The most discussion revolved around the fate of the store structure on Main Street, a yellow building adjacent to the fire station. The building, constructed in 1958, was the subject of debate concerning its historical significance. Some participants questioned whether the store should be preserved, given its deteriorating condition and the fact that it was not originally identified as a historic building. One member noted, “it is falling apart a lot it probably wasn’t fair historically,” suggesting that its removal might enhance the view of the nearby fire station.

The conversation underscored the need for clarity on the historic district’s boundaries and the identification of buildings within it. A participant expressed a desire for more precise information, indicating, “I think the houses and I think the fire station we really should have that with us all the time,” referring to the importance of having clear documentation on which buildings are part of the historic district. As a result, a motion was made to table the decision regarding the store’s removal until further research could confirm its status within the historic district.

Another issue was the need for better organization of files related to properties within the historic district. Members discussed categorizing these files to ensure that information is easily retrievable in the future, especially for historical reference. The conversation included a reference to physical files stored in a locked area, which were accessible to the public but not organized in a user-friendly manner.

The commission also addressed procedural concerns, particularly regarding the permitting process for work on historic properties. A member raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the permitting process for a property on Main Street, questioning how a permit for replacing cedar shakes with cedar clapboards had been approved without proper oversight by the commission. This led to a discussion on the building inspector’s role in identifying properties within the district and the need for the inspector to have access to pertinent information regarding the historic status of buildings when issuing permits.

Further debate centered around ongoing recruitment efforts for the commission. The board aimed to have a complete membership of seven but faced uncertainty about whether the current roster met this target. Discussions on reappointments of former members also took place, with participants expressing frustration over the repeated tabling of this issue.

The meeting included a brief discussion about a clock submitted by the building inspector. There was some confusion about the clock’s status, as it was noted to be a free-standing installation rather than part of any building structure. Questions were raised about whether state jurisdiction might apply to the clock due to its historical context, but it was clarified that the clock was not an occupied structure and had no direct relation to any building. The proposed location of the clock was debated, with concerns raised about its visibility and functionality.

Additionally, there was mention of an upcoming architectural conference in Worcester. A member expressed interest in attending and sought to gauge whether others would join, although logistical challenges were noted due to personal commitments that could conflict with the event schedule.