Historical Commission: South Medford Connector Section 106 Review - 2026-07-13

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3-flash-preview 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 commission appointed a new liaison to the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust and discussed the South Medford Connector community path project. Members also reviewed zoning incentives for historic preservation and received progress reports on ongoing archaeological and cemetery surveys.

2:30 Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust Appointment — The commission appointed former commissioner Ben Johnson as the official liaison to the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust.
7:59 South Medford Connector Section 106 Review — Commissioners and members of the public discussed the proposed community path between the General Lawrence Bridge and Winthrop Street, focusing on the desire for passive recreation and river access.
39:29 Zoning Update — The commission reviewed the status of Boston Avenue zoning reform and the development of incentives for preserving significant historic structures.
44:05 Hegner Center Demolition — The commission noted the city's intent to demolish the facility and heard public comment regarding the site's condition and federal funding.
48:07 Project Updates and Meeting Minutes — The commission reviewed ongoing archaeological surveys at the Brooks Estate, cemetery radar projects, and approved the June 2026 meeting minutes.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi, everybody. This is the Medford Historical Commission. Today is Monday, July 13th. It is 7.03. We are going to get started. Peter, are you okay to take minutes?

[Peter Miller]: Just a little flaky over here. I don't know what's going on, but... Okay.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. All right. Thanks, Ryan. Okay, thanks everybody. We're going to get started. We have our agenda that was posted. So tonight we are going to get started with a discussion on the South Medford Connector. Ryan, do you want to jump off with this and then we can go from there? Because I think we might have some public comments.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, did you want me to do the South Medford Connector or do you want to do the appointment for Appel and take it out of order?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I'll do it then. Okay. We have to take it out of order. So I make a motion that we suspend the rules and take the inbuilt representative out of order.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, sorry. I thought you were going to do the vote because, oh, okay.

[Jennifer Keenan]: All right. We're going to, uh, we have a motion to take the agenda out of order and start with the appointment to M belt first. I will do a roll call vote as I see people on my screen. Ryan. Yes. Kit. Yes. Peter.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Uh, Doug. Doug, you're muted, so I don't know if you can. Doug is having some technical difficulties.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. All right. I'm not hearing a vote from Doug, so we'll just call his as an abstention for right now. Yeah. Okay, do you wanna continue on Ryan with the- No, no, no, do EMBELT. Okay, all right. So for those just joining us, we're gonna take the agenda out of order and we're going to start with the appointment to EMBELT for the Medford Historical Commission. So just to give a little background, I have been the representative to EMBELT as a member of the commission. And I would like to step down from that role as the representative for the Medford Historical Commission. I'm still going to volunteer with M-BELT, but just not in an official capacity. And we have a couple other people that would well, one other person that would like to take that role for us who doesn't actually sit on the commission currently, but is a former commissioner. So we

You thought it was a good idea to appoint that person if the commission agreed to it. So we have tonight Carly Nessen, who is the president of MBELT, and Ben Johnson, who is our former commissioner here at the commission, who would like to join MBELT. And so we are trying to make this swap tonight to allow him to join MBELT in an official capacity. So if I'm rambling, if that makes sense, commissioners. Carly, if you want to unmute and say hi, feel free.

[MCM00001627_SPEAKER_00]: Hi, from MBELT. We are the Medford Brooks Estate Land Trust, if you're not familiar. And Jen has been doing incredible work for us for, I don't know, years, a few years. Too long. And we're excited to welcome Ben Johnson into our board from this MHC-appointed seat. And we think he'll be a great fit. Anything else that I can provide context or background for?

[Jennifer Keenan]: I'm not sure, did any of the commissioners have questions? Really, this role is about representing the historical commission at M-Belt and reporting back to the commission kind of what's happening over there. And certainly, our two groups work in tandem and in concert together with regards to preserving the history of what's happening at the Brooks Estate and just being a liaison to the city. You know, I'd like to think we're all very good friends and we all kind of talk all the time about what's happening and keeping each other posted, certainly when it comes to things like, you know, what's happening up at the Manor, and then we're doing work at MHC at Thomas Brooks Park, and those are sister sites. So it's really just kind of, you know, helping to keep the conversations open and keeping each other's organizations involved and, you know, foster good communication between the two groups.

[MCM00001627_SPEAKER_00]: I will mention one of the things we're most excited about for welcoming Ben onto our board, and especially as an appointed seat, is he is a specialist in archiving and history. And we are excited to expand our work into archiving and researching our own history, especially as it relates to the manor. So that will be work that will be furthered because of Ben's appointment.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yes, which is so needed and we're so excited about. Ben, is there anything that you would like to say?

[SPEAKER_00]: No, just thank you. Thanks to my former commissioners, Peter, Ryan, Eugene, and Doug. Hey, Dennis, I remember you from six and a half years ago. It's been a long time.

[SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, it was 2020. I had to take a break, but I'm back, and I am excited to help EMBL. and foster communication between EMBL and the Historical Commission, which I think is great because I have been on former Historical Commission and I will not be on EMBL, so it's pretty good.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Awesome. Do any of the commissioners have any questions for Ben or Carly? No? Okay. So, Ryan, do you want to make a motion for a vote?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yep, I'll make a motion to appoint Ben Johnson to the MBEL board, filling the vacancy immediately once Jen steps down.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Peter. Okay, I will go around for a roll call vote. Ryan.

[Jennifer Keenan]: It's the liaison liaison to the M belt to M belt from the Medford Historical Commission.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't know if you can, but it's OK. We have enough to pass it. So. All right, the motion has been granted. We'll call Doug's an abstention again. All right, thank you, Ben. Thank you, Carly. You're welcome to stick around, but I know you have little, so.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, we'll go back to our agenda in order now. Ryan, do you want to kind of set up the section 106 review and the South Medford connector discussion? Sure.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: For the last two months, the Commission received information from MassDOT and DCR asking for the Historical Commission to comment on the proposed community path that extends from the General Lawrence Bridge, which is near Wegmans. route 16 as far as the connection with Winthrop street and they're looking to make various improvements to that roadway and in general the road's going to go on a road diet and out of that they're proposing a community path connector path there and we also just got notification last week that they're also proposing improvements under

Route 93 to connect the path from that location near the General Lawrence Bridge to Harvard Ave and the rest of South Medford. So it's a large project. And the Section 106 process is a consultation process with stakeholders, among them the Historical Commission, to review impacts to historic resources. And as part of that, the commission generally provides overarching comments about the particular project. last month, we reviewed the existing plans and we thought maybe there might be a missed opportunity to engage the Mystic River at this location. We received some additional information back from MassDOT, just generally concerned about the amount of time that might take. So I thought it wise to engage the community, some stakeholders and to directing how the commission will comment on this project, because we're interested in providing valuable feedback, but I think it might also involve the larger community as well or not. The section 106 is just a pause in the process. It's not meant to stop the process, not a be-end-end-all, it's a consultation. So our comments are advisory, but they are generally taken quite well, and they often end up and result in a better project overall. So I think I'd be interested in hearing, you know, from the general public, if they're here to comment on it, you know, for, against, you know, or both, that we can certainly review that. And in the context of things, I did hear that back that, Eventually, MassDOT will do a larger public outreach in regards to this program. This is an initial process that is focused on the historical commission's comments up to MassDOT. So the public will have a chance to comment on this larger project, and you'll be able to directly provide your feedback to MassDOT. This is just a process where you're directing commission's response to the latest feedback that we posted online.

[Jennifer Keenan]: It does. And I just wanted to give a little context about section 106 is that, you know, we get these all the time and we are always asked for feedback from various entities regarding projects in Medford. And, you know, we are just one kind of board and one group of the city that gets to comment on some of these things. And, you know, not everybody holds a meeting to have public comments. And so I think, you know, for us, it was just something that, you know, we have some, you know, we had some comments and we thought, okay, well, maybe other people have comments too. And so we thought it was important to have this conversation and, you know, if we're the ones having it, great. It's just a chance for the public to comment, whereas they might not otherwise get a chance to during this process, so.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, there are other projects that are going on as part of the larger development of the Mystic River corridor, the Wellington overbite, where they demolished the Kiswanawake building. There's a connector there that's planned called the Wellington Greenway that will connect the paths and finish the loop around the Mystic and Malden rivers. There's another connection underneath Route 28 that's planned to allow traffic to go underneath the roadway rather than try to cross over, similar to what's on the Assembly Square side. So this is just a series of large improvements along the Mystic River corridor that are sort of going to bring us together and help be able to get from one end of the Mystic River to the other, to the lakes, as far as the lakes.

[Jennifer Keenan]: And at least in this point, I just want to make this clarification as well. For this section that we're talking about tonight, there's no historical property in the way that is going to be demolished. Like, there's nothing, you know, of a larger concern from a historical perspective that we as a board are concerned about.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, we're not trying to stop the project. We're just trying to make sure that we're not missing the opportunity to engage in this process and, you know, get something even better out of it, you know, but we are certainly all for connectivity and paths and just wanted to make sure that we're just not missing the opportunity to set up ourselves for success down the road.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so what I'd like to do is I'd like to ask the commissioners if anybody on the commission has a comment, and then I can open it up to public comments, but I'd like to go around with the commissioners first. Commissioners, just let me know if you have any comment on this, or for or against one way or the other, or have a comment, and then I'll take public comments from there. Peter, I saw you unmuted yourself.

[Peter Miller]: Yeah, I sort of concurred with what Ryan, the points Ryan had made in his, in the letter that we all reviewed. I think engaging the river is a good move. And, you know, as it's more of a greenway, I think it could, you know, it's a very busy thoroughfare, obviously. And I don't think it would be that great of an experience to be riding right next to Route 16 with only like a chain link fence or whatever guardrail in between.

So I guess I just wanted to put my two cents in and kind of concur with the letter that we wrote.

[Kit Collins]: said okay thank you do any of the other commissioners have anything that they'd like to say kit i saw you're unmuted yeah i would just say that uh you know the the mystic river is such it's so intrinsically linked to the history of medford that it makes perfect sense to me that we're being asked to comment on this i mean if you think about how Medford evolved as a city, it's so linked to the Mystic River. And the more that we can do to bring the city back to the river, it's just like, what can we do to support it? I guess this would be my question. And just to say, I absolutely agree with what Peter said. I think we, I think Ryan,

expressed the views of the commission on this matter pretty clearly. And let's make it happen.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK. Thank you, Kit. Doug, did you have something you wanted to say?

[Doug Carr]: Sure. I actually agree with Ryan. historically has commented on many things, if one were asked to, even if it had nothing to do with the history of Medford, because they're asking, we should offer an opinion when we have one. And I think Ryan makes a really good point that a slightly better design here would go a long way towards making it a better experience in engaging the river. So I think we're on the right track, and I think

You know, I see a lot of new faces on our community tonight. I wonder, is that why they're here, just to comment on this? Because we haven't mentioned them. Or is it our synthetic other agenda items that are driving people here? Anyway, strong support, obviously.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Nothing from me. As others have echoed, this is an exciting project. I think just, you know, crossing over Route 16 and figuring out how that can work with a protected bike path would be the ideal case.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I share the sentiments of the other commissioners.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you both. Before I go to the public, I'd like to, I see Amanda, we have Amanda Centrella from the city here as well as Teresa DuPont. So ladies, if either one of you would like to jump in here, feel free. And then I'll take public comment if we have any, so.

[Amanda Centrella]: Thank you so much, chair. I'm happy to jump in. So for folks who don't know me, hi, Amanda Centrella. I work in the planning department for the city, and I work on parks and open space projects. Just thought I would jump in because I have some context, I think, for the project that I feel might be very helpful to share both to commissioners and to members of the public who are rightfully very interested in this path.

And so I guess a couple of notes. So I've read through the Historical Commission's initial formal response, and I can certainly understand that feedback. I think that it would have been more clear for MassDOT to present this project as a bike commuter path, as opposed to a passive recreation, like shared use pathway, because it is not trying to be a passive recreation pathway. I would say the passive counterpart to this is across the river, the Clipper Ship Connector Path. And so that said, this proposed design by MassDOT doesn't necessarily prevent us from an opportunity in the future for creating passive recreation offshoots that can actively connect folks to the river.

But I think as far as like sort of helpful framing for this, I wanted to put that out there. I think, sorry, I'm just looking at my notes here. So there was a feasibility study. I imagine that many of y'all have read through it done in 2018 and included stakeholders like DCR, Myra and MassDOT and the city. And part of what that unearthed is that, you know, in bringing and doing a path alignment that would be by and along the river, we would be introducing some significant environmental impacts and alongside that some significant environmental permitting. that really balloon the cost of a project like this in the order of millions of dollars. And I think on page 22 of the study, they have a breakout in a little table of what some of the alternatives would cost.

And DCR, which was a part of this study, leadership at the time took a look at those impacts, took a look at the budget associated. And there is a pinch point to Bicratic Bridge that actually triggers federal regulations. And they said, nope, this is not going to be a DCR project, not at this time. MassDOT took up the project if conceived of as a bike commuter path as opposed to passive recreation path. And so while I definitely empathize and understand the desire for something that connects people to the river, brings them down to the water, I think that it's

to be direct, I think that it would be a non-starter with MassDOT as far as an ask. And so I wanted to be honest and candid with folks here and just sharing some of that insight. I guess I'll pause and just see if folks have questions.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thanks, Amanda. Do any of the commissioners have questions for Amanda?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Uh, not a question, but I think that, um, uh, I, I don't foresee this as being a, uh, here and now project, perhaps if the environmental, uh, studies might preclude it now, but, um, it would be great if we could set up the current path so that we could include it later. Um, if say the city or, uh, DCR or collaboratively, everybody decided to get together and push that, that portion of the project along. sort of a do both situation, you know, do one now and then set ourselves up for success for the later portion of it.

[Amanda Centrella]: may I respond through the chair? Yep. Thank you. Ryan, I definitely agree. And I think actually, and I wanted to raise something to the commission's consideration, which is that, you know, this as proposed, this is creating sort of a mile long channel With limited access within that mile, because, you know, it's really just the beginning and the end of that segment that folks can get in and out. And so I think for safety reasons that it would make a lot of sense to advocate for a couple bump outs to the pathway that would allow for, let's say somebody has a bike breakdown, needs to pull off to the side and have a safe place where they're not interrupting the flow of traffic, or you're tired, you need a break, a place to sit. And that those could potentially be, I mean, I think that there's an opportunity to strategically place those

maybe for views and certainly, you know, in thinking about future connections and connecting points where, you know, we do offshoots to the river or from the river. So something I just wanted to raise to you all as an option.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Amanda. Is Teresa still here? Teresa, did you have anything you wanted to add?

[Theresa Dupont]: Hi, yes, I am still here. Teresa Dupont, Community Preservation Act Manager for the city. Nothing else to add to this project. We always value all comments. Just wanted to reiterate that there will be absolutely a time shortly for public comment from DOT on that. So definitely opportunities coming up for your voice to continue to be heard. So thank you very much.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Teresa. OK, if there are public comments, if people would like to raise their hands, I will call on you one at a time, ask you to unmute. You'll have two minutes to make a comment. We'll need your name and address for the record, please. So I'm going to see. Let's see. I have Carl Alexander. You can go first. Name and address for the record, please.

[SPEAKER_01]: Off to a good start. Carl Alexander. I live at 49 Merrill Street in Somerville. I'm the senior manager for Boonways at the Mystic River Watershed Association and just really want to share my appreciation to the commission for being able to field this conversation and dialogue heading into the more robust public input period that MassDOT's planning. First of all, I really want to echo the sentiment that everyone's been sharing, and more importantly, Amanda, I feel like you took all of my speaking notes that I'd written down towards everything related to this project.

At MIRA, we define greenways as, and this is what we worked on with other professionals of the Boston area, places for walking, biking, and rolling, linear spaces for walking, biking, and rolling, connecting people to places, nature, and each other. And we believe that they have fourfold outcomes for communities. Yes, they do provide for mobility without the use of a personally owned vehicle, but they provide opportunities for mental, they should provide opportunities for mental and physical wellness, opportunities for ecological restoration. and preservation, and also addressing climate resilience, whether that's flooding, urban heat, building social resilience. We like to evaluate each project for its own individual merits. When looking at the concept that MassDOT is advancing for the reasons that have been outlined here tonight, Why remove a lane of traffic on Route 16 versus go down to the shoreline? You're really looking at a project that's really just addressing a mobility and we certainly want to advocate in our best ability for a holistic solution.

towards the South Bank, that none of us have really set foot on probably, unless you were a part of the feasibility study team, since it was implemented in the mid 20th century. And so there's a tremendous value in connecting folks to the river. But I think ultimately at the end of the day, though, we don't want to, this is probably an area where we want to look at multiple solutions towards addressing those four key outcome areas we look at. And as was suggested, and what we'll kind of share with MassDOT, is not precluding the opportunity for more of a passive recreation footpath along the shoreline in the future, which might be more guided and collaborative with DCR rather than DOT. Some other comments that I think, though, I think at the end of the day, though, that the bike, it's being designed as a shared use path, but it's going to be a micromobility way, a bike way for people traveling. And, you know, if you look at the Greenleaf, I think the Greenleaf Bridge between Newburyport and Amesbury is heading on 95 North. That's kind of a similar context. Right next to a highway with a divided barrier, I think DOT's planning a steel-backed wooden barrier, and apologies if I'm coming up on the two minutes, but there's a steel-backed wooden barrier separating the vehicle traffic and the shared-use path. And in order, they do provide bump-outs every quarter mile or so for convenience, for scenic overlook, to better associate with the bounty of the Merrimack River versus I-95, and I think there's ways to be able to suggest tweaks in the design to better orient the user experience towards the river, having scenic overlooks and stopping points every quarter mile, which they don't currently have included. Also, maybe incorporating native landscaping along the landscape buffer rather than grass. and helping to restore the shoreline and ecosystem is really critical to that. I think that's a both-and solution here in the long run, in the near term supporting more of a mobility corridor, but with opportunities to nibble at the edges and provide more of a riverine experience. So I kind of drafted up a comment letter that I can submit to y'all if it's appropriate for me to send your way, but want to kind of echo a lot of everyone's sentiments here tonight and just share our perspectives, having kind of predated my time, but having worked on the feasibility study and keeping an eye and advocating for and managing a lot of the other green waste projects in the watershed. So thank you so much.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Great. Thank you. We'll go to Jeremy Martin next. Name and address for the record.

[Jeremy Martin]: Good evening, everyone. Jeremy Martin. I live on Burgett Avenue over in the hillside. Really want to thank the commission for their work in taking the initiative to try to find a way to really elevate the opportunity of this new pathway. And of course, agree with everything that's been said here about that opportunity. I'm not sure I can add much more than that. Amanda or Carl haven't already hit on, but I do think that when you look at the way that this path functions more as a connector and less as a part of a urban network or a grid of streets or not lacking those connections, it really becomes about moving people from point A to point B. And in that case, I think it's really important that we advance these projects quickly and get as many options for people who are seeking alternative mobility options out into the world so they can be used.

Putting on my conservation commissioner hat for a minute, I know that either of these projects will go before the commission. And I just, looking at the 2018 plan and the potential there, having experience building pathways like that, I think it's going to create a lot of disturbance along the riverbank that may be not fully anticipated in the feasibility study. It would take a lot of convincing at least for me to support. the amount of disturbance and destruction that would happen on that riverbank when I knew that there was so much excess paving already there that could be utilized for something similar. I'll just close by encouraging this commission to support the project as you already have. in your continued communication with DOT. And let's also collectively find ways that we can really invest in and improve the opportunity that Amanda raised, which is a clipper ship path and park adjacent to square. I think as a city, we can do a lot better honoring our history and legacy and all of the things that happened on the waterfront in the square.

with more than just a sidewalk and lawn adjacent to a river that you can't really see. There's so much opportunity there that I know your commission would be interested in, and I certainly am, and the CONCOM is. Let's put our efforts into making both of those things happen, a connector on the south side of the river and a memorable and attractive park on the north side. Thank you.

[tTQZY1IK4s4_SPEAKER_11]: Hi there. Hi, Commission. My name is Derek DuPont. I live at 87 Otis Street. Thank you for talking about this project. I only heard about it recently, so I was really curious to learn more about it. And honestly, the more I learn about it, the more excited I get for it. And I really appreciated Um, the commission members talking about, um, kind of honoring, like, the way the river, the role of the river in Medford's, like, history. Um, and I think even with this project being viewed as, like, a mobility, um, oriented project, um, I still think it's in service to that goal, right? Um, we're kind of opening up a path to more people than just those who are driving cars. Um, so I think it's good to kind of, like, think of that in mind, even if we can't always, if we can't, um, in the short term have a path close to the river itself. Um, so I would certainly be excited about the, even just the mobility improvements. Um, uh, and I don't know if this is in scope of the project, but, um, for the parts of the path, um, that are going to be kind of parallel to 93, um,

where I know it would probably be quite noisy and loud. I wonder if maybe even there's a possibility of sound barriers there for that small portion. Maybe that'll kind of help make it a little more pleasant commuter experience for everyone. But anyways, that's what I wanted to say. Thank you for listening. Thank you for talking about this project.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Great. Thank you. We'll go to Jim next. Hi there, Jim.

[SPEAKER_02]: Jim Sampson, 18 Rear Place, Medford. Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak. I wanted to voice my support for the AND camp. I'm primarily a bike commuter, and 16 is a nightmare currently. So literally anything to make that better is an improvement. But truly, I think that mobility doesn't have to be ugly, right? I love the idea of exploring the potential for utilizing the river better. in general, the Mystic is a wonderful resource and I think underutilized in general. But I don't have much more to add at this point that hasn't already been said, but I would really love to continue to explore the feasibility of the river route that the commission has mentioned. Thank you so much.

[F9BRnpGt19U_SPEAKER_04]: Anything I really had to say, I would say now is echoing comments from Carla, Alexander and Amanda regarding just the main use of the path and the feasibility of trying to change anything drastic at this point. But I would also just love to point out that You know, we already have a path, a paved path that took 10 years to build through the efforts of Walkman and others in the community, the Clippership Connector. And I think that path, and as people mentioned also, the riverfront path there by the senior center and by City Hall, there's incredible potential to get people out in placemaking, historical, sort of nature-enjoying situations.

And any kind of path along the other side of the river, asphalt is extremely disruptive to wildlife and ecology. And so I would definitely be on the side of we have a paved path now on one side of the river, so we'd want to leave the other side. This plan, as it's going to be carried out, is just on top of what already exists and has already disrupted the ecology and nature in Medford. As others said, I think there's best opportunity to leapfrog off of this existing project in the future and find some ways to get to the river on that side and like maybe some specific spots or parks or whatnot. And DCR is always in need of being nudged to create more placemaking and gathering opportunities in all of their sites along the river.

I would just say that in general, the Mystic goes for a long way through Medford, and there's a lot of path along it. And there's very little seating, very few benches, very few opportunities to enjoy that spot other than just walking or biking by it. So I would say that this would be an opportunity to think about ways we can use the paths that already exist along the river. rather than trying to like divert this one. And yeah, so I think this path would be an excellent opportunity for the bike commuters. I am a bike commuter as well as a walker and a transit user. And the most historical thing transit wise is having no cars. Medford would have been really quiet before there was a highway running through our city. And just the existence of this bike path is gonna calm traffic a bit.

As cars go faster and faster, they get exponentially louder. So we're going to get, you know, I think we would see some quieting by the river as a result of this project, for one thing, and maybe even fewer people driving and more peace and quiet, which is like one of the most historical things we could do. So thank you all very much for all your hard work on the history of Medford and everything else.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ellery. Is there anybody else here that would like to comment on this project? Okay, I think we got everyone. Thank you everybody so much for coming and commenting and taking time out of your evening to do that. We really appreciate it. And Ryan, I think we got some good comments. We have a lot of good notes and feedback. Is there anything else, Ryan, that you think we need to discuss on this tonight?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, I think I have enough to sort of draft a letter back and we'll circulate amongst the commissioners. And I want to make sure I loop in Amanda because she had some good feedback on those safety points for the existing path and see if we can't set ourselves up for looking at the future path and advocate for this current path and go from there.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Fantastic. All right. Thank you so much. We will continue on with our agenda. Everybody's welcome to stay, of course. Our meetings are always public and open and we welcome comments. Okay, moving on. We have a zoning update from Community Development. I don't know if Doug if there's anything you'd like to update us on. We just had this on from last month, and I know the Boston Ave discussion was happening, so I just didn't know if there was any update that you needed to fill us in on from our last meeting.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I should probably leave this on every month because there'll be something new, I think, almost every month. Not so much in the summer because the meetings are on pause for July and August, but we did closed out Boston Avenue right at the end of the month and made some decisions. They haven't been formalized yet and it hasn't been approved by the city council until mid-September. We did set some heights and some boundaries for that zoning, which I can share probably at a separate meeting. I think the thing for us to do both for Medford Square and for the Boston Ave zone, which is fairly from Boston Ave north of Tufts and Boston Ave south of Tufts to Ball Square, is to establish which buildings that we think are significant that are not presently on the State of the National Register of Historic Places. Like in Medford Square, there's many of those.

The way the zoning has been written, it does allow for incentives if you keep the historic buildings in both places, and you're allowed, for example, like St. Clement's High School or elementary school, you're allowed to add an additional floor to those buildings, but preserving the building is one of the incentives to get you that extra floor, just for examples. The same thing is true of Mecca Square, although the numbers are slightly different there. So I think that at our next meeting, I'll make it a goal of mine to try to present all the buildings that I'm aware of that I think you might be interested in.

If anyone wants to join me in that exercise, they're welcome to do so. But I wanted to put something in front of this commission because if we do find something significant, we'd want to get ahead of it. We don't want to wait for someone to propose to tear down a building. If we find it significant, it's in the zoning that triggers the protections for both places. We should move on that this summer. compared if there's buildings that we care about, we'll have that extra level of protection.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, yeah, let's definitely have a discussion about that for sure. So I'll make sure to put that on the agenda for next month. I'm just taking a note here.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, if anyone has any questions, I know it's a lot to digest here and I'm I don't have a plan that we want to walk through. We'll do that next month at this time. But we can summarize the heights and areas in the boundaries. We can talk a little bit more in detail at our next meeting.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great, and I don't know if anybody, this really won't affect us, but I'm just gonna share what I know that the, I think it's called the Wesley Church on Winthrop Street, which is a couple blocks down from the intersection of Boston and Winthrop, which is not included in this zoning reform as of now, but that church is for sale, as is the lot across the street, which is where the little micro pantry is. So I know that church was built in the 50s, if I remember correctly, but I think that it's zoned for GR, which is general residence, which means it could potentially be converted into housing, I would think. I'm not sure about setbacks and height and all that, but just something for us to be aware of in the future that that church might be you know, not long for remaining. I know they were trying to market it to either a church or school to be bought, but I'm not sure if they have the pockets of what they were asking for for the price.

So just a heads up there. Okay, moving on, we have not received a demo application from the Hagner Center, but I did see a press release that was put out by the city that that building is going to be demolished. I know we Did we mark that significant for CPC, Ryan, or something? It's vaguely.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I can move right to the public hearing process.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah. Okay. So that will need a hearing at some point. Okay. So at some point, I'm sure we'll receive an application from them. Okay. Does anybody else have any new business for tonight?

[MCM00001490_SPEAKER_04]: Well, hi, my name is Cindy Watson. Can I comment on the HIGMA Center?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, um, sure. Can we get your full name and address for the record, please?

[MCM00001490_SPEAKER_04]: Sure. Cindy Watson, 65 Valley Street, 4D, Medford, Mass.

[MCM00001490_SPEAKER_04]: Um, okay. I live in, um, I'm also on the, uh, Chevrolet commission and the friends of Chevrolet are in the cachet, but at any rate, this is most important. It's 44 units that abut the Heckner Center and is in it. I don't know if you've gone by it. It's an absolute eyesore. There's been no transparency. Catherine Clark awarded us $850,000 on March 27, 2024. Okay, and it was earmarked for the Board of Health to address the concerns of the Heckner Center. There are broken windows, there are a lot of vagrants, people throwing mattresses, et cetera, et cetera. So I've been in constant, correspondence with the mayor. So she finally put out this Medford moving forward $5 million community center project. So as a result, as it stands right now, Medford plans to submit requests to the U S uh, department of housing and urban development for the release of federal funds on or about June 23rd, because it is, uh, I mean, it, it masks the beauty of the money they just put in the Gillis park. and it's just such a detriment and I saw in the fall looks like the Adams family. There's an old crop car there at least 40 years old and they just use it as dumping grounds and you know that's one of 18 city-owned properties and they should not use it like that and obviously it has an impact on myself and 43 other units in here. So I just wanted to give you some feedback if you didn't know that. And I have spoken to

Mary and Connor over at the Board of Health, as well as I said, Brianna, Paul Donato, et cetera. So hopefully they'll get a move on this fast, because that $850,000 sitting there for two years, to me, is very unacceptable.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you so much for your comment. Obviously, we are not leading this project, but we have, you know, it will come before us in the sense of the demolition of the site. And, you know, we try to expedite as much as we can on our end. So. Yeah, we'll keep an eye to our agenda. And as the case comes before us, anybody is welcome to come for public comment as well. So thank you so much for joining our meeting and commenting on that tonight.

[MCM00001490_SPEAKER_04]: Thank you. And I just figured I'd throw in my feedback because I did see it on the agenda. And thank you for all your efforts.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Absolutely. Glad you could join us. Is there any other new business for tonight or any other comments from anybody here before we move on to old business? Okay, I'm going to close out the new business section of tonight's meeting and we'll move on to our old business. Vacant seats, I know we have a couple of folks interested in potentially joining our commission. So Kit is going to send one our way and then Ryan is reaching out to somebody else. So we'll keep you posted on that. So I know we have a couple of commissioners whose terms are coming to an end and might not wanna continue on with us, but that's okay. Just because you're not on doesn't mean you're not with us.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, now that the budget is renewed, I would. I'm gonna. I will reach out to Claire and John to see if we can't get them to do an MHC inventory form. We know that the architectural plans for the original building at are at the state archives, so that will help the. the consultants be able to look at the building as designed and built, so.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Great. Properties under demo delay, I know, did you ever talk to the guy at Mystic?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so we have no update on either property. So just to remind everybody, our two properties under demo delay are 16 Manning Street and 41 Mystic Ave, both do not expire until 2027. Anything on the archeological survey up at the Brooks Estate?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yep, I just talked with a consultant this morning. They are just finishing up some GIS mapping data and they have the report typed out. They just have to coordinate the two together. They're looking at the next two weeks to hopefully get the report wrapped up for you guys.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I have no sneak preview yet. Carly reached out to you. I need the information on the parking lot. I know you guys are changing some stuff around, but I'd love that information just so that they can have it for the proposed plan. I don't have any specific information yet but I will tell you that they base their recommendations off of sort of a predictable pattern of how topography is laid out and how that topography influences human interaction and it's usually pretty spot on with a like an 85 to 90 percent degree of accuracy. So I would assume that that time-tested methodology will prove itself solid in this area, and I would take their recommendation seriously. So let's see what the report says, digest it, and then we'll go from there.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, that sounds good. I'll call you. I'll sit with you on the CAD files later.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thomas Brooks Park, I mean, our tree project is done. The vendors have been paid as far as I understand it. I don't know that there's anything else there, Ryan. Cool.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, well, yeah, well, the next phase we need to decide if we want to, we have to put in for new CPC money if we want to for that.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, I don't even know if what we want to do is eligible, so we have to talk about that.

[Doug Carr]: The CDC deadline is September 11th. Okay. So we have a little time, but not a lot of time.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah we're going to do ground penetrating radar for both the existing site and the former site that I have to work with Teresa on getting that wrapped up. We need to know how many burials shafts are at the original site because the cost for archaeology there was wildly different from firm to firm so we need a little bit more restraint to sort of get the price in more in line with each other. I mean there'll still be a discrepancy but it needs to be closer than it is.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. And then anything on Hastings Heights? I mean it's just in progress right?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah we did an extension to get some more money and the consultants are working away. They just pulled building permits so they are going to go in and look at those and then they should try to wrap up over the next couple of months. And we have Brooks Estate, but the state hasn't released their funding yet, because they never know what they're going to get for the feds. So that project's sort of on hold. I refuse to apply for another one until we get that one off the ground, because it gets to be a backlog, and I don't like it. Plus, I would also like to phase myself out of working on those projects.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, we already have the funding allocation, and that's what this year's matches are to do. But if we don't hear back from the state, I would say by September, in terms of their allocation, we should probably consider moving forward without them. I know we get a match, and it's a sizable match, but we can't wait forever.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: This is the first pass, and they give us 60% to our 40%. So it really is a good percentage, and they're limited on, they have to pass 10% of their funding to CLGs, and the number of communities that are applying to these projects are somewhat limited right now, so.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I mean, but we could just do what we can with the money that we got without their match, right?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, and I mean, yeah, okay. I mean, Yeah, that's, I think that's an easy solution if we don't get it.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, exactly. Okay. Great. Okay. Before we approve meeting minutes, does anybody have anything else for tonight?

[Peter Miller]: Did anybody catch the last name of Cindy there on Valley Street? Watson. Watson. Thank you.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, Peter circulated the meeting minutes for June. I will take a motion to approve or make any edits when someone's ready.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you, Kit. Motion to approve the meeting minutes from June 2026. I'll do a roll call vote. Kit?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, motion to dissolve the meeting. To adjourn, we're just packing it away until later.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Too anxious to finish. Motion to dissolve that has been seconded. Kit.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Good night, everybody. See you August 10th. Stay cool. Good night. Good night.

Kit Collins total time: 1.24 minutes total words: 174