Historical Commission 10/19/26

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 evaluated several demolition requests, determining 141 Grant Avenue as historically significant while declining to impose a demolition delay on 73 Surry Street or 360-362 Salem Street. The Commission also reviewed plans to construct veteran housing at 321 Winthrop Street and selected Lawrence Estates as the target area for an upcoming survey grant.

1:43 Preferably Preserved Hearing: 73 Surry Street — The Commission voted against finding 73 Surry Street preferably preserved, allowing requested renovation and demolition permits to proceed.
29:06 Significance Determination: 141 Grant Avenue — The Commission voted that 141 Grant Avenue is historically significant and scheduled a public hearing for the November meeting.
37:29 Demolition Application: 360-362 Salem Street — The Commission voted to pass on review for 360-362 Salem Street following previous design modifications approved by the city.
41:54 Demolition Application: 387-389 Main Street — The Commission voted to accept the demolition application for 387-389 Main Street for formal review at a future meeting.
43:02 Project Update: 321 Winthrop Street — The Veterans' Services Department presented plans to replace a structurally unsound historic building at 321 Winthrop Street with housing for veterans, and the Commission planned an upcoming site visit.
57:18 Survey and Planning Grant Priority Area — The Commission selected the Lawrence Estates area north of Medford Square as the target neighborhood for the next state survey and planning grant application.
1:05:32 Zoning Incentives and Cemetery Project Updates — Commissioners discussed incorporating historic preservation incentives into city zoning policies and received progress updates on the Cross Street Cemetery restoration project.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Good evening, everybody. This is the October 19th meeting of the Medford Historical Commission. We will call the meeting to order at 7.05 PM. Just a quick overview of our agenda before we begin. So we have a public hearing for 73 Surry Street. I will go through and reiterate the purpose of the meeting and the reiteration of the determination of significance. We'll have some commission motions to kickstart the discussion. We will have the commissioner comments followed by public comments and final comments for the commissioners. We'll revisit the motion and then we'll have a vote and then we'll conclude next steps and I'll go through that process and then we'll resume our regular business meeting after that, where we have a determination of significance for 141 grant. We have 2 applications to receive for 360.

362 Salem Street, and there's a second one for a property on Main Street, which is 387-389. We'll follow up with a project update at 321 Winthrop Street, and then we'll move to our survey and planning grants, and then we'll have our regular old business updates at the very end. So for the public hearing, if anybody wants to follow along, our project materials are located at the Medford Historical Commission website at www.medfordhistoricalcommission.org. And if you click the News and Updates tab, all of the latest information for this meeting is right at the top.

So tonight we're starting off with 73 Surry Street, which is a public hearing to determine whether or not the building demolition is detrimental to the historical, cultural, or architectural resources of the City of Medford. The building was previously determined significant, and what that means is that it was either pending or subject to a listing on the National Register of Historic Places, has been listed on the Massachusetts Register of Historic Places, or was built 75 years ago and is determined by the commission to be significant either because 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 Commonwealth, or 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 tonight, the significance portion was last meeting. That is the first step in the two-step demo delay process. That is determined purely by the Commission. The public hearing portion, which is tonight's portion, is also includes the historical commission, but we also welcome public comment on the proposed project. In terms of what that proposed project is, 73 Surry Street is a large rehabilitation project. Most of the building is being changed in some way, shape or form. I can certainly share architectural plans if the commissioners and the general public think that that's helpful to their determinations and to their comments, but otherwise, we'll just stick to what we have for information. Commissioners, do you want to kickstart with comments on the particular building? We'll kickstart with a motion to get it on the table, and then we'll go right into any public comments after I hear from all of you.

[Doug Carr]: Thanks, Ryan. I would make a motion to find the building significant with the caveat that I'm probably not going to vote for that motion. I think it actually would be helpful to the public and to the whole commission to briefly run through what the existing building looks like and what the proposed is so people can get a flavor for the context and the direction that it's heading in before we get too deep into the comments.

[Peter Miller]: I can second the motion. You mentioned for significance, I think you meant preferably preserved.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, we're determining preferably preserved status tonight in the wake of significance determination. Let me see if I can pull this set of architectural plans up. Unless Doug or Peter, do you have the set of plans?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Kevin, that'd be great. I may have to make you co-host, but if you run into an issue, just let me know.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: So just in the quickest and broadest sense, there are multiple changes to the main massing of this building, the whole forward sections coming front. Basically what's gray is original and staying, and what's white is the new construction that's taking place in this building. The front bay, on the right there's a three-sided bay that's being extended to the second floor, and a large addition to the rear of this building. Is that helpful, Doug? I think that's pretty clear.

[Doug Carr]: Yes. And if I can start off with some comments, I actually think it's a generally sympathetic design overall. I think the extension of the three-sided bay on the bottom right-hand corner of the drawing is a nice addition. I think there's some good moves here. I did have a question, and maybe, Kevin, you could unmute yourself. The front elevation is the one area that I have a question about. It seems like you're creating a two and a half foot projection just over that porch area. And it doesn't it looks a little odd to me because it's obviously not the original profile of the house. It's like it's like a subframe within the frame. Could you explain that a little bit? Maybe give me a little context behind what's driving that design move, Kevin?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_11]: Yeah. So that's part that's going to be kind of in the front. That's for first. So if you go I don't know if you want to go a little down. Down to the floor plan. Yeah, right there. So here it is a little higher. Here we go. So that's that area right there.

[Doug Carr]: So you're extending a two and a half feet, you're pushing out over the porch and creating this kind of sub volume within the volume.

[Doug Carr]: Is it just to get more space or what's is there something else going on?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_11]: That's to get a little bit more space with the homeowner decided that with the architect as well.

[Doug Carr]: OK. Okay, I think overall this is a good project. I don't think I would make that move, but I respect that move. So I feel like the rest of the design is very good quality and thoughtful. So I appreciate the effort that's gone into this and I'll just pause now and let the other commissioners talk.

[Peter Miller]: Yeah, I think it's a good it's a good project as well. Um, but pretty sympathetic. I had some very kind of specific questions about. Things that would be on my wish list, but. We have to find it preferably preserved before I conveyed that wish list, I guess. So I don't want to put the cart in front of the horse here. But I do have some specific questions about the design. I don't know, I guess this isn't the appropriate time to bring it up, but I did want to say, I do think it's a pretty sympathetic and good design too. Leaving it at that. I think the building itself is, it's an interesting building. It's creates a fabric with the neighboring homes. There's a lot of these arch porches along the way there. So I'm glad you're keeping the porch rather than knocking that down. Anyway.

[Kit Collins]: I'm not sure I'm ready to be next. I'm still looking at this. All right, that's fine. Can Luke be next?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I was going to say, I'm going to Luke, so we'll shuffle back forth, and then I see you, Sarah, you're on the next page. So we'll come to you next.

[CAS00002523_SPEAKER_07]: Go ahead, Luke. Yeah, no worries. Yeah, I agree that I think the new design is very sympathetic with the existing conditions. I think the, you know, it appears to me that the folks who worked on this like, you know, clearly spent a lot of time trying to understand the existing architecture and make moves that you know, that worked with it. Kind of like, just kind of going back to some of the language that was in the Form B here, I see they're, you know, they're retaining the arched openings at the front porch, they're incorporating the eave returns, and I think the Form B called the Modion cornices, that kind of profiled stepping of the cornice. I kind of see all those pieces of language incorporated here, so... I think it's a very good...

a very good nod to the existing historical characteristics of the building. I agree with Doug's comments, maybe the question about that front projection. I've been kind of going back and forth on my own head of whether I feel like it hurts or helps in terms of retaining the existing character, but I think it's fine. It seems to work, so I think I'll just leave my comments there. Thank you.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, I think there was a question about the arches and I think last time we discussed are they actually they seem to be drawn a little bit slightly different than they exist. Now, and so I guess Kevin is are they to remain as they are currently.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Okay, I mean, that's very encouraging. Yeah, like Luke and Doug said, the front projection is a little odd to me, especially with like coming over the porch like that. But I do think that the symmetry of the windows is nice and it looks like potentially restoring the lights in the windows that it looks like were removed maybe at one point. So that's a nice nod to the, would windows that probably would have been original.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Great. Kit, we're coming back to you, and then I'll go to public comment.

[Kit Collins]: I guess my only question, this is really a question for all of our architects, is I What I've been trying to do as we've been sitting here talking is to pull up kind of a streetscape to see what are the other buildings on the street. Because my sense from our previous conversation was that that arch is actually on the porch is the thing that is sort of what makes this neighborhood. Because if I recall, I think that there were lots of houses along this street that had that same arch. Is that right?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Am I remembering this? Yeah, there's some in the neighborhood that's sort of a defining feature of this particular developer. And it comes in different styles. Some are single family, some are duplex. But they all basically have that same basic arched porch.

[Kit Collins]: So what I was thinking is, so I'm pleased to see that arch retained. I guess I'm thinking, If you're looking at this house, I've been going back and forth between the photos of what is there and the renderings, and sort of thinking, does it actually fit into the streetscape? And I would just put that to the architects on the committee, because I haven't been able to find the streetscape yet.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, it looks like the house to the right of it is a stacked porch, but same arches. And then if you look across the street and more towards the corner, I don't know what the cross street is, but there's two more same, a single family and a stacked porch, potentially a two family that has the same arch.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, and it seems the architecture of the particular neighborhood is early 20th century because that's when the development went in. So there's lots of Philadelphia esque duplexes mixed with single houses that are in the four square design. So this one. It's actually bringing, whereas there's a lot of articulation through some projections and things on the four squares. They're very boxy, so this is a little bit different, but this house is different anyways, even as it exists right now. I mean, it's got a half story on the second floor with a knee wall, which is really unusual. That's something that you see in late, you know, the 1850s through 1880s. They don't really replicate it much later than that, so to see that all the way over here is sort of unusual. But neat just means that maybe a builder using more older and traditional building methods may have built this house as opposed to somebody that built a much newer, the newer styles next to it. So.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Is it common, Brian, to see, like, I feel like the way that the bay will now intersect with the roof is almost like a turret.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: No, it's not, but this particular house is a Victorian gable end house, so it fits with the style.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: So they brought, like Luke said, the language is all here. It's right in through. I mean, even the fact that they're using shingling and breaking it up with above the clapboards, that's kind of neat.

[SPEAKER_07]: Yeah, I just wasn't sure if that was more of a Victorian influence rather than a...

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, whoever built this house, I don't, you know, it's no earlier than the rest of the houses around it, but it's certainly whoever built it hearkened back to earlier styles. They weren't quite ready to give up and go sort of modern.

[Kit Collins]: I think that was, Sarah, thank you for being far more articulate than I seem to be able to be. But I think that actually is my question, because if I'm looking at the renderings, if you're looking at it from the street with the turret, and I love a turret, it just looks kind of more Queen Anne than what it was, which is probably fine, but I just raise it because it looks really different.

[Doug Carr]: I, I think this what this what this project is is this house becomes an eclectic house. This isn't a pure house. This is not a restoration. This is kind of a. reimagination, I think, for lack of a better term. You know, there's, it's building on something that's there, but it is definitely creating a little bit of its own language. That's the way I read these elevations. And I think, you know, that just, we've seen that before on other, other houses where they've, they've, they've taken something that was a certain style, but then they've made a new element and kind of inserted it. And as long as it's not, extreme like a giant glass window, 10 by 15 feet or something crazy like that. I think they can generally make it work if it's done well, and I think this is.

[Peter Miller]: Yeah. I have a question about the siding for the builder there. The note on all the elevation says, new exterior wall finish to be coordinated with owner. So my question is, is the siting going to look like this or is it going to be something completely different to be determined in the future?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_11]: So the siting, I think the homeowner is there as well. I think we might, it depends on how he feels. and what it looks like. I'm thinking it's going to be similar to what it is shown on the drawings, for lack of better words. But I think we might also go with the regular clapboard all throughout, like vinyl siding. OK.

[Peter Miller]: White vinyl sided. But when you put this addition on the front, even if it's white vinyl siding, it's going to look very crisp and new. The rest of the sighting is going to therefore look old and tired. I don't know when it was cited originally, but. There's a part of me that worries that the new addition is going to look so much better than the rest of the old house. I wish you were changing out the siding on the front of the house as well. That's my main comment that I'd be worried about. But I think it's a shame that you're not residing the porch. Mr. Peter? People go along with- Hold on one second, Claudio. Yeah.

[Peter Miller]: No, that that's my comment is I worry that the contrast between the additions. And the existing signing is going to be a little bit on anyway.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, is there anything else before I go into that 1 clarification? Otherwise, we can move into comment to. Okay. All right, so we're going to go into public comment at which point I'll recognize Claudio. And he can clarify that 1 issue. If you'd like to speak, you need to raise your hand on the software or make it known to me somehow feel free to wave. I should see you Peter. You can stop sharing your screen. I guess at this point. So I can see everybody.

And you'll be allowed. I think two minutes is probably long enough for people to provide comments. Everybody's allowed to speak if they want to. We'll go through all of the new people first, and then if you have additional comments at the very end, we'll add them at the end. I tend to take people, those against demolition first, then those for demolition, after the owner comments, and then from there, once we get through everybody, we'll close public comment and we'll go forward and I'll talk about the next steps with the motion. So would anybody like to speak on this particular project?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Beard. Can you name and address for the record, please?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_09]: Yes, so the Mr. Piri, you know, question about the vine, we're going to change the whole thing. So everything is going to be scraped down because there's no point for me to renovate the entire house and keep in the same siding. So it's going to be the same color. Is gonna be practically the same. So it's gonna be yeah, everything is gonna continue vinyl except The front of the porch. So the wall i'm gonna try to go more like uh more like uh You know these days so it's like I like more clear non-vinyl against the wall on the front of the porch So it's like on a house itself. So the porch can stay as a vinyl, but the house, the first floor, the entrance is going to be a change a little bit.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Are you, I'm just going to ask this, are you concerned about budget? Would you be interested in stripping the siding to see what condition it is, what's under there might be salvageable?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_09]: I mean, I want to go 100%. I'm trying to save energy. I'm very concerned about, you know, what do we spend in energy, electricity and everything. So that's part of my, you know, my goal.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: So, yeah, no, that's amicable. And I see that benefit.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Can we ask about the proposed gable detail at the top? So at the top of the new projection on the front of the house, there was a little section that had kind of like a different treatment. Is there a plan to, or is there, do you know what material you're going to use up there?

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_09]: So it's going to be part of vinyl and I didn't finish that part yet with the Kelvin and everything because I want to do something and I want to look like we did something on the house. So I tried to make a little bit of difference, not change a lot, but to keep a little bit of us different.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: No, I think it looks nice. I was asking if you knew what material you might put there.

[CAS00002509_SPEAKER_09]: We didn't decide yet, but it's probably not going to be something crazy. It's going to be something like a normal we've been seeing lately in Medford, what renovation people have been doing. We're not going to go crazy about it, but it's going to probably look like. okay so a shingle in a different shape yes okay okay you're not thinking like stone or something no no no no no stone i've been thinking about the i've been thinking about the metal roof but no no stone no nothing gotcha okay yes thanks for clarifying yes

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I think a good example of, you know, things that you could do there. We had a project at 17 Edward Street in South Medford that has that breakup. There's a Queen Anne style building that has the little shingle detail up at the top. So you might take a look at that, see what they did.

[Peter Miller]: Okay. And they make a, the vinyl companies make a decent looking shingle pattern now too. So you can still do it in vinyl, but it could have a shingle look.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it's just sometimes if you get to that particular break, it's really sort of nice to be able to have some sort of kick out or physical break rather than having just a flat surface. You'll notice on Edward Street that it's completely sort of flat, doesn't mirror the historic details. So something that would just give it a little bit more depth there would be huge. Okay. Any other public comments? I didn't see anybody else raising their hands. All right, hearing none, I'm going to close public comments. Commissioners, any final comments before we go to the motions?

[Doug Carr]: Just one, Claudio, if you don't mind unmuting, and maybe Peter, could you bring up the drawing again? Sure. I think the one thing I would suggest, and this is just a suggestion, but if you look at the side elevations, especially the top right one, but even the lower right one as well, the second floor has a lot of area with very little windows. There's a lot of blank wall there, and it looks like in plan, some of them are bedrooms. It could be a small window inserted just to break up that elevation a little bit and provide a higher quality room rather than just the one light, the one window at the end of the gable on the rear elevation, which is what the cursor is now. Just a suggestion, I don't, you know, these are, you know, There are options to really our 18-month demo delay and work with you on a design or note. We don't find this perfectly preserved, in which case you go on your way. But as you can hear from the comments, there's a desire here for a slight improvement. But I know, speaking for myself, we don't generally like to stop projects that we think are Are in decent shape, I think this is a little bit of fine tuning here as you get into your, your, your final design and you're building permits that it's worth taking a look at some of these issues.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, great. Any other commissioner comments. Are hearing done, we'll move on to the vote. So. A motion Doug Carr made a motion to find for significance with Peter Miller seconding. It was definitely preserved, though, because it was I probably preserved. Yes, I prefer preferably. status. Okay, so what that would mean is if the Commissioner's vote that the building is preferably preserved, it invokes the 18-month demolition delay during which time we would hopefully work with the homeowner to mitigate that and sign off on it. Our projects, if we do impose a delay, sometimes are as quick as one to three months. We've had people wait out the whole delay. So our intent is always to move people along. If we vote no, then the project gets its permitting. We'll release the permit holds and they'll go on their merry way. We usually file all of our paperwork on the Friday following the meeting.

Any other questions from the public on that? Seeing none and hearing none, commissioners are going to go around with a roll call vote as I see you, starting with Peter.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: There we go. Okay, so it fails 1 to 4. So I will go ahead and get that paperwork ready and we'll release the stuff as soon as we have it filed with the city clerk. And if there's an interest in working with the demo delay subcommittee, I can put you in touch with them so that they can provide some any of that additional feedback that we talked about just on a voluntary basis. Okay. So, we'll be in touch.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Thank you. Okay, next up 141 Grant Avenue commissioners. I sent around the MHC form B for this particular property. We had it done for a while ago as part of the East Medford survey. and we're determining significance, which I talked about at the very beginning of this meeting. It simply either is on the national register or pending national register, is on the state register, or is built 75 years ago. And as a result, it's either importantly associated with one or more historic persons, events, or with the broad architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the city or commonwealth, or it's 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. I will be happy to entertain a motion on this building.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay. Okay, Doug, I'm going to quickly interject with some comments before you go ahead and do your thing. This particular building is located in East Medford. It's a part of a large scale development that began in the. later half of the 19th century by the Hall family. And the Hall family went bankrupt as a result of overextension of their personal finances. Their creditors closed in and they took all the land that they had. And this particular neighborhood was developed by a series of trustees working from Medford Square over to Spring Street. So each street is sort of sequentially built from 1870, 1880, 1890, until you get over to this side.

There are a lot of 20th century resources on this street, but this is one of the fewer 19th century resources that sort of was built in an era where the streetcar came through on Salem Street and the residential development just went absolutely wild through this area. So I figured that context was important because it's not necessarily covered on the MHC Form B, but this particular building, in my opinion, is you know, one of those nice buildings that adds to the context of this entire neighborhood. Okay, go ahead, Doug.

[Doug Carr]: Can I just say ditto? Because that's pretty much where I was going to go. Sometimes this is a hard call and this one's just not. This is a great building. It's got a lot of detail. You described it very well. This is an easy call for me. I just think the building speaks for itself and it is a character-defining building. I'll speak later about the proposal alterations as a separate item.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Um, yeah, like Doug said, it's a lovely, it's a lovely property. Um, and I'm looking at the Google street view and it seems, you know, this and the one that's kind of kitty cornered to it, um, seem the only one that have turrets, you know, they're well adorned. Um, they're, they're quite lovely. It would, yeah, it would definitely be, um, uh, difficult to, uh, vote differently on this one.

[CAS00002523_SPEAKER_07]: Uh, Luke, I, yeah, I agree with all that. Um. It would be hard to vote other than otherwise than significant. Peter, thanks.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: You know. Um, the 1 thing that's not on this form, which is sort of, I don't think John had access to it, but this plan is nearly identical to some of the other houses in the particular neighborhood. And just through a series of remarkable chances, I found that, um. that builder is John Payne. He was not necessarily anything special, but he's part of the, he comes down from Canada and he's part of that broad movement of Canadian individuals immigrating to the Northeast United States and responsible for the large amounts of sort of working class that built these neighborhoods for what I think are mostly white collar individuals first wave through here. So I thought that was particularly interesting. So we'll make sure we try to capture that. And I'm going to see if I can get some more information that would further tie him to this particular site.

Okay, so I think we've set our piece on this particular building, so I'll go forward with a roll call vote for significance. Just to remind you, Doug made a motion to find for significance, seconded by Sarah, so I'll call you as I see you. Peter?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Great, so it's five to zero. approved. Okay so we will have a public hearing for this particular building. So I will send the legal notice and the sign requirements to the owners to get that posted and our next meeting will be I believe November 9th. Yeah go ahead Doug.

[Doug Carr]: Yeah just to follow up on what I stated earlier. In contrast to the The design drawings we just saw for the building before this, this design is really, really not great. It needs a ton of work. It needs a ton more work to have really a chance of being a successful project. It's just too alien and devouring of the existing building. And I don't know how else to say it. I just think it needs a little bit of substantial rethinking to make it a project that I know I can support, and I want this project to happen. There is a solution here, I believe, because I think there's always a reasonable solution to adding onto a building, even one as delicate as this one. I think it just needs a finer touch, and I just don't see that so far, so I just want to give a heads up to the proponents if they're here on the call, whatever, but just to start that process and take a look at that because we want to work with them to make a good project, but I just don't see it right now.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, and we can preemptively put them in touch with the demo delay subcommittee, just in case, you know, they want to discuss, like, what are the sticking points? What are the things that we think are the character-defining building elements that we would want to see saved in the building? So I will make sure that as part of filing the paperwork that I connect the members of those particular committees together so that they can move forward. Okay, great. All right, next up is the demo application for 360-362 Salem Street. Just a second. Rob, you raised your hand.

[SPEAKER_14]: Yes. Hey, guys. So I'm the applicant. I also have our architect Marina McIntosh from Context Workshop on here for a 141 grant. You know, if I'm happy to have her, you know, make some comments so we can make some comments about, you know, which direction you guys would like us to go as well while we're here.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Let's set up a subcommittee meeting because I think that will be the best chance for you guys between now and the public hearing to be able to work. All right.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: 360-362 Salem Street commissioners. We received an application for demolition. We provided feedback for this particular project through site plan review. So we're just accepting the application because they're getting around to demolishing the building. I also received the MHC form B for the building. So if you want, we could determine significance tonight. Alternatively, if we have nothing to add to the proposed design project, we could pass on review.

[Peter Miller]: I thought I recognized this building. And it seems like it's the same drawings that we made comments on during design review. Is that correct?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I think they changed some things. I think there was originally they had the garage door out in the front and they moved some things around. So the design and they've been through, correct me if I'm wrong, they've been through community preservation committee, right? Sorry, not community preservation. They've been through The community development committee, right?

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, the city board approved this project after substantial and very. Productive design meetings with the proponent, I think is on the call right now. I think. Is the proponent, so I, we, we, we have. We have a project that we're happy with, we passed it, and I would like, if possible, to close this out tonight so they can proceed as quickly as possible because I feel like they've been through a lot here in this office building. Obviously, in my perspective, there's nothing there, so I would like to respect the process and accelerate it so that we can get a project built there as quickly as possible.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, do you want to make a motion to start that, and we'll discuss it with the rest of the commissioners?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Well, we could pass on review. I think Doug is suggesting that we pass on review.

[Doug Carr]: Would the motion be most logical to be to pass on review? Yep. Yeah, I think that's the motion I would make to pass on review given the status of this project.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: If you want a second, Doug, because I heard him first.

[Peter Miller]: Oh, I didn't realize you actually made the motion, sorry. Yeah, he was second then.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, great. Okay, so Doug motioned, Peter Miller seconded. Commissioners, any other comments?

[Kit Collins]: Okay, so- I think I would just add that this was a very long taxpayer block.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I mean, it's well, 1916. Oh, yeah, yeah, it's sort of unusual. And it's weird that the the dental office to the right of it also sort of brings it out. But there is a there's a 19th century building behind the other the dental office sort of extension that I didn't even realize was sort of back there. And this, even this particular building, It was sort of weird there was a, there was a 19th century house, according to Claire and then they'd like tore down the front half of the house and left the three story L in the back so that must have looked really weird at one time. Oh, okay. And just quickly before I go ahead and move forward with the vote for declining the application, I see Guy Manchello who was here tonight representing the project proponent. Guy, do you have anything that you want to add before we take a vote? I was just sorry. I meant to laugh at that. I was just offering that I was here if there was any questions, but thank you. Thank you.

Okay, hearing nothing further from Guy, then we'll move forward with the vote. So just a reminder, Doug made a motion to pass on review, seconded by Peter Miller. I'll go around as I see you, Peter.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yes, and I just wanted to say it's a lovely, lovely changes. Looks great.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: And Luke, yes, that's approved 5 0. so we'll get the paperwork and we'll sign off on the permit and off they go.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next up quickly, we'll receive the demolition application for. 387-389 Main Street. Commissioners, this is a 19th century building with a 20th century storefront. They're effectively demolishing the rear building, building new. There's an MHC area form, but we'll need an MHC form B. I'll go ahead and take a motion to accept the application.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, thank you, Doug. Okay, and I'll go around as I see you, Peter?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: And Luke? Yes. Great. Five-zero approved. Okay, we will see them next month and make a determination of significance when I get the MHC 4B back. Next up on the agenda is 321 Winthrop Street. I saw, I believe, Veronica Shaw and others. Hi, Veronica.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: Hey there. Hi, everybody. My name is Veronica Shaw. I am the director of veteran services for the city on with me. Tonight is Bobby Miller, who is the commander of the American Legion. And then we also have support with Councilor Matt Leming. So, the program, what we are trying to do. I sent over the plans to Ryan is convert the house that is currently sitting on the American Legion's property into a home for veterans. We had Suffolk Construction come out, do a feasibility study, and it was determined that the house is not salvageable, which was what our original plan was, was to create a home within the home, but it is got so much wrong with it. It's structurally not sound. It would cost far more than we could ever raise to actually fix that home versus tear it down and build a new home on the property for our veterans. So our first stop was coming to see you guys because of the age of the house.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: My home address or I at 798 Hanover Street in Manchester, New Hampshire.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Um, yeah, I think so. Ultimately, I think 1 of the things that the commission wants to do is to be helpful to sort of provide whatever resources we can. And we have 7 members here on the board that provide various degrees of expertise. So we want to provide feedback wherever we can to help you guys. work forward. And of course, one of the roles that we have to do is also to review the building. So ultimately, you know, if demolition is on the table, you'll have to apply for the demolition of the building when ready, and we'll give it its full consideration. And we'll be happy to look at that more in detail. As you saw tonight, we have a two-step process, so we determine significance.

And we're working on a revised MHC inventory form for the building. But I think the commissioners and the consultants were both interested in seeing what the interior of the building looked like and what sort of condition it's in, just so that we can get a sense of how that compares against the cost estimates and the Proposed plans that you guys provided, and then from there, if it's significant, there's a public hearing, public gets a say in it, the demolition. And from there, it's either under an 18 month demolition delay, or it's not. And during that time, we obviously, if it is delayed, we'd want to work with you guys to try to do everything in our power to come up with a solution that mitigates the demolition. That might mean that might mean something as simple as, you know, we look at what the cost estimates are and see how we can maybe renovate the building more creatively or not, you know, maybe, or we take that consider and say, you know, it's not financially feasible to renovate the building. I don't know. So we have some of that preliminary information. I know some of the commissioners did start to review it. So I think you guys just have to let us know when, you know, when you're ready to move forward with the formal process, that's all.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: Can you, I guess I'm just, I am honestly not familiar in this realm at all. Can you explain to me? the the difference between well i don't even know what i'm i'm really asking is that um is the issue that we are bringing to you because of the age of the building itself is it the inside it was my understanding and and please correct me if i'm wrong i do not mean to be adversarial but it was my understanding that your jurisdiction only applies to the outside of the building is whether or not the outside of the building is historic but the inside Wouldn't necessarily matter. So I'm, I would like to know why and you're certainly welcome to go in there. I'm not going to go in there because it's not safe to go in there. I have been in there and when a construction company tells me it's not safe. I'm not going in, but can you tell me, like, what are we looking at specifically as far as what you're looking at?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: So in terms of yeah so let me let me answer that. So the commission has her view over demolition so anything that's planned building whether it's inside outside. we prioritize in the sense of if we are looking at a project that then is going to mitigate demolition, our primary concern is looking at the outside of the building. But when we're looking at the significance of the building, we are looking at all aspects, outside, inside, whether historic fabric still exists, whether it has been completely gutted and changed over time. And all of those things sort of, play into whether or not we would want to see that building rehabilitated, renovated, etc. Not necessarily restored, but just, you know, functional, you know, we want it to work for you guys, you know, we don't expect every building, you know, I think most of the architects here would agree when I say buildings are not necessarily museums. And if they're not in the historic district, we're trying to rehabilitate them to bring them back to life. Sometimes that means parts of them get lost, there's changes, but by and large, we're, you know, just trying to preserve the look and the feel of the building so that it's not entirely lost.

And it's not in a historic district. That's so, you know, the purview does for us, at least we stay on the outside because, you know, we want that inside to be flexible for you guys. If you guys did decide to renovate it that, you know, you could do what you please.

[Doug Carr]: Okay, so if I could just add a little bit sure. Thank you for asking the question because we want to be helpful here. If you tell me the building is structure and sound and the building departments agrees with that, that's done. There's nothing more to debate. The building is coming down. They have that veto override for this, no matter what we say about it. However, I think I want to speak also as somebody who grew up about a five-minute walk from here in the Lawrence Estates. I used to walk by this building all the time.

My father had many a drink there. He coached the Legion baseball team for decades. I know this building well, at least not so much the older building, because it was really inaccessible, but everything around it, making a great project for that street ultimately. And I think, you know, you said some floor plans along their early stages, obviously. If this goes the way I think it's going to go, and perhaps this building does come down, I want to make sure that the building that is there is, it's not going to echo the building at all. It's a difficult, it's going to be different, but it's, it should be sympathetic with the street, the streetscape, you know, it's that street is, is, it's got some really interesting buildings on it, eclectic. There's one right next to it that is probably a decade younger or older. The context here is what I'm saying is important. I don't know if we've gotten that far because all I saw was plans. I didn't see elevations or rendering and that's okay. We can work with you when the time comes. There's no real design review in Medford for projects like this.

I'm not sure it's going to reach the threshold of the 10,000 square feet that would send it to the CD board, but this commission has had a good track record of trying to, even for new buildings, replacing historic buildings, if that's what it becomes, trying to make something that is that the neighbors and everyone can agree is a good building. We want to just work with you on that. That's all.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: I appreciate it. The building itself, we're not looking to make it look industrial. We want it to look like a home because that's what it is. It's going to be a home for transitioning veterans. It's not a nursing facility or a rehab. It is just a home for veterans to To be able to rest and and recuperate, you know, get back on their feet. And so we want it to look like a home. The rest of the Legion is actually going to stay intact. So they're, they're still going to be the bar down in the basement. The only thing we're looking to. to change is the Victorian home itself. And it's an absolutely gorgeous building. It was our intent to try to rehab it and make it look beautiful again, but she's just in such terrible condition that there wasn't an option that was financially feasible. Now, if you guys have $20 million laying around that you wanted to give to the city, we will absolutely restore it.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Well, I mean, uh, I don't, I don't think, you know, $20 million is excessive, but I mean, if the cost of your new building was somewhere in the three to $5 million range, I mean, I bet we certainly apply that to this building. And I think that might go far, you know,

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I mean, you know, we have to get through the actual process. So why don't we keep us up to date as you move forward. We can certainly review the existing plans more in depth and provide initial feedback. Doug, I think you were interested in doing that, maybe looking at site plan, that sort of thing. Doug, ultimately, is this going to go before site plan review? CD board because of the size?

[Doug Carr]: I'm actually not sure. I don't know how many square feet is the current proposal on the shot. I don't recall.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: Bobby, do you know what the total square feet is? Hi. Yeah, I believe it's 9,900, the square footage of the house.

[Doug Carr]: because I think this is an important building and important site. That's good. I think more eyes on this is better because you want the city to really, there's a huge need for all types of housing, but certainly I understand the need, believe me. I'm actually thrilled that this is an opportunity to add more housing to Medford. And I know a lot of people in this city feel that way. And I don't think it's an either or. We can balance a good design and more housing and make it look like a home. I think that that is ours for the taking.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: And we are definitely, we are, of course, open to any suggestions. This is not a project I have ever done before. And I know that we want to make sure that our neighbors are happy with us there. And that whatever we do is in the best interest of Medford. It is my job to look out for the best interest of veterans. And so I know that, you know, I want to work with you guys and make sure that we're doing the right thing by everybody.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: Well, we're looking forward to working with you. What should we be doing next? I mean, we have our plans, we have our estimates, we're beginning the stages of raising our funds. What would you need from us next?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: site visit maybe, and then we'll get the consultants through there, and then we'll have the MHC form for when you formally apply for demo. You can do that at any time, just whenever you're ready. The rest of it is just, you know, we could be continuing to talk about the design of the building, the exterior elements, those sort of things, and how those impact your cost estimates.

[Doug Carr]: Okay, and Michelle I would I would suggest is that your architects, whoever they are, take a pass at not just the plans but trying to make this check look an exterior concept something that the 10,000 square foot house, which is what kind of this is. That's a big house. That's like a mansion. But there's a way to design that. It's hard. There's a few of those in Medford, but not many, and especially not any built in the 21st century. So it's going to be a good design challenge to fit your program into an architecture that works for that street. And I think your architects, they should start thinking Beyond plan, they should start looking at elevations and concepts and how they could make this building what you described, which I think is a good one.

[Director Veronica Shaw]: Okay. Sounds great. I will send an email tomorrow when I get to work to schedule a site visit. And then we will get back with Suffolk and hopefully start moving forward.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, next up, survey and planning grant for the next cycle. So we received a potential to apply for the next survey and planning grant. I wasn't really sure where to go because we're doing the Brooks Estate neighborhood, which is in West Medford, and we're finishing Hastings Heights. So I think looking at MACRS maps and like where we have surveyed across the city, I think the next logical area might be actually to dig into all the residential development north of Medford Square. We didn't actually do any survey there because we prioritize Medford Square formal with all the commercial buildings from end to end.

I think it might make sense to tackle this time around the Lawrence Estates and what is known as the Forest Park development. people would know that by the old school that was there. And there's another Hall of Family Development that was sort of near where Lawrence Road comes into Forest Street. That's my preference, but I'm just one person. you know, we're going to get something like 130 inventory forms out of it at most. So I didn't know if we should have such a broad area or whether we should focus on, say, the Lawrence Estates, which is a little bit more defined and a little bit more uniform in terms of its buildings. I just, you know, we could say the bigger area and then choose to focus on one of those three developments, you know, if need to. But, you know, I just, I'm thinking somewhere in that area, north of Medford square, because that's probably the area with the next major. Like, potential for, you know, occasionally buildings will be changed in there and come down. So we've already seen it. So.

There's lots of, there's lots of, well it's also zoned single family right now, but like there's lots of, it's sort of interesting that the Lawrence Estates developed separately and concurrently from all of the stuff in South Medford. They happened at the same time that the Lawrence Estates is almost exclusively single families, whereas everything south of the river is all duplexes. So sort of an interesting history that sort of, you know, echoes our understanding of that time in Medford.

Has anybody ever taken a look at macrosnaps? Do you guys know what I'm talking about when I say that?

[Doug Carr]: I mostly use macros for the forms, not for the maps. You could put it on screen if you want to go into it. But just from a zoning perspective, Ryan, we're going to do Wellington, but commercial zones. We're not doing any residential for a couple of years at this point. I agree you, there's a lot of properties north of Medford Square you're describing that need to be inventoried. I don't disagree with that at all. But I wouldn't do it out of fear of zoning. I don't think that's, that's not really what I think we just want that information.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, I'm mostly thinking about it from a perspective of preservation actually like if. And I don't think everybody would buy into it, but like the Lawrence Estates is really well preserved, even with its vinyl siding on all of those, on the houses, there's a lot of brick buildings and it doesn't change the character, like it could be a large historic district, right? So I'm thinking that for preservation, but you know, also documentation, like we have no, as you'll see in a second, we have no information on, Um, the, this area North of Medford square that we sort of miss, like we did a lot in East Medford. We did a lot in the core. We did the three residential neighborhoods sort of on the backside, but the area that I'm talking about is all of this and this area right up here.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I think we're gonna probably end up if we focused in this is this is the Lawrence Estates formal like this is what was developed by Willard Welch and his, his people and Samuel Crocker Lawrence's house was right here. We might take like an individual building or two like we've already done the one on circuit right here that sort of representative of what is this larger development going to entail, but we don't necessarily need to have a lot of information on that. I would definitely focus on this area.

[Doug Carr]: Right. Am I reading this right that every blue dot is a surveyed property in Medford?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, there's the outlines for the area forms, and then there's the blue dots, which are MHC Form Bs. The reds are buildings in National Register, and the green buildings here are the local historic districts. So this map is slowly updated so it doesn't reflect the historic district on South Street. It doesn't entirely reflect all of the survey work that we've done in Fulton Heights. And it doesn't reflect anything yet that's been done in Hastings Heights. But I mean, we have a fair amount of survey done in the city.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: It's 16 years worth of work. We started off with, just so everybody knows, we started off with seven, like 150 area forms for the entire city that was last done in 1975. And then since they might have added like one or two national register districts, things like that. But then they did nothing for like 30 years. And we picked up survey in like, 2010, I think was our first year, we did a survey plan of the whole city. And then we basically said, we're going to go at it. We started here in West Medford and worked our way right across. So, so like, this is the Afro American district right here. the Smith Estate to Hastings Heights is right in here that we're working on now. We'll do the Brooks Estate, which is this neighborhood plus a little bit of this.

And of course, this area right in here. So we're sort of working back and doubling back. I don't think it's necessary to do anything in like Winter Hill again. I think we've, you know, there's a fair amount of coverage in here. There's we've we're picking up little individual things one on one for demos here. I think the logical area is to sort of look here. Yeah. And then the next step after that, I think whoever takes on the further survey work, maybe we should start looking into local historic districts. I know the district commission was going to start looking at where they can add some new districts, starting with potentially city properties that they've already given CPC funding to, but I think, you know, that'll be the next step.

So it's available. So if people want to know like what's out there for survey, you can click on any of these and it will bring up the information about the particular building. And if there's a form, it's there. So it's a great resource, great way for the public to be able to access the information. And if you also just want to email us and check and see if we have a form, because there's a delay between this and when we actually physically get it up online.

So, if everybody's in agreement, I'll target this area and then we'll see if we get a long app back.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, moving forward. I had the potential upcoming demolition review on there, but they got their paperwork and so we're all set there. For vacant seats, I'll have to reach out to the mayor's office. They sent us accidentally the Historic District Commission's applicants, so I'll see if there's anybody from us. Zoning update, anything, Doug? Do you want to give them the general update of what you guys are doing, and then I'll talk about what we're doing with you?

[Doug Carr]: Yeah, I don't think we can get too deep into it right now we're trying to, you know, the zoning for the historical incentives, which is going to be deeply involved this commission when it's when the, when the language is finalized because right now there's some, some language just contradictory I think we've talked about this in previous meetings, Danielle. And Alicia and Ryan, myself and Janet, I've got to kind of we've Ryan took a 1st pass at it, but it hasn't been put 5 before the in the city board or the planning development staff. So that that's the next step. This, this commission needs to see it as well, but we need to come up with a process that somehow. when a project is going to be in front of the CD board and it's going to involve historical incentives. What we just saw with design review will be the direction we'll go and where it will come here first to make sure that the historical commission is happy with the design. happy with the adaptation, even though it might be substantially or partially demoed or a new floor added. There's all kinds of possibilities there. But we want to incentivize saving historic buildings. We did that in the zoning by offering to waive parking and to do certain things that will allow the project to be Viable economically, so there's just some contradictions between our process and what the CD boards processes and we need to resolve that. And that's what Ryan is. Taking the lead on right now, but we're not ready. I just don't think we're ready to have a detailed conversation about it because the language is still is very fluid right now.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah, so we'll. We'll bring it to you guys. And then once you guys have it, it'll go to the CD board. And that's of course, we're probably going to take it first to Danielle and get her expertise on it too, right? Like we're going to sort of bring everybody's expertise in all together at various points, but it's, you know.

[Doug Carr]: One of the key differences I'll just point out is that right now, the only way we ever have a way of evaluating something is that somebody pulls a demo permit. Either they want to completely or partially, you know, just take it, destroy it, or alter it in some fashion. This process I'm talking about would be more proactive. It would be, we could actually say, we think these 10 buildings in Benford Square are important. If you develop these, come see us first. So we're not reacting, we're trying to actually get ahead of it a little bit, which I think is a whole different approach process because you're giving a clue to developers and landowners that don't tear this down. We think it's important and if you want to adapt it, come talk to us, kick some ideas around, and maybe if we come up with a design, you could add two floors on top and you don't have to park anything there because we like the project. We don't have that power now. We're expanding the power of this commission by having the zoning.

I think it will be good. It's untested. But I think for the next generation of projects, it should be something that allows us, I think, a little bit more creativity and control to guide developers and landowners where we want them to go if something can be saved and adapted or preserved. Maybe they don't do anything to it. That's always an option. Just restore the building. But the zoning that we passed allows for substantially more height than many of these buildings have right now. So there's incentives for a two-story building could become four or five, but they have no parking. So work with us and we'll see what we can do.

[Kit Collins]: No, just to say, as you know, as somebody who's trying to preserve a historic building, I'm delighted to hear that Medford is thinking about this because we haven't been, and there haven't been incentives for property owners or developers who are trying to preserve the historic buildings of Medford to do so. There just haven't been. Agreed.

[Doug Carr]: Go Doug. Once we get the language, it's going to apply to every part of the city, not just Medford Square. That includes Salem Street. There's some nice historic buildings that have no protection right now on Salem Street because the zoning was passed before we came up with this concept. Once we do it, it's going to be citywide and that should be helpful. Go ahead, right?

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Uh, yeah, no, I was just going to move forward if you're ready. Um, for high school, I followed up to with their, um. With my contact for looking for records, but they have been silent. They did have another. They had an announcement that they were looking into some internal staff issue that they were answering a public records request, so they could just be overwhelmed right now. But I would really like that information so that we can get the consultants moving forward and finishing the MHC Form B. I mean, we can deal without it, but I mean, it would be nice if they had information on the existing building and its construction. They may not, but we asked where their records were from the the late 60s, early 70s when they were constructing that building, they must exist because there's no way they would have gotten disposed of. So it's just a matter of tracking them down. We may not be able to though. So that's sort of lingering.

I don't have any updates on projects under demo delay at this point. I think they're just sitting tight. Cross street cemetery, I do have updates on that. I posted pictures of the updates to the construction that's going on at relocated cross street at Oak Grove. So you can see the restoration work that the two consultants that we had to do that work are doing. Daedalus said something about the gate coming back sometime soon. He's trying to wrap that up and we have one of the other, I believe he's done with the stone wall and I think he has the recreation of the missing veteran stone that we were That we were using the last of our budget on, I think he's working on that. He was just trying to source a piece of marble that's comparable to what's there.

So that's out tomorrow. In both the relocated and former cemetery site, we'll be doing ground penetrating radar. So hopefully by the end of the month, we will know. exactly who is where and what we are going to encounter at both the old site and whether there's space in the relocated site or whether that whole front grassy area is actually containing burials. I'm on the side of most likely it contains burials and will be pleasantly surprised if it's vacant space.

That will tell us whether we have to work with the cemetery trustees to get additional space. I do have loosely planned a nice memorial on how to accomplish that next to that location as sort of like a secondary memorial, because we still have to memorialize all those people that we're never going to be able to reach because they're under 93. So we have to acknowledge that portion of it.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: It is. It is, I mean, you know, we don't have unlimited budget. There would be a way to do it if you. had unlimited budget but we don't have unlimited budget it's not it's it is not ancient greece it is not standing in the way of a major project you know we are those people are not going anywhere so whose job is it going to be to notify the next of kin about i i think it will be handled through uh when we request Exhumation permission. It will be handled through a special license granted by the state legislature to remove the cemetery because the existing right to remove was done under the Federal Highways Act in the 1950s. That is no longer applicable to us. So there has to be approval by the state level government to do it.

that sort of blanketly covers the need to notify every single individual next of kin because we would just never, we would never be able to know because there's no markers in the particular locations. So it's a messy and complicated process, but we will see what we're dealing with after tomorrow.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I believe the city was talking with, who's the undertaker in South Medford? Del Ruzo, Del Ruzo. We're talking with Del Ruzo about the process and procedure because the remains, the remains that likely will be there have to come up and then will be handled at some point by an undertaker. So we will need an undertaker services, but who that actually is remains to be seen. All of that, though, just so you know, all of that will have to be in place before we even get in the ground. So they will need to be a, the state will likely say, before you dig, you have to have a plan for handling whatever studies you're doing, anthropological or otherwise, and then the process to hand off to the undertaker to rebury them somewhere, so.

So we will be doing that all over the winter. That's that's a definite because I think the city's intent is to get in the ground in the spring. So. Yeah, it's a it's a complex process. OK, I think the only other thing that I had was Hastings Heights survey. It's sort of on pause while MHC reviews the inventory forms. Consultants, they did a pretty good job. I didn't, there were just a few minor typos that just get handled by sending them an email saying, correct these few things and you're good.

I think we're going out to bid on the Brooks estate too. I just have to finalize the dates for that and send it out for approval. It just, it took a month last time to get approval from the state. So, I'm trying to sort of push them along. And that's it for those projects. Approval of meeting minutes. Peter, we sent them out?

[Doug Carr]: I think I did, but I haven't distributed them yet. We'll have to get that in the next meeting.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: then we will table them until next meeting. And then it'll be your responsibility to work with me and my, I did not take notes last meeting, but I'll use my memory and I'll review.

[Doug Carr]: I have, I have, I took notes for sure, but I'll just send them to you.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: We have lovely Medford Community Media for anybody that doesn't know, has a bunch of city recordings on there, so.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: I don't think they have an AI meeting note taker, but sometimes I've noticed that if they have the agenda, they'll put that up alongside the meeting playback, if you have it up, which I think is great.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah, it's only the recordings of the videos. Nothing, nothing additional. Okay.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Yeah. Sometimes you can feed them though. If you feed it into AI, you might convince AI to watch the recording and in hyperspeed and then digest it all into something that's reusable. It, I will say that it, uh, I have done that for some of my much longer meetings and that seemed to be okay, but you also have to pay attention to what it's recording. Cause sometimes the level of detail is just not there.

[ir8Km2ErkFk_SPEAKER_19]: Yeah. And it's usually behind the paywall. Some of the description.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Okay, so we tabled that until next meeting. So our next meeting is going to be November 9th. I'll take a motion to adjourn the meeting until November 9th, unless you have anything else to add. Okay, I'll take a motion then.

[Vice Chair Ryan Hayward]: Luke. Yes. Okay, great. We're adjourned. We will see you in November. And I will send out meeting updates as I have them for the various things that we've talked about tonight.

Kit Collins total time: 2.5 minutes total words: 363