[Music] Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music]
Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and this is the uh September 2nd, 2025 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Uh before we start, we have a couple of notices that I have to read. Please note 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 the chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law 3820 until June 20 June
30th, 2027. There's an extra seven in there. This meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceed access to proceedings as
provided for in the order. A reminder that people who would like to listen to this meeting while it is in progress may doing so by calling the phone number 5089454410. conference ID 548310737 hashtag or join the meeting online via
Microsoft teams through the link on the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal case on chatam TV chatam 1072 despite our best efforts we will not be able to provide real time access.
First order of business is to formally take a roll call to see who's here. Bob Leer, vice chair here. Nancy Bar, clerk here. Stephanie Hamilton here. Janet Tennyson here. Robert Stevens here.
Robert Wilson here. Sandy Porter alternate is not here. Okay. So we have uh the full complement of uh members of the commission present all participating and voting.
Okay. After that let's dispense of the minutes uh of uh August 19, 2025. Everyone has had the minutes and hopefully any comments, corrections? None. Oh yes.
On page two, page two. Um this a motion was made by Mr. Leer and seconded by Miss Hamilton to continue this hearing to the date certain of September. Second, right? But the word certain isn't I
don't think to continue this hearing to the date certain that's just the formal wording used for continuence. Pardon me. That's the formal wording used for continuence. Okay. And then on page three,
um, third full paragraph, architect Roger Holt Hoy presented on behalf of the owners, some of whom were present. Mr. Hoy explained that the intent is to maintain the existing building existing character of the
house. He gave a brief overview of the property and its historic owners. He explained that the plan to maintain the foundation is it should it be is to maintain? Yeah. All right. Anything else?
Thank you. Motion to accept as amended. I move we accept the minutes as written with the one exception of the change. Thank you. A second. I'll second. Thank you. Okay. Very quickly, if there no other comments, Bob,
yes. Nancy, yes. Stephanie, yes. Janet, yes. Robert Stevens, yes. Robert Wilson, yes. Jeff Vess, thank you very much. You noticed you got to correct that for me, would you? Yes.
Thank you. Okay. Uh, we have a a couple of items on the agenda. uh continued of previous one as well as a few other minor
issues to discuss once I get myself in order here. Uh we'll start with the uh application 2530 uh which is heard in chapter accords with chapter 158 and also in accordance
with the Cape Cod Commission regional policy act uh 75 hallway. This is uh an application that has a long history with the Chattam Historical Commission and uh
hopefully we've come to some kind of a reproach month or a way to to get this thing to move forward. For the public's point of view, this house is uh been before us many times uh at least six or seven times. Number of changes made.
This is a contributing structure in the national registered district and therefore there is there is some issues that you know we as a commission have relative to what changes are proposed and hopefully
the current application this application originally was referred to the Cape Cod Commission but then the application was uh withdrawn and now this is a new application. before us, Mr. Riley. Well, thank you, Bill Riley. On behalf
of Rob and Joanne Barcamian, the uh after our meeting with the staff at the Cape Cod Commission, they pointed out that the previous
design altered the character defining aspect of the building. uh and they suggested that if there was to be a small lateral expansion on the new section
uh they wouldn't have any objection to that. So this is a design u where the the lower uh floor uh will get extended out. Which drawing number is that bill?
Beg your pardon? What number? A3. A3. A3. Thanks. A3. Yeah. Okay. A3. So if you look at the south elevation, the U. So the lower level will go out as
far as the existing patio if you've been to the property. And then the main floor uh will come out about half that distance.
Uh and then there will be a a deck uh as you can see there over the the remaining portion of the expanded lower level. So that none of the character defining aspects which are really the roof
as seen in the north elevation and I think the uh east elevation uh are being changed. Can we put this thing in perspective for the from a public's pers public's point of
view? I guess is it fair to say that rather than going up we're going out? I would that's a good description. Yeah, I wanted to make that point for the public as well as other members of the commission. This is a complicated application in a sense that we've, you
know, we've made so many minor changes uh over the years, right? So, yeah, what the Cape Cod Commission staff has suggested is that the a portion of the building
that extends towards the water Um so that would be like the east elevation uh which is new construction was that was added
uh through previous approvals here and and the zoning board. Uh so instead of changing the roof structure, all we're doing is bringing um those two the the gable end as you
can see there on the east elevation that's coming out about uh 8 feet and the lower elevation where you see the three windows uh they'll be under a they'll be out
about 12 feet. So, it's going to extend about 4 feet beyond the uh the main level. All right. Um Okay. Why don't we just, you know, dig into it from a member's perspective and we'll start. Nancy, um I'd like to read into the record the
um letter we have from Sarah Corf, who is the Oh, we have a couple of them. You want to read them now? Uh I I think so. I think there's just one. I think Well, we usually wait until after our comments. Oh. Unless it feels derain to your comment. Yeah, I actually would like to say that
read hers. Um I'm in generally feel that her comments are reflect um what I would support. Um this is dated July 28th from Sarah Corf. She's uh the historic preservation specialist at the Cape Cod Commission. She's probably who the the
who you met with, right? Um, as requested, I have looked at the latest 75 hallway street plans that were submitted to the town and provide these comments for your consideration. Commission staff met with the applicant and their architect on July 8th to
discuss the DRRI review process. Their previously proposed plans and alternate alternative design possibilities. The plans dated July 15, 2025 are the result of that meeting and the applicant has now withdrawn their previous plans from
review. I believe the July 15, 2025 proposed plans do not make any changes to the original historic building mass, its roof line, or its windows and doors. The proposed extension will impact only the walls of the non-historic
east-facing addition, and that addition will be maintained at its current height, which is lower than the original building. As such, I believe the modest size of the proposed addition will not impact the character defining features of the historic building or its status
as a contributing building within the old village national register historic district. Please share these comments with the commission and I would just say that I reviewing the plans and I think that I would agree
with that. I feel like the original roof line was what was going to be completely lost and that now it will be retained preserved. Yeah. Thank you very much, Nancy. I thought you were going to read the the the uh Abutter's comments, but no, I agree with you.
I understand. Yeah, that's right. Exactly. Sorry about that. Anyway, uh no, I I hardly agree with that. And I think this is, you know, this is part of our process here, fortunately or unfortunately with the National Register property, especially
contributing structure when we kind of reach an impass with the owner is to call in the calvaryary uh and scapegoat commission. But why don't we continue? Um, Janet, I agree with Sarah Corf's comments and
having visited the site multiple times, I can see where the um this will be an acceptable uh change to this very historic structure and um I don't think it will
significantly impact its um its historic significance. Thank you, Seth. I have no comment about it. I think it's great. Um, the only thing I want to know is if I can go up on the porch that the woman was sunning on yesterday to to to stretch out the sun.
Well, but but only one gin and tonic. Robert. Yeah. I I I've only been involved in the last few times it's come before the commission and uh um you know, we've kind of beat this to death. Everyone would like the old cottage, the original cottage to come back, but that's not a
reality. And I think that the applicant and you and and uh Ahern have worked very hard to try to accommodate everything. So I'd be positive on these plans. Thank you, Bob. Yes. Uh I think the uh I agree with all
the force foregoing uh comments and want to add that the original historic character as you might have mentioned Robert is uh in the character and appearance that was there with the original cottage you can hardly recognize it now with all the mods that have occurred and so the main thing in
my mind when I went to the site and looked at it is let's just not make it less attractive right and I think what you've done on the east side is a good width I looked at the width and the height night and it's it's perfect I think I mean very acceptable
doesn't make an impact on the negative impact so I suggest we give a green light to it provided that you keep the golden retriever healthy provided what was that the golden retriever keep the golden retriever healthy Bob
I agree with uh Mr. Wilson's points. Um I just feel the need to mention again I think the underlying issue that we should be looking at is a substantial change of what and the substant and the what is what was certified for the National Historic Register in roughly
the year 2000. But as he mentioned we're we're past that now. It's some it just got eaten away bit by bit. So this change is certainly not any worse and I I'll vote to approve it. Thank you. Uh yeah, I I guess I I agree
with all the comments being made by the members. you know, this this one unfortunately, you know, it's in some ways death by a thousand cuts, you know, and that's the most frustrating thing for me having been involved in this back in 2006 from
the beginning, you know, uh, and it just it's just something that and there is a threshold 25% boom Cape Cod Commission and um and maybe the mistakes if we can say it mistake we've made earlier in
some of the changes is we didn't bulk. We let them go ahead and make these m quotes minor changes but the minor changes pretty much creep up and we get something like this and but I think the previous application was just completely unacceptable in terms of loss of any
semblance of the original historic cottage. So, uh I think we we finally got it. Sorry it took so long and sorry it probably cost so much to do it but uh I think uh Mr. stay here and did a good job finally in in capturing it. Bill,
you you had no need to utilize the uh the zoning issue. In fact, the fact that you get additional coverage, that wasn't a sense. Oh, we we have to go to zoning. You have enough. Yeah. And members of the commission and the public, that is
the bylaw change that this commission uh led the effort for and passed the town meeting. I guess it was two years ago in which when we have an historically significant home especially a home in the national registered district like that a contributing structure that if for instance if this
applicant was not going to go up but needed more space to go out we uh where the where he didn't meet the current zoning the uh bylaw with the historical commission's concurrence zoning board would allow them to occupy more space
than they normally would because it's historic house. We haven't actually had anybody use it yet, but it's there when and if we do need it. Okay. I guess at this particular point, we have a number of applic number of motions and I look
to the vice chair, Mr. Lair to keep us, you want to do the letters, Frank? Uh, that was the only letter. No, the the letters from the abutters. Those are different address. I did that with 67 school. We have Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. You get bad as me.
That's what I did. No, I can't do that. All right, go ahead. Um, okay. I'll do chapter 158 first. Um, I move the historic C Chadam Historical Commission finds that the building located at 75 Hallway Street is historically significant be due based on
the factors that have been considered many times by this commission and that has not changed. Second. Thank you very much. Any other comments? Any member of the public wish to speak for against? Nope. Roll call. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes.
Steph, yes. Janet, yes. Robert, yes. Bob, yes. Chair Vess. Okay. Chadam Historical Commission also finds the proposed work to be done dated July 15, 2025 will not materially diminish
the historic significance of the building and therefore the commission does not impose demolition delay. I'll second. All right. Any other comments? All right. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Steph, yes. Janet,
yes. Robert, yes. Bob, yes. And the chair votes yes. All right. Chadam, um, Cape Cod Commission. I move that Chattam Historical Commission confirms that the home located at 75 Hallway Street is
contri contributing structure in the National Historic Register District. I second. Any other comments? All right, roll call. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Steph, yes. Janet, yes. Robert,
yes. Bob, yes. Jesus. Okay. And secondly, under the Cape Cod Commission. I move the Chattam Historical Commission finds the materials presented this date show that the proposed alterations, additions, and
renovations do not constitute a substantial alteration to a contributing structure located in the National Historic Register District and therefore referral to the Cape Cod Commission for review is not necessary. I'll second. Thank you. Any comments?
Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Steph, yes. Janet, yes. Robert, yes. OB, yes. And the chair votes. I think we did it. For members of the public, what's going
on there? This is a a property that's in the National Register District, a contributing structure, and technically we were hearing it under both chapter 158, uh, demolition delay bylaw, and also the referral to the Cape Cod
Commission. Thank you very much, Bill. Thank you very much, my clients. appreciate it. I'm glad we finally reached a uh an ending. Okay, now 67 86 Vineyard Avenue.
Okay. Uh this is an application on chapter 158. Just so you know, their architect is online also. Just so this is a full demolition, right? No, it is not. Oh, this is the Okay. Yeah. Right. Okay. Great.
Hi. Uh before we start, this is a a property um 86 Vineyard Avenue. Uh a partial demolition or a change. We use the term partial demolition, but but it it's a euphemism for change. Unknown participant is now exiting.
You're good. There's no form B on the property and it is not a national registered district and our preservation consultant in in review did not put it on the list for for further review. Um
technically why don't you introduce yourself? My name is Cassandra. I'm the owner. Um and I have my architect Morel Ernesto on online too. Well, thank you very much. Yeah. uh just just so you know what's going
what's going to happen. We take two we do this in two steps. The first thing we do is we determine whether or not the property in question is historically significant. If we determine it is historically significant, then we begin the process
of asking asking questions about what you're doing and whether or not the changes you're making are affect the historical significance of the property. So, I don't want to cut you short, but technically, if we determine that the
property in question is not historically significant and proceed. Okay. I don't want to cut you short, but go ahead. Yeah. I the changes there. I wanted to change the page so you guys can see the
house now. I'm sure you guys went to the house. Yes. Most of it. Um, the addition that was done where you see right here, this area right here, that was done in 19. That was Yeah, that's that's the control room.
Every time you walk out of the camera, they can't hear you. So, sorry, I'm very nervous. That's okay. We get it all the time. Their addition was in 1988, which before was just a cape style house. So the addition that was done doesn't look doesn't doesn't make the house feel
right. So I wanted to fix that. Then after I make the application then I find I find out that I'm historical by three years because it's seven the house is 78 years old. Um so now we're looking to see what you guys think about the change because there is uh the roof line is
going to come down all the way and there will be a porch added to the front. the old house, the 78 um the the 78 years old house is going to kept the same. The changes that we're trying to make is more to the addition that was done in
1988, but okay. I don't know if my architect wants to add anything. No, that's fine. That's fine. I think you know we we very quickly can can can get a consensus
rather whether or not whether we feel the house is historically significant again if we don't so why don't we just go around the room and and uh talk of it Bob we'll start with you yes I did I did visit the site and uh
it's a it's a very interesting site but all the changes that I've seen happen u significant changes over the years or 1988 was it 98? Uh just take away from you can't recognize the original historic appearance if there was one. So
I I would say no it's not historic. Okay, Robert. Yeah, I agree with Bob. I'm going to assume that Thomas Jefferson didn't sleep there or anything like that. Okay, thank I'll go along with him. I agree with my two fellow people.
I agree there. I do not see historical significance in this structure. Thank you, Nancy. I agree. I don't believe it's historically significant. Bob, I also agree. Um it it's interesting and different, but I don't think that just
makes it historically significant. All right. We I guess I concur also. I just have one. Is this the architect online? Yeah. Yes. One quick question. What the heck did they do when they built that addition at
that funny roof line? Do you have any idea why they did that? So yeah, it is I also questioned myself about that. Uh and part of this design is actually trying to respect the original house and have some like better
distribution of hierarchy of the volumes. But one thing that they did is because of the original 24 by uh 24x36 or 24x32 cape house the base is actually a block structure like they used to be. So clearly when they went to make the
addition they couldn't work with the existing because it wasn't I guess rigid enough and they went and they built an adjacent out of proportion monstrosity that is completely off center and like has no respect for the existing house. So, what
I'm trying to do by infilling or what we're trying to do by infilling a portion of the roof that it seems to be missing and then extending the garage opposite is try to bring it back to and then making it black and white with shutters. It will bring it back to what it could be. All right.
So, well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. Uh, I agree the house is not although it's interesting is not historically significant in 1947. It meets the age. So having that, I guess we could take a motion. Mr. Lear,
I move the Chadam Historical Commission find that the building located at 86 Vineyard Avenue is not historically significant because it does not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2A, B or C of the bylaw there. Therefore, the commission does not impose a
demolition delay. Second. Second. Thank you. Any other comments? Any members of the public wish to speak for against the motion? Okay, seeing none. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Steph, yes.
Janet, yes. Robert, yes. Bob, yes. The chair vote yes. Effectively, thank you very much. Sorry we put you through this, but it's a process that uh we did. This a full-time home for you? Uh, no. I'm gonna I bought so I could
see what it comes up on the end and then if my by the time we finish in about one year my son is out then I'll probably move in if they're gone. Ah very good. If not let's see. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.
All right. 2521 uh 67 School Street. We're going to hear that again with chapter 158 and in accordance with the uh Cape Cod Commission Act. Uh this application has
been continued from two previous meetings and uh I believe what we have again in front of you is uh drawings which have been changed again differently significantly different than what we had previously
reviewed. So, uh, Paul, why don't you introduce yourself and then give us a little and the members of the public a little bit of background of where we are, where we're going. Frank, if I could just interject before Mr. Mulun gets started, I am going to recuse myself from this because I am a
director of butter. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh, appreciate it. Nance, you you you're going to fill in for Robert with the motions if we get that far. Okay. Um why don't you proceed introduce yourself for me?
Paul Moldun SV Design here representing uh Lee Williams and Elizabeth English and their project at 67 School Street. We we've been uh we've had a previous application. We've uh researched the design. We've worked the process a bit.
And uh I just like to start off by working through some of the distinguishing characteristics of the existing home. Um the William Harrison Goldhouse uh built sometime in 1910 and there's some conflicting uh reports on the age of the house. We stuck with the oldest. So 1910 is where we're we're
headed. Um the bungalow style home which there are quite a few in Chattam uh which in researching the property and looking for some precedent um we found a number of them. Uh this house sits uh one and a half story structure. It's a hipped roof and it sits very close to
the street and very low into the into the grade adjacent to the street. Um, it has a hipped roof dormer on the front and that sits pretty proud on the existing roof line centered on the on the ridge uh with two windows and um
generally the windows on the house are six over one uh style. Um the existing front of the house was a filledin porch at one point and you can see that by entering the space. you see a shingled interior wall and a step up into the to the main part of the house.
Um, we feel like it was it was um there's a bit of a a lack of organization to how it was completed. The the front doors offset the the windows are are a little bit um irrational in their organization. Um but it's one of the characterist
characteristics of the existing house. Uh the house is clad in vinyl siding. Um, we don't quite know what's behind it, though. The the form B suggests that it is cedar shingles. Um, the window trim existing is covered by that vinyl siding. So, the trim that we can see is
a painted trim, white painted trim, similar to other homes in in the neighborhood and other bungalows in town. Uh, it does sit on a concrete block foundation of which we found is is um not in great shape. And we'll talk a little bit more about that as we go.
There are a couple of um former additions. Um there's very limited documentation on how and when they they showed up at the rear porch itself. There's a a covered porch off the back of the house uh pushing easterly. Um it does have a roof line that is different or or hipped or um sloped differently
than the main roof line. And the um addition to the south uh is is a kitchen block that seems like it was tacked on to the original structure. Uh the foundation itself um is exhibiting several concerning symptoms of deterioration. There's some
differential settlement. There's vertical cracking in numerous uh locations and some bulging along the north wall. um that along with the center beam of the structure is creating a an unplain situation where you walk in and the floors are really doing a bit of
a roller coaster where the the foundation height is different than the center beam is different than the foundation height on the opposite side. So things that um we are looking to correct with the the proposed scope of work. Now, um, looking at the the drawings on
the the screen here, it's a quick, um, review of the current house, the previous scheme, and the updated proposed scheme. And we we're showing two elevations here. And, um, in in this particular scheme, or in in this particular elevation, maybe if we can go
to the next one. Um, just going through some of our our proposed additions or proposed changes. Uh the existing house has finished space in the uppermost level. Um it has the
covered porch as you can see in the back with a distinguishing roof line and uh a staccato of windows along this north elevation and of course the concrete block uh foundation and lattice covered
porch along the backside. uh in the previous scheme which um through the walkthrough and through some commentary we we received from the Cape Cod Commission, we found it was going to be completely denied and and so we we asked
to continue the process to to work the design, work together with the Cape Cod Commission and come back with something that's a little bit more feasible. So in this particular original design, we did add height to the structure by removing the roof, pushing it up two feet and rebuilding the roof. Um, we added some
dormers on the front and on the north side and on the south side. Um, we added windows along an area of addition. Our most recent scheme took into heart the conversation we had with Sarah Corgiff. Um, we had a long conversation about
strategies on how to um manipulate a a historic home and ways to to produce a design that would be in tune with the the character and the distinguishing qualities. Um, with this updated design, we have infilled the existing porch and
extended it out about two feet. So, we are adding space to the structure, but only about 75 square feet of footprint. Uh, we've maintained a different differential roof. So, the existing ridge line here is the existing ridge line here. Uh, the existing front dormer
remains, the existing front dormer remains. So, our our new roof line here steps down and this is all to the eastern side of the house away from the public's view. stepping away from any any particular view from from the driving path. Um you can see we we have
infilled that porch. The porch is in very bad shape. Uh lots of rot um areas of of um space that just needs to be rebuilt. It's it's not going to survive much longer. Uh along with foundation work that is just not there. Um so again
we're maintaining the the eve and sophet line as is and we're rebuilding the roof line above it to ensure there's a demarcation between the new and the old. Yes. Uh just just quickly u so the
the ridge the ridge height of the current structure is 464 and the new the the max the height of the new structure or parts of the new structure will be 474.
Correct. So getting to that point, uh the foundation, as I mentioned, is in very bad shape. We're So you're proposing to lift the house. We're proposing to lift the house, maintaining all of the current wood structure, lift the house, remove the
the CMU foundation, and put a poured foundation underneath it. Now, part of that reason is as the uh School Street has developed, School Street continues to add a layer of of asphalt. Okay? and and we're sloping down from School Street to the front portion of
the house where there's very minimal foundation underneath that front portion anyway, but it it really is sloping downward towards the house by about 12 in. So, part part of the foundation rebuild is to raise the house by about 12 in getting the front step up above
school street grade and um it does increase the height of the structure, but it really is the intent is to preserve the structure and get it out of the water. All right. So, if I could say it another way, you're not adding structure. You're just lifting the foundation,
lifting the wood structure of the house. So, none of that structure is is changing. And and that was part of the conversation we had with Sarah Corg. Yeah, I understand. With with the original design, we were removing the roof. We're not removing the roof in this in this situation. We're simply taking the structure and bringing it upward. Well, you know, it's
it's symptomatic when we have houses down Little Beach where we the house is still the same except it's 8 feet higher. Agreed. Yeah. Anyway, okay. I'm sorry. I just wanted to understand that. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Wilson. Did you have a question?
Yes. I just wanted to know, is there a seller currently? Is it uh And there is some volume down there. So, have a lot of water in when it does have a water issue. And that's again part of the foundation reworking is to make make sure that we don't have a water issue after we do all this work. And about interior stairways and so
forth, although it's maybe not our purview, but uh there is an interior stairway. It is blocked from the upper level down because of a limited square footage. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Why don't you continue? Sure. Uh if we can go back to the the front elevation. So part part of that question is, you
know, here's the height of the original roof. Here's where we were proposed in the original design. And you can see we have that extra three coursings of shingle or so. And then the the current proposed design brings that eve line right back down to where it was sitting directly on the header height of the
existing windows. Um but we are increasing the height of the building by about that foot for the new foundation. I'm sorry you have something to say. You're gonna have to come up. Thank you very much. Sorry about that.
Um, thanks Paul. Just hi, I'm Elizabeth English. I'm the owner. Um, along with my husband, Lee Williams. I just want to say we have a picture of the original house taken um somewhere between probably 1910 and 1950 and the house is
sitting above the street. It's sitting proud. And if you visit the property and really look at the grade, it's taking on water from properties on either side which clearly have built up their grade. But it's just the house is physically sunk into the ground and the streets
been built up over time and it is the basement is just taking on water. So that is the the rationale for raising the foundation so that the house is not taking in. Yeah, I understand. That's why I wanted to note it just so it's in the record and people understand what we're talking about.
All right. Thank you. Sarah, can we go to the other set of drawings, please? Comparing our current design to the originally proposed what sheet are you on, ma'am? H1.0. We do kill a lot of trees, don't we?
Certainly do. Sorry. So, here on on this proposed west elevation, uh you can see we are retaining the existing hipped dormer on the front of the house again that sits proud on on the school street side. Uh
we are reorganizing the windowing a bit in this front elevation m maintaining the look and feel and the intent of the enclosed porch. Uh going to four windows on the right, two windows on the left where previously we had three windows on the right. Um some quasi sidelights and
then two windows on the left. Um you can also see on the uh right hand side or the southern side of the structure, we we're rebuilding the former kitchen addition. uh pulling that off, making sure that there is a good foundation underneath it and putting a hipped roof on top. What do you mean by you're rebuilding the former kitchen edition?
Tearing that off completely. Oh, okay. Fine. Um noting the the new addition. Yeah, got it. I got you. Okay. Other elements here, we have an existing chimney here that is not in good shape and not functioning uh for anything in particular. So, we're removing that chimney, but adding a chimney to the
side of the structure on that southern side. Can I ask a question? Of course. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm probably No, I just want to ask if it's going to be a working chimney. It will be a working chimney. Thank you. I take it it's not
it's a it's a fireplace you're adding. It's a fireplace and yet to be determined if we're exhausting any mechanical systems. Pretty big. It is a it is a fireplace. Yeah. I mean, it's it's big. U
But I guess if you're making it a wood burning fireplace, it has to be that big. There are particular code requirements for the height and and spacing from highest point on the roof. We've got to be two feet higher than any any adjacent combustible surface. My comment is coming from the fact this
is a dimminitive househ. There's no question about it. And the the look and feel, which we do, streetscape is a dimminitive house and and I certainly respect the fact that what you're trying to do to
increase living space and to correct problems. No question about it. I'm hoping that you could be more dimminionative in your, you know, the streetscape. Nobody's going to like this. Trust me.
Okay. This is going to this is going to be, you know, this is going to be an issue and a problem in the old village and the people there. You know, nobody wants change. Everything can't go back to 1935. And and but I guess what I'd like you to think about as we proceed in this
conversation is to attempt to minimize the change in that front view of the what you see is that front view. That's it. That's the house. That's what your neighbors will see. That's what they're going to look at. And and you're
making some changes. Nothing is major. I mean, you're not putting a walk out, you know, sliding glass windows, but you are changing it. And and you're changing the scale a bit of that. And I'm just just, you know, I would have to say it right now, but just think about possibly not
making as many of those fenestration changes and the door changes and the skylight, the sidelights if you don't have to. Okay. That it's going to make it a lot easier to to fit into that view
from my perspective. And I we like to use the term is it a showstopper? No, it's not a showstopper, but it certainly is an issue. So, I'm interrupting you and I apologize, but why don't you continue? We like to think that these changes, and
they are changes, as small as they might be, along with bringing the original materials back to into play, removing the asphalt shingles on the roof and bringing back a cedar roof. Yes. Removing the vinyl siding, you know, this thing has been encased in plastic for for a really long time. and bringing
it back to a white cedar shingle is something that the neighbors will love and and see and and and be part of the vision of of this new newly revised, you know, relived bungalow. All right, why don't you continue? I'm sorry. If you can go to the next elevation,
please. So, H1.1 looking at the uh southern elevation and and um we we do have the chimney structure attached to the side here. U we've got two windows. We're replacing the two windows. All of our windows that are ganged together do have a double stud pocket in between. And
then there's some some reorientation inside the house. There's a a patio slider here existing. There's a a front porch here existing both in varying degrees of of uh function. Um so we're removing both of those and adding a
kitchen set of windows here and and two windows where there is currently one. Uh and again the the current kitchen bumpout will be removed and rebuilt and have um three windows looking southerntherly. Um again here we have the we'll call it
the original ridge height uh plus a foot of of foundation. Stepping down where we're seeing this new addition off the back. So this infilled porch plus two feet a little bit of a deck there which is happening currently. No stairs from that deck and then the infill and um
finished space of the area below. Do you have to go to zoning? Yes. The height, ridge height, not ridge height. Um it's a non-conforming structure on a non-conforming lot. And um we're adding habitable space. So what what is the zoning issue if I may ask?
We have less than required sideyard setback on this side on the on the southerntherly side and we are over the lot coverage calculation. How much are you over? Uh it's 16.5% or so where 15 is the max. I commented I said earlier
we we've looked into that and in fact um there are some restrictions with that that particular bylaw from the historic perspective uh noting if if the house were to ever burn down it it the the approval doesn't live with the house. Yes. And and it may be as simple as a a
standard special permit review rather than the historic incentivized special permit review but it is something that we are considering. Well, I just, you know, because it's an historic house and I think we're gonna we've determined that and we will and and that's that's the purpose of the bylaw.
Okay, you're going to save the house, but we need a couple of more square feet. Zoning doesn't let you Well, we we're going to let you do it. I mean, we the zoning board now has the authority to do it without, you know, a whole uh putting to do it as a special permit rather than a uh whatever the the term
is. Okay. Okay. Sorry. Great. Thank Thank you. Um we are proposing uh the possibility of some um solar panels on this southerntherly side as well and go to the next sheet please.
Um so Mr. Wilson asked if there if there was habitable space or if there was volume in in this lower level. There is and there's some reasonable ceiling height there. Um, there's a bathroom that's tucked in here. I'm not sure that it would ever survive a winter if it wasn't winterized. Um, so we are
infilling that space and creating some volume on this lower level. This is essentially because the second floor, which has habitable space now, but is not within the habitable requirements of the code. Um, we're we're pushing that opportunity into this lower level and
and finishing off the space below. So, we've got our new windows here in the infill of our porch plus the two feet. And then we've got a door and a window here uh set to increase the habitable space in this lower lowermost level. Um we do have a an entry sequence there as
well. If you've been to the property, you know, you drive in on the howlet side and the grading does pop up quite a bit up to the school street. So, this is this is probably the main entrance uh from the parking area uh in and behind the house and then again some habitable space with it.
add a last page, please. So, here again, uh we've talked about this elevation a little bit. We have our our original ridge height. We have our stepped down uh area. Um and then the infill of our porch and then uh some windows in this lower level. Again, uh
new cedar shingle siding, new uh cedar roof shingles. Um, we have added a little bump out here that distinguishes itself a little bit where the gutter line stops on either side and then put a little hip roof on it. This is to extend a little bit of space in a bathroom in
that in that um part of the house. Um, part of our our discussions with one Sarah Corgiff and and two just researching other bungalows in in the in the Chattam area and in this neighborhood. Um, we did take her comments to heart. We did find ways to
maintain the structure of the original building. Um, we're not removing the roof line. We're not taking out exterior walls. We have an exterior wall that we're adjusting that's now becoming an interior wall where these the covered porch is attached. Um, but the the
majority of that main structure lives on. Um, we're raising the structure. We're putting a new foundation underneath it. our owners here are the are the curators. They're preparing it for the next 100 years and we feel like that's important. Um
some of there's a similar home or sister home on um Mil Pond Road, 38 Mil Pond Road, and it's one that we find very attractive. It's a it's a a bungalow with the roof line sitting very tight, a freezeboard sitting on top of the head trim of the windows. It's a natural
cedar uh siding. It's a natural cedar roof. It's a painted trim. Um, and that house has been pushed and pulled a little bit. There's been some added dormers to it. There's there's been some modification, but it's a beautiful home. We find that the similarities of that home to this one, when it's been touched, when it's been updated, when
it's been brought back to life a bit, uh, they'll be very close. Um, there is there's another sister home at um 689 Orleans Road, and this is one that's been touched very similar to this current. It's wrapped in plastic. It's it's white. It's wrapped in plastic. Um,
it looks like it's been pushed and pulled a bunch of times. It's sold a number of times. The interior's been been uh completed all throughout. Um, so we're hoping we're more on the 38 mil pond road when we're done with with our proposed uh structures than we are on
the Orleans Road. With that, I'm available to answer any questions. Okay. Very good. Uh, thank you very much. I I agree. and from some of your comments in terms of you know working with us working with Sarah Core Jeff I
still remember that first day I met you at site and I said this is going to be a tough one and uh and they are and it's a interest it's the old village and um and as our neighbor you're a butter Mr. recuse himself. Uh, it's it's it's it's
a it's a house that a lot of people know and and they uh and they want to see it stay exactly as it is and it it can't. So, guess what? We're not going to make anybody happy here. Maybe you. And I think if it does stay the way it is, it it won't be around much longer.
We'll press on. Uh, having said that, why don't we read the uh letters, Nancy, because we have a couple of letters for and against the application. So, uh, why don't we do that first? Um, may I ask um are these letters that are updated to the to the new proposed?
Actually, that's um my one of my questions is regarding the letter from that's dated 8th of August and these plans are are much more recent than that. So, it does not appear this letter is addressing it. It's talking about the old plans, I believe. And I don't know
how how meaningful that is to read that into the record. Hold on. Um, that is correct. I'm not sure it is a continued application. I know things have changed, but I do think we do need to read it into the record. We need to read it. We need to read it into the record. And then the other two are current.
Yes. Yes. Okay. So, so both of them uh so both of them both letters address the old application. No, the the first one that NY's going to read addresses the old application and then the the two in support I believe
are referring the new. Okay. Go. Yes. I'm clear about that now. Thank you. Um, okay. So, this letter is dated the 8th of August. The plans that we just reviewed are dated the 26th of August, I believe. Um, so it's quite a long letter. I will read it in. Um, but many
of the things that it's referring to are not part of the current plans. This is from David McAdam. I've lived year round diagonally opposite the property in question for over 55 years and seasonally for 15 years before that.
I've watched several generations grow up and move on from the house at number 67. Architecturally, the house is a superb example of the original unadorned American bungalow. Beginning in the early early 20th century, Craftsman style features began to be incorporated
into the bungalow design, especially in California and Florida. Craftsman is considered an architectural or interior style, whereas a bungalow is a form of house. The house at number 67 is special in that it exhibits practically nothing of the craftsman style. It is the most
underappreciated architectural gem in the old village. It is one of an endangered class of antiques homes in the old village to have thus far escaped the destructive renovator's hammer. The house sits prominently in view to anyone passing through the old village on school street. Claire Basley in her book
Cape Cod Architecture lists the defining characteristics of the American bungalow. Among these are low, one or one and a half stories, chimney near the back, veranda, roof, gabled, hip, hip and ridge, low pitch, sometimes
collection of roofs of the same pitch, dormers, jerken head, foundation, low masonry. The American bungalow was originally based on the Indian Bengal rest houses built in the local style for traveling British officials in the mid-9th century
colonial India. Miss Basisley writes, "The bungalow was a low one-story building with wide verandas. The first bungalow in the United States is said to have buil been built in Massachusetts in 1880. For a while, the definitive characteristics of the style, as it was
done here, was up for grabs. When things settled down, the bungalow was determined to be a low one-story building. The upper part to be made habitable only through the courtesy of dormers with conspicuous verandas and a chimney. The one-story bungalow at 67 with its defining low roof line, front
and back hip roof, single unique front hip roof dormer, veranda style front and back porches now enclosed on the front and low foundation in the front and sides. The lot slopes down in the back presents itself to the passerby in its simplicity as the purest example of the
American bungalow. Furthermore, it is the only example in the old village and as such sign significantly contributes to the eclectic poperri of architecture that makes the old village a living museum of residential architectural history. Replacing the present roof with
one visibly different would result in a structure that is no longer a bungalow but a bastardization, a bungalow on the ground level and something else above. As a mental exercise, try to visualize in your mind's eye what this house would look like with a different roof. No roof
fits this bungalow, but the bungalow roof that is already on it. Erecting something visually different above the first story would be tantamount to demolishing the architectural significance of the entire structure, leaving only a deformed cartoon of its former self. The old village, originally
a working man's place of residence, is architecturally one of the jewels of Cape Cod, attracting walkers and visitors from near and far. As with number 67, its houses were often built small of necessity. Just because today the old villages often small properties
sell for an exorbitant amounts for exorbitant amounts does not mean that every small house there should be enlarged into participants counter to the intent of the historic preservation district guidelines. The entire chapter on bungalows in Miss
Beley's books offers great insight into bungalows in general and number 67 in particular. It is recommended reading. Two additional quotations from that chapter are pertinent. Quote, "A bungalow has tremendous charm, and sometimes the statement is so low-key that we must pause and study it to
recognize its value." Quote, "Bungalows are sometimes misunderstood and underappreciated, but to know them is to love them." If the Old Village Historic Preservation District is to have any meaning going forward, the few remaining homes whose exteriors have thus far escaped the renovator's hammer must be
spared. Repair what's there? Yes. Renovate by de demolition, replacement, and expansion. No. The exterior presentation, in particular, the roof of number 67 must not be changed. Sincerely, David McNadam, 52 School Street. Well,
it's an interesting history and uh we certainly have to take it to heart, but why don't we continue? I'm sorry. Yes, I have another. Okay. Yes. So, um there are two letters that are dated um August 29th and September 1st.
um letters in support of the most recent plans that have been submitted and are before the commission. Uh the first is from Kathleen Failen, a full-time resident of Chadam and a realtor. I am writing a letter of support for Elizabeth English and Lee Williams
proposed renovation at 67 School Street. I have lived in and renovated three historic homes in New England. I can say with great confidence that their renovation will enhance and protect the bungalow at 67 School Street. This structure has a number of issues that are not historic like vinyl sighting,
etc. The renovation proposed will honor the current structure and include materials that are more appropriate for a historic house. Elizabeth and Lee are avid gardeners and use a lot of Cape Cod native plants in their landscaping. Elizabeth's cottage garden will be a delight to all who walk by the front
door of 67 School Street. Elizabeth teaches a class in American architecture at the school she is the head mistress at. Her appreciation of historic buildings will will be reflected in the renovation at 67 School Street. I am familiar with their previous home on C
view Street. There they built a home in the Greek vernacular that reflected and blended in with the neighborhood. Not only did they build a great house, but they made it as energy efficient as possible, something that benefits us all. 67 School Street is in very capable hands. They will be excellent stewards
of the home and real contributors to the old village. What is the address of this? There's no no address given on either of these letters. There's no address. No. Um the one sec. Oh, she's a Pineacres realy.
Okay, got it. The second letter is from Denise Belleview and it's dated September 1st. Um, I believe she's the previous owner of the property. To the historic
commission, I'm writing in support of Lee Williams and Elizabeth English in their plans to renovate 67 School Street in Chattam, Massachusetts. They have previously lived in Chattam and want to return. Bought our family home and want to renovate the property to preserve its character and make it safe and
comfortable for their family. We would love to see the property re renovated and preserved to blend with the other properties on School Street. I respectfully encourage the commission to approve their renovation request. Thank you for your consideration. Denise Bell Gainer.
Okay, a lot to absorb here. U you know, I I'll be honest with you. I I really would prefer to have Sarah's comments. Uh I mean, I there's no question you've met with her. There's no question you've made some in my view
significant changes. And the major objection from my perspective since we started this thing was the roof line and uh I'm I'm concerned for you from point of view of zoning and the back of the building and and the impact on the
neighbors behind them, but that's not our that's not our well, let's put it this way. We use that as an excuse. I hate to use that term to allow us to continue the streetscape. You know, we put a lot of we put a lot into streetscape. What does it look like? You
know, all right, you're gonna make a change. I use the expression somebody built the house in 1700. They built a little small house. They had a baby. They put an L on it. Another they put another L on it. So, things change and I know, you know, that's that's it. So,
uh, having said that, I'd like to just get the comments from the other members of the commission. We'll start here with Nancy. Go ahead. Um I'm appreciative of the work that you've done um on this application during the continuence and the changes that you've made and the discussions
you've had with Sarah Cordov and the Cape Cod Commission. I think it has really improved the impact um the historical significance and um I would just say reflecting what Frank said earlier that the fenistration on the front um doesn't
need to change. I realize it may have been an open porch when it was originally built, but what we are looking at is the contributing structure as it was when the old village was created. And it it feels like that those sidelights are part of the presentation
of the house. And this chimney that you're removing is tucked back at the back of the house. The one that you're adding is out front and center at the very front elevation. I don't know that that will stop me from
supporting your application, but I do feel that potentially those things could be accommodated in a different way or not not happening. Um, that's the way I feel about it at the moment. Yeah, I agree with you. Both the penistration in the front and the chimney just overwhelmed the
streetscape. Uh Janet, yes, I agree with what Nancy uh has pointed out and um I think that the changes even though they are an improvement over what we saw originally and having visited the site um I think
um it's going to histo significantly change the historic value of this home. Can you can you particular in this neighborhood what's what are you um wellim the chimney is in currently yes kind of around him back
it's nonfunctional this is yeah I understand but this is this is a big chimney which overshadows the cottage effect of the structure that these bungalows didn't have these monster chimneys in
the front you know actually I teach a course called American history through architecture and and I teach a whole unit on the Sears kid house, the American bungalow. Um there I live currently in California, although I grew up in Massachusetts. I've been coming to the Cape since I was
a baby. My dad built a cottage on sheep pond in Brewster. Um there are many examples of the American bungalow with a chimney on on on the side. And I would just say that historic preservation um doesn't mean a slavish
devotion to the original structure. It's a dialogue between the past and the present. Say that again. The what? It's not a slavish. Historic preservation is not about a slavish devotion to the original historic structure. It's a dialogue between the past and the present. Yeah, we get that to a point.
So, just let me say that I understand that the original chimney is tucked in back, but it it doesn't it doesn't serve any any purpose. Um it's and so the chimney is about utility and there
are many examples of bungalows that do in fact have a chimney on the side. So I will just I will just add that. Yeah, that that's excuse me gentlemen. That's all true what you just said except what we're dealing with here is a contributing
structure in the old village in the national registered district. And when when the process when we go when we go through the process and when they went through the process of creating a national registered district, they took a picture. It took a snapshot.
Yes. And they said this is it. Yeah. Okay. And Sarah Cord did comment on that. Let me finish my point. Object to it. Let me finish my point. So So it's it's different. It's different than what you're talking about historic preservation. We're not looking about
something in the middle of nowhere and we want to restore it. We have a a a structure in the old village, a contributing structure, a very dominant historic from the from the from the people in the village and the neighbors and how they feel about it and and all
we're saying you know we commend everything not personally everything you've done but very simply the fenestration in the chimney it overwhelms that I understand the fenestration. Yeah. I would just say that Sarah Cordef though we asked her specifically about the chimney and the fenistration. Those were
not her objections. Well, that's that's my that's my point. I'd rather I'd like to talk to Sarah because I don't want to we don't want to do what the next step is. Refer to the Cape Cod Commission and then wait for Sarah. You know, we try to avoid that by having this dialogue with you and us
and Sarah Cordf and the Cape Cod Commission. We avoid what happened with the previous application when there was no dialogue and they said, "No, this is it." And we said, "Well, if this is it, well, we're sending it to the Cape Cod Commission." Doesn't do anybody any good from my perspective because it usually
ends up right back here. I'm sorry I interrupted you, Janet, and I really apologize. And I don't want to interrupt you. Have we Have we asked Sarah for a written No, we haven't. She just can't couldn't get to it this week. We're dealing with a a timing thing. That's the only thing.
Yes. Go ahead, Janet. Mia Copa. So anyway, that's I think that's pretty much it in the back. I unders that is even though it's not a theoretically not a lot different from what is existing,
it's a lot different than from what's ex existing. So, and considering the landscaping, uh, you know, the way the property goes, this is going to be um enormous for the butters on the sides, the back, all all the way around. Um,
it's kind of a low structure now. It's not going to be so low when it's finished from what I see. The the height is only increasing by I'm sorry. I'm I'm sorry. That's okay. the the volume and the volume is only increasing by two
feet easterly and the the direct abuter or the the closest structure is the garage structure that's on the property and there there a budding properties in the side um the garage structure sits over the property line. There was an easement created to to get the stairs to work.
I wondered about that. It looked like it was over on the other It is property. Yeah. Um so the increase in mass I think is is pretty minimal and and so it's just an illusion I guess. Well the and the the opportunity to landscape those side elevations
appropriately. Right now it just it sheets water and there will be some beautiful gardens that are included in this project that aren't represented in in our drawings because it's not a landscape review. Well technically those issues are that's a zoning issue and not really in our domain. stuff.
Yes. I don't have a problem with the height of the house because I realize it has to be raised. It's been sunken down. My only concern really is that chimney. It just sticks out so much. Yeah. Like a sore thumb. Yeah. Robert,
I haven't seen the house. I wasn't at the prior uh uh meeting, but I do have a a few comments just studying what's here. First off, um well, we're not the enemy here. We're trying to uh find some common ground between the uh between the old village and
uh how many square feet in the footprint are being added? 75. 75. Um just just walking around the the old village where I live nearby and it just seems like every time there's a renovation, it just seems the houses get
bigger and the lots get smaller and it just seems to lose its uh you know charm. with that we had a a scheme where we added more. Um 75 seems pretty modest. Yeah, it does. It does seem modest. Um
have you explored and you probably have and it's probably a big expense but uh of restoring the chimney or just taking it out and putting in a new functional chimney. We hadn't reviewed that so much. Uh we've done it in previous projects, you know, building a a fake chimney from the
roof line up. I I guess we can do that. Yeah. I mean, don't feel like that gives the the structure. Yeah, I'm trying to keep an open mind on this. I'm just trying to see what I see just through the photographs and what I know. I think it's a function, Rob, but you know what what they're adding is a
fireplace, right? You know, a a larger fireplace rather than the chimney before, which had a a modest function. Was the original chimney just used for uh exhausting exhausting the heat? It was not the center of the house where everybody sat
around the chimney. It wouldn't have had a fireplace in this kind of house. You don't see it on the first floor because it's encased in walls. Okay. Well, I want to thank you for giving us all these detailed plans. I'm going to let my colleagues to run with this. Bob.
Yeah. Um I find uh overall that the strengths of this, all the changes that have been made during the continuence kind of outweigh the negatives that you've all been talking about. I know they're there. But overall, I think they're very strong strengths. Yes. And they're they are going to outweigh
on a scale the negatives. So, uh let me just go over some of the strengths just so we remember all of them. Uh the cedar roof instead of uh uh the pla the current roof, the vinyl sighting replace getting rid of the plastic and getting
cedar uh the only 75 square feet added. I think that's a modest amount. the uh foundation being replaced, excellent for long-term 100-year life, lifting the house and keeping the wood structure.
Uh, and the roof being only a foot higher. These are all positives and they're very strong. As to the chimney, I am the only one in the room who loves a chimney. I like that front chimney because uh you and especially if it has a working fireplace. This takes you back
to the last century when you didn't have oil. You didn't have gas. You had only wood or coal. And they had coal chimneys, cold fireplaces, too. So, this is like a thread back. It echoes the past to see a chimney with a fireplace.
And uh it can, as Robert says, if you can kind of move it so it's less offensive to some neighbors, but it wouldn't offend me. But if you could move it and still have the working fireplace, great. So, the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. And the one we one other weakness is Frank's got his
finger on it is that penistration. Maybe tone that down a Okay, that's my comment. All right, we seem to have a consensus on some issues that we'd like to see you address. Okay, I would also like to uh
to you know to get in touch with Sarah. busy time of year. It's still summer and I'm sure you know you that woman has a tough workload and I keep thinking about what's going to happen when Sarah decides to retire and uh she's been an
asset to the to the entire community especially to Chattam. So having said that, if you if you would agree, I'd like to put it off. I'd like you to go back and coitate on our comments uh rather than us, you know, being forced to take a vote right now, which I don't
think it's going to be positive. So I think the the the better thing to you guys get an an A if not a an A+ in terms of what you did, you know, in terms of our original comments, not just from us, from Sarah Corg, Jeff. And I think the
community about the roof height and everything else. You did a great job. I know because I'm already hearing it from other people about the back of the house. Well, okay guys, you know, there's got to be a trade-off. And um and I think we're willing to make that tradeoff and to approve it. You got to
go to zoning. It's a whole another bail of wax or what where they're going to come from because that's when the neighbors really storm up and circle the wagons. I hate to say it that way, but it's true. We don't use generally you know, when neighbors say something, you know, we we we understand, we
listen, but that's not that's not the reason we're making that. That's not the reason we say, you know, we we like to understand the impact to the to the neighbors, but suffer, but, you know, we're talking about historic preservation of Chadam from our perspective and what the community has
done with chapter 158 and what we're supposed to do. And I just think I would hope that you would agree to John uh Paul rather to to just take it back and and um give it another look see and look at those fenistrations look at that chimney and I think you and I have a
slam dunk and we can proceed. Um Christina can you tell us when the next meeting asking when the next uh next hearing might be? Yep. The next hearing is September 16th and then after September 16th and then
after that is October 7th. I am I have to say I'm speechless. We we have done a really faithful preservation of this responding to Sarah's comments which were primarily about preservation of the historic material in the roof. She had initially
we had a much bigger renovation trying to retain the utility of the second floor which we've completely forfeited. We'll no longer have use of the second floor just so that we can keep the roof low which I agreed with. I
actually agreed with her comment. Um but in the first um iteration she had no objection to the added dormers. She had no objection to the and we talked to her about this to the chimney
to the fenestration pattern. She she just said her main objective was raising the roof which we agreed and removal of the historic material. Those were her her primary objections. we address them. Two foot addition on the back totaling
75 square feet is is modest. Um I really believe this is a very faithful preservation of this structure and it is decrepit. If you were to walk through it, the house is falling down.
And I saw you shake your heads when you mentioned exorbitant prices being paid. I know I saw the sort of body language, but we're we're people who want to preserve this house and I I feel like we really
responded to the initial objections and I don't understand the continuence. Well, your initial Yeah, you're right. You responded to the initial objections, but we didn't go into the detail. There was no chimney. You weren't making the changes to the front of the house the way you are now. this different changes
and yes you know Sarah Corgf is an excellent resource and the c she represents the Cape God commission but after Sarah makes her comments it comes back to us and if you talk to Sarah it's up to us it's up to us it's it's our
it's our values and every historical commission in the state in in on Cape Cod is different everyone deals with different everyone has a different view you know if you're in the business of historic preservation. You know, there's
no law here. It's all it's so subjective. It's it's ridiculous sometimes and people have a hard time of it. This is not a zoning. It's nothing objective. It's very subjective. So, you're dealing with and I'm sorry you feel offended by our comments. You you're you're dealing with our comments
on how we interpret the community and how we interpret what Chadam is on our own sense of place. That's it. It's as simple as that. And all I'm doing is we're asking you to go. I don't want to take a vote. I don't think we should take a vote. We'd like to talk to Sarah. I'd like to get her comments, come back,
see if you would agree and take some of our comments to heart and make some what we think relatively simple changes, you know, and still go forward. I think you're getting a sense that yeah, we think you did a good job, but simple as that.
Yeah. Thank you very much. Well, it's just very difficult. I understand that Mr. Lear is a direct abuter and I'm sorry Mr. Leer is a direct abutter and I I appreciate that he recused himself but I just want to say that I hope that his
seat on this committee is not having an influence on I I never knew that Bob had a house there. That's not that's not his primary residence by the way. We shouldn't get into I appreciate that reassurance. I'm just I'm I'm really I'm really stunned. I I just
Bob recuses himself because he's his wife is chairman of the historic of the old village. I know that too. I'm I'm glad he recused himself. I just and I appreciate your reassurance, but I'm No, I'm struck by the um Don't go there. No, no, no. I'm just saying I'm struck
by the No, I having to continue this again. I I I appreciate that, but I think I'm trying to to work it so we can get a full confidence vote. And right now it's not.
So I don't want to blavor this any longer unless it's I just want to ask a question. Is it possible to put a chimney in the same spot but not have it fully go down to the ground and then you wouldn't have Yeah.
to to bring the chimney inside the exterior wall. Is that what you're suggesting? So it's not sticking out like that on the Let's not do the design. Let's let him go back and take a take a a look at it. Please, do you want to do that? Yes. No. It's your choice, ma'am.
Could we shorten the timeline so they don't have to wait on Okay. It's our next meeting. September. All right. Your request to continue to the September 16th meeting. Thank you. Nancy, can you give me a motion?
Sorry, I don't have uh Just say that. Yeah. I move that we continue this hearing to our next meeting which is September 16th based on the agreement of the applicant. I second.
Okay. No other comments I hope. Okay. We have a public comment. Frank. Ah. Sorry. Step forward. Can you Phillips 374s Road. Uh just drove by there my bike today. It's a beautiful
little house. Um, I guess from, you know, my perspective is I there's a lot of stuff being done to this. A lot of windows being added. You know, it's it takes away from the historic, you know, when you add all this stuff, it's not the building it was originally. So, I think it takes away a
lot of the historic uh preservation from it. Um, I understand the uh the foundation. I mean, that's got to be done, you know. But I mean I think uh I speak in behalf myself and I think a lot of people around Chand would like to see this preserved as is the same windows
the same you know I I like the cedar shingles you know maybe you know the cedar siding or whatever but I mean history is important you know and it's like if we make these and we just talked about this the you know the death by a thousand paper cuts and like that's kind
of what this is a couple windows here 75 square feet here it's like where do you stop where do you stop the bleeding And I think as you know you as a commission it's you know you at some point you got to say you know maybe we should keep this the way it is or you know you should restore it as it is because you
know I don't mean to be you know sound like a jerk but if this house you know as is as like a historic building in the historic district didn't meet your needs maybe you should have bought another house. Thank you. Thank you very much. And you know I hear what your comments are but we have to
recall this is a contributing structure to the national exiting and it's not a house in itself individually is on the national register. It's not you know it's different this difference different different way we deal with it. There's a
lot of different variety in the national reg district. They all individually and collectively add to the why a district is created. All right we're going to do roll call. Bob, excuse me. Nancy, yes. Stephanie, yes. Janet, yes. Robert,
uh yes. Bob and the chair vote yes. Yes. Thank you very much, Paul. I like that phrase. I'm in the chair votes yes. That's true. I'm sorry. Bob and the chair vote voted yes. But you didn't let anybody I got to get my hearing aids fixed.
Paul, thank you very much. Thanks for your time. Appreciate it. I appreciate I appreciate Trust me. I appreciate your work. We'll see you in two weeks. Let's keep that outside, please. Thank you. All right. Look, we just cut
quickly, guys. Oh my goodness. 5 to 12. I'm gonna go grab Bob. I'll be right back. I'm gonna go grab Bob. Oh, you can. Okay. Annie's gonna grab Bob. Oh, can go grab Bob. Go grab. Members of the public, there will be a
slight pause in our activity. Well, the chairman adjusts his hearing aid. I got to move you to the other side, Bob. Not now. Let him say yes before you say. I heard I heard a yes.
You know, that's the old thing about something. Telep telepathy. I Sorry. They're making it telepathy. That's why you can't What do they say? You can't use uh people who are eyewitnesses. It's the worst witness of
crime. I apologize. Is he coming? He's talking to the applicant. Just tell him Bob he needs to come back. Please. No, he's out there. The owner's got
Bob, we're holding up the meeting. Sorry, Bob. Okay. As Mr. Leer is now joining, better known as Bob takes his position back in his chair. Uh we have a few old business items. I'm
going to go quickly. Um the uh West Chatam comprehensive permit. There's another meeting on September 4th. That's this coming up very soon. Oh, no. I'm sorry. Uh, yeah, September 4th is the next meeting on the West
Cadam. I don't know if much is going to happen. They talk about changing the paint colors, but we'll see. And then, uh, 1550 Main Street uh, or will also be discussed at uh, excuse me, zero meeting
house road will be discussed on uh, September 18th. Uh we were going to discuss the rules and reggg change but quite honestly guys I the thing is getting time. I'd like to push off for the next meeting. Let's
have an indepth discussion on what rules change we want to possibly make because I'm told by the Christina we do have another unknown participant is now exiting. We do we do have a a
am I hearing the uh Can you can you shut that off, Mr. No, they can't. It's when someone enters the meeting via phone or Yeah. So, we do have something back from town council a draft and it Okay. there. So,
so we do have some additional input from the town council and we can we can talk about that. Uh, still waiting for mass historic on the Nichson determination of eligibility. Christina assures me that they're moving
ahead on the form B contract uh discussions with Eric Dre. I am still waiting for the staff report on demolition by neglect. And last but not least, the um return of the Coast Guard
boat house. It's currently projected for this December or January uh to be returned to to the uh to 90 Bridge Street or to Sage Harbor. Whether or not that happens now is a function of mother nature to move a house in the
middle of winter. So it may and may end up been being spring before that happens. We have no administrative approvals. Last but not least, also I keep saying that is that uh you do have I think Christina gave
you copies of the uh preservation award information. Take a look at that. I really would like you more importantly, I'd like you to be thinking about homes or properties which you think are worthy of part of the
process. Other words, you must have houses in town that you've seen that were been restored or came before the commission and you think it's worthy for us to to take a look at it because what we do is I generally write letters to
the same people, the same contractors, and I'd like to expand that, you know, and get more for people, the public, so to speak. Now, we could put something in the paper, but I'm afraid that might
create a 15 or 20 applications and and right now the town of Chadam has limited our number of applications, the number of awards we give. I would like to leave it to the commission right now and I'll reach out to the other members of the uh
preservation uh the HBDC and the historical society and just we do have homes that my favorite quite honestly is on Main Street on the corner of uh Main Street and Bridge Street. That large house that they restored up on the hill
there done a phenomenal job and that guy is really he deserves saintthood for that. Let me tell you, I was in that house before it started and I I never think he could restore that thing, but he did a great job. Okay, I've talked it myself out here. This was a very
interesting meeting. Yes, ma'am. Just one thing. I just wanted to clarify that meeting house is being discussed on um on Thursday, September 4th, and then 1533 Main Street is being discussed at the September 18th meeting. I got it backwards. Thank you.
Yep. Okay, kids. Any other comments, questions? Motion. I make a motion that we uh end this meeting of September 2nd, 2025 of the historic commission. Second.
Thank you. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Steph, yes. Janet, yes. Robert, yes. Bob votes yes. And the chairman votes yes. Thank you.
Good one. Hope we were off the air. [Music] [Music]