Historical Commission 2/10/26

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.6-flash from the transcript below, which is the record. It may be incomplete or wrong; it does not report votes. Every item links to the moment it began.

The Medford Historical Commission held a preferably preserved hearing for 36 Mystic Street and evaluated historical significance for properties on Sharon Street and Marshall Street. The commission enacted an 18-month demolition delay for 36 Mystic Street, determined 17 Sharon Street was not significant, and declined further review of 85 Marshall Street following revised plans.

0:41 36 Mystic Street Demolition Delay Hearing — Voted to find 36 Mystic Street preferably preserved, instituting an 18-month demolition delay while a subcommittee collaborates with the owner on design plans.
23:19 17 Sharon Street Determination of Significance — Determined that 17 Sharon Street is not historically significant, allowing the owner to move forward with project planning.
29:46 85 Marshall Street Determination of Significance — Voted to pass on further review of 85 Marshall Street based on revised architectural drawings submitted by the owner.
35:50 Commission Vacancies and Appointments — Received updates on commission membership, noting one new member appointed pending swearing-in, another pending council confirmation, and two open seats remaining.
37:42 41 Mystic Avenue Property Update — Discussed field measurement results and preliminary plans to study the feasibility and cost of moving and rehabilitating the historic three-family structure.
43:50 Project and Business Updates — Reviewed ongoing projects, including awarding the Brooks Estate archaeological survey to SWCA, preparing bidding for tree work at Thomas Brooks Park, issuing an RFP for headstone restoration at Cross Street Cemetery, and preparing for upcoming discussions on Medford Square rezoning.
59:18 Approval of Minutes — Approved the meeting minutes from January 2026.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Good evening, everybody. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, February 9th, and just a little housekeeping before we get started 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 members of the public will be permitted and public participation during this meeting shall be by remote means only. Okay.

We are going to start tonight. We have a preferably preserved hearing for 36 mystic Street and just to remember everybody how We got here. I'd like to recap so last month We determined significance on this property and just a reminder what that means to folks means that 36 mystic Street is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events or with the broad architectural and cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or 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 last month, 36 Mystic Street was determined historically significant, which means tonight we're going to have a hearing to determine whether or not the property is preferably preserved. And if so, then an 18-month demolition delay will be placed on the property. And just to remind folks what preferably preserved means, the designation of preferably preserved means that the commission has determined after an open public hearing that the demolition of the building under review would be detrimental to the architectural or historical heritage of the city of Medford. And just to remind everybody that the historical commission does not and will not consider the building's condition or any safety issues when determining whether something is preferably preserved. Only the building commissioner can make those determinations around safety.

So to kick off the discussion tonight, I'll take a motion from one of the commissioners to either find for preferably preserved or not. And then we'll go around and we'll have commissioner comments. Then I will open up the floor to public comments and then we'll continue from there.

[Doug Carr]: Madam chair, I'd like to make a motion that we find 36 mystic preferably preserved. Okay.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thank you, Doug and Peter. Doug, since you made the motion, I'll let you jump off on the discussion point.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, this to me is a continuation of our conversation last month. This building has a lot of great integrity, a lot of great architectural features, even though they've been need a little bit work restoring it. And I know that the proponent, the new owner has talked about replacement windows and some other aesthetic changes. I think we need to have this protection, not to hold up this project at all, because I don't want to, just to make sure that the building is protected enough that the restoration is done right. And we see a little bit more detail about what's being proposed for the windows, doors, siding, so that neighbors and the neighborhood quality is not negatively impacted by this project. It's a really important building, nice neighborhood. I see some of the neighbors and abutters are on the call as well. So that's my perspective. I wanted this project to proceed quickly, but I wanted to make sure it's done right.

[Peter Miller]: I don't have that much to add. I lost my window here for a minute, so I'm struggling, but I saw that the proponents sent the grid pattern. I don't know what kind of windows they are. And I agree with everything Doug said there in terms of this, this is a definitely significant project. And so I think we can, if we can, you know, get a little bit more clarity. We appreciate the drawings that were submitted for the exterior elevations, although they're somewhat schematic. Be good to see those developed a little bit more, but I can imagine if this was found preferably preserved and we could, you know, move along quite quickly with just a little bit more information.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thanks Peter Ryan. Do you have anything to add tonight?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I'll just keep it short and say that this is this particular building is representative of the Hastings Heights development that took place in the. mid to late 19th century. And this is right at the height of that development. And it's certainly a building worthy of preservation. It has a lot of historic fabric on it remaining. So I'd like to see the plans that are proposed for this property further developed just so that we have a clearer understanding of what's going on.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thank you so much. At this time, I'd like to open the floor up to any public comments. If anybody here would like to make a comment on this project one way or another, please either raise your hand or give me a wave and I will call on you and ask you to unmute and we'll take it from there. Okay, can I see your hand? Let me unmute you and if we could just get your name and address for the record and you are ready to speak.

[Krause]: Sure, thank you. It's Ken Krause. I live at 50 Mystic Street, about four houses up from the 36 address, also in a property that previously was owned by Lawrence G. Brooks, owner of this property until 1935. As I stated at the last meeting, I think this is a prominent anchor to the neighborhood and it represents a lot of significant people in both Medford history and New England history. It hasn't been stated tonight but I believe at the last meeting the owner said that all of the demolition was going to be interior so I was pleased and relieved to hear that and I agree with the comments that were made by the the commissioners that it's an important building for the reasons that were stated. And I would thank the owner for being considerate and respectful of the house's architectural character and historical significance. And I don't know if the demolition delay that goes along with the preferably preserved designation has to be for a hundred and was it 180 days um so 18 months 18 months it sounds like if it's not going to be demolished is there a sort of a uh opportunity to look at decreasing that is that in stone or could that be decreased if he demonstrates that he's not going to be um doing anything that would negatively impact the building. So I'd be in favor of being open to that as well. Thank you.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and just to clarify, our goal is never to hold up anybody for 18 months. The goal is to have the applicant work with us. And if we're all working in the same direction, we try to release them from the 18 month delay as soon as possible, as soon as there's a meeting of the minds from the property owner and the commission. I mean, we've only recently had a few instances where an owner has chosen to wait out the full 18 months. So that's never our goal.

[Krause]: Great. Thank you. I appreciate the explanation of the process and the definitions. Very helpful. Thank you.

[Doug Carr]: Just to repeat what you said, we like to do it as little as two or three months or less if the proponent has good drawings, and is willing to work with us, we'll be as fast as we can because 18 month is not in anybody's interests financially or otherwise. We want that building fixed up, occupied and making money for the owner, for the city. It's a good tax revenue situation. So I'll stop there and I guess we'll go on to the next speaker.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Hi, Councilor Carviallo. Nice to see you. Let me unmute you. Oh, you're good.

[Richard Caraviello]: Go ahead. Thank you, Virginia. I want to agree with Ken's comments. I'd like to see the project, you know, hopefully we don't have to wait the 18 months. One of my concerns was there's a big tree in front of the house. It's a big pine tree. It's part of the house is very large. If possibly that could be saved. I know we had this discussion on another property in the city over at off of salt street with the big tree in the front yard and end up getting torn down the tree. I like the tree. It's been a part of the neighborhood since I've moved here. I would hope that we could possibly save that if any way possible. I mean, it may have some age issues, I don't know, but that's just one of my concerns. Please don't take the tree down if you don't have to. And if the owner, if there is gonna be a delay that he just, please maintain the property.

Don't let it go into any more disrepair than it already is. So those are really my concerns. But the tree, please try to keep that tree in the front. Yeah, it's a nice piece of the neighborhood. Hate to see it go.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Rick, can we just get your address for the record? I don't know that we have that off the top of our heads.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Jonathan. Thank you. And Ryan, I don't know, Ryan and Doug, do we have any purview over the landscaping?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, of course, I think we're all, you know, working together on that. Vijay, I see you. I just want to see before I come to you, I want to just see if there's any more public comment before I'll give you an opportunity to speak as the owner. Was there any other public comments on this? I'm going to leave the floor open for public comments, but Vijay, if you'd like to chime in at this point, feel free. I know you are the owner and project manager for this one, so go ahead at your convenience.

[CAS00002340_SPEAKER_04]: Thanks, Jennifer. Yeah, I'm the owner of 36 Mystic Street. I'm planning to do some renovation of the property. Thanks Ken and Rick, the neighbors for the comments. So the goal really is to preserve the property. And I also did some study about the historical significance and who owned the property. So the goal is really to keep or preserve the properties and mainly focus on interior renovation. The tree, as far as I know, it's in a healthy condition. So I don't see there is any reason to actually remove the tree as long as it's in good condition, so we are going to keep it. Also, the outside renovation is going to be very, very minimum just so that we can preserve the existing condition and the historical significance of the property. I just wanted to explain or confirm that that is my goal also to keep it.

Even on the architect that I'm working with, She's all she's from Haverhill and she's also. in historic commission and she's giving me some feedback about how to change and how not to change. It's not even in my best interest not to really alter the significance of outside. It may not be much concern for this commission, but I'm also working on the interior to really preserve the interior also, the existing style of the property so that it's very seamless inside and outside as well too.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thank you so much for that. Okay, does anybody else here tonight have any comments for, against or otherwise for 36 Mystic Street?

[Peter Miller]: Vijay, are you, I noticed on the elevation, some of the windows are moving a little bit, you know, which is fine. Are you doing anything with the exterior siding of the house?

[CAS00002340_SPEAKER_04]: No. So the siding, I had a question actually. I was going to bring it up, but the siding, I'm going to keep it, but I wanted to get some colors. Maybe at the end, we can discuss about that. I want to make sure that the color that I use matches the the historic significance of the property. So I'm not doing anything to the siding. There are decks, there are siding, trims. I'm going to just restore it, basically. Any repair work, I may repair it, but then just paint it. Nothing is getting changed.

[Peter Miller]: Yeah, I think we don't really have any purview over color, but we'd be happy to provide any feedback if you wanted us, wanted to, you know, show us colors or whatever.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I do have a comment, but I can wait until you guys are finished. So, okay.

[Peter Miller]: Um, the other thing I was curious about is if you're rebuilding any of the exterior porches, especially the ones that are visible from the streets, like the side deck or doing anything to the front porch, We would like that to, I mean, we usually try to get something that's fitting in with the neighborhood, you know, doesn't necessarily have to be traditional, but.

[CAS00002340_SPEAKER_04]: So the plan is that I check the decks are in good shape. So I'm going to just keep it. Just the decking, I'm going to change it to ASAC, like the vinyl. But the decking itself, the railings, I'm just going to keep them, because they are in good shape. They recently got changed. I may do any repair work if something rotten or old wood I may replace. But majority, I'm going to just keep it. As long as it's structurally good, I'm going to keep it.

[Peter Miller]: So other than the windows themselves, there doesn't sound like there's too much.

[CAS00002340_SPEAKER_04]: Right. The goal also, even the windows, I want to really keep it, but from an efficiency, the hearse rating standpoint, they said it's older window and there is a lot of air leaks. That's the main reason I'm changing the windows. I'm really forced to change the windows. But other than that, I'm not really changing anything exterior.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, just to follow up a couple other questions for Vijay. Thank you for doing this work. I mean, this building is worth saving. We obviously believe that. I think the concern, when I counted up the elevations, the diagrammatic elevations you sent, I counted a total of seven openings that would be either filled in or altered in some way across all four elevations of the house. So, there's going to be some significant siding just to infill the different openings and in some cases take away some openings with your plan, which is perfectly fine. But there's going to be some careful integration of new architecture, new shingles, new windows. and old windows or old siding, etc. I think one of the key things that we'll be looking for if this does pass, if we do actually find it perfectly preserved, is that you're going to have to show us what the window detail. It's not so much the elevation, you can show us that too, but the actual mountain and the thickness of the window and how it's made. What the material is all that so that we can understand and make sure that it's consistent with the vision that you described, you know, while still making this a fast process, because we want this done is, I mean, I think you'll start working as soon as the weather breaks. I imagine. So, it's. I'm good for now. Thank you.

[Richard Caraviello]: Rick, go ahead. Um, Jennifer, I just wanted to extend, uh, uh, uh, an invitation out to VJ when he's in the neighborhood, you know, uh, please ring my bell. I'd be happy to, uh, sit down, you know, invite him into my house and we can talk and maybe if Ken liked the comment, you know, just to help, uh, you know, um, make the process go a little smoother with the neighbors. Uh, maybe he can discuss, you know, some of his ideas with us too. So I say, um, there's an invitation, you know, when you're in the neighborhoods, ring the bell, um, be happy cause I'm home most of the day. So. I'd be happy to talk to him any time.

[SPEAKER_01]: Go ahead, Vijay. Thank you, Ricky. So you are in 74 Prescott, right? I'm in the gray house on the other corner. Okay. 74 Prescott. Yes. Right, right. Yeah. Ring the bell.

[CAS00002340_SPEAKER_04]: I'll be here any time. Absolutely. I'll definitely stop by. I definitely need a lot of help. Yeah, I'll definitely stop by. Thank you. Thank you. And just to address Doug's comments, so I will provide more details, specific details about the windows. And one other thing I also noticed is that the siding in the house I don't think it's really original to the house. I think at some point that got changed because I can see there is already one siding behind and then they have shingled it over. So the existing current shingle in the house, it would be very easy to match because at some point it has changed. But if you look at the garage, The siding in the garage is slightly different. I think that is original, like nobody changed it. I think that's original to the house. But the wood shingle in the house, at some point they have over shingled it. That is two layers of shingle. So it would be easy for me to match, if I replace the window to a different location, I should be able to match very closely to what is already there in the wood shingles.

[CAS00002340_SPEAKER_04]: Yeah. And one quick question I had. So there wasn't any mention of a material that need to be selected for the windows as long as it is exterior grid. Is the commission's preference to have wood or can it be like vinyl also with the SDL like outside grid?

[Peter Miller]: It could be, yeah. As long as it has the SDL, I mean, there's there's a lot of different materials. There's a, you know, Marvin has one that's more like a fiberglass that if it's going to be painted, it's probably painted anyway. So, you know, if it just white. material, I don't have a big preference, but I do care about the SDLs versus just the grids between the glass, because it makes a big aesthetic difference to have that shadow line. So that'd be my preference. I don't know, I don't want to speak for the other

[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm going to table this. What I'd like to do now is I'm going to go around, we're going to take a vote, and then if the property is deemed preferably preserved, then what we do is we move the conversation to subcommittee. Not tonight, but we'll set up a separate meeting. where you can have a smaller conversation. And then typically what happens is, you know, everybody comes to an agreement, and then we come, you know, perhaps at the next meeting, if it's that quick, we come back, and then we would lift the delay. So, so it just makes more sense to have the conversations with the subcommittee that's in charge of that on those details.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so at this time, I'm gonna close the public comments for 36 Mystic Street. And we, just to refresh everybody, we have a motion on the table to find 36 Mystic Street preferably preserved. I will go around for a roll call vote as I see folks on my screen. And Peter.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so the motion passes 3-0. So at this point, 36 Mystic Street is preferably preserved with an 18-month demo delay. Vijay, we will reach out to you to set up the subcommittee meeting. Usually, I just need a couple days to coordinate folks' schedules. We'll get that scheduled, and then you can start to talk through some of these details, and we'll move the process along as quickly as you want us to.

[CAS00002340_SPEAKER_04]: Awesome. Thank you very much. I appreciate the time and the feedback.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So, at this point, we're going to move on to our other business of the night here. We have two determination of significances on our agenda up next. The first one is 17 Sharon Street. So again, last month we accepted an application for demolition for 17 Sharon Street. And tonight we are going to go through and determine significance. And once again, what that means is that the property is either 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 we have, our consultant has prepared a form B for this property for 17 Sharon Street. Commissioners, I will take a motion to start the discussion on this one.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I wasn't particularly impressed with this building. It's an earlier 19th century building, 1872 to 1889, but there's a long, it's a long period. And John was not able to single in a very specific date. And it's, sort of plainer in relationship to the other buildings of this neighborhood. There's a lot of high-style Victorian-era buildings, particularly built by Moses Mann and others related to his time in this development. But this is a sort of a speculative building by a builder, and that basically sums up my thoughts on this building.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Just wanted to bring up one thing. I know age alone on this one being pre-1900. We've talked about those being significant somewhat automatically, but I'm just curious. It sounds like you might have a different opinion on this one.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, yeah, I mean, normally, yeah, there's less than 3,000 pre-1900 buildings in Medford, but there are better examples of Victorian end houses than this particular one. So I will put immediate priority on those, you know, for every one that we let go, potentially the others become more significant. So.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Peter, I'll come to you next.

[Peter Miller]: I was kind of on the fence about this one. The age I found significant. It seemed like a lot of the integrity has been lost or at least covered up. And it has a kind of an interesting history, although it seems like kind of a typical history for this neighborhood. cast of characters involved with it. So I'm kind of on the fence about this one, but I am interested to hear what my compatriots have to say about it.

[Doug Carr]: All right. I'm a no on this one. I think this building doesn't have a lot to fight for, so to speak, and I'm hoping the owners, because it's obviously a through lot, they can probably fit almost another house or a pretty big addition behind it. It can be done sympathetically, but I just don't think this building has a lot of really things to fight for. The context is what the form talks about mostly, you know, the West Manfred context, you know, but the actual building itself just doesn't have a lot to really hang my hat on.

I'm a no on this one. I just think that this is not one I want to plant my flag on.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right. Commissioners, anybody else have anything on this one? Otherwise, I will go around for a vote. Okay, so there is a motion on the table to find 17 Sharon Street significant. I will do a roll call vote as I see folks on my screen. Peter?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so that motion fails zero to three. So that will end our review of that property at this point and we will let the property owner know. that they can go on with their project.

[Doug Carr]: And, Janet, can we ask them if they're interested as an advisory, if they want to bring in some plans? We're happy to look at them just to make sure that, you know, we don't have any purview, but we're always here for advice if people want it.

[SPEAKER_06]: I believe the homeowner is on the call. Is it Sue? Sue Winderly? I noticed her name in the application. Ah, yes. Yes, thank you. Yes, we would definitely appreciate your consultation, your advice. We are still, as I think we said in our email, figuring out what we want to do with the property. There's a lot of work to be done here, but we will definitely be in touch.

[Doug Carr]: Well, thank you. Peter and Ryan especially have dozens of these type of houses that they've designed and added on to. So they're really good resources. And they think about history, but they also think about economics too. They're going to try to help you get something that's affordable and nice as well.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Talk to you soon. Okay, next on our agenda tonight, we have 85 Marshall Street. This is also a determination of significance. So again, we took the application for this one last month. And commissioners, I'll take a motion for this one when someone is ready.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: So we accepted these based on the permit plans, and then the owners went back and resubmitted plans. Have commissioners had a chance to review those plans? Because I'm inclined to pass on review rather than make a determination of significance that Carries with the property might come back and bite us. I'd rather decline review at this point based on the scope of work So there is no determination Ryan, could you explain that logic behind that? I'm just looking at the drawings now Yeah, they remove the there are some changes of course to the exterior, but they remove the main things like the dormer ring and I some of the major changes to the exterior that were proposed in the earlier iteration. And I'm inclined to say that there's no longer a scope of work significant enough to warrant review.

[Doug Carr]: I kind of agree after looking at the drawings. Should we just find it not significant as the procedural method?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, I want to pass on review because in the instance that an owner comes along, say this property in the unlikely availability that it's going to happen, but say they sell the property and the next owner comes along and there's a determination of significance and we say no, but then the next owner wants to tear it down. We had a case, you know, we had that case where that property on Main Street that we looked at or say this owner decides, they get into this project and say they want to tear it down. If we make a determination of significance, that carries forever with the property. Whereas if we pass on review based on the scope of work, if the scope of work changes, then we can come back and review it. I'd rather stick it out with that and just say, right now based on these set of plans, we're passing on review rather than continuing with the determination. Very good.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. The motion is to pass on review based on the drawings dated January 11th, 2026.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Doug did, yeah. Okay, so motion pass on review. Drawings 1, 11, 26. Okay, all right, so we have a motion on the table that has been seconded that we're going to pass on review based on the drawings submitted. on that are dated January 11th, 2026. And we're basically going to ignore the demo application.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Well, no, we're passing on review. So we're declining to review it at this time based on that. And if the scope, you know, as always, what we say in the letter, if the scope of work changes, then you have to come back.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. I just, cause the application says dormers, So I just want to make sure that we're overriding that.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, we can attach their email. But they clarified that.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, perfect. OK, I will go around for a vote on this then. Peter, yes would mean we pass on review.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. So we, we, that motion passes three zero to pass on review and we will get a letter out to the applicant on that one. And then as always, if their scope of work changes, that one would come back around for us. Um, Brian, did we get the paperwork for, we didn't put in 226 Maine. No, we didn't get that yet.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Well, it's in our inbox, but it will be for next month because the agenda cut off.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. So next month we'll have 226 Maine accepting an application. We're also going to have one for 10 Whittemore.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay. I will also, um, so, uh, Yeah, both of those are 20th century buildings. So I will hire John Clemson to do an MHC form B, unless the commissioners feel that they were, they want to pass on review because they're, they're very plain 20th century buildings. So.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, we can just, we can choose to pass on review next month versus accepting an application.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I just, we have basically that stuff. So I was gonna have John do the application and have it ready so we could determine significance next month for both of them.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, yeah, I mean, I think we should have form Bs created regardless so that we have the documentation.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, well, do you think we have room in the budget to do both of those?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Yeah, I mean, and then at least there's a record of what was there.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Okay, commissioners, does anybody else have any new business for tonight? Okay, moving on to old business. Vacant seats, we're getting there. Sarah looks to be our newest commissioner once you get sworn in from the clerk. Yes, officially appointed, unofficially sworn in. Okay, great. And that's why you're not voting tonight. So you'll get sworn in and then next month you can start voting. Yay! And then, Luke, you have submitted an application, so we have pushed that up to the mayor, and then the city council has to just approve your mayoral appointment, and we'll get that in progress, and hopefully we can get you on board before next month as well.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. We're so happy, and we're so thankful for your volunteerism, and welcome to the club, unofficially yet. But to remind everybody, we still will have two open seats. So Ken, if you're interested.

[Jennifer Keenan]: But, you know, anybody watching later on or anybody, you know, friends of friends or folks in the city, you know, we are always looking for great people. We have two openings at the moment. We would love to have an attorney, if there's an attorney out there watching, because Ed Wiest, who was on our commission for several years, resigned at the end of last year. He is making a move. And so, you know, it's always great to have an attorney to help us unofficially with some things and just for some guidance. So if anybody knows some great attorneys, we would love to talk to them if they're interested.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, so me and Teresa were over in the house on Tuesday? Last Tuesday? Yeah, last Tuesday.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: There are three. It's a three family. It's been a three family based on the historic documentation that that I could see visible in fabric from probably 20s or 30s. It looked like it was originally a duplex for a while. I will tell you from looking at historic photos that the main house exists and it originally had two L's in the rear and those two L's are the buildings immediately behind it. So there's sort of like a grouping of three buildings and a collection there made up of various parts of this 18th century building. There's not a lot of 18th century fabric in the building that's visible. The center hall is definitely 18th century. There's some window surrounds, but that does not mean that other fabric exists in this building. It's entirely possible that it's all covered. It's quite common to just apply finishes and layers. The building is huge, for lack of a better term. It looks tiny from the, I mean, it looks sort of big and boxy from the outside, but it's, A generous amount of living space on each floor inside, which is really cool.

And I will just say, it is the fastest I have ever had to field measure a building ever in my life. For those of you who work in the architecture field, I was given an hour in each unit, which may seem like a lot, but this is, I did an entire building in three hours. So yeah, I just, I'm, There's a lot of documentation done there and that's based documentation to be able to talk to a building mover and to potentially relocate that on the site. So I'm in the process of drawing elevations and.

We're looking at pricing for what it will cost to rehab the building. city officials and everybody to see if we can make something happen with this building. There's a, because it's so large, there's a lot of potential to reuse it in many different ways, shapes or forms. So I will be looking sort of for, to the architects, to homeowners, you know, on this board that sort of can come up with some creative ideas and see if we can get the city excited and get the residents excited about something happening to this building. Because it, even though it's been changed, it can go back to the way it was, and it really is an important building to Medford's history. So I would like to try to see it preserved, even if, you know, just depends on how much of the approach and how much is there.

So that's it, I guess. And I may or may not have caught a cold from being in that building. So, you know, just my parting gift was I got the plague because of it. So.

[Jennifer Keenan]: And this is this is the first step and then figuring out if this building can be moved.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, so yeah, I want to have some like quickie conceptual ideas and then a couple of builders that I work with are super excited to be able to give some very preliminary ballpark figures of which I will tack on a large contingency to that. And then with that, you know, there's sort of like a game plan of, okay, if we move it, this is what it's going to cost to do it. What are we going to use it for? And then, the cost of getting it from one side of Medford to the other.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I do. I don't want to disclose it because I don't want it on anybody's radar. It's on the city's radar, but I don't want to disclose it publicly. But yes, I do have a site. It's a pretty generous site. We'll accommodate the building, a small addition off of the back to recreate one of the L's off-street parking.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Excellent. Yeah. Well, let's, you know, this is exciting that the owners are willing to work with us on this. We can keep going and let's see if we can't make this win-win for people.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I'm just kind of hoping that it demonstrates that that preservation is still a major pillar, you know, that everybody's pushing housing. And of course you need commercial development and light industrial to balance out the tax burden on housing. But, you know, historic preservation is a major part of Medford because people, you know, the residents like to celebrate our history. So this is just one way to show, you know, one of many ways to show that history doesn't have to be pitted against development or reuse, you know, that you can put two and two together and it will work.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and this could be an awesome case study if it all works out.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: We'll see. Yeah, it's the last major thing that one could do in a long field of doing things in historic preservation. So moving a building is the last resort. But in this particular case, I think it's probably the best option for this building.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I know, I know, I've been saying it, but yes, we really are now that we're, I'm better.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, yeah. I mean, technically it's not due until the end of the fiscal year, so we give ourselves plenty of time, but yeah, it'd be good to get that done.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Uh, yeah, yeah. Trust me, we'll have one by next meeting. I promise you.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yep. So, um, we went out to bid. We got two bids. Uh, we're going to award the project to the lowest qualified bidder, which is SWCA out of Amherst. Uh, they are the same team that did the archaeological, uh, dig at Thomas Brooks Park. Um, We are likely to begin as soon as the fiscal papers come in from CPC. So we have, for those that don't know, we have an interim clerk who's sort of handling business because our existing clerk, I believe, resigned. So maybe the end of the month, I guess.

to get under contract and then, again, it's about a month. So we're still looking well on schedule before you guys start your tree work, which would be April, May.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and Doug, actually, I don't know if Ryan told you that we had a bunch of bidders for the tree work at Thomas Brooks Park. So it might be good to get some of those folks in for the tree work up at Brooks Estate when you and Carly are ready for that.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I think they're putting the final package together now for the bidding. It's going to be, it's obviously far more than tree work, but it's that I think that as a piece of it, yeah, that's definitely a significant piece of it. So I'll mention that to the engineers.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Are you doing one major bid and then allowing them to sub-bid out, or are you taking sub-bids separately? I feel like a tree work, they may not know – well, I'm sure these guys know, but the tree guys were all eager to do it themselves, outside of any normal larger projects, so I just didn't know if you were going to piece-mail it out or if it was just easier to do one big

[Doug Carr]: I know she's doing it as 1 big bid with package. I don't know if they're going to have any files. I don't think so. They talked to procurement last week. So that's in process. We should the earliest construction would start would be. Middle May, I think, at this point, logistics. Um.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Great. Could you, um, do you guys have, we, we, one of the things that I need to coordinate on is the, um, coordinate with the easement holders. Do you have your approvals and could you just send those to me if at some point, just so I can reach out to them and just tell them that we're doing the archeological survey.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Uh, it is, but, uh, as part of the CPC, the requirement is that I notify your easement holders as well.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Just to, just to keep them in the loop, they'll get a copy of it just so they know you're right.

[Doug Carr]: They should be. We have Carly and Tom have done this in the past, not myself, but then we tell them about everything.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Well, and again, to best best practice, if you find something in the field while you're doing work, you can say, well, we expected it right. Could you have the report? Yeah. Okay. Yeah, that's that's good.

[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, great. Yeah, and then obviously we morphed into the tree work there for Thomas Brooks Park, but that is in progress with the bids.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, so we sort of expressed that and I convinced procurement to go out to bid on it. So it is a mandatory walk-through project. So there were six bidders that were there. One of them is a crane company, which will likely be used by any and all of the bidders that were there. The upshot is that we'll have probably all 5 people will bid. There was a lot of great discussion today. There's some clarification that's needed as part of the bid docs, but that's expected. Unexpected.

Just so the general public's aware and full transparency, because we're working next to the train tracks, there's a real possibility that the MBTA will want to flagger, even though the work is entirely in our parcel. The potential for disruption to their service is very real. The cost I learned today of their flagging team is $3,500 a day. So it's very possible because we need at least four days of work along there that that's a $15,000 exercise. So just contingencies are real good things to carry as part of projects.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: It's the government, yeah. So I reached out to the engineers to get a definitive answer that it's working our park along our parcel with no entrance into their right-of-way, nothing's overhanging their right-of-way, it's entirely on our side, and that we're asking whether they need team on their side while we do our work is how I phrased it because I'm I'm not concerned about it But I do want to notify them that we are doing that work just in case so it doesn't startle The you know, the teams that drive the trains and all that good stuff so that they're aware that it's happening So, all right, well keep us posted on that.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I will. It's a big project. Everybody was super excited. They love the idea of trimming the historic trees. We're sort of restraining ourselves. They did say it might be easier to thin out all the trees. together with this project, but I withheld that because at the request of the neighbors, you know, so I'm still thinking about them. And the only other thing that I have to add is I'm trying to get Weston and Sampson to work with us on a feasibility study for the sidewalks and crosswalks and crossing stuff up and down Grove Street. We're trying to work out Scope of work basically on that to see if we can't get that started because it seems like the, the amount of moving parts.

well, for lack of a better term, bureaucratic red tape got in the way of this process. So rather than just simply do it or minimize the amount of stuff needed to do this portion of the project, I have to do more there. So we're trying to get that started so at least I can get that process started and then hand off to the city to handle the rest of it.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I have the RFP for the restoration of the 85 headstones out. I've gotten a lot of great questions. So I just have to update the bid docs with an addendum on that. I'm hoping to get bids on that to do it over the summer. It is a bit ambitious, but I think we can do it if we have the right bidders or bidding teams. The old site will be We'll be working to get that out to bid soon.

The City is asking that at the end of the project that we restore the parking lot. I'm trying to get some loose estimates out of some of the construction team that I normally work with about what that will cost because I think the The city engineers that quoted one price of around $150,000 to get that done at the end of the project, that's a little low to me and that was sounded a little low to the construction team who was upwards of, you know.

$500,000 to $1,000,000 to restore that parking lot to the condition that it currently is in. So I want to try to have the best information in hand so that whoever tackles that project, and it won't be us, has the full expectation that, you know, That's a lot for a parking lot that ultimately is going to get ripped up again by the development that's taking place there. It may be beneficial for them to just simply build the parking structure that's planned for there.

I hate to see the city waste money and it would just be foolish to build a million-dollar parking lot when we could build a million-dollar multi-level parking structure that would just get that project moving right along.

[Doug Carr]: So it's a good thought, Ryan, but I'm not sure timing wise that's going to work. It depends. We should just keep open communications there because there's so many moving parts between the survey, transom, the RFP, and the zoning that's currently under consideration from Effort Square. There's so many different pieces right now.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I mean, I don't know, and it would actually be helpful for you and Luke, maybe if you guys could find out what the cost of the prefab, because you guys built in the middle of like your developments, those prefab parking garages that you then surround with the residential developments, what those might cost, just so that there's an understanding of like, you know, would it make sense to build that You know, build that parking lot versus building, you know, because I think that's what transom had planned for that site anyways. So, just, you know, I just want to try to have some information and they are based on my discussion with, I think, Teresa mentioned this, like, they're back and forth with the development right now. So, and, you know, who knows. What else is going to happen in Medford Square? There's that building that's condemned right now. The way the Asian market was, you know, it might expand into there. It'd be great if it did. So, and then, of course, your zoning will determine what happens there. So.

[Doug Carr]: I think Luke and I can probably pick up a couple of old projects that are under construction or recently completed to find out the cost per space. I'm going to guess at least 50K per structured parking space as a starting point. Probably higher now, but I haven't looked at it in a couple of years.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, yeah, I mean, eventually the city's gonna have to come up with more parking and, you know, with Chevalier and all of that. So, you know, it might make sense to just, I'm thinking it makes sense, but I don't, you know, maybe the numbers will hit me and it will change my opinion, but.

[Doug Carr]: As you might have imagined, parking is a big part of every conversation related to anything in Medford, certainly zoning is no exception.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, they sent a field report. So they're going to cover the neighborhood in a couple of large area forms. And they'll do less form B's than they would normally do for this. But they're getting we're getting more coverage of the broader landscape. Basically, they'll do one that's north of High Street that covers some of the later 19th century buildings and then one south of High Street that covers you know, some of the broad swaths of earlier 19th century buildings. So yeah, so it's looking to be a good project. It's just moving right along. So we should be in good shape.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Okay, does anybody else have any last things for tonight? Otherwise we can go to meeting minutes and updates.

[Doug Carr]: Ryan and I are going to try to we're going to meet with the method historical district commission on Thursday night this week. As part of the Medford Square rezoning, there's been a significant discussion about having either a Medford Square historic district as one district or 10 to 12 or 14 individual district sites that are each their own district. We want to talk with them about that approach. to provide historic protections for the almost dozen properties and method that on the national register historic places.

Right now, the zoning does not address any historic property with any real protections, which I think is a fatal flaw. working to change that. So we want to get them involved and try to have multiple protections for these buildings, some of which are maybe not to the highest level of national register, but something we still think is, if we looked at it, we would think they were significant buildings if we were to evaluate it just from my impression. So there's a lot of things that we want to kind of get into the zoning by any means necessary to provide some basic protections for buildings that we care about in the square. as part of the rezoning effort. So it's a complicated process right now. There's a lot of, obviously a lot of pieces, a lot of meetings coming up over the next few months, but right now that zoning plan is in process and I think it's fluid. I don't think it's, I don't think it's done.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I think that's great because I think that there's, yeah, I mean, I think the district commission needs to move some things along on that front.

[Doug Carr]: Agreed. And the one thing I've learned is that, you know, we, I know we put in our own comment letter for Salem Street, which was obviously ignored, but there's no reason once we're done with Method Square, we can't go back and reopen that process because the city council has, been quite explicit that they don't think, whatever zoning they pass, that this is gonna be good for 20 or 30 years. They understand they're gonna see things, they're gonna see what happens, and they're gonna tweak it every year, because that's what they should be doing. That's called trial and error, right? If you find something, it doesn't quite get what you want, if you tweak it a little bit, whether it's the parking ratio, whether it's whatever it is, and you get a better product, you work with that. So I'm hoping that process is an iterative process for all this. Tufts-Boston Ave is after Medford Square, West Medford after that. So it's going to be a couple of years of pretty intense zoning review. And it's incumbent upon us to be a player in this process.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. OK. Does anybody have anything else for tonight? Okay, Peter sent around the meeting minutes, so I will take a motion to approve the meeting minutes.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Doug. Okay, motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 2026. Ryan. Yes. Doug. Yes. And Peter. Yes. Okay, and I'm gonna abstain from that vote since I was not at that meeting. Officially, I'll abstain. All right, I think that's it for tonight. Thank you, everybody. Our next meeting is March 9th, and we will send around our agenda a few days before. And otherwise, everybody stay warm, and we'll see you next month.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: We're going to dissolve the meeting. If we adjourn, we adjourn to the next month.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, it's motion to dissolve the meeting. What? If you adjourn, then you just simply reopen the meeting next month. This is not an adjournment. It's a dissolving of the meeting.

[Doug Carr]: Good night, all. These one-hour meetings are not normal. We'll get back to them, though. Yeah.

Richard Caraviello total time: 1.77 minutes total words: 350