Historical Commission 03/09/26

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 met remotely to review demolition applications, vote on historical significance, and receive updates on ongoing preservation projects. The commission determined that properties at 226 Main Street and 10 Whittemore Street were not historically significant and voted to lift the demolition delay on 36 Mystic Street.

1:30 226 Main Street Significance Review — The commission accepted the application and voted that 226 Main Street is not historically significant, allowing a proposed five-unit residential project to proceed.
8:37 10 Whittemore Street Significance Review — The commission accepted the application and voted that 10 Whittemore Street is not historically significant, clearing the way for a proposed net-zero housing project.
21:13 1-3 Vassar Street and 12-14 Wellesley Street Partial Demolitions — The commission voted to pass on historical review for partial demolition applications involving dormer additions at 1-3 Vassar Street and 12-14 Wellesley Street.
24:55 Section 106 Review & Site Plan Reviews — Commissioners discussed an upcoming Section 106 review for the Medford High School project and agreed to review site plans for 85 Main Street via email.
30:42 Vacant Seats Update — The commission discussed the City Council appointment timeline and onboarding process for prospective board members.
34:14 Properties Under Demolition Delay — The commission voted to lift the demolition delay for 36 Mystic Street following submittal of revised preservation plans and received an update on relocation efforts for 41 Mystic Street.
44:18 Annual Report Draft & 2026 Goals — Commissioners reviewed the draft annual report and outlined strategic goals for 2026, including potential updates to the demolition delay ordinance and district preservation planning.
1:04:46 Preservation Projects & Archaeological Updates — Staff updated the board on archaeological surveys at the Brooks Estate and Thomas Brooks Park, headstone restoration contract bids for Cross Street Cemetery, and survey work at Hastings Heights.
1:09:40 Approval of Minutes — The commission voted to approve the meeting minutes from February 2026.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi everybody, this is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, March 9th, it is 7.05. We're gonna call the meeting to order. Peter, are you good for minutes? Awesome, thank you so much. And all right, let's just do a little housekeeping before we get to our agenda. Let's see. 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 of this public hearing during this meeting shall be by remote means only. I think we're the only board that still continues to read that message.

[Doug Carr]: Jen, one quick comment. I've been saying virtually the same thing for the city board for the last three months. Yeah. And I just was informed by Danielle and Alicia that I don't need to say it anymore.

[Doug Carr]: There's a few minutes we can cut out of the meetings going forward, because the city council doesn't do it. And if they're not doing it, why should we?

[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. Well, that's good to know. Just for a few. Thanks for that. I'll put that paper at the back of my folder now instead of on the top of it. All right, let's get going. We have a decent agenda tonight, so we'll get things moving here. First up, we have an application that we should be accepting and a significance hearing for 226 Main Street. And let me just remind before we get into that. I just like to remind folks what when we determine significance what that means So when we're determining significance on a property, it means that it is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events or with the broad architectural cultural and 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 we have a... Yes.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, just a quick interruption. Can Dennis confirm, I know MCM's on this video, can Dennis confirm that we're recording this video?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, I know they're doing it, but Dennis, I just want to make sure the city has a recording.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So yeah, so just to remind folks that the definition of significance, but I'm jumping a little bit ahead. First, we have to actually accept our applications. So first up is 226 Main Street. So commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion on this application. We can start with that and then assuming that gets accepted, move on to significance.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks, Peter. So motion to accept the application. Ryan and Peter. Okay, I'm going to go around for roll call vote as I see folks on my screen. Doug, you're up first.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? Yes. Kit? Yes. And Sarah? Yes. Okay, great. So the motion passes 6-0 to accept the application. And then commissioners, we did not have a specific form B for this property. We have an area form that Ryan sent around the link for, and there is some information on this property within that area form. If somebody would like to make a motion on significance, we can open the debate on that.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Motion for significance with the caveat that I'm going to shoot it down.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, there's thousands of these buildings constructed during this time period. So I was sort of inclined to just sort of pass on review, but I think that this one does warrant review and I'm just going to shoot it down for significance because there's only four lines for it. So in the form and it's clearly not important to that neighborhood, so.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I noticed that on the form as well. It didn't seem like there was too much to talk about on this one, although the area form is quite robust. So I think it's certainly worthy of a little discussion here tonight for what my two cents is worth. Doug, anything to add?

[Doug Carr]: No, I agree with Ryan. This building, even though it's within that area form, it doesn't feel like it's really part of that group. facing Main Street and it was, you know, a lot of changes have occurred, but I just don't see that building given, especially the buildings that are there that really are significant as listed in the form A, I just don't think this one is rising to that level. So I'm with Ryan on this one.

[Peter Miller]: I thought this building was a little bit interesting because it has a brick front facade, which I don't know, I don't know if a lot of the sheet building have that, but I thought that was one point in its favor, but if I'm looking at the right building, actually. Other than that, yeah, it seems kind of nondescript.

[Kit Nichols]: I don't think I have much more to add. It's one of those where it could be on a hundred different streets in the city.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I also thought, too, I mean, the petitioner is putting, you know, they want to put five units here. And I think, you know, personally, that's a better use of the site. And obviously, the location is kind of a prime for that. So, you know, if I were voting, which I'm not, you know, it's kind of like the greater good of, you know, letting this one go over, you know, five new housing units that we need in the city.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: I think similar to Peter, I thought the brick facade was quite nice. You don't see that a lot. But like you said, the need for housing kind of seems to trump that. And other than the facade itself, there's not much that seems to be historically significant about the home.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Maybe some quick work on this one tonight. Okay, so we have a motion on the table to find for significance for 226 Main Street for historical significance. That has been seconded. I will go around and do a roll call vote. Doug?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. No, right? Yes, because we're still short a seat. Not for long. Right. Yes. Yes. We're getting there. We're getting there. OK. So 226 Main Street is not significant. The property owner can go on with their project and we will get out their letter by the end of the week. And good luck with your project. Okay, up next we have 10 Whittemore. So again, on this one, it is the same process. We have an application that came in. So commissioners, if we would like to review the application and accept that, and then we do have a form on this one, so we can do significance after that. So when someone is ready, I will take a motion.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Move to find the application complete and accept review.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Ryan. Second. Okay, thank you, Peter. Okay, motion to accept the application for demolition for 10 Whittemore. Doug?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Ryan? Yes. Kit? Yes. And Sarah? Yes. Okay, great. So that one passes 5-0. Okay, so same thing on this one. We do have a form B on this property. We had a heads up on this, so we sent it off to the consultant early enough. So commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion on this one for significance, either way, then we can open the discussion.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Peter. Okay, Ryan, why don't you start the discussion on this?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, again, another house, thousands of these. Not a particularly good example of this particular type of building, so I'm inclined to let it go.

[Peter Miller]: Yeah, I'm on sort of the same opinion. I mean, this one does have some detail left on it, although somewhat dilapidated, but it's been drastically altered by the front porch build out. I don't know, getting ahead of myself, the proposal The building proposal, has anybody looked at that? This one I would be, my sole driving force would be for design review on this, but because if you saw the proposal, I don't know, it's quite dramatic, I'll say.

[Jennifer Keenan]: It is, and the house on the corner, is, you know, somewhat modern as well, that I think it's the same owner. So if you look at the one that faces Main Street, that, you know, this one house would be kind of behind it, because it's the front one is on the corner. Yeah, I mean, you know, personally, I don't love it either. But, you know, our purview is the existing structure first.

[Peter Miller]: That would be my motivating force. but I don't know if anybody wants to look at the proposed massing. I have it on my screen.

[Doug Carr]: I would like to see it, Peter. I didn't have time to look at that. I was just focusing on the form A's and B's, but I actually looked at that house in the corner, Jenna, on the street view, and I actually think it's okay. There are some modern buildings that have come before us that I'm not a fan of, But I guess this one doesn't really bother me. I know it's not in key with the surrounding context, but I guess I'm willing to be a little experimental here on new buildings.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I actually In looking at the building compared to the rest of the streetscape. This is sort of the smallest one. Now, I actually think a little bit of size added to the building will not not be as detrimental as as it appeared, you know, it's a radical departure from what's there now, but I think the change will be a welcome addition.

[Jennifer Keenan]: And I can just say, too, that I think this design coupled with the house that faces Main Street actually works together. And I actually know this street very well because I have a friend that used to live at 15 Whittemore. But a couple houses up from that on the Edward corner, there's a really tall house with a spiral staircase to a roof deck, like that whole little enclave of properties, there's a couple of pretty modern changes over there. So it's not that far out of the whack of things. And there are certainly, as Ryan said, there are taller structures. But again, I think it's just something that, you know, these kind of slanted roof and flat roof designs that are coming before us more and more.

You know, just something, it's just different, right? It's just different than what we're seeing. And it doesn't, you know, good, bad and different. You know, the question of the night is, is the, you know, is the existing structure significant or not is the biggest question. And just I got a message in the chat from the property owner. I'll come to you at the end. The commissioners need to get through our discussion first. So hang tight.

[Peter Miller]: Okay. I just wanted to share that because it is a lot different than the existing one. Anyway.

[Doug Carr]: Oh, let's get through this section and then let's, I'd like to hear Kevin for a few minutes and then I'm intrigued by Ryan's comments about actually either going a little taller or, you know, that vast roofscape could have a dormer, could have a window, could have a skylight, could have a hundred solar panels from what I can tell.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'm gonna go to Kit next and Sarah, and then we can bring in the owner for a discussion.

[Kit Nichols]: I had pretty much exactly the same reaction that Peter had, which was I found the departure from what's there pretty shocking, but I don't actually think this building is significant.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I know that the property is pretty dilapidated as well. I'm sure that there could be a chunk of neighbors that would welcome some rehab here, maybe regardless of what it looks like. Sarah, what are your thoughts?

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, I agree with the other commissioners. I think for the scale that the property is experiencing, it would have been nice to maybe see another unit, because the previous property was only two units. And for that amount of building, it would be nice to have a third. But in terms of significance, I don't think that the existing is significant, unfortunately.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I'm not sure what they can do there by right in terms of adding a unit, in terms of the lot size and whatnot. Obviously, the zoning, Doug, zoning conversations are still happening in terms of lot size. The existing zoning laws have yet to be changed, right? you can only do so much on a lot size and whatever the, you know, I don't know if this is zoned SF1 or 2 or GR or whatever, you know, you can only do so much within the zoning code as it stands today. And most folks doing a project are trying to avoid zoning if they can, just from a timing perspective. But the owner has asked to speak. So, Kevin, I will.

[Peter Miller]: Now I've looked at the building that's on the corner. I'm feeling much better about it.

[Jennifer Keenan]: The opposite corner, like the Edward Street corner? Or the one on Main Street?

[Peter Miller]: Main Street, well... I'm not sure which street it is, honestly, but it's the one directly next to it.

[Peter Miller]: And I believe that big slope roof will be facing almost due south. So it would be perfect for solar panels. And this building next door has a big array on that side facing it. So I think it's gonna be, it'll fit in fine. I retract what I said before.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Anyway. Yeah. And just Kevin, if you'd like to state your name and address for the record, then we can. You're welcome to share any comments you'd like to make.

[SPEAKER_08]: Excellent. My name is Kevin Ring. I'm the property owner. I live nearby in the old firehouse on Medford Street.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Can we just get your actual address? We just need it for the minutes.

[SPEAKER_08]: Would you like my address? Yes, please. My address is 52 Medford Street.

[SPEAKER_08]: Go ahead. That's the old South Medford Firehouse. Right. I appreciate you considering the application. Regarding the comments about the design and the massing, in fact, I'm duplicating, in fact, not changing the first floor or the second floor. What is different is only the roof. I'm not increasing the floor area on the first floor or the second floor. What you can see in the design is that that cantilevered portion is in fact, just a recreation of the existing cantilevered second floor porch.

So from the roof line down, the house is unchanged. What is changing in the roof, it's going from a slope roof to a shoehorn triangle. And the intent is to cover it with solar panels and to make this a true net zero house.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Cool. Commissioners, does anybody have any specific questions for the property owner? Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ring for that explanation. I think we're good for now. It sounds like we probably have a consensus on a vote, so we'll take the vote and go from there. Okay, commissioners, I have an application on the table for demolition of 10 Whittemore that has been seconded, and I will go around for a roll call vote. Peter.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, sorry, did I say I meant to determine significance? That's what the vote is for. Yep. Okay, Kit?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so significance fails zero to five. So yeah, Kevin, you'll be able to go on with your project. We'll get your letter out to you this week and you will be on your way with your projects. Good luck and let us know if you need help from anything on our end. Okay, moving right along to our next applications. Ryan, were you gonna duck out of these? Uh... Or not? Each. I don't know that you have to, but it's up to you.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. Okay. So up next, we have 1-3 Vassar Street. They have put forth an application. It's a partial demolition. It is for a dormer only. And we can accept the application or we can choose to pass on review.

[Doug Carr]: I second that, I agree. This one is, I think it's actually two shared dormers, one on either side.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, but they're keeping the side mostly intact, so that's fine.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, this was a, I don't think it's a, it's an easy call to pass on this one in my opinion.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, all right, so we have a motion on the table for 1-3 Vassar Street to pass on review that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Peter?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so that passes 5-0. So for 1-3 Vassar Street, Attorney Desmond, we're going to pass on review. So that one can go on its merry way. So up next we have 12-14 Wellesley Street. It's almost the same situation.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I know. They came in together, but we just wanted to make sure to put them on the agenda so that we could talk about it.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Are they like kitty-cornered, or is it going to be the same? Yeah. It looks to be across the street from each other. They are across the street, yeah. Oh, OK. OK. Okay, so we have a motion to pass that, and was there a second on that? To pass on review? Doug seconded, right? Okay, so we have a motion on the table to pass on review for 12-14 Wellesley Street that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Peter?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. So both of those pass 5-0 to pass. Okay. Thanks, Attorney Desmond. Nice to see you. Do you need anything else while you're here? Okay. See you next time. Okay.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Whoops, I left 226 Main Street on the agenda. My bad.

[Jennifer Keenan]: And nothing else has come in last minute. Just that thing for 85 Main Street.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: So there was a discussion of 119. Jerome Street, which was on our agenda the previous month. It seems like they're separating permits. There's potential that the building may be demolished, but I will have to review that.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I went and looked at what's in our queue. It's a little bit of a mess. Yeah, the building department again is starting to split up permits and I'm going to have to talk to Scott because it's getting out of control. And then the email we got didn't even have the right address. They put 199 Jerome and it is at 119. Is it 199 like hello? But regardless for that one There's no action tonight Yeah, I think we you Ryan you and I can look at the permits and see whether we're gonna put them over to us for next month or not Okay, so the only other new piece of business for tonight officially is we have received for a section 106 review for the high school project. Do you want to talk a little bit about that one, Ryan?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, the high school use committee, their consultant reached out to us asking if the building was historically significant, but I that question was made in the context of the demo delay of which I appropriately corrected that it's not on demo delay that it's applicable for review. It's the use of state and federal funding that makes it eligible for Section 106 review. So I asked them for additional information on the original construction and build of the high school so that we can have a form, either form B or form A, prepared for the building so that we can make a determination for section 106, to assist with section 106. The state is probably going to review. Now, in terms of building construction, I believe that is Medford's only brutalist building. So I will leave that on the table. And it's, you know, a lot of students affectionately call it a prison-esque building, but, you know, I think that it perhaps should be given some consideration. The site itself has a lot of interesting history. For those of you who don't know, it was the Medford Alms House for a number of years in the 19th and early 20th century. Then it was the town dump for a brief window, and then it became the high school site after the main high school burnt down and they were doing double duty. They decided to build the high school at this location rather than rebuild in Medford Square.

Yeah, it's kind of I'll be interested to see what the architect and builder were and to see if they have any significance. The building is. More than 50 years old now, so it would qualify potentially for national register, but so are we getting a form done for it? So we're getting a form, but I'm if the ball is in their court to provide us the information so that we can get a form done so OK.

[Jennifer Keenan]: So in terms of the section 106 review, do we need to write a letter? Do we need to talk about the form at our next meeting and then we can craft a response?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, so I've asked for information. If I don't see information within the next, you know, 10 to 15 days, I will ask again and then we should just have the consultant prepare an MHC form B based on the existing building and what's known. Go from there. I think the more information, the better, but, you know, they have a timeline. So we should just something.

[Peter Miller]: Brian is the sole. Concern here to determine significance or not.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Uh, it's yes, of sorts. So the. The Section 106, so because we're a certified local government, the state puts the effort to determining NR eligibility on us. They would normally do that as part of the Section 106 review process. And currently, there's no information about the building. So we need to provide some information to give them something, because otherwise that tells them, OK, if MHC, who has been doing survey for the last 15 years, hasn't inventoried it, then it may not be important at all. So I'm trying to avoid that.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, just to piggyback since this came in late today was the, there's a site plan review for 85 Main Street, which is the gas station at the end of where basically where South Street and Main Street merge. That one, we're supposed to have our comments back by April 3rd, which is before our next meeting. So I can either ask them for an extension so we can, I mean, we didn't really have it on the agenda tonight to discuss, but or I can just circulate the plans to everybody. And if anyone has any comments.

[Doug Carr]: Let's just do that. I like to chime in if there's something worth talking about. I've looked at the plans, obviously, because they just came in.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I'll send them around. And then if anybody has anything, if we have any comments, we can just craft a letter and send it in. It's due by April 3rd. So we have some time. I think the plan is to just maybe add a little mini mart there. It says they want to change the use from gas station to retail, but then they're keeping the gas station. So it sounds like maybe they just want to put like a convenience store or something there with it.

next to, you know, one parcel away from 7-Eleven and from the Mobile Mart, another block up, but sure.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. I mean, it's, you know, it's a quicker walk for the folks, you know, at the police department to get a snack.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. Okay. I will email that around. Let me just make a note on the agenda for my notes. 85 site plan. Okay, so Ryan, just for administrative purposes, we'll probably have this section 106 for Medford High School still on our agenda next month and we'll wrap up the discussion and then hopefully we can just get 85 Main Street done and that won't carry over, so we'll be good. Okay. Does anybody else have any new business before we move on to old business?

Um, okay. Vacant seats update, just going down the agenda. Hi, Luke. Hopefully by next month, you'll be appointed. Um, so we're just waiting for the 30 days to expire with the mayor slash city council.

[Doug Carr]: Um, Jen, can we try to clarify? I can try it with Zach. I should have probably done that yesterday when I was standing in front of them, but they have the ability, at least I think they do to just wave it right. If they don't have objections.

[Jennifer Keenan]: From what I've seen online discussions and just what Milva chimed in, who was on the Charter Committee, I think there's some confusion because the Charter Committee feels that they can waive the 30 days, but council said they don't have anything in writing or as it pertains to that. Ryan, go ahead.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, Zach told me that they have to make their determinations in a public meeting. There's nothing that can be done at say, quote unquote, a staff level, which is unfortunate. But maybe, maybe they may need to go back and I don't know if they can tweak that or do it as procedural or what, but.

[Jennifer Keenan]: No, I don't think so. They have to just talk about it within the 30 day time frame. So it's got to go on an agenda. It's got to be, and they either need to decide to talk about it at a council meeting or say, nope, we're good. We're not going to talk about it.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I just don't know if a committee of, you know, if because it's the city council, whether a committee of the whole would, would count. Cause if they have like a committee of the whole one, say a standing meeting every month where they could just do it on the, you know, outside of a normal council. But I think, I think Zach said in his text to me that it was normal council. So yeah.

[Jennifer Keenan]: And then I read something online that they were waiting for paperwork on people and they were like, why do we need to get paperwork? And it's like, well, how can we have a discussion if we don't have paperwork? And

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: It's a little bit of a. Sounds like a process that could should couldn't should be handled at a staffing level and if it.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I just think maybe the the intent of the charter was one thing the and then the implementation is another thing and I don't know that that was.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Well, we will probably have several months of figuring out the charter and when the things that need tweaking come out will, you know, will tweak them, yeah.

[Jennifer Keenan]: But anyway, in the meantime, all the boards and commissions are at the mercy of waiting for people to either act or not act. So thank you for your patience, Luke. And hopefully, by this time next month, you'll be on board. Yeah, no problem. Sounds good. Awesome. OK. And we still are looking for a couple of more folks. So if anybody out there watching or listening would like to join us, we are a fun bunch. Yeah, we could use a couple more people.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I may have a candidate. One of the people who is helping us with the lab work is an archivist at one of the local universities. So I'm trying to hope and, you know, loop her in maybe. So I will talk her up hopefully during the lab work.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I know we'd love to have another attorney because we, you know, losing Ed, you know, he was our de facto legal advice. So if there's any attorneys out there looking to do a little volunteer work, we would love to have you. But not required. Not required. So. Okay, moving right along. Properties under demo delay. Let's go to 36 Mystic, because I know that the property owner is here, and there's been discussions with Doug and Peter on the subcommittee. So if you guys want to fill in the rest of the board on that and where we stand, and I know the goal, I think, is to vote to lift the demo delay tonight. So let's talk about that.

[Doug Carr]: I'll go, sure. Peter and I met with Vijay, who's there, obviously, on the call on Friday, and we walked through the kind of diagram elevations he had, and Peter had marked up some photographs with a little bit more detail. And Vijay, over the weekend, kind of incorporated all that information into one PDF that had everything. It had the window cut, it had the elevations, a little bit more detail on the elevations. It had Peter's photos. So we feel like the scope is much clearer now than it was the last time this commission saw it. And so we wanted, and I'll just throw it to Peter to see if he has anything to add to that.

[Peter Miller]: Nope, no. And yeah, I made that additional comment about the deck boards and VJ responded to that. Actually, I don't know if you saw that email, Jennifer.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yep, I saw that email. And let me see if I can. Yep, I see it here. So I can actually download this. I can share my screen if you guys want to go over it.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, go ahead, Peter. You're probably better at doing that than me.

[Peter Miller]: So this is a book that he put together. It's dated here on the second page. Um, and there's, there's quite a bit of verbiage here. Don't necessarily need to go through all that. Um, but I think the intent is pretty clear here that he's going to keep with the same materials and replace the windows. Um, so he's got a window spec. He's got a view of the grid pattern two over two. He's got the SDLs. So just a nice shadow line. We noted up to save the window detail. He's gonna eliminate the aluminum storms.

Keep the brackets, the front door, fix up the front porch a little if needed. You know, miter the corners on the decking. And yeah, and just keep a continuity in the shingle siding. repaint the house, these are the elevations, which are somewhat diagrammatic, but I think they're kind of explained by the... Yeah, because the exterior is not really changing.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, this is how the house is now, so... We've just shown that... Where the windows are going to go.

[Doug Carr]: There's a little shifting of windows, but nothing extraordinary. So that's basically it.

[Jennifer Keenan]: That looks fabulous. And I think that document is perfect. That's exactly, you know, yeah, I think that's great. I wish everybody would do that. So thank you, Vijay.

[SPEAKER_04]: Sure, sure, yeah. Yeah, I think, yeah, like Peter and Doug actually helped over the weekend. I know it's kind of like they are doing on their voluntary time, but I really appreciate them working on the weekend to get this done.

[Doug Carr]: Well, Vijay, I want to commend you because you came to the meeting with kind of the right attitude. You have a good respect for the building. You know, we didn't ask you to do anything crazy and you offered some good solutions. So I really appreciate the spirit of cooperation. And I'm thrilled that we can get this done in theory in one month as a demo delay. That's pretty, you can't get anything faster than that.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Okay, so if Doug or Peter, would you like to make a motion to lift the demo delay for 36 Mystic and then we can second it and then vote?

[Doug Carr]: Sounds good. I'll make a motion to lift the demo delay for 36 Mystic Street based on the drawings that we just showed on screen. I second that.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thank you both. And I'm sorry, I didn't ask Kit or Sarah or Ryan if they had any comments or just before we vote, did you guys have any comments or wanted to say anything based on what we saw or any questions for the owner?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, it's gonna be beautiful. So, excellent. Okay, we have a motion on the table to lift the demo delay for 36 Mystic Street that has been seconded. And as always, I'll go around for a roll call vote on my screen. Peter?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we have four past, one present, and no objections. All right. So Vijay, we'll get your letter out to you. I'll try to get to it tomorrow, but I might need another day. Sure, sure.

[Jennifer Keenan]: We'll get you lifted. The permit will re-release this week. I can guarantee you that.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you. And keep us posted. And if any questions, you know, feel free to come back to our meetings anytime. And we can't wait to get a tour when it's all done.

[SPEAKER_04]: Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, definitely. It's going to be good. I like the home and the character of the house, so we have to preserve that. So thanks for all the coordination and helping me to achieve that. Excellent.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. OK. Ryan, just circling back to 41Mystic, do we have any updates on that one?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, I'm working on plans. I got to go back and do it. We had a temporary We had a temporary deviation because Ed sold his house, and I asked for the opportunity to document said house. So Ed formerly owned the Edward Oaks house at 5 Sylvia Road. It's being transferred to new owners. Documentation took place pretty quickly, and I have full architectural plans and photos of the building. That is quite possibly the oldest wood frame house standing in Medford.

With that said, it has a lot of 19th century changes and I preface that as being important because 41 Mystic has a lot of 19th century details that are an early 20th century detail. So the 18th century character and originality of the building is not necessarily there. But that does not mean that it's any less important. The age of the building alone makes it important. So I will say that the Edward Oaks House has some really, very early 18th century buildings features such as the hearth with a built-in beehive oven in the hearth. That is something that was not very practical and done away with very early in the 18th century. And as a result, the building could be quite possibly 17th century. There is talk of the building being constructed in 1729, and there's the architectural details that are in that building sort of support that date. But the fireplace alone suggests that, and the hall and parlor layout, which is the original building, suggests that it could be very late 17th century.

So, and just as a note, it's a National Register listed building, but there's otherwise no protection on the inside or outside of that building. So at some point there should be some, at least some outside protection, but really the importance is on the inside there with the hearths and fireplaces and a few features on the interior. So there, we may consider a preservation easement on that building, especially because like I said, it's the oldest wood frame building in Medford.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, that's the goal. The goal is to get some architectural plans and to get a loose concept together so that I can get buy-in from various stakeholders and try to get a concept of what it's going to look like. And then once I have that, then we can explore the cost of moving said building. We're quickly approaching based on this expiration date of 4-2027 for that, and we're approaching almost a year out. So I've got to get our act together and move, because some of those things will take that long.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. But they're still engaged with us. We're still working together.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yep. I've got to finish architectural plans so that I can send them off to the building movers and formulate a way to get it from one side of Medford to the other.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Right. All right. Well, thank you for your work on that. And yeah, and no update on Manning Street. No. OK, which we're not expecting to have. OK. OK, moving on, the annual report draft. I know, Ryan, you sent that around. Thank you to you and Sarah for working on that draft. I don't know if there's too much we need to talk about except if folks want to give it a read and then send back any comments before the next meeting and then we can make another pass at it.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Peter made one change that was just in the beginning with the 2022. Was there anything else, Peter? Because I didn't see anything.

[Peter Miller]: No, there was just a comma on the last page, but maybe that was because somebody hadn't filled their name in yet or something.

[Peter Miller]: Yeah, I did delete that comma, but so somebody will have to put that back in.

[Kit Nichols]: There was an extra Medford and there was an X for a number that needs to be put in. Oh yeah, I saw that, okay.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I haven't read it yet, Ryan, so I'll go through and give it a proof too.

[Peter Miller]: Otherwise, I thought it seemed pretty, to me, pretty complete and demonstrated that we went through a lot of properties.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah. I mean, there's, you know, there's several thousand building permits that get issued and, and, you know, Doug's formula that we created years ago of like, how many have we actually reviewed? Well, we less than one quarter of a percent of all permits issued in the city of Medford. So we're not stopping every building, you know, and of them, you know, we might get 10% of, you know, all the buildings reviewed. And even then it's only like 5% of those are historically significant and preferably preserved.

Yeah, the only thing that I want to need help with, too, in addition to comments, is we need to set goals for 2026. I think three goals would be fine. I think absolutely one of them should be working with City Council to completely overhaul our ordinance for demo delay. I think they're going through and systematically updating and recodifying all old ordinances. Ours is probably one of the oldest. So what I think we should do is we should ask them to work with, and this in the mayor, to work with KP Law, come up with a revised ordinance and then hold a public hearing ourselves with them to sort of get the public feedback before it's even in in up for debate so that we can handle that outside of city council.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I think one thing to think about is, can we do that before the end of this year? Because next year is an election year and no one will touch it. So if we're going to do it, it's got to get done this year or it gets tabled until after the next election.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, and I can reach out to, you know, I think one or two of the councilors should certainly sponsor the bill to get it on the table so they can, you know, if we can get them to work with us and, you know, discuss what they'll be willing to entertain change ever. I'm not interested. I don't think we should change the, you know, 75 years or the 18 months. I think those are working fine. So.

[Jennifer Keenan]: But I think that, well, the question is, what do we need to update and or change?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, there's lots of language, lots of solidifying what is actually reviewable. So that will be like if we really want gut rehabs and buildings over a certain percentage, roofline changes, that should all be codified. Get rid of the publishing in the newspaper, change it for just simply publishing at the local level, city website, et cetera. We can still ask them to publish in papers but it you know the printed form is what's killing them. Once we also recodify this whole thing we should definitely be charging a fee and it should be a fee that goes back to commission budget so that will require some assistance because otherwise it just goes into general fund.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, I think those are good places to start. I think we just have to be, you know, if we open this can of worms, there's no guarantee that 18 months and 75 years is going to stay. So we have to be prepared for that.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah. I mean, again, I think, you know, the impetus is there that most of our delays don't last that long, especially if people work with us and it's in their interest to work because it's their time and money. But, you know, there's been a few fully, you know, full out 18 months, but, you know, but, and that should be enough to sustain it. I mean, I dropping it to 12 months is, you know, not really there. Most people will tell you six months is a joke. People just will work it right into their schedules.

[Doug Carr]: So, but I don't feel that there's a, Clamor to change anything that I've heard about. I mean, you know, the old council from a few years ago thought we were kind of anti development. I think we put that. That inaccurate concept to rest and the annual state, the annual reports say that prove that every year. Just with the facts of how many, how many, how few properties are. are actually paused in very few or few of any are paused for the 14 months unless the owner refuses to engage us at all, which is their right. You know, that's, so I feel like, I feel if we open it, I don't, I'm not worried about going back to six or 12. I don't think that's, I don't think that's on the cards. I don't suspect that won't be the case, but you're right. Once you open the process, you never know what's going to happen. So you gotta be prepared for something.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Right. That's why I think some of it, the having the hearing outside of, you know, in advance of getting before it even gets to council to hear out people and say, you know, what's working, what's not. Right.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Well, I mean, I think it's fine to have it on there as a goal. Is it the number one goal? Maybe not. I just think we should tread lightly and I think that right now things are working well with the building department and reviewing permits and all that and they know and things are getting assigned to us that should be, right? And I think that there's an argument to be had for like, if it's not broke, don't fix it.

You know, I'm one person out of six and hopefully seven next month. So, you know, I'm open to discussion with whatever other folks think. I mean, I was one of our goals. I mean, I feel like here another year has gone by and there's been zero movement on the district commission of really kind of, you know, solidifying some things to to put further protections on. And I don't know. I mean, I know we always say we don't have a list, but Should we come up with a list? I'd like to, you know, put it out there that, like, these properties are vulnerable and, you know, that especially with the zoning conversations that are happening and, you know, I think that there's a real opportunity there for us to try to you know, provide some good information for these discussions and to maybe get districts moving on some of these things to put ultimate protections on individual properties or some, you know, new districts.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I will say that they were able to complete the cell street process, so I commend them for that. Although I don't necessarily believe that the if it were challenged, I don't necessarily believe that the process would stand because of the way that they zigzagged the district boundaries around. people that asked to be let out of the district. It's very choppy and very almost spot zoned. So I'm a little bit concerned about that. And of course, they're going to have to take on whatever recommendations come out of the zoning for Medford Square, because I think that they're advocating for a district in Medford Square now with the zoning process, which would be great. I will say I got word that the city asked for a loose preservation planner job description. So I think it's on the mayor's radar to add another city planner with preservation experience that would assist the CPC and assist with, you know, our board and historic district commission. So I would say before we poke the historic district there, I would absolutely advocate for giving up a portion of our funding to fund a preservation position.

for, you know, a few years and see how that goes. I think they're going to find once they have somebody with additional planning experience in the planning office that that seat's never going to be given up.

[Doug Carr]: Let me just chime in briefly because I'm going to think of it on the zoning in Medford Square. There is a plan coming back from the consultant. The city board has made it quite clear that protection of historic properties in Medford must be part of zoning, not just as a district, not just either as a local historic district, single building, or a global district. Because even though that may be another layer of protection, but we wanted to see something to incentivize the saving of historic buildings and not incentivize their tent hour. And so that's what hasn't come back before us yet. It should be back soon, and then it will be before the council. And if it's good, I think that will smooth the path to Medford Square to being passed. But I also made it quite clear to the city council that we're going back to Salem Street with a template for Medford Square, and we're going to fix that too, because they missed that on the first pass. And they haven't really acknowledged that, but we have to drive that. The same thing with the parking ratios, which were also omitted from that. So those are two of the three major city board, not demands, but requirements for passing this process. It's been a great conversation and we think we're hoping to see something good soon.

But then there's the devil's in the details and we got to figure out, we still have to get historic. I think some of these buildings are just going to need to be single historic districts, I think. I can think of like the armory or a bunch of buildings that may not fit with the zoning around it very well, but let's see what they come back with.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, Kit or Sarah, Peter, do you guys have any thoughts on goals and or initiatives that we should think about for this year?

[Kit Nichols]: I kind of wonder if, I mean, do we have to, recognizing that, you know, any close look at our process risks opening a door that we may not wanna open. It also strikes me that things like the printed advertisement is such an impediment. I mean, could we propose some minor amendments that would make the process easier without doing a complete overhaul?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I feel like something like that with the printed thing, it's like, that should just be a citywide, like, But I don't know what the requirements are for zoning and income preservation and some of those other entities that, you know, yes, those also require legal notices and, you know. But yeah, I mean, I don't disagree with you, Kit, in terms of like, maybe we can just make some minor amendments and see if we can get those passed. I mean, it's a good, I think it's a good conversation to have with city council and say like, you know, what will be the smoothest, simplest way to make some of these minor changes?

[Kit Nichols]: Well, and I feel like in the past when we've been, when the commission has been seen as as an obstacle or obstructionist, a lot of it is stuff that we haven't had much control over. And I mean, the point is we're actually trying to make this easier for everybody involved in the process and make it go smoothly. I mean, I just think that's a pretty easy sell.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, well, and I think especially where like now we're trying to take, if we get a heads up of something coming in, we'll do application and significant same nightly. We shaved 30 days out of the process for folks if we can.

[Doug Carr]: Right, but I do agree with what Kit said earlier, that the advertising, we've improved it in the last year or two, but it's still cumbersome and seems like there's a way for more improvement on that, just to really get it to be like one-stop shopping, you know, click, done, and you're done. 20 minutes versus, you know, I mean, trying to find some of these websites and put an ad is just, it's so 20th century, right? God, it's crazy.

[Jennifer Keenan]: And the administrative stuff that Ryan and I have to deal with, with Dennis and Teresa at City Hall, it's like, it's days. Yeah, it's ridiculous. You know, and like, they got to bring a check and it's like a whole thing.

[Kit Nichols]: The other thing I was just going to say is, you know, I really like the idea of, and I'm not sure whose role it is, and maybe that's why it doesn't exist, is sort of the list of the places of the buildings that, you know, whether they're in Medford Square or wherever they are in the city, that, you know, we are, we're proposing should be preserved. Because, you know, there are all sorts of like, you know, you can, you can go to Google the registry of historic places in Medford and you get what you get. But nobody's actually put their dime down on this. Like, what are the buildings? I mean, we know what they are, or at least, I mean, Ryan can probably rattle them off in his sleep.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I mean, yeah, I mean, I think that And it's funny, because I see this a lot in terms of my real estate job, where because a property has been inventoried, people think it's historic. And it's like, well, no. It's just been inventoried. And people don't understand the difference. And so we can sit here and say, there's been hundreds and hundreds of properties that have been inventoried in Medford. It doesn't make them all worthy of, you know, the level of preferably preserved, right? But I think we can all agree that, yeah, there's probably a handful that are in vulnerable locations or on huge lots or whatever that are probably ripe for somebody waiting out an 18-month demo delay. And that's very different than they've just been inventoried and they're sitting there.

And is anybody like kind of looking at those and overlaying that with, you know, the zoning and the district? Like, no one's taking a larger look at those things.

[Kit Nichols]: I mean, it would be a lot easier to sell the idea of preservation if we were clear about what it is we're trying to preserve. And what's the criteria that we're using?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I don't even, I don't know. I mean, Ryan, I'd be curious your position on this. Like, does making a list, you know, like that, is that good or bad to have a list that exists?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: It wouldn't be a list. What it would be is a citywide comprehensive plan for establishing districts that take into establishing historic districts or other type of conservation ordinances that take into account the city's goals for zoning, housing production, commercial development, etc. And I'm suggesting it being done in that way because All preservation is politics, so there will be areas that we give up for development in exchange for preserving other areas. We will say this area is okay, this area is not. So you might say, for example, Development on the Fellsway, we'd like to preserve that look and feel, but the thousands of two-family housing immediately behind it that is all the same look, feel, and shape, no, not so much. We've preserved the look and feel of a key roadway and key area along Medford and a key defining section of that part of Medford, but we've chosen to allow the rest of the neighborhood to develop and grow behind it. So and those discussions need to happen over and over again, neighborhood by neighborhood, always starting with the principal roadways and then diving into the individual residential neighborhoods. So

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, but I think even starting that, like you got to start somewhere. It's like we have to start, we'd have to, would make a list, right? We'd have to make a list.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I think, I think we would need to, I think we should probably hire a consultant to do that, to create, you know, to perhaps create that report. Based on the inventory that we've created, it would sort of be a twofold. It would be a revised survey plan to figure out where wells we need to survey, but then taking that information and then executing local historic districts, neighborhood conservation districts, etc. That is. you know, some, I would want a higher level of preservation experience and local law experience rather than the, you know, that's above I think our current consultants who just are doing survey work. I mean, the more they're capable of doing it, but they have always advocated that, you know, it sort of falls on the commission and we really need stronger help for a city of our size. So hiring a consultant that deals with that, you know, would be great. And maybe that's help that we can reach out to the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission for, I think MAPC is good to at least direct us to somebody that can help if they themselves can't help us.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I think it's also, would be also fairly easy to pull, you would like pull a public record list of like properties built before 1900 with lots over 8,000 square feet, right? Or whatever. And boom, here's a list of a hundred, we look at that real quick, yes, yes, yes, yes, no, you know. Again, there's some easy ways to kind of start somewhere, right?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Right, and we might say like, oh hey, we've inventoried the entire residential neighborhood behind Medford Square because it has some really important residential examples and they're in really good condition, so maybe we want to say that needs to be a historic district in exchange for larger areas in Medford Square are not going to be preserved just because they're individual houses, you know. Okay.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Okay, moving on, we have the Thomas Brooks Park, oh no, Brooks Estate Archaeological Survey.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, it's caught up in bureaucracy. I'm waiting for account numbers for CPC. It's in the financial department's hands, so speaking of government inefficiency, there you go.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: That's so we can get the... Yeah, the contract, it's just waiting for those numbers, so it's good to go, just the SWCA is waiting for us.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Great, okay. And then Thomas Brooks Park, we're having our archeological day at the Medford Public Library on the 30th. We have a bunch of volunteers signed up too. We're gonna clean the artifacts that were found, label them, bag and tag them. So if anybody watching tonight or any of our board, if you'd like to come that day, let us know. Friends welcome, residents welcome. How many do we have so far, Ryan? I haven't counted.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: So we're close to capacity, but there may be a possibility of people not coming, so 12.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, or somebody can only come for a couple hours, and then they have to leave, and then we have somebody else come in.

[Jennifer Keenan]: 9 to 5. Yeah, so come for an hour if you can, or a couple hours. Last time Ryan and I drove to Rhode Island and did it at the lab.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yep. We had the option of going to Amherst. I didn't want to go to Amherst.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. But it was really fun and interesting to sit there and look through every single piece of things that were found and discerning, you know, what is worthy of saving and then what is like duplicate and can be not discarded, but just put in a different pile.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, there'll be more of that. Yeah, and they won't be catalogued. We didn't, I think we may have discarded a piece of glass here or there, but you know, for the redware and stuff, just yeah, lots of brick discarding because yes, more brick, lots of brick and nails. Yeah.

[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, so that's that'll be great. And then Are we bidding out the tree work there yet or not yet?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I have two bids. There's a $45,000 difference between them. Unfortunately, I believe our low bidder is not qualified. So we'll be going for the next highest bid, which came in at around $130,000. That's still less than my total budget for that work. So I'll have $20,000 approximately to replant 20 trees, because I'm hoping to replant two to one trees that I take down. So we're taking down. invasives? Not invasives. We're taking down some of the historic trees that are dead, completely dead, but I'm hoping at least for a one to one, but there may be something like 30 trees that I can replant with that budget, so.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, and we're starting to basically rebuild the screen for when we take down, you know, the a lot of the consultants consistently asked. They were like, you know, it's just easy. We can just come through here and sweep all the invasives now, but I'm I'm listening to the neighbors and making sure that we don't lose their screen for the train. And over time that screen will fill in and we'll selectively thin it out. And the Norway maples and stuff that will get in there will make way for some new oak trees and whatnot.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and maybe we can plant some of the lilacs behind Pomp's wall.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Oh yeah, absolutely. Yeah, I think with a $20,000 budget we'll be more than happy.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, let's get a few of those over there. Um, okay, great. Um, cemetery cross street.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I have two bids for the restoration of the headstones one came in at $80,500 that's data list that did the The monument that overlooks High Street and Playstead Road, I forget what it's called. It's a World War I monument, so he's very familiar with monuments in Medford. He's very familiar with marble and slate conservation, so we're likely to award the project to him. I'm just checking references.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Moving forward, we're there in the process of conducting survey work and preparing draft forms. We were supposed to have a phase meeting, but I think they're just going to move right into it. Mass Historical is sort of dragging their feet.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, great. OK, does anybody have anything else for tonight before we go on to meeting minutes and wrap it up? No? Okay, excellent. All right, Peter sent around the meeting minutes. And I will take a motion to approve when someone is ready.

[Jennifer Keenan]: All right, thank you, Doug. Okay, motion to approve the meeting minutes has been made by Ryan and seconded by Doug. I'll go around for roll call vote. Peter?

[Jennifer Keenan]: And just to be clear, those were the meeting minutes from February 2026 that we are approving. All right, motion to adjourn, it is 8.15. So moved. Seconded. Okay, thank you both. Motion to adjourn, Peter?