e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music] good morning I'm Steve Burling game and I'm going to serve as cheer this afternoon or this morning rather um our chairman is uh online it's going to report in um from his home um our vice chair is traveling and um here I am so welcome to the um the March 19th 2024 meeting of the chadam historical commission and I'll read the introductory note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly Hereafter for scheduled and On Demand viewing at any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify the chair pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GL c30a section 20 until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the chatam historical commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately ACC access the proceedings is provided in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling phone number 150 8945 4410 the conference ID is 520 812 379 hashtag or join the meeting online versus uh via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast in simcast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access we will post a Rec of this meeting at the town's website as soon as possible the call and number again is 508 945 4410 and the conference ID is 520 812 379 hashtag first I would like to um do a roll call of the people that are are the Commissioners here today uh initially I'm going to save you to the end Frank um let's see um Stephanie Hamilton here Sandy Porter here Janet toson here um Robert Stevens will be a regular me a regular member here today because of the uh the short staff and Steve buring game is here as well um and Frank massina our chair is is here remotely I guess that's not proper English he's not here remotely he is remote he's here right I'm here and as I like to kid around and say uh as uh the poet said the reports of My Demise were greatly exaggerated I guess it was Mark Twain and um I'm looking forward to be back probably next month and I appreciate Steve you stepping in and Bob is uh Bob is somewhere in Philadelphia with his grandchildren and uh don is is having some issues and hopefully he'll be back to join us I just one last thing if I could quickly and I'll be quiet on this subject is uh you also have listening in uh Nancy bar uh Nancy was a member of the uh the commission for for many years and I served with her uh the highlight of Nancy's service on the historical commission is the publication of our book sense of place by the Sea and uh Nancy was interviewed by the select board and will be on the agenda uh tonight's select board I hopefully they will agree and uh appoint her and she will fill the uh the open uh SE an open alternate seat with B Robert uh Robert so anyway uh Nancy is just listening in and welcome thank you all right Steve continue on I should is here watching listening oh Bob I'm sorry I'm glad you are Bob leer is uh is here as well um he's a regular member he's a he's here remotely again double in Tandra or or something um but in anyway welcome Bob and we look forward to your participation in the meeting today thank you the first item of business we have is the um approval of the minutes are there any comments regarding the minutes yes yet I have a uh one correction in the first uh here under hearings it's deep whole Road and not hi l e it's h o l e deep hole road that's the only thing I saw okay just a typo M any other comments I'd like to move that we accept the minutes of March 5th 2024 is there a second is corrected second second reading all those in favor uh Stephanie Hamilton yes Andy Porter I wasn't in attendance I can't vote she wasn't there okay um Janet thas yes Tennison I'm sorry Tennison Tennison I'll get it right that's okay um Robert Stevens yes uh Bob leer yes and Frank Lu again was was not here St and Steve Burling game is here SP yes as well a was here and Bob Le has voted yes okay um and I appreciate all the help from the commission um all your comments and support are welcome don't don't hesitate to correct me add to me subtract from me ET um we have two public hearings the first one is application number 24-7 uh that's being held in accordance with chapter 158 the demolition delay bylaw um to fully demolish a an historic building yet to be determined um located at 33 Pine Bluff Road uh by Andrew El singer Esquire um on behalf of his client's Jr fenal realy trust attorney Seer good morning for the record Andrew singer attorney in Dennis for here on behalf of the applicant and with me in the audience is Steve glashen from PMA Savory D Sila Architects uh this is a request and the the building is up on the screen the photographs of it and for those who were there yesterday you saw it in person this is a small 662 squ foot cottage which uh we believe originated back around 1930 as a 300q foot or so garage the end that you see on the right there which is where the garage used to be is now the bedroom it's been a cottage for many decades uh as part of a Redevelopment of the property the applicants are proposing to uh demolish this structure and not replace it there'll be some further Redevelopment Elsewhere on the property um based on uh the review of there's a crawl space under the entire uh structure and when you look at the Block foundation and the framing we're not really sure you know how much of the building if any is still original it might have been changed many many decades ago it was expanded many decades ago um so uh the request is as I said to remove it if you have questions for myself or Steve who he's uh you been in and under the building took the photographs be happy to answer them and we appreciate your help uh for those of you who were and we're not at the site um there is the main house which is a 1929 uh cape on the house has been fully restored is remaining there are no changes being proposed to the house itself the request here today is just for for uh this small structure thank you thank you is there anyone else who would like to speak on behalf of the application hearing none um any comments from the board uh go ahead Janet well having uh attended the site visit yesterday and um I can see that my impression is that it's old but uh not necessar necessarily uh having s historical significance as does the main house so um I don't really see a problem with this myself Sandy good morning Mr singer good morning question you're going the intent is to take down both the house and the gar uh the cottage and the garage yes the the ultimate the is to remove yes the cottage and then you can see it on the top right picture the the twostory garage which is another dwelling unit they'll be replacing that Elsewhere on the property uh so there will be no structures in this part of the property afterwards they're not going to replace the cottage with anything they're ultimately going to be replac they're going to be building a structure which is going to be a garage Cottage like the largest structure that's there next to it yeah today there's the house and two dwelling cottages on the property ultimately there' be the dwelling and one Cottage on on the property okay fine thank you P I see no I see no problem with the application it it is uh it is old uh but it's minor in character if you walk around it there's nothing that I see that's terribly historical so I basically agree with Janet are there any comments from um Mr Lear or from Mr Merina yes I have my hand raised is that's okay that's Frank uh hi uh a couple of questions uh one question about 33 the main house had that come before the commission Christina they're not touching the main house um but I I did not research I did not research if but that house has come to the commission I can look into it well maybe Mr singer that that that property is uh 1929 I guess correct was why had it not come before the commission um I do not know the permanent history um for the main house uh I know it was um renovated I believe many years ago I I just don't know what permits or not they might have had for that okay uh Christina I mean I know it's not Germaine to this particular hearing but if you could find out because you know when I did my drive by yesterday it's obvious they've made significant changes to that property and and if I was looking at the card it's you know it's more than 75 years old so uh I don't know if there's a something happened or somebody Maybe Mr pus or somebody from n company knows I mean they're usually very very careful about uh coming before the commission when something is 75 years old Frank I could indicate if it's 75 years old now um previously it was not and so there would be no need to come before the commission previously because it before now it was less than 75 years yeah well Christine if you could check into it just find the date I'd appreciate it but back to the the hearing uh your your application is to demolish the C the the one property the one building the second building is not 75 years and you're not demolishing it or you're not demolishing it now no the second building is to be demolished but it is not 75 years old it was built in 1979 I believe got it okay fine I I attempted to to get on the property but there was just too much activity and I just couldn't couldn't walk to it and I appreciate it uh do do you does Mr pimus who's the architect have any sense of what you're planning to do to the property you talked about a new structure coming in but you're not showing us anything you're not required to but I just was interested if you knew what it was and anything you can share with us be happy to answer um if you saw for the for those of you who were there and if you saw there's a when you're coming down Pine Bluff Road which looks like a driveway but it HS the road on the right there's a area of lawn uh which is used to be a swimming pool uh it's no longer there and in that general area um Frank to answer your question uh they're proposing to rebuild a twostory garage Cottage on top similar to the larger building that's on the property now but it would be um somewhat different shape and would be you know relocated from where it is now over to that other part of the property all right well thank you very much other than my comments I I guess I agree with the consensus that this is not necessarily an historical significant property and would not vote to impose any kind of demolition delay thank you very much I appreciate your help thank you thank you Frank is there anybody else who has something to um add or question regarding this application Steve if I could um I I've been out there before actually with I think the Conservation Commission a number of years ago so I I know with Frank that it looks familiar but I don't think it had to do with u anything historic so I I agree with him I don't see any reason to maintain that uh Cottage thank you is there is there anyone else if not entertain a motion Janet yes um I move that the chadam historical commission finds that the building located at 33 Pine Bluff Avenue not the main house but the what used to be the garage former garage Cottage is oops not historically significant and um because it does not meet any of the definitional criteria and 15 8-2 a b or c of the bylaw therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay I'll second is there any further discussion any further comments from the public and I'll ask for a vote um Mr massina yes uh Mr Lear yes Don a is not here Stephanie Hamilton yes Sandy order yes Janet Tennyson yes Robert Stevens yes and Steve Burling game M clerk votes yes as well thank you very much gentlemen thank you we appreciate your [Applause] time our second application and the fin final application number 24-8 um in accordance with with chapter 158 the demolition delay bylaw of the town of chadam is pursuing to a notice of intent to fully demolish a building or structure located at 107 Highland Avenue filed by George Riley of Brewster on behalf of the Highland realy trust um Mr Riley yes uh George Riley represent pres ing the Highland reality trust um we uh we were back before you earlier uh most you remember uh I don't think there's a point of going over the significance of the existing structure we've been through that quite significantly I got the impression from the last one that the replacement uh proposed replacement house uh there was some concern about that uh particularly about the character of the road and the and the so uh We've uh tried to do some uh uh remodeling of the proposed structure to make it fit more into the um character of the neighborhood and uh and not be such similar to the to the existing uh house I don't know I think we have a a picture there on the comparing the two the proposed structure and the existing structure do we have that keep going keep going keep going there you go so you can see that uh we've taken the entry uh canopy step and uh replaced it on the proposed uh a house and uh the the design of the house was to uh attempt to look quite or similar to the uh house to the right at 119 Highland so they look quite compatible the proposed structure is is um approximately within a very small amount the same footprint as the existing house but uh it's only this is a story and a half uh it's uh significantly lower than the existing uh structure um but because that the the proposed house is going to be a little bit higher on the grade uh but even with the raising of the foundation uh it'll be uh still lower than the existing house by about a foot or more um the reason that the house is coming up a little bit is so it's compatible with the house to the right it'll be the approximately the same grade as that perhaps a tiny bit lower and that allows uh for uh uh the proposed garage underneath the house if you can show that elevation is that possible the El here we go oh it's Annie sorry didn't see you there that one so the the that's the house in the back is that's the 119 that's not part of this structure the part of the structure is just just that part there and uh it's uh and if I have my little card here let's see can we get this to work am I doing this right obviously aha right here this this grade is we'll go to the side plan but there there's a retaining wall that goes like this and so this part should be uh I won't say it be invisible but it not be seen quite in that structure from the road uh if you want to go to the other elevation of the front of the building we do that any the front oh there you go so this that's the grade and it goes down like this so that this that side of the house won't be visible because it's will all be planted so that's a uh you know it's a it's it's large if you go back to the uh the same elevation of the existing house we do that one more one elevation a we're getting closer there we go one more one more there you go you can see quite large this is well this house will be lower and a little bit and maybe uh the grade here will be a little bit lower but this grade here will be uh higher and with vegetation so this well there we go am I I think I'm getting too complicated and confused if we go go to the site plan I'll show you that there you go there over this one over here there so so there so this wall here won't be seen from the road because the face of the wall is is on the back so those retaining walls won't be seen and and this is the side of the house so this grade is way higher than this and uh and then this gets planted so that this part of the house shouldn't be viewed from the from Highland Avenue so we're trying to diminish the effect on the road and make it look as similar to the existing uh uh house as uh as we can and uh and make it compatible with this house here so that's the that's the plan Mr Riley because we're concerned primarily with the the U destruction of the existing house this is an application to demolish as opposed to application to build uh would you speak a bit about the existing house its condition um it its history if any uh that we might give consideration to that um yes uh the house was built in the early 20s I think 20 maybe 24 uh and it was built for the Tuttle family and uh they were fishing fishermen I think uh Mr Charles Charles totle son is he may still be fishing he's he's he may be retired now but he was quite well-known fisherman here and they lived in the house uh until uh Mrs totle passed on couple of years ago uh and uh and they had constructed a uh a garage in the back with a with a like a guest Department above it and uh so when when we went to service house at the time of the sale the uh McKenzie engineering uh said that the foundation would have to be replaced and if you were there you could probably have seen the cracks in the foundation and that um there was some damage to the roof because uh when uh Mrs Tuttle was alive in her later years she liked to feed the seagulls and they uh were on the roof of the house continuously uh so um the house would have required a good deal of renovation to to to make it work and uh and they the people who bought this didn't want such a super structure they wanted a smaller uh house really and uh and felt it was uh to their benefit to to put a a new a new building up it would have been too expensive to to renovate thank you are there any other persons who wish to speak in favor of the application um either online or the audience um here none um I would open it up to comments by the Commissioners as to uh their thoughts and what they saw yesterday or what they've seen by reading the materials Stephanie when I went by the house I I was bothered that this house that looks fairly decent is going to be demolished um I didn't see that much much um that looked like it needed to be repaired from the outside Sandy I'm very familiar with this house I've been in it y um this house is historically significant and it seems to me that we put a demo delay on it yes which hasn't expired yet and I one of my questions is are you going for a repetitive petition before the Zoning Board of appeal um we're going for the the lot is non-conforming uh mainly because it has two dwelling units uh on a lot that's too small for two to to too significant use and the garage is non-conforming on this lot uh I think the front edge is like an inch too short but but the proposed house that we're asking for does not go against any any of the zoning codes the setbacks the building coverage the the septic system any of that and how much so the reason that it was it went before the zoning before was that they wanted to divide the lot into two separate Lots uh and what and the back lot was to go to the uh 99 to to the to the right so so yeah there you go so that this I get it yeah this part was going to go to this lot and this part was going to go to this lot so the property line would have gone something like this and this side we gone here and this side we gone there the zoning board uh felt that they could [Music] not uh create essentially a new lot that would would be non conforming okay so that they didn't so there So the plan is to is to then to uh so by the time all that uh application and hearings went uh the the demolition permit that we asked for had expired at that point so we're coming back to with the original idea of creating that this house and this house be compatible and look the same and and uh and that this architecture when this was built was sort of similar to that which is probably why people are less enthusiastic about it is this are these drawings that you've presented to us smaller I don't have the um the application they came before us this is smaller than the previous application yes but it is still historic and I'm it's still a historic building Sandy how do you define historic in regard to this particular house it's an it's an older house it was built on a road that um you know if you read that slaven road do you know the slavens in town they they've been here a long time um and Age and and the tuttles they have a they have a a family name they' been here a long time Mrs Tuttle Loris tunnel was a penan which was a penamon right so there is there is some historic value to the people that lived in it and that built it and that owned it and we already have a demo delay on it and we're six months away from the expiration of the demo delay or approximately 6 months away from the demo are we sure about that is that correct I think it's November of 2024 okay so I would like to see the demo delay stand uh okay uh Janet you have comment um well I agree with with uh Sandy we this is the second or third appearance before us to determine that it is historically significant and it is historic it's still historically significant and I think the reason my understanding is the reason that we say that it we impose the Dem demolition delay was Hope Springs Eternal that the owners would consider building something if they are determined to remove it at least build something that's more in character with the history of the neighborhood and the houses across the street are managing to do that um I get I I'm torn because I know that ultimately this is going to happen and so the neighbors are then sugest subjected to this mess across the street for the whole summer I don't know I hope I'd remind all of you to keep in mind that our jurisdiction is for the Demolition and not what is done with the property afterwards we already did that we I I I understand but we we reflect a lot about the the what's going to be built and what it's going to look like and what the neighborhood is going to look like and things of that nature that's not part of our jurisdiction um the why do we do a demolition delay I I don't know I I did not support it um very well um there's a hand raised online my understanding is Mr massina yeah well I'll I'll back off if Mr uh Robert has some comments before I speak but either way your your choice I recognize you Frank all right um I I I strongly agree with the comments that have been made thus far by U Sandy and Stephanie and and Janet um and uh as it said you know we've already twice determined this house is historically significant it doesn't go away it is historically significant at this particular Point there's no way we can vote all of a sudden Something Magic happened and it's not as historically significant I have to thank the applicant you know for attempting to uh to do what the purpose of the demolition delay and um it's just to comment a bit you know the comment is what's the purpose of the demolition delay the purpose of the demolition delay is to delay the demolition of an historically significant property which is happening here uh the applicant did make an attempt to com back back and in his own words attempt to change the the front of the house to be technically more in character with the neighborhood and and there goes the issue uh Steve and yeah we do consider the neighborhood when we consider streetcape and and the historical significance of what's happening to the property uh one of the reasons I oppose any action other than just to allow the demolition delay to continue I think it would be more more punitive to vot again another 12 or 18 month delay uh that I don't think is incoming in what we we should do so I agree my opinion we should just let it stand the way it is the biggest objection I have and Annie if you could go to the drawing hr4 H4 elevation uh left uh this this is what bothers me the most uh you know yes you made a good attempt and I have to congratulate you in attempt on the front of the house to change it from what you had previously provided us but when I look at the the side of the house and and I guess what I'm looking at the darker element is the is the new the new proposed structure and the two the two structures in the back are the are what's there now yes that's the existing structure that's correct yeah could you repeat that again yes the the the structures in the back that's the existing house that's the the house uh uh the the neighboring property the abing property's house yeah I mean I I you know you're building a you know like a Disneyland here you know with everything looking like the same and you know with that same you know triangle thing and I just just inconsistent to me relative to what what you're proposing and uh I would agree with three people who have spoken so far that uh you know to reaffirm historical significance and to reaffirm the demolition delay in place uh not add any more time to it and that uh it would expire on November 21st 2024 unless the applicant want to take another shot at coming back to us with something which more consistent with the uh historical character of Highland Highland Avenue thank you um any other comment Robert well this is aough this is a tough one um I wasn't around uh for the uh first time he came for the demolition delay uh but I know the area well um and I I see other houses on CV and on Highland that had been uh brought back to life in a in a historical manner so uh it seems that this one was designed to go along with the house on the right and the left but doesn't fit the neighborhood uh there are many historical houses from the Redeemer Church all the way around the corner there so again um uh I guess the best thing to do is just hope that you would come back with something more more in line with historic nature it's a I know that the house that's there is old and I can see how someone would look at it and go oh that's a tear down you got to do that right away tear it down it's no good but I've seen lots of houses that you could say that about that have come back to life in a beautiful way that have really brought up the level of the streets and um this one brings up just the level of the two houses one on each side so I don't want to go on and on here but uh uh to be generous I'd say just go ahead and uh uh go ahead with the existing demolition delay with no other punitive action taken um that's about where I am okay uh Bob Lear do you have a comment uh just to agree with the prior two speakers um there are plenty of houses in the Old Village that have been in worship shape that have been brought back to life and this this effort here is confusing because whoever drew the plans decided to put in the house next door which doesn't fit in either so I'd say continue the demolition delay and come up with something that fits the historic nature of the neighborhood I guess the consequence of that would be if we were to pursue the current demolition delay then the applicant um get can build whatever he chooses it doesn't need to be this design it could be the previous design or or any other design it could be more disney-ish than Frank could ever imagine um I think we zoning board Steve that's this is the zoning issue so let them deal with it it's got to go back for zoning that that's correct but I'm I'm talk about our jurisdiction and our job and what what we're responsible for um but the uh the zoning board which will talk about lot size and things of that nature U again doesn't have jurisdiction over design U either um and I have to remind that's not true that's not true Steve the zoning Bo can the zoning board can opine on the nature of a structure in terms of its they do have design responsibility but design of responsibility not not specifically um they have some about neighborhood comments and things of that nature where they can where they can make that determination um and that's and I don't know that they go have to go before The Zing board of appeals I think they only have to go to the Planning Commission uh because of that uh that situation with the the second dwelling um but in any event um I I appreciate the fact that the Mr Riley's client made an effort I think a substantial one uh to modify the previous design uh in order to move this thing along um um I appreciate the fact there's been a there has been a finding of a of the historical character of the existing house um from what I can see from the determination of the developer I mean of the owners um that the demolition delay is is probably not going to accomplish um anything in in this regard um I'll I'll support the uh the fact that the other Commissioners have made comments that I do agree with I I think the the nature of the neighborhood uh is pretty traditional it's very traditional um and this will uh fly in the face of that to some extent I don't think to the extent of the other two dwellings but but as opposed to this one um the U so I will I will if someone will make the motion I will support the continuation of the existing demolition delay and deny this application second is that the motion or do you want me to I move that the chatam historical commission reconfirms that the building located at 107 Highland and Avenue is historically significant because it whole in part 75 years old or more and um it already has a a demolition delay that a 12- month demolition delay that will expire on November 21st 2024 and suggest we hold to that second thank you was there a second to that Frank second Frank second it uh any further discussion then we'll have a roll call and we'll start with Mr missina yes and Mr Lear yes um Miss Hamilton yes Miss Porter yes Miss Tennison yes Mr Stevens yes and the um clerk votes yes as well uh I want to thank you for your efforts um and I think we I appreciate your efforts to uh to minimize what we were facing well thank you thank you that concludes um our application discussions um is there any new business that um people are pressed to discuss if not um yeah Mr Steve I have one or two things just quickly to add okay of course uh relative to uh the agenda under uh Chairman's report uh I just want to comment on the second item uh Return of the the historic US Coast Guard Boat House adaptive reuse as a shellfish upweller there is activity there uh I don't know if you you've been driving by but the the town has done a significant amount of dredging in the area to put a new bulkhead in and also to put the peers in which will accept the Coast Guard Boat House in sometime in the hopefully near future the next year or so and its reuse adaptive reuse as a uh as the upweller on at 90 Bridge Street now we've been working on this for about 25 years or more and if this does happen uh it would be great in terms of uh bringing this historic structure back back to Stage Harbor as part of that there has been a lot of activity with the finance committee and the select board I guess are going to be involved again I see uh select select person Mr Mastro is is here uh but the reason I'm mentioning it is that there was a two meetings where the the Reconstruction of a waterfront Bond will be coming for before the town meeting in May and and that bond which I think is about10 11 million you know has a number of uh areas in the town which are going to be uh subject to reconstruction Bon Hill ryus Cove the fish Pier the town the Trap dock Etc and the the boat house so you know personally I hope the board of the board of select the select board will support it and the town meeting will support it uh so that just along that way the other thing on the issues on hold I just want to comment we're still waiting for the town of chadam to hire a new uh planner so we could get on with some of the activities that is are on hold including the uh uh the issue of uh uh demolition by neglect there's a lot going on that I think we could we could probably do something as we have in the fa in the past to provide some kind of a change to byw to help that and lastly uh that we can proceed with some kind of activity with our archaeologist Holly herster to apply to mass historic on the issue of historical significance of the uh Nickerson family site Steve thank you very much I appreciate you filling in and U see you guys soon uh do you have a comment that You' like to make Mr Nast yeah thank you thank you Mr chairman I just wanted to note with respect to the boat house um there are two items Frank mentioned um one of them the um 11 I think it's 11.4 11.7 million um sort of a renewal of the um um the the appropriation that town meeting voted a number of years ago maybe seven or eight years ago in a similar amount and there still are a number of projects on the waterfront um infrastructure side that that need attention so that was voted to be placed on the warrant and recommended by the U select board and also by the finance committee the other item with respect to the boat house itself there is also an item on the warrant that the select board have supported coming from the community preservation committee I don't know if Stephanie's on today but they recommended um they are recommending to town meeting $350,000 in addition to the 350 that was already um approved by town meeting to help bring the boat house uh to to to make repairs to the boat house and um before it bring it's brought down here so th those are on town meeting warrant for um for May so I wanted to just add that information to what Frank Frank said Thank you thank you Dean uh are there any other comments um I don't know if any correspondence the issues on hold I think that Frank has commented on those to the extent that we need comment um is are there anything else is there anything else to come before the commission I'll hear a motion to adjourn I make a motion that we adjourn is there a second to that motion second thank you J um unless I hear any further discussion um all those in favor please signify by standing up we need a roll call I we need a roll call okay roll call um Mr Masina yes Mr Le yes Mr H Miss Hamilton yes Miss Porter yes Miss talison yes Mr Stevens yes and uh the clerk votes yes as well now meeting is adjourned and [Music] [Music] you e e for