Historical Commission Public Hearing 10/05/26

AI-generated summary. Written by gemini-3.5-flash from the transcript below, which is the record. It may be incomplete or wrong; it does not report votes. Every item links to the moment it began.

The Medford Historical Commission held public hearings for 15 Maple Park Avenue and 71 Mystic Avenue, determining in both cases that the properties were not preferably preserved and allowing demolition plans to proceed.

3:13 15 Maple Park Avenue Preferably Preserved Hearing — Following comments from neighbors concerned about the safety and condition of the vacant Hegner Center, the Commission voted against preferably preserved status, allowing the demolition to proceed with a recommendation to salvage the builder's plaques.
26:55 71 Mystic Avenue Preferably Preserved Hearing — After reviewing interior photos and considering its heavily altered state, the Commission voted against preferably preserved status for the property, allowing the applicant to move forward with plans to construct a self-storage facility.
40:53 73 Surry Street Hearing Tabling — The public hearing was tabled to the October 19th meeting because the property owner was unable to publish the legal advertisement in time.
41:12 141 Grant Street Demolition Application — The Commission voted to accept a demolition application for the property, scheduling a historical significance determination for the next meeting.
42:20 Approval of Minutes — The Commission approved the meeting minutes from September 14, 2026.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Oh, it is? Oh, I didn't get the notice. Okay, sorry. Okay, sorry. This is the Medford Historical Commission. It's Monday, October 5th. It is 702. We're going to get started since we have a somewhat full agenda tonight with a couple of preferably preferred hearings. So before we get to the first item on our agenda, I'd like to kind of recap how we got here this evening. So we have an application, we're going to start with 15 Maple Park Avenue, and then we are going to go on to a hearing for 71 Mystic Avenue. But before we're going to take those individually, but I do like to recap how we got here for both properties. So we have received an application for demolition for both of these properties. They are total demolitions for both properties.

We had already determined significance on 15 Maple Park Avenue. So that one went right from application to public hearing. However, last month we took an application for 71 Mystic Avenue and we did determine that that one was historically significant. And I just like to remind folks what that means. So when a property is determined historically significant, it means that it is importantly associated with one or more historic persons or events. or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or the Commonwealth, or that 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 a group of buildings. So both of these properties tonight have been determined significant, which means we go on to the preferably preferred hearing that we are going to have tonight. And what preferably preserved means is that the commission is determined after an open public hearing that the demolition of the building under review would be detrimental to the architectural or historical heritage of the city of Medford. And one thing we always like to remind folks is that we do not consider the condition of a building or any safety issues when it comes to determining whether a building is preferably preserved or not. Only the building commissioner can make such a determination.

So what we will do for each case is that we are going to open up the table for the commission to make a motion for preferably preferred or not. The commissioners will then discuss the motion. And then I will open it up for public comments. If you would like to make a comment on one or both cases, please raise your hand or make yourself known when we get to that point. I will call on you. You will need to provide your name and address for the record. And then we will close the public comments. The commissioners will have one final discussion and then a vote will be taken.

OK, so again, we're going to start off with 15 Maple Park Ave, which is also known as the Hegner Center commissioners. I will take a motion so that we can start the conversation when someone is ready. Madam Chair, yes, right.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I make a motion to find for preferably preserved status to get this discussion on the table.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thank you. Is there a 2nd. Remember, this is just to start the discussion. It is not a final vote.

[Doug Carr]: I'm sure I'll make a 2nd motion. I don't know how about yeah, because I want to I want to hear everything 1st.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, so I'm not really sure how I feel about this building, but in looking at this portion of the demolition delay process, I think the public component is going to be the important part of this and how I decide to vote on this building. Part of the discussion beyond just being detrimental to the cultural resources is that we should feel that this building is in the public interest to save and be rehabilitated rather than demolished and I.

I'm thinking really hard about that. Now, in terms of the historical reasons why that might be, this is a building that was built by the Dyer Company and Michael Dyer was perhaps one of the most prolific architect builders here in Medford in the early 20th century. sort of puts it in a smaller pool of buildings. He also built City Hall, a number of buildings downtown, and he's second only to Charles Dunham, who was largely active at the end of the 19th century into the early 20th century. So I sort of look at Michael Dyer as Dunham's protege because he did follow right after him. There was a brief period where they worked together.

The rest of the building, you know, I preferably preserve status as a higher threshold. So I sort of look at the existing historic fabric and it's there. I just, I just don't know whether it can be sort of redeemed back to or useful to A new use, I think that the building is sort of too constrained that maybe that might be difficult to do. And as a result, maybe a new building might be better here. So that's my, my long winded thought. I don't know. So I'd be interested to hear what the neighbors say. And if they don't say anything that also says something so.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thanks, Ryan. Also, one thing I failed to mention when I was describing this process is that if a preferably preserved vote is passed, it means that there is an 18-month demo delay on the property. It does not mean that it's saved perpetually. It means it's only saved for 18 months. After 18 months, the property owner can do whatever they want unless Something more steadfast is done by a body other than ours, meaning the historic district commission, but just wanted to explain that to folks here tonight that might not understand the process. Okay, thank you. Ryan Doug, I'm going to come to you next since you seconded the motion.

[Doug Carr]: Sure, before I give some comments, is there Ryan or Jan, could you describe what the options are for this building going forward? I haven't been plugged into this particular possibility of development here. Is that something we can talk about here that is known?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, I I mean, there is a I think there is a plan for this building, but I think the city is still investigating its options, one of which is demolition of this building. But just because we approved demolition doesn't necessarily mean they're going to take that action.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I don't, yeah, I don't know, Teresa, if you know, feel free to chime in, but nothing came in with the application in terms of a set of plans or anything, you know, kind of concrete.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Right, and the city, I mean, the city has access to or had access to partial. Feasibility study that was conducted for another organization looking at this building. So it's sort of like, you know, they have access to information about the building, but not really. They haven't conducted their own feasibility study. Not that much would change, but.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I mean, I think it was more than 6 years ago. I was asked to look at this. I can't remember who in city hall asked me to take a peek at it, but I did tour the building. I looked at a couple of things like accessibility before they had the feasibility study done. Right? And so. you know, the building, I agree with you, the Dyer architect connection is actually a pretty compelling one. But to me, this is more of a, if you're talking about the significance of this building to the City of Medford, it's more about the public interest and the public use, I think, than it is about the architecture itself. It's not a It's a little roughed up in some areas. There's some things that don't make a lot of sense. There's some poor changes that are done over the years. Could it be restored? Absolutely. The second floor is tiny and it wouldn't make a lot of sense to make it accessible from what I saw years ago. But I'm keeping an open mind about it because I really want to understand what Redford wants to do, what the neighbors want to do. And I think it could go either way on this one in terms of restoring or expanding or reimagining that building. And frankly, that's what it would take, I think, to really do something good with it.

Or they could just start over. I'll just pause at that point and let the other commissioners speak.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I want to bring something else up too before I go on to the other commissioners, is that the reason we already had a significance determination on this property was because they went for CPC funding. I don't know, Doug, did they get it? Has CPC funds been put towards this building and now it wants to be torn down?

[Doug Carr]: I, I think, and Teresa's on the call here, but is this on the docket for this coming round, which is about to begin or from last year? Because I don't, I don't remember it from last year.

[Community Preservation Manager Theresa Dupont]: I'll jump in Teresa Dupont. I'm the city's Community Preservation Act manager. So, two fiscal cycles ago, there was some consideration to do some renovation. at the Heckner Center and do some building envelope securing with the roof and windows and doors. So there was a consideration put into for a CPA application for that work. Then it was withdrawn after some other consideration from the administration.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you for clearing that up. Yeah, not currently on the docket, no. Okay, and no prior money has gone towards it.

[Jennifer Keenan]: OK, thanks for clearing that up, Teresa. Thank you, Teresa. Sarah, I'm going to come to you next for Commissioner comments.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, it's really a shame that there's no real plan for it. I do think that if there was one, it might feel a little bit more like we could have a little hope for the building itself. Um, I think I remember from a previous meeting that as it stands now being vacant and, um, uh, sort of not, it doesn't seem to be very well, um, uh, quarantined off, like, you know, not boarded up, um, that it might create a safety challenge, um, as it currently stands. So that that is something that I, you know, I'm concerned about. But I would like to hear from the neighbors and what others think about that, having just heard like little snippets of what might be a safety issue.

[CAS00002523_SPEAKER_07]: Thanks, Jen. Yeah, honestly, I don't think I have a unique perspective to add other than what the other commissioners have already said. I kind of agree with all of them, and I think I'm definitely open to hearing what everyone else has to say. Yeah, I think that'll add a lot of color hearing neighbor comments.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thanks Luke. Okay, at this point, I'd like to open it up for public comment. If there is anyone that would like to make a comment for or against this in terms of demolition or perfectly preserved status, please raise your hand or make yourself known and I will call on you.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Hi, Cindy, can we get your name and your address, please, for the record?

[Cindy Watson]: Okay, I'm a butter. I've done a lot of research on this. Okay. Teresa Bondt. has been helpful in other areas, but just want everybody to know that Katherine Clark, our Senator, gave $850,000 to the Board of Health in March 27th, 2024. I've gone down to City Hall, that money is lying dormant, okay? Secondly, there are no violations of the law. I've spoken to Brianna, as well as the Board of Health, they start work over there at 545. That's against the noise violation in Medford. Now we have drones from the Needham Traffic Division here at 630 in the morning, flying drones over the building. Okay. In addition, now we have trailers, haulers in front of the Hagner Center. We look like a car dealership. We literally abut the place, okay? Our property values are going down. If you go there, okay, it looks like something out of the Addams Family from the old TV show. I'm waiting for more tissue to walk out, okay? The sidewalks are decaying. They're eroding tremendously. There's only one window that is boarded up. When I called the Board of Health, they weren't even aware of that. Okay. So I'm afraid that this is going to continue to go up to Fulton Street and the structural damage will be so bad that the building will collapse on its own. In my opinion, there is no way that this building could be restored. It's filled with asbestos, all kinds of animals. I talked to Paul Donato. People are afraid to walk around the new track at Gillis Park because they think perhaps homeless people are in there. Paul Van Houten said, I know who's in there, you know, and he's concerned too. But Rocky the raccoon, Sammy the squirrel, and Mickey the mouse. So, it's just filled with filth. And why are they using that as a staging area constantly? And the noise is just unbelievable. There was an old cop car there from like 1970 something that was removed. So, that was good. But people at 65 Valley Street, it's also a private way. Why are all these happening as well as where is that money spent? I called Catherine Clarke's office. I spoke to her city policy director. He admitted that, you know, he doesn't have a say because obviously he's not the mayor, et cetera, historical commission, but he would make a call and they have not happy that that 850,000

[Jennifer Keenan]: Is there anybody else that would like to comment? Timothy Myers, I see you and you can unmute yourself. And did you just?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Yep. Name and address for the record, please. And then the floor is yours.

[SPEAKER_11]: Sure, Tim Myers, 65 Valley Street, also at a butter. My understanding is this building has been vacant since 2013. It's in very bad shape. It hasn't been maintained. It's kind of interesting. I think if a private resident owned it rather than the city, it wouldn't have been tolerated how it's been handled. Like Cindy mentioned, there had been a unlicensed car sitting there for, probably decades that wouldn't be tolerated by a normal citizen. The building's in bad shape, windows have been broken, people are going in it.

It's in really bad condition. It's an eyesore. I think that the city had previously leased it for $1 a year to the previous tenant. So it's not a property that's in high demand. It's really just an eyesore to the neighborhood. It's not being maintained. It seems to me it would be difficult repurpose that building for something useful given the space limitations near it. You know, there's not much parking right now. The city's using it as Cindy said to stage piles of dirt gravel for construction they're doing in the area. So it's really a safety hazard in an eyesore. I think one of the board members commented that this building was designed or built by one of the most prolific builders in Medford, but it seemed like they were highlighting a number of properties that that builder had built. So it doesn't seem to me that you really have anything unique by trying to restore or save this building if there's other examples of work that this builder's done throughout the town. I mean, I don't see value in restoring this, unfortunately, just given its location, the limited space around it, and the bad condition of the building. So I would be for demolition.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you so much for your comments. Really appreciate it. Is there anybody else that would like to make a comment?

[SPEAKER_00]: Yes, this is Barbara Malungu. I'm also at 65 Valley Street. Can I just pause you for a second?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much. I just wanted to be clear that we have the same address. But go ahead, Barbara, the floor is yours.

[SPEAKER_00]: Sure. And I'm a recent transplant to Medford from Cambridge. I do walk around the track, but that building, actually, this afternoon when I walked around, the whole backside is boarded up. So, it really does not look like a, you know, somebody who's really interested in historical buildings and architecture. I don't see the value of this building really as my neighbors have also commented. It does look like it will eventually implode in its cell itself. So. Really, I don't see what the preservation value is. So I'm for demolition. You know, get rid of it. There's a track, there's a park. I think kids play baseball there. There are other things that that property can be utilized for that would benefit the community better.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you so much for your comments. Really appreciate it. Is there anybody else that would like to comment on 15 Maple Park Avenue? I'm not seeing anybody on. Leo, I saw you unmute yourself. Would you like to make a comment? Is there anybody else that would like to comment on the Heckner Center or 15 Maple Park Avenue? Okay, I'm not seeing anybody else that would like to make a comment, or I don't see any hands raised.

I keep seeing somebody unmute themselves, but I can't hear anybody. Is there anybody else that would like to make a comment on this case before I close the public comments? Okay, not seeing anybody else. I'm going to close the public comment period. Thank you so much for the residents that took the time to make their comments. They are very much appreciated. Commissioners, I'd like to bring it back up to us to have one final discussion. If anybody would like to jump in and make some comments here based on what we've heard from the residents. Otherwise, I will close our commission comments and we'll go around for a vote.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I'm really hearing the butters here. It's really an unfortunate situation that this is such an eyesore and a safety hazard. I'm surprised the city has let it go this far. I mean, It was in bad shape 10 years ago when I looked at it, and obviously it hasn't gotten any better. So I guess I'm inclined to just, if we're going to tear this down, let's just do it and do it quickly is where I'm leaning now, because I see the point.

Unless someone's willing to invest, It would probably at least a million dollars to kind of really bring that building back. It would have to be almost reimagined and probably reframed, you know, obviously, insulation and all the every window would come out and be restored. It just. And when I think of that priority as a city, I just don't see that being one of them. You know, there's other, there's many other things, you know, the, you know, a new fire station, a lot of the fire houses that would be way above that list in terms of what they would do. So that's where I'm leaning right now.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. I also would want to just make a comment to that. The Medford historical commission is not the entity that would tear down the building. We're not even the person that issues the permit. It would be the city and the building department. So we have no idea how quickly the city will act on this. Our hearing tonight is really just another step in the process. So of course, I would. encourage the abutters to continue on with your fight, if that is your, you know, cross to bear in the sense of timing, because we have no say on what the timing would be on demolition if it were to take place. So the city would, assuming the vote is, the motions turned down, the city would have the option to tear it down. It doesn't mean that they will. So commissioners, does anybody else have any final comments before we go around for a roll call vote.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I got one. Go ahead, Ryan. Just a quick point that we should make any if we do decide to shoot this preferably preserved status down to make a note in the letter and to make this conditional that they salvage the builders plaques from this existing building to be reused in any other building that's going to go here.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I think that that would be a wise thing to put in a letter. Yeah, for sure. And to honor what was there with any future building. Yep.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, because it is, it is named for Ralph Kendall, who I think was a longtime football coach. Because the, I don't know if people know this, but before the 93 came through, this was the Medford High School's athletic facility. So.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Sarah, did you wanna make a final comment? I thought I saw a hand.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: I did, yes. Okay, go ahead. I also wanted to note that like what the city will do with it if it is demolished, whether or not that's better than the abandoned building, maybe only slightly, we can't prevent them from storing vehicles, dirt, salt there or anything else, but I hope that is better than an abandoned building. I just wanted to kind of note that, that it may just be a vacant lot,

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I would hope that, um, I think because of the issue with, and maybe it's a separate issue with our digging down in Medford square, um, that they might actually not be able to leave this as a vacant lot. They may have to actually pave over the hole to fill it in and prevent anything from happening there as a liability.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Okay. I think the commission is done commenting on this. So to circle back, we have a motion on the table to find 15 Maple Park Avenue preferably preserved that has been seconded. I will go around for roll call vote. As I see people on my screen. Doug, you are first.

[Jennifer Keenan]: I meant, yeah, yeah. Fails 0-4. Yes. Technically. So, we will issue the city a letter that they are able to proceed with their demo application and they will be on their way. So, thank you to all who commented. We're going to close out 15 Maple Park Avenue, and we are going to move on to 71 Mystic Avenue. Commissioners. So we're basically going to do the same thing that we did for the previous case. We are going to make a motion. The commissioners will discuss. We'll open up the floor for public comments. We'll circle back to the commission for a final vote. So commissioners, if somebody would like to make a motion on 71 Mystic Avenue, we'll jump off the discussion.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Sorry, yes, I do. Preferably preserve status for this building to get the motion on the table.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, so summarize what we talked about for significance just quickly. Last residential building in this long stretch of commercial development. Pre-1875 buildings are exceptionally rare in Medford. They're not as rare as the 1855 counterparts, but there's probably less than 3,000 pre-1900 buildings in Medford. And of that, the 1875 buildings are a much smaller pool. Is it in the best condition overall in terms of its historic fabric? No, but I think maybe perhaps it should be given consideration. I am particularly interested if there is any public comment on this building, and I'll leave it at that.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I don't think I'm going to be looking at this for perfectly preserved. I can't see it. It may be the last building on Mystic Ave of the first generation of development, but Mystic Ave has long since moved into a a couple of centuries beyond that, obviously. And if it was a gem, I would consider moving it. I don't think it's a gem. I don't think it rises to that level. We've talked about that in a few other properties in my time on the commission. So I think I'm looking to move forward and get the site redeveloped. I think that's in the best interest of the city of Medford.

[Jennifer Keenan]: One thing that I thought I would just mention is that 41 mystic is under demo delay, but 71 is up for discussion. And I just thought it was worthy of comparing the two, what makes one worthy of maybe moving it or saving it versus another. And I know Ryan, you had said that was one of the original properties in Medford.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I mean, if I were comparing the two, which is fine. I'm going to undermine my own position here for a second. If I were to face these two properties off against each other, the building just down the street, there are only 12 of those that exist in Medford that predate 1800. That is a category in itself, but that plus the ties to African American history, slavery in New England, the Hall family in Medford puts it in a completely other category. So, I mean, if I were to compare the two, they're in completely different categories, whereas this one, there are other examples of this Victorian end house in Medford that exist and will exist beyond this project. And, you know,

It's not to me, it's not necessarily one that I'm going to plant my flag on, but, you know, other people may have other opinions.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I just thought that was a worthy point to make. Um, since it's on the same road and not that not, it's not even at opposite ends. Like, if there are a couple blocks apart. Um, Luke, I'm going to come to you next since. You were last last time, so I thought I'd give you a chance to go before there. Sure.

[CAS00002523_SPEAKER_07]: Yeah. Yeah, I appreciate hearing kind of all the all the context about the history of it. I'm looking at the form B right now. And I got to say, like, I kind of agree with Doug. Like, you know, I've seen a lot of this type of, you know, a number of this kind of style of house around. And I know that, you know, that stretch of that stretch of quarter in Medford, right? Like, that's that's getting it's going to get redeveloped with commercial type buildings. And I think even if we were to, you know, save the building, right? It would eventually be out of place and probably not very nice for someone to live there amongst a commercial stretch of road. So I'm leading towards kind of saying no.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, I, I agree with the rest of the commissioners. I think planting the flag on this particular 1 to be moved feels a little bit. You know. excessive and, you know, leaving it here amongst, you know, the more commercial properties doesn't feel like the solution either. So I think I would be, I would be open to insignificance determination on this one. Okay, thank you so much.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, not properly preserved. Too many definitions. Okay, I'd like to open the floor up for public comments. If there's anyone that would like to make a comment, give me a wave, raise your hand, unmute yourself, and I will call on you, and we'll go from there. Griffin, Abel, unmute yourself, and we can get your name and address for the record, please, and then the floor is yours.

[SPEAKER_07]: I just wanted to say I appreciate hearing the comments and context. I'm actually the applicant at Banner Real Estate Group for the demo application on the site. We're planning to redevelop for self-storage and ground floor retail. I also wanted to introduce Brian Lever with Epsilon Associates. He's our historic preservation consultant we've also hired to help us through this process. He also happens to live in Medford and wanted to share a few comments as well. So I'll open up the floor to Brian.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. Thanks Griffin. Brian, if we could just get your name and address also for the record.

[SPEAKER_09]: Certainly. It's Brian Lever. My residential address is 40 Tyler Avenue in West Medford.

[SPEAKER_09]: So I'm kind of hearing the commission is leaning towards not preferably preserved, not to be presumptuous, but we do have some slides, most of which you've probably seen, but they include some interior photos as well. If that would be helpful, I could share them.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, let me hold on. Let me make you co-host so you can share. Or Teresa, can you do that? Thank you. You should be all set.

[SPEAKER_09]: All right, so you're probably familiar with the building and its location. Obviously, we're here helping the Banner Real Estate Group We certainly understand the building's history and context and recognize that it is part of the Middlesex Canal District. However, it was built after the canal closed and the former canal lots were carved off for development. It has had a lot of interior and exterior renovations that have removed, unfortunately, a lot of the features in the building. including a porch that was on the front, windows, doors, a number of other items, and it has replacement siding.

This is the site context, which I'm sure everyone is familiar with along Mystic Avenue. It is quite literally surrounded by commercial real estate. While it was a residential area, it's a little out of character with the current use of this stretch of the road. I believe it's actually missing a window, which is a little odd, because it only has two up at the second story. There is a stair that goes from the first to the second along the side of the house, but I actually do think when they recladded the house, they must have clad it over a window opening. On the sandboards, it did have a full-length front porch that ran along the front of the building. If it had any details like brackets or other items, because of the way this siding has to be installed, it's a cementious panel, you can't bend it. They most likely had to strip all those details off in order to install the siding that's there now. Pretty much all the windows have been replaced, all the doors have been replaced as well.

They added a picture window on the south side at one point. No, we don't take condition into account, but the roof is a very mismatched. I don't even know what a collage of asphalt shingles perhaps would be the best phrase. On the inside, it went through some really radical renovations. I mean, normally in these types of buildings, you would at least see the balustrade that might have kept. Really, the only thing on the inside is the wood floor. And you can even see, you know, there was like a partition here that they knocked out. They did keep some of the floor, but pretty much everything else is gone.

There's no, like, significant trim. There's no fireplaces. There's really, really no details of any kind left in the building. So basically, we're looking to support you in your conclusion. We recognize that the building has a significance determination and it's part of the city's history, but given its condition and all of its alterations, we're hopeful that the commission will support a determination of not preferably preserved. Again, I have the Sanborn illustration up on the right that shows that there was a porch there that's since gone. We believe the current siding is, Asbestos, we haven't had it tested, but that does also raise another potential issue with the building that contributes towards the rationale for trying to remove it. It's already been documented, thankfully, so you have that record of its information that can be preserved, which is very helpful. We don't feel that this is a building that's really worthy of invoking the demolition delay.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you so much for that presentation. It was very helpful. Doug go ahead.

[Doug Carr]: Brian, did you encounter any historic photos along your way when you were looking at anything?

[SPEAKER_09]: Not of this building of Mr. Gav. Yes, but not not of this building.

[Doug Carr]: Okay, I think I think those interior photos. do paint a picture, I think it would be helpful for us to have those in the file, so to speak, because the form we have doesn't have that detail, but those interior shots show you. It actually doesn't look bad in there, but you're right. It might as well have been built in 1990 for what you see inside. So that is helpful. I appreciate that. I think if you could email that to us, I think it would be helpful to have that in the record.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Yeah, I agree. I think if we could have that presentation and just save it in the file, it's always good to have more records than not if it ever comes up in the future. Thank you, Brian. Thank you so much. Is there anybody else here tonight that would like to make a comment on 71 Mystic Avenue? Please raise your hand or make yourself known. Going once. Going twice. Okay, not seeing anybody else willing to comment. I'm going to close the public comments section of this hearing. Commissioners, are there any other comments that anybody would like to make before we go around for a roll call vote on this one?

Okay, I'm not seeing any. Okay, for 71 Mystic Avenue, we have a motion on the floor to find for preferably preserved status that has been seconded. I will go around for a roll call vote. Doug?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so the motion fails 0 to 4. So for the owners, we will get you your letter out so that you have that for your records and you can apply for your demolition permit. Good luck with your project. Let us know if we can help with anything else. And I look forward to cleaning up that little section of Mystic Ave.

[Jennifer Keenan]: You're welcome. Okay, we were supposed to have a third public hearing tonight for 73 Surry Street. That property owner wasn't able to get a sign up in time and run his legal ad. So that hearing will be tabled until the 19th, which is our next meeting. Um, we did have, um, Ryan, were you able to send out grant? Okay. Um, so we did have a late application come in, um, which we told the property owner that we would accept tonight. So that on the 19th, we could do significance. Um, so commissioners in your email. You should have a link to an application for demolition for 141 Grant Street, which if somebody would like to make a motion, we can accept or make a motion to accept that application.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Thank you, Ryan. Okay. I'll go around for a roll call vote to accept the application for demolition for 141 grant. Doug yes, and Sarah yes.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you. So that passes for 0. so we'll do significance on the 19th for that 1. Okay, the only other thing we have tonight on our agenda is to approve our meeting minutes from our previous meeting, which was September, where's my calendar? 14th. Thank you, September 14th. I know Peter did send those around. So when someone is ready, I will take a motion to approve the meeting minutes.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, thank you Ryan. Okay, motion to approve the meeting minutes from September 14th. Doug? And Sarah?

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, so that passes 4-0. Okay, that is all we have for tonight. Our next meeting will be in two weeks, as our normal meeting would be next Monday, which is Indigenous Peoples Day. So we have to juggle the calendar around a little bit in October to make sure we get everybody in for their 30 days. So we're gonna have to get that agenda filed, right, this week, right?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Uh, quick. No, the the agenda doesn't have to get. Oh, yeah. So the next thing anybody that did not. Nobody else, everybody else is all set. I updated the 73 Surry Street has the legal ad that says that their meeting is next.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay, great. So that one will definitely be able to do on the 19th. Okay. So we'll have preferably preserved hearing for 73 Surry Street on the 19th, plus any other new business and kind of a regular meeting the next time. So I think we are good for tonight. I'll take a motion to adjourn. If somebody wants to make one, it is 7.46 p.m.

[Jennifer Keenan]: Okay. Thanks everybody. Have a good night. See you in two weeks.