30 years ago. >> I'm sorry. >> We're live. >> Hi. Sorry about that. Good morning. We were having a little side discussion and I apologize. Good morning. Uh it's Frank Msina and this is the April 21st, 2026 meeting of the Chattam Historical
Commission. Uh before we start, we have a couple of quick announcements. Uh this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please
notify the chairman. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the
open meeting law 3020 until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the
proceeding as provided for in the order. A reminder for people that would like to listen to this meeting while it's in progress may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410 conference ID 806 321
958 hashtag or join the meeting online via Microsoft's teams through the link posted in the agenda in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simalcast on chatam TV exfinity Channel 1072.
Despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. Okay. Uh, first item is the roll call. Uh, Bob Leer is absent. Nancy Bar >> here.
>> Stephanie Hamilton >> here. >> Robert Stevens >> here. >> Janet Tennyson >> here. >> Robert Wilson is not here. Absent. Uh Sandy Porter is not here. Uh Peter Donovan >> here.
>> Peter, you will act as a voting member as we have a few of the regular members not here and the chair is here. Uh okay, we have a quorum and can proceed. Uh we have a rather uh short agenda and but
we'll we'll proceed accordingly. First item on the agenda is the minutes from April 7th. Uh so we have like four pages but uh it was a extended discussion discussion on a few things. So are there any questions,
additions, deletions on the minutes? Great. Seeing none, could I get a motion to accept the minutes? >> I I move we accept the minutes. >> Thank you. Second. >> Second. >> Thank you very much. All right. Uh any
discussion? No. Quick roll call. Roll call. Uh Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Were you here, Robert? >> Oh, >> yes. >> Oh, no. It was Robert Wilson. Sorry about that. >> Janet Tennyson.
>> Yes. >> Okay. And Peter Donovan. >> Yes. >> And the chair of Vess. Thank you very much. Nice job, Annie. Okay. Um we have an application 2543
which we have been hearing for an extended amount of time. I don't know when it goes back how there's a date originally uh but this was an application which uh was continued for today for it was continued to a date certain which is today and the reason
this meeting is occurring actually we had received from the applicant uh and just a quick uh you want to read it just quickly just for go ahead clerk will read it
>> uh this is a letter dated April 16th, 2026 from um William F. Riley. He is the attorney for the applicant uh of 65 Elephants Lane. Dear Mr. Msina, on
behalf of the applicant, I respect I respectfully request to withdraw the above referenced application currently before the Chattam Historical Commission without prejudice. Please consider this letter as formal notice of withdrawal. Yours truly, William F. Riley. Thank
you. Uh it just a quick comment before we proceed uh with a motion to accept this uh withdrawal. I don't see any reason why we shouldn't. Uh just a comment and it and I apologize for that little uh there was a little side talk
before we uh we actually began the meeting formally. Uh this was a difficult application and it's difficult as the vice chair uh the the clerk uh Nancy and I were discussing a couple of minutes ago. This is a property which is a contributing structure in the national
register district. a rather significant property and a group of significant properties. And therefore that was the concern of the commission and concern of the neighbors that uh if we had to do something because of the femur, the uh
flood plane and everything else related to that. We we as a as a community have a large amount of homes that are on the water and some of them are historically significant. So we're trying to be careful. I would say that there was an
extended extended dialogue between the owner, the uh the neighbors uh Cape Cod Commission and ourselves. And um and you know, although this one unfortunately is being withdrawn, you know, I think we're
we were pretty close to some kind of a compromise, but we'll see what happens. Thank you. >> Uh at this particular point, there would be uh my request a motion to uh accept the with the withdrawal of the application and then if there are any comments from the public, we'll take it
from that point of view. >> I move that we accept the the uh cancellation of this >> broad withdrawal >> application 2543. >> Application 253. Um, can I before I second it, can I suggest that we add without prejudice,
which was the request? >> I'm sorry. >> That we accept the withdrawal without prejudice. >> Add without prejudice. >> Okay, fine. >> I second the motion. >> Mr. >> Thank you. All right. So, we have a motion to second. And before we vote, are there any comments? Any of the
comments from members, members of the public? >> Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the uh commission, attorney Mike Ford, I represent the owners of 61 uh and 63 alphats, the gold family. I
just wanted to assure the members of the commission that the um cooperation between my clients and the um applicant um is anticipated to continue. Um it is the length of time that is taking um
taking its toll here on the regulatory process and um I think the applicant made a wise decision rather than continuing to continue the matter and get you people back each time without being able to make significant progress. Um we'll continue to work on a plan that
hopefully works for all of us and then be back with you um with a new application. So, at least that's the perspective from the owners of 61 and 63 and and we look forward to continuing to work with this applicant. >> Thank you very much. And I appreciate
your you and your owners, the people you represent's dedication to try and find a compromise. Okay. Uh any other members of public or wish to speak? Seeing none, uh we'll do a roll call. Nancy,
>> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Eda Donovan, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. Okay. Uh that's it officially. Just quickly, we have one or two things. Oh, we do have an
administrative approval. Thank you. You see why it's important that you're here? Just move on. Uh who who looked at that up three could you want to say a few words about it, please? >> Yes. Um, I visited the property at 337
Main Street and um, it's um, my reaction was it was surprising that this 1840 house is not included in the listing of homes in the National Historic Register. Uh, the proposed it must have been an oversight, I think, but the
proposed replacement of the front door is definitely needed. It's it's in really rough shape and it but it'll be obviously a new door is the is the problem. Um it will it will alter the streetscape since the house sits
practically on the front sidewalk, but it'll be better than what's currently there. Um so I recommend approval of the application if it were in the National Register. Um, there probably be a big debate about this, you know, because it's going to
have a it's an old house, 1840. >> Is are is the door going to be similar to the existing door? >> It's going to be similar, but it's going to have like a brass uh kick plate uh at the base. >> It's going to be the um skylight. This
>> Who is the other Who's the other? >> I I believe it's Fern. Um what's her last name? I can't think. Um, >> I'm just Do you know >> I'm sorry. >> I can't think. >> He's looking for who else on the commission reviewed it.
>> Oh, who? I think Bob I think Bob did. >> I'm looking it up right now. >> I think Bob Leer did. I'm not sure. >> Did we have concurrence of both? >> Yes. >> Okay, fine. That's I was just in I just wanted to confirm we have concurrence on both. >> But do we get into do we get into that kind of thing with um what's appropriate
or not with an 1840 house? Well, you could we rely upon you two members, you know, to sense whether it is in the old village or not, assume it's the old village, you know, that's that's important, but it's it's still an historically significant house and a
form B. It doesn't have to be in the old village or in the let me tell you, >> thread on the edge 90 there's about 90 >> homes maybe more in this town which are should be in the national registered district. Mhm. >> I can I can cite the places, but they're not.
>> But it is on both sides. That's the interesting part. >> Both sides. >> I don't know what happened. >> Mhm. >> And I think uh well, it probably was something we should check with uh you know, we could add a home could be added to a national registered edition.
>> It also could be taken away. That's harder, but it could be added. But um I think what we can do is um which take a note from for Christina to to check with Winnie Lear I guess uh Bob's wife who's
chairman of the uh uh O Village Association of that they have any documentation on why it was not included. Uh Norm Pacin is no longer with us, but his wife is still around and maybe she would
remember why, you know, why what this is oversight. You're saying the house on both sides are >> Yeah, it's right It's right there. Yeah, it's a funny thing. >> Was it not included in the National Registry or just not a contributing structure?
>> It It's um >> It's not included in the listing of homes in the National Historic Register. Oh, so it's not contri. It's not listed. >> That's correct. >> Okay, that's different. >> But both all the the houses surrounding it are it's just a just kind of kitty corner from Bob Leer's house. Yeah.
>> All right. We'll we'll we'll check that out and we'll get back and and report back to us. In the meantime, we I think see no reason from my point of view we should not approve. >> That's what I that's what I ended up with. Yeah. Just quickly for members of the public who may be listening, this administrative approval process is when
we have an application for something which is really minor and we don't require a full hearing on a on a home that's more than 75 years old. So, we have a uh a u administrative approval for 337 Main Street. And the motion
would be, I guess, if you don't mind, Janet, to affirm the uh the the the recommendation of the uh >> of the front door >> of yourself uh and Bob Leer for approval. So, >> I'll second. Okay. >> I guess I made the motion.
>> All right. Uh All right. Any other comments? And we'll check into that. Uh roll call. Uh Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Peter Donovan, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes.
>> All right. Okay. I thought we'd make 10 minutes or not. Uh just quickly, uh the uh old business. You have a a piece of correspondence. It's a letter that I I generated in in response to uh some
comments and and uh or permission from the members to uh to contact the uh the select board formally. And basically um what the letter does is ask for uh
opinions and guidance on on the issue of preservation restrictions for the members of the public. The preservation restriction like an historic uh like a uh conservation restriction is really the ultimate way to protect a uh a
property a home in in the way the owner wants to do that. Uh this all was initiated by Ellen Briggs of Protect Our Pass. When a member of the community asked if they could put a preservation restricted on their home, it gets a
little complicated. There's a little legal business involved here and to the extent the way the historical commission's involved and the select the the select board is involved needs to be formalized and understood. It's been a
while since we did it. Don Aman was chair at the time when we did one on the YWCA in the old village. So, we've got a lot to learn on what to do and uh this is a process to let the the town uh fathers, if you will, and and Jill
Goldmith, the town manager, you know, give us some guidance on how they want to proceed. Bob, did you want to say something? I'm sorry. Yes. Um I I think this is topical because as your representative to the um community preservation committee, I've been um
really trying to understand um the interface between the commission and historic preservation and the committee. And one thing um because I feel like maybe the committee isn't giving enough guidance in its applications to applicants related to historic preservation. Um, and we can talk about
that maybe at another meeting, but I wanted to say related to preservation restrictions, um, the Cape Cod Commission, according to a guidance note from the Community Preservation Coalition, which is a state nonprofit that helps support CPAs and
CPCs. The Cape Cod Commission staff recommend that a preservation restriction be required whenever CPA funds are used to rehabilitate or restore historic properties regardless of the property ownership, which would mean that some of our big prop, you
know, obviously Maronei Towers, they're in a a a designated protected area uh site already, but Coast Guard um Harbor Masters building other investments that we are making in a significant way. It looks like even if they are town owned
that maybe some kind of preserv there's different types of restrictions as you know. So I just wanted to say I think this is really topical and I would like us to be talking about what preservation restrictions outside of this individual request but what you know if we're going
to do them and when we should be thinking about initiating ourselves and who would hold them is a good topical discussion. Well, I'm feeling >> I'll be asking. >> I'm getting a sense of deja vu here or Groundhog Day. >> Before there was a preservation
coalition, we had this discussion and the community preservation committee. >> Yeah. >> And we did preservation restrictions and then it's it just they h they haven't been doing it. >> Well, I think it's just gotten lost. >> The CPC just ignored it. >> I Well, I don't I don't know. I just can
tell you that the current um leadership and the current >> look to me for guidance um and checklists and there's a lot of things like even that every project that like when we discuss them here every project that gets funding from the CPC needs to
abide by the secretary of the interior standards for rehabilitation. So the first thing we should do when somebody comes and asks us to support it is to give them that and say tell us how this is going to abide by that because then that carries over to the committee that
doesn't have our our well and also our experience >> and this is the historic commission. This is the historic commission is asked to support or not support each >> in three areas though. It's only the historic. >> It's the historic that I'm focusing on. And so I'm going to be recommending I
think for the next round that we draft some a checklist and some guidance that goes to applicants for historic >> president. Why don't you put something together we could share with >> Absolutely. So I just I'm just giving agenda. We'll put on an agenda for a discussion. Yep. >> And maybe we'll invite Mr. Tennyson.
>> Yes. And we'll be talking about this at our next meeting with the CPC because some things have arisen during our deliberations. So I'll come back to you with outcomes of that. Sorry to take your time. I know you want to end quickly. >> Okay. One last thing I just wanted to say relative to the the boat house and
in relation to the one item on the old business of form B's. uh Eric Dre, our preservation consultant, is assembling information or photographs of the uh boat house in it, you know, in its former position. So, I just would ask
members of the public, if anybody's watching or the members of the commission, if you do have old photographs of the uh of the boat house, uh we'd appreciate getting copies of it to include when we finally submit this
to the National Register. Uh just a mass historic for putting on a national register. Actually, one interesting thing, we were concerned about what color to paint the doors and we were looking for old photographs that might give us some sense and we did. We find
some. We found some. Did you look at Excuse me. >> Did you look at the Atwood House? I think they have photographs of it. >> Yes, we have. And anyway, so but you know, but somebody may have an old color photograph of it and it's turned out to be dark green. The question is how dark
green? You know how dark? Eric is talking about Department of Interior guidelines. Eric and and and I guess we can report. All right. You want to just quickly go the uh uh Nancy and myself met with uh
Dr. Burman, Greg Burman, uh who's replaced uh Dr. Bunkinson and we reviewed the drawings and the specifications for the restoration of the of the boat house and we're very pleased that what
they're doing is really sticking to it to the point I mean know the all the architectural form is going to be there exactly when the dormers came up we don't know the original drawings don't show dormers but the original original drawings of it show dormers So for
somehow, you know, maybe it was a contractor when he was building, I think I'll add some dormers. >> Well, and Greg said that actually all the Coast Guard buildings that are like look like it there's a type of building ended up with dormers. So it may have been something that they added to, you know, that wasn't in the local plan, but
then they ended up saying all these buildings are going to because all the other ones Virginia, they all have it. >> They never changed the drawings. At least the drawings we have drawings don't have drawings. Anyway, it's kind of interesting and uh and so you know, but it looks like the town is going to provide the actual uh documentation to
do it correctly. So, it will be it'll make it a lot easier for us when we submit it to Mass Historic that Yes, we did we did restore it to exactly right. >> And how would we ask someone to submit a photo to you? Is it an email to the historical commission?
>> Yes. And if anybody had a hard copy, um, they could bring it into the library and we the library could help them scan it. >> Same in the community development department can help scan as well. >> All right. We'll we'll put something out in the put them in notes and put something out in the chronicle. Maybe a
small note. You'd be surprised, you know, people may uh, hey, you know, to check their files. >> All right, guys. We're going to break a record. Anything else? Anybody else want to talk about? >> Yes, ma'am. Just one thing we talked about limiting how many times a house
could come up and uh for re were they rel delayed delayed delayed delayed the continuence. Yeah, we we had talked about is I know there are other committees talking about limiting how many times someone can come
up again. Well, you know, the only thing I could say, Steph, is that this case, you know, in from our perspective when we're trying to find
an accommodation with with a with an applica. You know, this isn't easy. It's not like it's the law where, you know, the setback can 20 feet, but I want to do 25. Well, guess what? You can't do it. You know, our our
definition is I hate to use the term loosey goosey, but it it's it's not clear. Historic preservation is a kind of feeling in some ways and artistically, you know, what is form and function, you
know. So, I I I agree with you. And this one was was frustrating because we sense that they were didn't have their act together and and I and I agree with you. But I think generally I don't think we should change our rules and regulation
to to to demand you only get two shots. >> We need to thing too, but >> yeah, we need to >> not 100. >> We need to get we need to give it an opportunity. Yes, Nancy. I >> I think we need to keep the opportunity there to come to like to come to
success. And so and so success may need time. And so if we take away the ability to continue things, we don't give them the time. If they weren't working with us, I would feel differently. But um I think when they're have good faith
efforts to try to find a solution that fits within the historical parameters, I think we should have the we should retain our flexibility to you know go with that. >> Yeah. I I think to make you know why do we have an 18? Why? We used to have six month demolition delay when we went to
12 18. Why? Because technically, and quite honestly, we don't do that. We put a demolition delay, but we're supposed to do during that delay is have a conversation with the owner, the real owner, and maybe encourage them to take a second look and I'm looking at m, you
know, thinking of protect our past. Like, bring in bring in a preservation specialist and give them some ideas. We don't have the time, effort, money, and wherewithal to do that. And occasionally, we have reached out to protect our past when or Ellen has
reached out to us and hey, I can have our specialist who's volunteering to take a look at it. And you know, I hate to say most of the time it doesn't work, but at least we try and that's that's the whole effort. We're trying anyway. All right. I think we there's a motion
to adjurnn. Yes. I'm sorry. Anything else? I move we adjourn this meeting. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet,
>> yes. >> Yes. >> Chair Vess. Thank you very much. Uh