little bit.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. I'm not the guy I should be asking this question, but do we know, has the mayor's office gotten names we don't know about?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Not that we have, and we do ask periodically because they kind of have applications for boards and commissions on a rolling basis. But before our meeting started today, I asked Teresa, who's staffing our meeting tonight for us, To ask the communications office to put out a blast on socials for our board specifically. I know they do some they do some like board opening announcement posts on a periodic basis. Um, you know, we have posted on some other social forums as well. And, you know, I'll continue to kind of like. put things out there as well to see if we can get some new interest. And I would encourage everybody to talk to your network, ask your friends, share on your own socials. We have a blog post on our website that you can share. And yeah, we'd love to just have some new folks. I mean, the process is, you know, Ryan and I will talk to them or they can come to a meeting and then we have to make a recommendation up to the mayor's office and ultimately This is a mayoral appointed board, so ultimately it's the mayor's choice to appoint somebody on the board. So, it's a pretty simple process and we've obviously all gone through it. So, yeah. Ted, do you have any questions for any of us?
[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_05]: Um, I think Ryan's going to give me a little bit more of just a nuts and bolts description of what kind of the commitments are and things like that. Um, we were going to talk beforehand, but I think we rescheduled. So maybe after the meeting, right, Ryan.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah. I was going to say, do you want me to, uh, meet with you to sort of go over the finer points before I recommend you to the mayor? Cause, uh, I have no issue recommending you to the mayor, at which point it will take about 30 days for her to. appoint you to the board to fill the currently one vacancy. But if you feel you want me to wait, I can wait for that time. But I'm comfortable recommending you for appointing to the board. And you can always decline if you feel that the responsibility is too much. But I think you'll find it's It's perfectly, you know, we're, we're pretty easy going here.
[Jennifer Keenan]: You don't have to decide right now if you're don't know. There's plenty of time.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: So, um, I can wait 30 days. I think that that'll be fine. And we'll between then and now we'll go over everything. And then at that point, I'll have a sort of a committee of one report back to the board about what you decided.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: That was great. Just sort of quickly in terms of, and I know that there's sort of the role description that's probably on the website and I don't think it changed as much, but especially with Ed stepping off as sort of our resident lawyer, I mean, it sort of seems like that would, that sort of legal expertise is really useful to have. And if we're thinking about names to suggest, is there other, I'm just curious if the committee thinks there are other sort of skill sets that it would be useful to bring.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, we typically ask for architectural, like historical slash preservation, real estate and law. But, you know, I think Ryan and I are kind of of the mindset, I'm sure you would all agree that at the end of the day, if somebody is interested and they want to help, we would love to just talk to you and, you know, get a sense, you know, let the candidate get a sense for what we do, get a sense for what we're all about and, you know, see if there's a fit. I don't think it's a certainly not a prerequisite, but it's an ideal those folks in that. But I wouldn't want to have somebody not kind of step up to the plate and want to volunteer if they didn't have those specific skills. Yeah, but I mean, I obviously like. I love having Ed on here as our legal voice. We're so lucky to have him. Yes.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Are you sure this move is a good idea, Ed?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I know.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: He's just lining up so I can buy the house again.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: It's 35 years. I've had 35 years. Somebody else can become the caretaker. If you read my last copy of the subject.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Hey, the Budweiser site is, Budweiser site, even though the T grabbed it, maybe I can weasel out an acre and we'll move the building back to its original site.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Ryan, you were there to watch it. I don't think you'd want to orchestrate the next, orchestrate the return.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: No, no, especially because I don't think a lot of the, well, I don't, I don't know how they dealt with all the bridges.
[Doug Carr]: It's there long enough. Doesn't it just stay there?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah. Yeah. Well, yeah. I mean, it's, it's historic. The move itself now is now historically important.
[Doug Carr]: That's what I mean. It's already, it's, you can't put the GD back in the bottle here.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. Yeah, but we can get the pictures of the next owner, and we will.
[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, great. Well, Ted, as I said, we're a fun bunch. So keep us posted, and we'd love to have you. Thanks so much. Ryan, do we have to have a motion to go back to the agenda?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: No, now you just do it as you see fit.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Fabulous.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Returning to the ordinary order of business.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, thank you, Ed. See, this is why we need you. We need a parliamentarian. Back to the agenda. Mystic Valley Parkway. Ryan, I'll let you take this one.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I sent out the PNF that was sent around that contained all that wonderful information about the archaeological testing that they did up and down the Mystic Lakes, and I don't think we have any concern. The question we were being asked is did we have any comment on the proposed design that's sort of at the very back, the reasoning for all the archaeological testing, and TCR is adding a bunch of paths and bike lanes and making minor changes to the roadway, all of which I think are a welcome improvement to what is currently there now, which in a lot of cases is fragmented pathways and nothing. for lack of a better term, called desire paths, where they've just been worn in by the hundreds of people using that side of the, you know, road without a cross, without a sidewalk. So DCR is putting one in basically. So I'm fine with that. I don't think we have any comment, but we should comment that we don't have any comment.
[Doug Carr]: This is a reminder.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, do we need to just write a letter? Okay. Did you hear me?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Sounds like a one-line letter.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, right.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Hold on. There we go. Sorry. My cat muted you. So sorry, I missed what, where did I leave off?
[Jennifer Keenan]: I said, did we, do we have to write a letter that we have no comments?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: We should just write a brief email that says we have no comment.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. That sounds good to me. Do we need to vote on it or are we good?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Nope. Nope. If that's what we want to do, then I'll do that.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Does anybody else have any comments on this one? Are we good to move to the next agenda item?
[Doug Carr]: Let's move on. It's a great thing they're doing along the river. I don't think I want to slow down that process at all.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I agree.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Their testing did a lot of good for Thomas Brooks Park. The report literally states that the sensitivity, even at surface level, like literally just walking over the site, is incredibly high. Incredibly high. Do read the report because it is incredibly sensitive landscape. That means Thomas Brooks Park is probably going to be incredibly sensitive as well.
[Jennifer Keenan]: which we basically already know, but yeah.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, we knew, but it could get a lot, it could get a lot more tense, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Cool. Speaking of, Teresa, I meant to, I think I mentioned this and I meant to email you that that's like a jungle over there. It needs to be cut. Can we ask the DPW to go by and?
[Theresa Dupont]: Yes, I'll reach out to them.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Along the street, thank you. Yeah. Okay, 10-20 Revere Beach Parkway. Is there anything we need on this one, Ryan?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I sent this around. I just want to confirm that the commission has no comments. The comments were supposed to be made to Danielle tonight. I don't think we have anything to say. I just, you know, other than the form for Cappy's building, I just want to make sure that we're okay with letting it go.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. We ought to get the documentation, but there's nothing to preserve there. I mean, you know, it's an industrial 1950s industrial building is, get the history, but that's about it. Yeah.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: I didn't really have any comments on the proposed design. It seems to fit in with some of the other stuff that's going across the way. And it is funny that they're preserving the tattoo parlor, but, um, That's the site we're talking about, right?
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. They're just waiting for their check to be big enough.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Let's be honest. Like Doug said, get ready for a pocket park, right?
[Kathleen Desmond]: Yeah.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: But I think it makes the building more interesting. And I think Doug said that as well, too, to break the corner there. So I think it's fine, personally.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah. We just had not to write a letter. That was fine.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think we can all agree that's the perfect spot for people and development.
[Unidentified]: Yep.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. The Medford Wayfinding Project.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: That's Doug, you're on that committee, I think.
[Doug Carr]: Kind of, yeah. I was approached on this, and Teresa can speak to this as well. There's a group that had been hired by the city to try to improve you know, signage in the city to direct people towards interesting resources across the city, and they were kind of casting a wide net to find out what stories they think they should tell. And so, you know, we brought up a bunch of stuff about the historic buildings, about about immigration across the centuries, about slavery, you know, there's a lot of narratives here that are kind of not in signage presently that could even the Brooks Heritage Trail from the square to the state is something I put on the table that, you know, exists now, periodically gets brought out again. So there's a bunch of stories that I don't know, you know, they were kind of just information gathering. I don't know if they've made any progress or any recommendations. I don't think so, Teresa, but you tell me.
[Theresa Dupont]: I haven't heard. It's not my project, but I got big ears in that office, so I tend to eavesdrop. I haven't heard anything about it.
[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I think they had like 60 days or something or at least to do that, and it hasn't been like 30.
[Theresa Dupont]: That sounds accurate.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Did the planning department get anywhere with sort of the concept of standardizing signage across the city for interpretive panels and wayfinding so that there's no matter who's doing it, whether it's DCR or this wayfinding group or the city or some state entity that it all has some uniform look across our entire city because it just looks like trash when we start throwing up signs and then abandoning one concept and going to another. And I would like to see some sort of uniformity across the entire city to sort of keep it on a, you know, if we lay it out now and sort of starting adding to it, then that will just sort of make everything harmonized. And my key point is the interpretive panels across the city, they started off using like a National Park Service standard sign that was, you know, low and accessible. And then as they morphed through like Clippership Park, park and the area over by the cotton shell. They sort of experimented with different ideas and they sort of clash with each other. And they, of course, recycle the same three rum, chips and brick over and over and over again. So I'd like to see at least some sort of if the wayfinding group says this is what the wayfinds are, they should also say this is what they should be for the rest of the city. So this is the program and then spread it out.
[Theresa Dupont]: To the best of my knowledge, that has not yet occurred. I think it's a great idea, and that's something I'm happy to help champion to kind of get right. I think most, if not all, the members on this board know that I also support the Historic District Commission. We are looking at updating some signage across our districts, as well as to install new South Street signage. So, Ted, you should weigh in on that one. but maybe that could be a catalyst for really pushing forward some standardization. I'm a good squeaky wheel, so I can kind of help make that, kind of try to implement it, but it's a great suggestion. I'll definitely take it back to the powers that be and see what I can do to help move that forward. Thank you, Ryan.
[Doug Carr]: Teresa, do you know if that's in their scope of work? Because I'm not sure if standardization is assigned. As much as I agree with Ryan, I'm not sure that's what they're assigned to do. But if they are, that's great.
[Theresa Dupont]: I doubt that they are. But is this an opportunity to course correct or just jump on this and ride the coattails of this project to then induct some standardization?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: If they take the lead on the wayfinding portion of it, then, I mean, we had talked about the interpretive panels because we do them, have done them for various projects. So, you know, we would want some sort of graphic designer to help us, you know, sort of put that together and pull it together and say, these are the, you know, come up with three standard options, but, you know, have it there. So, you know, if they take the weight, you know, if they stay focused on this is how we display it for their wayfinding mission, then that will be enough for them, I think.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and as somebody who worked at an ad agency for 20 years, this is a pain point for me. It's like, obviously, street signs look one way. Even your blue hospital signs look one way. The brown old Paul Revere root signs look one way. There should absolutely be consistency, because your eye will just go right to it, and you'll know exactly what it is. Great. Well, that's exciting. I mean, the wayfinding project is exciting, so. Okay, moving on to the database for historic resources. Ryan, these looked great. I looked at the samples you sent, and if you want to kind of refresh everybody on this project.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, so we have all these inventory forms. There's probably like 2000 plus and part of the issue people were saying macros is not user friendly, so macros will be sort of the state level database that they maintain, but our goal is to take the forms and make all the information within searchable and usable and OCR readable so that. so that search engines can pick up on the information within. So Jess Farrell did an excellent job sort of coming up with three or different concepts. I think the last one that I sent out sort of had like a user, good user interface, and they can code to sort of meet the demands of what the forms are. We just took a small area in the local historic district and Hillside Ave and just started to gauge like how difficult this will be to get the information out there. And it seems like we can incorporate it, but I just, you know, sort of want to give you guys some time to find out what works, what doesn't, you know, at the surface level, what is, you know, is this really doing what it's supposed to be doing, you know, if you have friends that you say you know might be interested in stuff like that share away you know just to get some input and one comment oh go ahead i was just gonna say my goal i think is to integrate it into our existing website and to have it in our existing website rather than try to create something standalone because i want people to to remain in our website i don't think it's that difficult and even if we have a lot of data, like inventory forms and stuff, tracking, it's really static. Once it's up there, it's up there, so.
[Jennifer Keenan]: One thing I want to point out is that whatever we build, we need to have very clear language on it that something to the effect of, yes, here's why. I am running into issues on property sales where people are having trouble getting insurance if there's an inventory form. Because these insurance companies are saying that the house is historic and we're not going to insure it. And they don't understand that all it means is when it's in macros or that if a Form B exists, all it means is that the house has been inventoried. It's been researched. It doesn't mean anything else. And so I just want to be, I don't think that there's a reason not to do it because obviously these things are in macros. They're already finding them because they're in macros. I think it could be a beneficial. point for us to have more language on there that explains what a form is, explain why it exists, and explain what it isn't. Yeah, I think- Nothing is historic until there's a determination made. And just because an inventory form is created doesn't mean a determination has been made.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, so one of the things that MHC did is when you log into Macris, and I will demand that this will be the same way, before you have access to that database, there comes up all sorts of disclaimers which nobody ever reads. But among those disclaimers is information that basically says to the tune of the Massachusetts Historical Commission has this database. It's one of the many tasks of the local historical commission and state level historic commissions to document their community's resources. They use a standardized inventory form and that when they receive the form, MHC puts it up on MACRS and that MACRS is the database to store. But inventory forms or inclusion in MACRS in itself places no restrictions on what historic property owners may do and it also provides no designation.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So that information... Right, but insurance companies don't care and they don't understand that. And so I'm just I'm just playing devil's advocate because I'm seeing it on my side. So I just don't want us to get complaints later on that that because this exists, their property owners that are having so I'm going to force them to make.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: To click a checkbox that says that they verbally agree with the statement that then becomes, in theory, and Ed may agree or disagree, it becomes a contract. In order to get access to that database, you have to agree that with the statement that says it's just documentation.
[Doug Carr]: But insurance companies won't care about that. They won't.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: No, they won't. But it clears us from any sort of wrongdoing, because we said the insurance company got it by going through and agreeing that it's documentation. What they do with it afterwards has nothing to do with the commission.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right, but they can get it from MACRS. They don't have to get it from us.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Correct. And same thing. It has nothing to do with the commission. So if somebody's saying your inventory form did this, it's no, it's up on the state level. And even the state says that it's just documentation.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. I think we need to have very plain language. Sure. That explains what it is. Yeah.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: We'll send this memo around and we can sort of dissect it and make it less state level and more local level.
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Do you have any idea why the insurance, it's not- Because insurance companies are looking for excuses to not give people insurance. Yes, so I- Why would that be a reason not to give it? You'd think that that would be like, make it even more insurable because it's going to be there.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I think they think it's going to be too expensive. There could be potential claims. There could be bigger issues that then they don't want to deal with. I mean, insurance companies want everybody in a box. And if you have a historic home, it's outside the box.
[Doug Carr]: Peter, just for an example, my insurance company, canceled my insurance on the property I own because I had paint that wasn't proper on the house. It was starting to scrape and it was winter and I couldn't paint it and they canceled it because they're doing what Jen said. They're just looking for excuses to get out of certain, maybe it's certain cities, maybe it's certain neighborhoods. I don't know what it is, but they're acting like bad players, frankly.
[Jennifer Keenan]: They're all getting drones and they're going up and looking at roofs.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: The discussion that I had on the historic preservation listserv from some people who worked in the insurance industry seemed to center on the idea that insurance companies and the underwriters all of a sudden realized that the language that they were using sort of demanded in full or partial replacement, that they had to replicate the house exactly one for one. And that means materials, methods, construction, many of which are antiquated and just simply not feasible to reconstruct. And therefore, the cost associated with that, like the cost to build a timber frame colonial is probably... Okay, so it's replacement costs that's their big... Yeah, and so I think and I think a lot of you know This is sort of a will cancel the policy and then we'll work out. Okay, it's no longer full replacement It's replacement in kind where you might have a similar looking building, but it's not a one-for-one so it really depends on the the coverage and who the underwriter is and and and what that definition of replacement value is? Because, you know, a lot of times I remember hearing like fire rebuilds, you can have replacement value, but if it may not mean replacement in full, bring it up to code. It just means what was the cost of the building here if you were to build it today? And that's something different than actual reconstruction cost.
[Doug Carr]: Theresa, you had a comment? No.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I had just a thought in a completely different direction, though, which is if this is up on our site, I think the other thing we need to be prepared for are people requesting Form Bs for their homes. And what's our response going to be to that? I mean, can they pay for their own and we would facilitate it?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I mean, they could hire their own consultant. wouldn't necessarily make it back to us, I guess, or maybe it would have to, I don't know, it might... I guess it sort of depends on, I mean, if it's attached to our site or... Yeah, I would be hesitant to, you know, unless that form I mean, I guess I wouldn't say no to an owner who wanted to spend money, but usually the forms have some sort of purpose, like to understand the neighborhood. And we do want to understand individual buildings, but we also don't want people to necessarily waste waste hard-earned dollars on just creating an inventory form unless, you know, like, okay, I'm interested in my house. I do want to turn around and turn it into a local historic district, so the form is the first step to get me there. That's fine, you know, or I'm just interested in the history, you know, that's fine too.
[Jennifer Keenan]: I just... But if somebody hired a consultant to create a form, And they paid them privately. Would the consultant then send it to MACRS anyway?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: They should. They don't always.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. So I mean, we know it takes like sometimes a year to get the forms into MACRS. But eventually it would be there for us.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: It'll be there a second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So. I don't know, I don't know that I'm against that kid. I don't wonder if there's a way, I wonder if A, it makes sense for us to facilitate it or B, maybe we just provide a link to consultants that they can hire and go discuss the fee and... Or ask the historical society.
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I mean, they're the ones who get everybody showing up wanting to research their houses because most people don't know about the historic, the Manfred Historic Commission.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Right. Well, and, you know, we could just say the databases, the forms that we've produced for various projects, right? Macris still has the be all end all. So our database is just mainly, primarily our inventory forms that we've created through survey and planning projects. But, you know, we could just say, this is not everything. If you want everything, go to Macris.
[Jennifer Keenan]: If it exists, if it exists, yeah, and you can also know that there's a delay with macros too, right?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Because ours is mainly ours is more getting the information and content within the forms out there. Macros is just, you know, is there information on this property? That's all that I can tell you. And you know, sometimes there is sometimes there isn't. So yeah, Teresa.
[Theresa Dupont]: I was just gonna say, I can also, we have a city solicitor on staff now, which is very exciting. So I can always have him weigh in on some verbiage to kind of make this clear. That's right up his alley. So I'm happy to matchmake that. There we go. That was the word I was looking for.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. Okay, and then are we going to revisit this when Jess is back?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. Okay, moving on the agenda. Oak Grove, any updates on that?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I sent around the stormwater condition. The roads, as expected, are in pretty poor shape in that whole section. They need some reworking. City's sort of wrestling with the cost. I'm sure there'll be some combination of some will be repaved, some will be maybe graveled, some might be... removed, you know, and just sort of restored to naturalistic conditions. I do think we should weigh in at some future point if like say they decide to pursue preservation funding to sort of regrade the roads and kind to what it originally was, then that might be worth it. There are some historic drainage features, like you can see that there's a cobblestone. All the cobblestone swales still exist next to the road, so there are sort of unique surface level features that are important to the landscape. But, you know, in the meantime, I think that's just one piece of many pieces of an Oak Grove master plan, so they should then take that information and keep going with other information for the rest of the cemetery.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I mean, if anybody, if they're going to do anything with this road project, are they going to come before us and ask for a letter of support or something?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I don't think so, but I do want to point out something that's very important. The entirety of the stormwater system in that area drains into Brooks Pond. So although it is not really an automobile-intense location, you might want to consider doing some Reasonable level of stormwater management there that doesn't dump into or or confirms or doesn't, you know, corrects that where it's managed to. There are better ways than just simply surface dumping into Brooks Pond.
[Jennifer Keenan]: So do we know is any of that addressed Doug in the? Drive plans from from Ben Ash.
[Doug Carr]: No, not really, because there. Ryan, are you saying, which side of the cemetery are you saying is draining into the ponds?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: The old rock, what's called rock, rock pasture. So that's the upper hill. Yeah, that's the far hillside. And all of that sort of surface level road swales drain down into like a subterranean features. And then their subterranean plans that they have on file in that report show it heading right towards Brooks Pond.
[Doug Carr]: But that's from the cemetery side, not through the estate, right? Correct. Yeah. Yeah. So that, that's not the access drive, Jen, to answer your question. So there's no, there's plenty of areas in the estate that go right into the pond because that was a historic marsh, you know, that's, that makes a lot of sense, including an underground stream. But that is something we, that's the CONCOM, you know, they've got to deal with that as part of wetlands, as part of their, their purview to make sure that that is done right. I will say that there's a meeting tomorrow night. related to the cemetery expansion within the historic Brooks Estate, that Tim McGivern is going to go there and ask for more funding for the next round of design. Carly, the president of MNBELT will be there as well. We've had a meeting with them. We're trying to get into alignment. We're trying to go there with a common sense like where we all need to be on the same page for the design of that, for the access drive design. And so I think we're beginning to have some decent dialogue with Tim McGiven and a few other people there to try to move that in a positive direction since we're all going to need many millions of dollars of funding for both the tribe and whatever future cemetery expansion happens that was conceived in 1997 but never executed for 28 years.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: A reasonable question. Did they throw out like a site work number that they needed to actually develop that parcel. And I ask this question because at some point the amount of money and you know so doing a cost analysis is the cost of developing that's like going to be paid back by the cost of the graves would it not make sense if that number is extremely high or the profit margin is low to just simply ask cpc to purchase of that parcel that parcel purchase money would then go towards a perpetual endowment for the cemetery which they already have so it's simply just you know preserving the seven acres there and having the cemetery get something out of it. They're getting money out of it. They're getting an endowment out of it. So they no longer need to develop the parcel. And yes, that puts them in a position of they no longer can accept people for burial at Oak Grove because they're running out of space. But I think the green space is far more important here. And I just I'm deeply concerned about the city's intent on spending money there when it seems like it seems like it's not going to be worth it financially. long term. I mean, yes, you know, there is the benefit to weigh out. Maybe it does make sense to cost out and build out that space to provide more burial locations for people in Medford, but I just I don't see it.
[Doug Carr]: I don't know if you want to touch that one, Teresa. It's a pretty loaded. First of all, I love the creativity, Brian, for sure.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I'm trying to get it so everybody wins. I know that was the bargaining chip back in the 90s that the Brooks Estate Board sort of gave up to get the house and to put the provincial preservation restriction on the property. But now I'm trying to think of how can we sort of make ends meet now where everybody wins with this parcel
[Doug Carr]: It's hard for me to imagine the Oak Grove Cemetery Commission thinking of giving up seven acres of future cemetery land as a win, but I'm willing to entertain anything at this point.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: There's only three. It's only three people, right? So it's not a huge board. No, I know.
[Doug Carr]: But I think they're clearly heading in a different direction. But look, this is the time to think outside the box. This is the time to think about All kinds of things, you know, and that's what I think, hopefully, the next level of design will, because again, you're right, if it's $3 million to develop X number of graves, what's the ROI for that? Does it make sense? That number, by the way, will be 4 million in five or six years, right? You know, we've seen how things escalate quickly. on any capital improvement project. So there's a ton of moving pieces here. But I don't know if they're thinking about things like mausoleums and different designs. There's all kinds of factors here. Right now, this one plan, which we weren't a big fan of, we told them that. And we said, let's try to work together on a better plan. And they are, to their credit, taking that under advisement and looking for additional design dollars.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yeah, I mean, I guess the other thing that we should say that I could say is is. is to put it to the city voters that it should, you know, if there's a dollar amount and they have that dollar amount before moving forward with that plan, they should just ask the city and the city residents if that plan should be moved forward with or not. And that will settle the question of, you know, yay or nay, it's not then in any of our hands that yes, you work together to come up with some proposal, but at that point, then the city residents have directed, you know, the final outcome for that site. So, and then nobody can say, you know, we didn't look into every conceivable option. So, but just trying to toss out different ideas.
[Doug Carr]: you mean grenades?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I mean, they're not really grenades. Everybody lives here in Medford, and everybody has a role. The commission has a responsibility, like we had to deal with Arlington Street. The trustees have a role to provide for the deceased residents of Medford. So I mean, I just look at it as they're trying to do their job, where we're doing our job. The Berks Estate Board is doing your job. So it's just trying to get them to come together in creative ways.
[Doug Carr]: Fair enough.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: So.
[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, anything else on this topic? We good? OK. Anything on the cemetery, Ryan, Cross Street Cemetery?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: The work is done. I put out a request for reimbursement from Freedom's Way. They're going to send a check. So Teresa be on the lookout for their check.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. I don't think we have any updates on anything under demo delay. No. Okay, so no update there. No update on Thomas Brooks Park.
[Unidentified]: No.
[Jennifer Keenan]: No. Okay. And anything on the Hastings Heights surveys?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Yes, I'm working with procurement to get a draft bid docs together so then they can send them to the state and the state has some contracts work with us and then we can go out to bid.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Fabulous. OK, does anybody have anything else for tonight before we move on to our meeting minutes? OK, and Peter sent around the meeting minutes and I will take a motion to approve those. when someone is ready.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I think I've made enough motions tonight, so.
[Doug Carr]: So moved.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Doug.
[Doug Carr]: Second, anyone?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: Second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Ryan. Okay, motion to approve the meeting minutes from our August 2025 meeting. I will go around for a roll call vote. Ryan?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: I'll abstain because I wasn't here in August.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Peter?
[MCM00001614_SPEAKER_01]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[8Sqy8gyjolU_SPEAKER_08]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: And Ed?
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I muted him.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, Ed, you're muted.
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Abstain. Okay.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we have three, three pass, two abstentions. You should probably vote, Jen. I will vote to approve the meeting minutes as well. So four votes to pass, two abstentions. Okay, I'll take a motion to adjourn, 8.32 PM. So moved. Thanks, Ry.
[hsUGO5ihrRw_SPEAKER_31]: I'll second.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Kit. Okay, motion to adjourn. Ryan?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Kit?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Peter?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug?
[Adam Hurtubise]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Ed?
[MCM00001222_SPEAKER_04]: Yes.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ed. All right. Thanks, everybody. See you on October 6th. Have a good night.
[Unidentified]: Thank you.
[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Teresa.