Heat. Heat. Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and welcome to the October 7, 2025 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Before we start, we have a couple of announcements that we have to make.
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 meeting, please notify the chairman.
Seeing none. Okay. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions
of the open meeting law general 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
proceedings as provided for in an order in the order. A reminder that people who would like to listen to the meeting while it is in progress may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410 conference ID 63399278 hashtag or join the meeting online via
Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Exfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access.
Okay. Um, first item of business that we have to perform is the roll call. Uh, Bob Leer >> here. >> Nancy Bar >> here. >> Stephanie Hamilton >> here. Robert Stevens >> here. >> Janet Tennyson >> here.
>> Robert Wilson >> here. >> Sandy Porter Alternate is here and the chair is here. But as we have all voting seven members of the commission in per in here, uh Sandy will be act as an alternate which means she can
participate in the in the discussion but does not vote on the application. All right, >> Frank. Frank, before you get started, um I'm going to recuse myself on the first item and I have a question. If I am recused, does that create an opening
such that Miss Porter can vote? >> Yes. Sandy would then be a voting member. >> Uh let's do the minutes before you disappear. Bob, >> excuse me. >> Can she participate if she hasn't been to previous meetings? >> Did you attend the previous meeting? >> No.
>> Then you can't participate. You didn't watch it on TV, did you? >> No. Good. I can't watch them on TV. It's being here is enough. Okay. So, um All right. So, no problem. We still have a we still have a quorum to participate in
that. But let's just do the minutes, Bob, and then you can go. >> Okay. >> All right. We have the minutes of uh September 16, 2025. Any corrections, additions, deletions? >> No. >> Boy, she got an A+ again. Very good.
Okay, we'll take a quick roll call on the minutes. >> Move to accept the minutes. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Appreciate that reminding me. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Bob, >> yes.
>> Come around. >> What? >> I left my pocketbook in the car in my red car. >> Janet and Robert Wilson and the chair vote. >> Okay. Sorry about that. Everything okay?
All right. As you just heard, uh, the vice chair, Mr. Lear, is recusing himself from 67 School Street, which is the first application to hear. Uh, would you come on up, please? We have uh quickly on the agenda we have uh one,
two, three, four, five, six uh hearings technically under chapter 158 and the Cape Cod Commission. We have some new business uh in reference to 162 Shore Road and then our old business which we'll try to get through. Uh so uh we
will begin with uh 67 school street before John introduce yourself. >> Sure Paul design. >> Okay. Before you um present we had two letters. Is there two letters here?
>> Two letters which unfortunately were not read into the record by myself. Nancy, can you just go ahead and do that just for >> um I just want to make a note that these letters were received in July before the plans were changed um which the plans
actually changed the roof line being raised. So these um were before that, but they still need to be read into the record. >> But the people writing the letters asked that they be read, so we sit fine. Understood? >> So uh the first letter is dated July 11th from Leslie Shepard. I am in a
butter to the property at 67 School Street. I object to extending the roof height two feet. I also agree that a narrower addition or dropping the height of the roof ridge in the rear would be more appropriate. James Oh, this is from James Shepard. 60 Hallet Lane. Uh the
second one is from Leslie Shepard. I am the co-owner of 60 Hallet Lane and a butter to 67 School Street. I object to the owner's proposal involving removal of the existing roof to enable extending the height about 2 feet. Additionally, I am opposed to increasing the building
sidewall width further to the rear, which would alter the classic bungalow form of 1910. And the final is from Winnie Leer Wifford Lear, president of the Old Village Association, dated July
13th. Dear commissioners, the board of directors of the Old Village Association has reviews the proposed renovations to 67 School Street and the comments from Sarah Corgf. We encourage the property owner, architect, and the commission to find ways to revise the plans to
incorporate Sarah's observations. We particularly call to attention to the consequences of the removal of the entire roof, which is likely to reach the 25% alteration threshold and some of the other proposals which could make it difficult to recognize the original
contributing structure. As one of the three Craftsmanstyle homes in the historic district, retaining both the historic features and historic materials of this and other contributing contributing homes of the old village assures that characteristics of the neighborhood we all value are sustained.
The board of directors of the old village association requests that if changes are not made, this application be sent to the Cape Cod Commission and a demolition delay be imposed. Okay. Um, thank you very much. Let me just quickly for the record, uh, Paul, now you
introduce yourself. This is application 25 021 uh 67 school street uh which is be which has been heard under chapter 158 as well as under the Cape Cod Commission Act. Um
uh I appreciate the fact the applicant uh over the last month or two has uh been receptive to some some issues that we have raised uh and uh we asked him one more time to come back and and he he
has. So, uh, Paul, why don't you tell us what you've done and basically without dragging on too long, just explain the changes from the last meeting relative to what the last conversation we had with the commission. >> Uh, could we start on page H 1.1, the
south elevation? So, hearing the commentary from the the previous uh couple of hearings, uh going back and and really being some uh introspective on on how and and why the the owners want to use the home. Um we have removed the chimney mask. So, the
chimney mask, the the fireplace is completely gone. >> Thank you very much. I'm sure that was a little bit of a burden on the owners, but uh yes, we appreciate it. Now to to point out, we have added a gas unit in board of the exterior house, but there will be a vent on the outside. It will
be low slung and to the extent possible surrounded by vegetation. There is um plans the owners have of doing some vegetation, some gardening on that side of the property. So the the vent should mostly be hidden.
Um going back to H1.1 or H1.0 zero. The minor changes here really include taking that that bottom line of glazing that includes the door that includes the sidelight windows and the double hung and bringing that consistently across
our proposed elevation here. So, it's it's minor proportioning. It's taking the the size of the window lights, the proportions of of the double hung upper sash and and working it into the door and into the side lights as a as a a
renovation to that section. Um, on the end of our package, we have a comparison and and sort of compromise of h how and where we got to this point. Here you go. So the existing condition, two windows left, three windows right,
uh sidelights and offc center door. Uh the previous scheme of September 2nd, um two windows left, four windows right, no sidelights, door slightly shifts. Coming back uh September 16th, two windows left, three windows right,
sidelights, and a reduced chimney mass. And now to no chimney mass on uh visible from the front elevation. Two windows left, three windows right in alignment of glazing across the bottom sill. Again, in the spirit of that infilled
porch, I feel like this is a very appropriate solution. That's the extent of the changes from the last proposal. I am happy to talk through the the letters that were written, though I think we've satisfied most of the commentary with not removing the roof completely, not raising the
height of the structure other than uh the new foundation that will sit underneath it and um and and really pushing our our modest addition to the rear of the structure. >> Well, I appreciate, you know, the uh cooperation of yourself and of the u the
applicant. Um, and this is a controversial little house, little craftsman house. And um, and I guarantee you, you know, we got are not going to make everybody happy, you know. But that's the job, I guess, learning how to split the baby in half or at least try
to and still allow, you know, changes to be made. So, uh, let me I think Steph, you had a quick question. >> No, I was going to say exactly. Thank you for working with us. >> Yeah. And, um, you know, what can I say? It's the old village, you know, it's a
cute little house and uh and I think you've you've maintained very close the streetscape of that area and uh well, I think as somebody said, it is what it is, but it's the probably the best we could do. Okay. Did we do a historical
uh significance of the property prior? >> Um I believe we just need to reaffirm it today. >> Okay, we did. Okay. So we need u let's start with that unless there I think we everybody's in con that we can proceed here. Okay. So uh the first one would be
an uh motion relative to reaffirming the historical significance of the property at 67 school street and the n and at a contributing structure in the national register district. >> We're doing it separately. >> Well separate >> you could separate
>> national register separate from this. Okay. But reaffirming, but first reaffirming the na the historical significance. Okay, good. You can do it that way. You're fine. >> Um, this is under chapter 158 of the town of Chattam general bylaws. I move that the Chattam Historical Commission
finds that the building at >> 67, >> thank you. 67 School Street is historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75 years old or more. It is listed within a national
register district. It is located um associated with historical persons and has architectural value or significance in terms of period, style, method of construction. >> Second. >> Okay. Any comments? Any member of the
public want to speak for against that motion? Seeing none, uh, Nancy, >> I move that the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the >> We have to vote. >> We're gonna vote that. I'm sorry. Sorry. Nancy. >> Yes. >> Yes. Steph,
>> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. Okay. >> Sorry about that. I move that the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the proposed work to be done uh dated
>> 9:23. Is that the date? >> 923. >> 923 2025 will not materially diminish the historical significance of the building or structure and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> I'll second. >> Second. Any member of the public wish to
speak? Okay. Uh Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. and the chair vess. >> This is related to the National Register District. I move that the Chattam
Historical Commission confirms that the home at 67 School Street is a contributing structure in the National Register District. You want me to do it separately? >> Second. >> Okay. Any other comments? Any member of the public?
Nancy? >> Yes. >> Steph? >> Yes. Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. Last but not least, >> I move that the Chaden Historical Commission finds that the materials
presented on 923 2025, showing the proposed alterations and renovations do not constitute a substantial alteration to a contributing structure located in the Old Village National Historic Register District. Therefore, a referral to the Cape Cod Commission for review is
not necessary. >> I I'll second that. >> Okay. Any member of the public wish to speak? >> All right. Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Jesus. Paul, thank you very much. And u
>> Thank you. Appreciate the process. >> The owners are they not they're not here, are they? >> They're not here. >> Okay. and we appreciate slogging through this thing, but uh I know the first time when we met and you said, "I want to talk to you about a house," I went, >> "Y >> so anyway,
>> the process is appreciated and and continue to uh to do better in these historic homes as we move forward." >> Okay, great. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Okay, another easy one. Um >> I thought that was >> the next hearing is on U is 2533.
Again, this is a continued U application from 9:16 uh be heard in accordance with chapter 158, the demolition delay bylaw. And again to the members of the public, this is an application has been for us a
couple of times and we at the last meeting we asked for one minor not one change relative to the facade of the house and uh so why don't you introduce yourself formally and just tell us what you've done since we met.
>> Yes, Thomas Moore from Moore Home Design Company representing Charles and Marsha Arens. Um and the the changes we've made have to do with the front elevation. So there was a revised plan uh drawing A1
that if you could get to that one kind of shows what so what this one shows it shows the the plan on the top right or the elevation on the top right is the revised one which is what we were here before today. The one on the top left was what what I presented on 916
and the one down at the bottom is the existing front elevation. So, as far as the changes that we made, uh we dropped the roof pitch uh on the on the structure. So, to drop the height of the ridge down about a foot and a half. Uh
so, compare it comparing that with the existing it's roughly about two feet higher than the existing ridge. We reduced the width of the front shed dormer. You on the original proposed it was 16 feet wide. We've reduced that to
14 feet wide wide. So it gets closer to although not exact to the the existing but it's get it's getting closer. We also dropped the height of the wall itself down from 7 foot 8 and a half, which is a standard height, down to 7 ft
and reduce the size of the windows in that dormer. The the windows themselves, I I need them is it is in a bedroom, so I need egress windows. And I'm I couldn't do much more than what we've done there to in order to get egress windows out of a
bedroom. >> Um Yeah. So, the the the height of the windows in the original proposed they were they were about four and a half feet tall. These are three just about three foot four as far as the the the height of the window. And they simulate
the look of a double hung window, but they are casement windows. Um, and with the grid work that we can put in there, it it gives me a wider check rail. So, it'll simulate the look of a double hung window, but it is a casement window. And
the existing windows are awning windows which are illegal right now. So because nobody can get out of them from a bedroom. Um >> I think those are the all the changes that we made to the elevations. Yeah. Um the subsequent plans that I showed you
A2 and A3 there's a complimentary side and rear elevations with the right >> with the proposed. So be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Well, again, thank you very much for your cooperation in this matter. It's a
very it's a quaint street, you know, there's a lot of interesting houses, small houses, and right in the center of town, right off the center of town. And u and I I personally appreciate your cooperation in making these changes from the commission. So, any member of the commission have any comments or do we
feel we we're okay? Yes, N. >> I have a question and I apologize if um I don't remember from last time. Um because I think you did have plans that showed this. Is there any part of the what what is actually going to be torn down? I know you're you're you're making
efforts to replace like with lake in the front at least, but um >> yeah, the front the front wall stays, the porch stays, you know, the roof gets changed. The walls on the side will remain for a good portion of them. All
the windows on the side will be replaced or moved around a little bit. Same thing on the on both the left and the right side. The whole rear of the house is going to be taken off. The roof is going to come off and we'll re rebuild the roof at a slightly different pitch. >> So, three walls.
>> Excuse me. I think did we have a a drawing showing that >> we have it probably from last meeting? >> From from the last meeting there should be one. >> Yeah. So, no, I just wanted to clarify. So, basically the roof is coming off. That's all going to be new. >> Yes. There's the three exterior walls
front and two sides are go the >> structure will remain although the windows will all be replaced. >> Yeah. So we do have it and in the determination we will >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I just clarifying for my own. Thank you. >> No, no, it's all right. Good question. >> U and it's one of the things we try to
do is to be very what what what are you going to demolish? What's not going to what we know? So I think we're okay. >> Yeah. Just to refresh a member, we're going to put a new foundation underneath this house. >> U and then we'll, you know, keep the front wall, keep the side walls, take the roof off, and kind of take the rear
of the house off because we're expanding out here. Okay. Any other questions? All right. Um I think we pretty much have consensus and can proceed. Oh, welcome back, Bob. I'm sorry. Didn't see you sneak in. Um
so, at this particular point, I don't we don't we did any motions the last time. Um so we need to proceed from ground zero Bob and national and uh historical historical significance. >> We did not do historical significance.
No four. Right. Okay, got it. Um, I move the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the building structure located at 73 C View Street, 53 C View Street, sorry, >> is historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75 years old or more.
And the commission also finds it's associated with some historical events and political history of the Commonwealth and it possesses architectural value or significance in times of period style. That's it. I'll second that. >> Thank you very much. Any other comments
from the public, the commission? Okay, quick. Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair vote Bob Year. >> Yes.
>> Sorry. And the chair votes. Okay. And the second part is the Chattam Historical Commission also finds that proposed work to be done dated September 30th, 2025 will not materially diminish the historic significance of the building and therefore the commission
does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Any other comments from the members of the public or the commission? Okay. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> no. I'm afraid I can't support this. >> I'm sorry. No, I feel it will it will
diminish it, but I realize that's okay. It's not >> okay. I didn't know that. Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> J Vess. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Okay. Thank you very much.
>> Okay. I know it's a lot of change to that house, but in my view, it's better than the full demolition. So, it's a compromise. >> That's right. That's our middle name. >> Thank you. >> Or at least we try anyway. Okay. Uh,
next application is uh 2535 127 >> Stage Harbor Road. >> No, no, >> 22. >> Oh, Shady Shady Lane. Sorry about that. >> Shady. >> Shady Acres. Sorry. 2534.
>> 22 Shady Acres. Shadyacre Drive. >> Is somebody here? >> Oh, here he is. >> Mr. Riley. >> Mr. Riley, you're Shady Acres. >> Shady.
>> Look, Shady. >> Someone's But I was told that the designer was going to be here, too. >> So, >> he is online. >> Oh, good. >> Yep. Tavis better. Good morning. >> This is a property um which is there's
no form B on the property. It is not located in the National Registered District and I think it just snuck in under 75 years of age and uh it's a property that or that type of property that this commission is attempting to uh to see
what we can or cannot do. uh to avoid full hearings on it. That's just for myself and the members of the public. There's a number of properties in town are just meeting that 75 year threshold and we have to make some determination how we deal with it. But
right now, we're we're going by the bylaw and uh Mr. Mr. Riley, why don't you just give us a quick overview what's happening? >> Well, let me let me find out what's happening. Uh >> well, I'll tell you what is happening. Why don't we have the designer tell us what's happening? >> Yeah.
>> Yeah. I'm happy to present if you like if it's convenient. >> Yes. >> So what? Yes. So what we are looking to do is uh >> I'm sorry I I missed that. >> I missed that. >> He asked if we could hear him. >> Can you can you introduce yourself?
>> Yes. My name is Tavis Babbot. Uh some 85 Mertie Road in East Ham. I'm the designer on the project and uh we were looking to add space to this uh house that's kind of tucked behind Main Street as you can tell and you probably I know
you visited the site already so you're familiar with its proximity but the house is located quite a distance off the main road about 195 ft to the closest corner that we're working at and it is completely hidden from main main
street by uh 1952 train as you probably saw there as well. And if you were trying to get there, you were probably like me and you passed the road maybe once or twice because it's very small the access and tucked behind many trees. So the actual visibility from Main
Street is virtually zero uh from any point just because of the the existing trees. But that taken aside, what we're looking to do is basically expand the footprint of the existing house to include a bedroom space that's uh more
functional. Right now, they're a very small uh 9 by10 uh for the bedroom size. So, we're looking for something that would fit uh a more reasonable size bed and a bathroom, full bathroom as well. And there's currently no mudroom entry
uh area comes right into the kitchen. So that was the other addition that we're looking to do. In the style, we're keeping the cape kind of style, more like a keeping crepe cape look. As you can tell from the front elevation, the faces shady acre and stepping back faces
with gables that uh step back as well. And keeping the scale underneath kind of the existing structure scale. So uh what we're adding is actually going to be about 10 in lower than the uh current main ridge that's there. We will be
leaving a front uh facing wall. That's the existing small bedroom there. As you look right kind of in the middle, there's a small peak that's tucked right in between uh the additions that we're adding. Um we are changing the roof pitch on that, but the footprint of that
is going to stay the same. So that was the effort we're trying to make just make the improvements that were needed for kind of the the family that's going to be moving living there full-time and also improving many things like the energy efficiency because you know house built in 1950 doesn't have very good
insulation or R values and windows that uh need some updating. So that's where we're at with this project. That was the design intent. Happy to answer any questions you might have. >> Okay. Well u I should have cut you short in the beginning. We did have a site visit. I believe everyone uh at the
commission was there uh at some point. And so really the first issue we probably should be discussing very simply whether or not this is historically significant or not. And >> well, if I could be here briefly, uh this is an old cottage colony. So
this was a this was a building that was built where a family could stay for a week or so. and and so the the changes uh which are I think pretty modest in nature are really designed to turn one of these old
cottage colony houses into something a family could use uh more comfortably. So I think it's a reasonable and u not particularly historical significant either but >> thank you. Well, you know, I don't we just quickly cut to the chase. Um, my
feeling it's not. What are their sense in terms of the other members of the commission relative its historical significance and whether we even want to proceed? Um, Robert, >> I just have a couple comments. Um, in visiting the site, uh, there's very
small setbacks particularly as you face the building on the right. Uh, Christina, were there any letters from Abutters? I did not receive any hill letters. >> Okay. Because it is a a as you mentioned a a colony of small cottages, but it has
to be live livable. And by my math, it's only 105 square feet being added. So, it's kind of 10 by 10. And um if the neighbor on the right's not complaining, I have no issue with it. >> Well, how do you feel about historical significance was my question. >> I don't believe it's historically
significant. Bob. >> Yes, I u agree with Bob Robert Stevens that uh it's a charming building and a nice colony but not historically significant. >> I don't believe it's >> Yeah, Janet. >> I agree. Not historically significant.
>> Nancy, >> I agree. >> I Bob, >> no. I agree. >> Sandy, you got any comments? Even though you're not voting, >> I I think it's a a charming cottage, but no, I don't see any historic. Okay,
good. Sorry to end it that way, but we could uh we could proceed very quickly. Uh Mr. Luma, >> I move that the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the building located at 22 Shady Acre Drive is not historically significant because it does
not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2A, B, or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> A second. >> Okay. Any member of the public wish to speak for against that motion?
Would you come forward, sir? >> Um, Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. >> Hey, Brian, you know, I was at the ZBA the other night and they made me take my hat off. >> Well, she's a lot tougher than you. She's like Judge Judy, uh, chair of the ZBA. So, I'll I'll take it off.
>> No, no, I don't want her nice hat. >> No, I have the same problem as you. I don't want the light to reflect off and blind all the cameras. I personally love the look of these little cottages. I do think they um are an important part of the character of
Chadam. I do know the people that live there and I've spoken to their neighbors and all the neighbors are in support of this project because these are good people. Um and they did get a letter from the Abutter at the ZBA and they are in full support uh of this project and uh you may know her. We play pickle ball
with her Jill. So, you know, when it comes to improvements like this that's for people to like live in town, I'm definitely in support of them. If it's for, you know, to be, you know, extra bedrooms for, um, short-term rentals, you know, I'm against these types of
projects. But for this one, uh, they're good people and I think you should prove it even though you already have. Thanks. >> Thank you very much. You know, hit the nail on the head in terms of that. In terms of cottage, this commission is wrestling with a number of things, but
the issue of cottage communities is an item on our agenda, if you will, relative to uh utilization of our preservation consultant, Eric Gray, in upgrading some of our form A's and form B's. I like when we declare something
historically significance to have more than opinions, you know, someone professionally look at it. And so we are attempting to do that because there are numerous cottage communities in Chattam and they need to be documented whether we can. Hopefully we can save some of
them but but I agree with you Brian. Yes, it is something we want to look at. Yes sir. >> My name is Richard Cre. I live at 1934 Main Street. So I'm going to butter immediately east of this property. Um I have no problem with with what's being
proposed here. I think this will improve the house hopefully not significant detract from it and and so why am I standing here because I heard you say it's not historically significant and although I understand your logic for that I'm concerned about the history of
these uh colony cartridges too and I just wanted to give my advice to the commission to be cautious and make sure that if you on any side is to er on the side of historical significance rather than the other way. Just my opinion.
>> Do you live in Chadam? >> Yeah. 1934 Main Street. >> We have an open seat on the historical commission >> and and and if you this passion which you're expressing, I I appreciate it because I would love to have a member another member of the commission. You look a little younger than I am and you
know who would come on the commission and take the mantle and proceed with that effort >> or give us thought. Thank you very much. >> So he supports it, right? >> Okay. We I think we're done and we're going to take a roll call. Uh >> well, if I could I want to make one brief comment.
>> Yes, sir. >> The uh none of these cottages were constructed in accordance with uh the building code. In fact, when they were constructed, there really wasn't much of a building code. Each town had their own building code. And so, I understand the
idea of historic preservation, but it's got to be something that is usable in today's world. That's all. Thank you. Well, it's a good point, but I know uh William Nichson when he bought it built his house in 17 something, there was no building Cody.
>> I know, but that was designed to be used year round. >> Yeah. >> And these are designed to be used for a week in the summertime. >> I mean, that's why quite honestly, you don't have to get argumentative about it. It's a It's a subject It's a subject that this commission is concerned and I think the community is concerned about
it. We have large cottage communities and if all of a sudden they all turn into subdivisions, whoopsie. So, it's just something we want to think about. No, I I understand the concern particularly with regard to u septic issues, you know, but you know, the the
uh trying to force somebody to live in a cottage that's designed to be lived in for a week uh on a year- round basis, I don't think is particularly fair. That's all. >> Okay. Thank you very much. All right, I think we have a long roll call here, but let's complete it. Uh
Na Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Uh Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes. Okay, I think we did it. Uh thank you very much.
>> Thank you all. Appreciate it. >> You're welcome, sir. Okay, here we go. Um, last but not least in terms of hearing, uh, 2535. We're doing pretty good, guys. 127 Stage
Harbor Road. Uh, this is, uh, chapter 14, uh, 158, demolition delay. This application has been here before. And let me just
put this in perspective for the members and for the public. Uh this is an application for a full demolition of a cottage a house smatter which was probably built originally as a summer house as Mr. Riley said
>> uh and it's approximately 12 120 years old. Uh the application uh >> was before us and we had issues relative to determine the historical significance and we asked them to delay the
demolition. I don't know if we formally put a determin determination in but we asked the applicant and they cooperated. We appreciated the demolition by 60 days and requested a preservationist uh to examine the home, report back to the
commission. Uh the applicant ended up in the ZBA and I guess the ZBA was no action. It was withdrawn. >> Oh, they Yeah, we they weren't going to approve it, so we withdrew it. >> Okay. It was withdrawn, which by doing that allows you to come back again with
a new application. Is that how it works? >> Right. >> Yeah. And uh so we're back here again. And I gather uh Mr. Riley, you're going to be back before the ZBA again pretty shortly >> at the end of November. Yeah. >> November 20th.
>> Okay. So uh let's make myself a note. So, what what what I I'd like to do or at least I think we should do as part of this is obviously let you make your presentation and then we have a number of letters and
and and comments and reports which we need to read into the record. So, but why don't we just agree let's let's proceed. >> Okay, great. Thank you. The um so this is a a building was built u in 1981 1910
something on on that order. uh whether it was a cottage or a supporting structure for a larger estate, we don't know for sure. I know uh beginning in the 1940s after Henry
how built the big brick house up on the hill, it was a you know sort of staff housing until the that building was converted to condominiums and then these are all sold off on separate lots and the the changes that have been made
over the years. Uh particularly if you can you put up something to show the original uh the uh All right. So original cottage you can see uh the blue door would have
been the center door. Everything left of that has been uh modified. The second story added and so uh together with the sun room that was
added on the right side, the uh original structure built in 1908 or 1910 is really completely hidden. and the the u and what the current applicant wants to do
um one member of that couple is over the age of 80. They want to have modern bathrooms. They want to have uh first floor master bedrooms. They have grandchildren. They want to have space for their families to come visit. So
that's why they have decided they would prefer to demolish the existing structure. the I did look through uh Mr. director's preservationist report
and his guidance was well if you take off the sun room and take off the additions on the left side you know you can rebuild the thing and it'll be just the way it was in 1910 but the likelihood of that being
economically practical uh either as as a cost item or as the end result in terms of livability uh is just outside the sphere of
normal human living. I mean these it's an older couple. They have grandchildren. They have they want to have come visit and I think the modifications to the design uh are they're very traditional and I think they'll fit well in the
neighborhood. And so, um, although we agreed to demolition delay as proposed by Stephanie last time, uh, we really believe that at this point, uh, we should be allowed to proceed.
>> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, this is a a tough one in a sense on how heck we proceed. I guess the first one that we the first item we really need to discuss is u
where we are relative to uh the issue of historical significance and that kind of you know sets it up whether it is or it isn't if it and the commission was was divided the last time relative to whether or not it was historically
significant and we didn't know how to proceed and we didn't want to you know we were hoping for more consensus of the board on on that subject. Uh subsequent to that discussion at the last meeting, we did ask for a report. U I'm sorry,
I'm heard something. We did ask for a report uh which we have and uh and I guess what I'd like to do because you mentioned it, Bill, is to bring up, you know, the the person who made the report and let them give him a couple of minutes to explain what it is. We do
also have um I guess this is a letter from an a nearby resident. >> Yeah. So we have that which we need to read in the reckon too relative to the issue of historic significance. So why don't we start that way? It might be the easiest way to do it if everybody agrees
and ask the the preservation uh Mr. Fred Ecker to come up and give us give us I don't want to read the whole thing Fred but you know if you could just tell us what your thoughts on the matter and and uh and focus on the issue of
historical significance which is the first the first item that we have to deal with. So okay >> well this house falls into the category >> introduce yourself Fred Eer um historic preservation consultant. Um, this house falls into that category of colonial
revival, which the town has many of. So, I think you really need to think hard about it. Has a lot of significant interior details. Exterior details. Some of the exterior has been blocked, yes, but the core of the house is still there.
And I'm worried that a much larger house on that streetscape is just going to ruin that whole view of that whole area. Okay. Uh so your thoughts also in here in addition to relative to the core was and
that's our dilemma. Yeah, it's a core but what do we do about it you know and how we handle >> our hope was that again I don't know much about the building lot size that an addition could be added to the rear and try to preserve the front portion of the house as it looks. >> Yeah. >> Or by removing those side porches.
>> Okay. All right, that was our hope. >> The other members had had you have any comments relative to this report? Go ahead, Robert. >> Yes. Uh I was very intrigued by the uh view uh showing the core house
>> and it is uh very attractive and if it were just if that could be preserved as uh William Riley suggested uh as an option which the applicant is not yet currently looking at the the
applicant feels it would cost too much and the applicant felt it would not be practical in terms of living space. But if you could preserve go remove all the adjacent buildings porches and come down to this attractive core. >> Which drawing are you looking at?
>> Looking at a photo. >> Oh, okay. Fine. All right. >> That was our suggestion that you try to store the the front view and put any new work behind it. >> If I can just finish. Yeah. >> Um the you should at least evaluate the cost of that because you could add
living space as Okay. Fred was saying. >> Okay. All right, Bob. Robert. >> Yeah, I agree with uh what Mr. Wilson has mentioned. Uh uh I was there on the visit yesterday and uh I hadn't uh seen
this property before, but based on the streetscape and the other homes in that area and uh the age of the property, uh I mean, in my mind, it's historical the core of the house. In fact, there isn't any question in my mind uh that's
a very special street. A lot of people go along there and it's uh quite quite lovely and to put a big modern plastic house there would be historically incorrect. >> Steph, >> I would also like to see brought down to
the core house and then built back. >> Yeah, Janet. >> Yes, I agree. I agree with my colleagues. I was involved with the uh site visit in 2022, but then um further research really does
show that this home does have historical significance in the history of Chadam was Nancy Nancy will probably expound uh upon that. Okay, that's >> Well, I um just did a little research last night because I I always like the
narrative story and um we don't have a form on it. So, we didn't we didn't have that kind of narrative. Um, I mean, I think it's I'm it's inconclusive, but there's a 1914 Interestingly, there's a 1914 postcard, a picture postcard, um, taken from like
behind Oyster Pond and Stage Harbor Road, Atwood Street at the time that does not appear to show this structure on it yet. I don't know if it was moved there from another location or it doesn't seem >> Well, there is when I did that report, I don't have it in front of me right now,
but I did find a 1908 postcard, a 1908 one. That's where we came up with the date. >> Oh, okay. That >> showed the pergola and a portion of the house. >> Right. Okay. Um, so, you know, it's not on the 1910 map, but it I mean, it it is
clearly when you go to that house, the core of the house is historical. Um, the sheathing is now plastic, but you can tell that the the door, the front door and the surround are original, the chimney's original. Um, so however it
ended up on this property and and you know what year it was built, I I do believe that it's historically significant. Um, the property was owned by the House brothers who ran a leather company in Boston. Um they built um that family built the big brick building but
as >> so that was the that was the f the large house that's >> the brick building was so all the brothers the five brothers owned it um they all passed away quite young um I think by 1955 or something they had all passed away and it went to family and started to be sold off but um
>> I wonder why I wonder why that house is so big. >> Yeah. Well, so it was it was used by a an extended family of brothers um who made a lot of money with a leather business in Boston. Um and this particular property was owned by one of
the brothers and um went to his son who then sold it on and then it got divided up. But anyways, I think it's historically significant. Okay. >> Um and I appreciate the work that Fred did to help >> help give us the information we need. >> Bob or Sandy?
Um, I must say I've had a little trouble sort of imagining what the building was like originally, but Mr. Ecker's um, report lays out a couple of um, items regarding the east and the west facade. And looking at the picture that Mr. will
that's up there now. Uh I can see that there is a basic core to it. Um which in and of itself would not provide adequate living space but with some appropriate additions I think would solve Mr. Riley's clients purpose. Is
>> that the re facade if I remember correctly? Is there a front facade? >> That's the rear. Right. Yes. Yeah. Correct. But I can I was just looking at one of the front ones that's in your report too. Um, so I I would agree that it is historically significant.
>> Okay, Sandy, >> I am in agreement. I think that the core part of the house is historically significant. Should be saved if it can be. >> Okay. Uh, I I concur. We seem to have be pretty well unanimous on the issue of
historic significance. And one thing that we need to do uh Christina and I don't know we we are currently updating our forbes you know under contract >> not yet are we under contract we're under contract and so I'd like to add
ask Christina to add 127 and house over whatever that address is of the large one. The issue here is quite honestly we don't have a form beyond the property. Why don't we have a form beyond this historic property? What we do, it's included in the form A when we were
attempting to make Stage Harbor Road, all of Stage Harbor a national registered district. That street is one of the most historic streets in town. Fortunately, when this commission did that about 10 years ago, we were slapped down by the residents of Stage Harbor
Road and we decided discretion being the better part of Allah, that we didn't pursue it. So, uh, just something to think about in the future for the next commission members. All right. So, I think we we're pretty well unanimous. I do have some other correspondence which
I have to read. Christina is going to remind me to read it. Okay. Well, I'll let you do it, lady. >> You got it. This is a correspondence from >> uh this is from Edward Warren and David Preston at 11517
Stage Harbor Road. Um, it's dated October 4th and um, it's a little bit long, but um, I think it's an important it mentions the streetscape, which I think is important for us to consider. Anyways, our carriage house condominium
property at 11517 Stage Harbor Road surrounds the property at 127 Stage Harbor like a giant fish fish hook and creates a very close-knit neighborhood where what happens to one property has an immediate and direct impact on the others. Each property
11517 125 and 127 has a kind three 360deree view of the others in some respect. Managing people and vehicle flow in such close-knit quarters is a constant challenge, something the Warren and
Preston families have helped to do for 40 years since 1985, the year we moved into our homes across from the town beach on Oyster Pond on Chadam's Loop. Recently, the owners of 127 Stage Harbor have submitted a new updated proposal for 2025 to demolish their property and
construct a new home. That new proposal is substantially different architecturally from the earlier 2022 design in a very positive fashion with a new gable roof format instead of Gambrell that more closely fits the streetscape of this neighborhood. While
the original small Cape built in 1905 would come down, parts of its valued woodwork and flooring would be utilized in constructing the new building. And today, it should be evident to all that the existing small Cape home has suffered from real neglect for the last
five to six years and is in poor shape. More significant to maintaining the streetscape for this location may well be the eventual landscape and plantings around the home. The surrounding properties have created an environment where greenery of all kinds, including flowers, shrubs, and large trees, have
established a park-like setting for these properties that once were part of the large brick estate home located just a little bit further down Stage Harbor Road. Vital to this streetscape is the preservation of the three large trees on the 127 property that need to be
carefully prmed and cared for, especially the giant Lynden tree at the northeast corner which abuts the southwest corner of 11517 along the heavily used right of way. That tree's exposed and very extensive root structure will need to be dealt with most delicately by a trained
arborist for the tree to survive. Also of real significance to the streetscape here is the intricate curved top wooden entrance arbor which connects to the classic wooden fence of the old village old Chattam village loop. The arbor and fence have provided a gateway image of the of the oyster pond neighborhood for
many decades making this streetscape memorable. See the attached photograph you can share illustrates the arbor fence and nearby old cow barn as they were in the 1920s. The arbor and fence should be preserved and rebuilt using
durable hardwoods or man-made modern materials that look just like real wood. In summary, in light of its existing condition on balance, we feel that a decision in favor of demolition for the 1905 structure is appropriate at this time. Attention should now be made to
paid to the relative related factors of landscape trees, arbor, and fencing which will contri contribute much more to sustaining an appropriate streetscape for this section of stage harbor road into the future. >> Okay, I think that's it.
>> May I speak, Frank? >> Excuse me. >> May I speak? >> Yes, of course. I was just going to say uh that concludes all of the correspondence for and against it. Uh, so, uh, all right. I'm go ahead, Bill. I'll say it afterwards. >> All right. Thanks, Christine. Would you
lift up and show the rear elevation again? >> All right. So, as I indicated uh in my statement, Mr. Ecker's suggestion is that the sun porch on the left and the
additions on the right be removed. And so then he suggested the addition should go on the rear of the building. So this is the rear of the building. So where's the addition going to go? It's going to it's going to
cloud up this front. The blue door on the other side is not operable. It's been it's been closed off on the inside. I mean, there's very little left of the existing structure that is actually
usable. As we indicated in our initial presentation several years ago, the Wayne's coating and flooring in the building we thought could be preserved and and reused in a new structure. But
incurring the cost of removing the existing structures and then putting some addition on the back just so that uh people who walk by can look up and see, you know, a classic uh colonial design
uh imposes a very unfair burden on the property owner. this is, you know, so again, I urge you to uh I understand that the billing may be historically significant,
but the s the suggestions that have been made would cost I mean, even if they were interested would would cost more to create a modern building with modern amenities
than it would to build a new house. And you know, I understand the issue of uh historic preservation, but you know, you know, you're not supposed to impose
an, you know, a high financial burden on a property owner who simply wants to be able to use the property uh in a meaningful way. and the chair can shake his head because he thinks everything's worth preserving, but the
reality is everything isn't worth preserving. And so a suitable design as proposed in this case, the streetscape remains unharmed and the family has usable space that uh
is acceptable to a family of today's means. Thank you, >> Bill. I those are good arguments for the zoning board. Uh and right >> and I just feel that uh you know there's no question
>> I'm not arguing >> this is >> it's all right we can shake hands >> just just I you know from my perspective you know it you you make good argument this issue but you know financial issues you know that's not that's not our purview
>> that is not our purview financial issues our purview is historic preservation and we don't say no we can't say No, but we can put a delay. Why do we put a delay on it? We don't put a delay for punitive so just you guys can spend more money.
We put a delay to ask the owner and the architect, Ryder Wilcox, you know, with all due respect, this is this is a pretty canned design here, you know, uh to take a really hard look and try to preserve the essence of the historic
structure which is there. Okay? you know, and it could be done. It's going to be not I'm not, you know, I'll have to agree with you. It certainly may be a little more expensive, maybe not, depending on how the how the architect incorporates it. We have, you know, a a
plethora of designs where the an old historic structure was incorporated into the into it and allowed it to be preserved and preserve the streetscape the way it is now. you know, our our we we preserve not only houses, but we also
preserve streetscape. It's an important part of of what we do. So, anyway, okay. Yes, you had a question. >> Yeah. So, um they uh last time there was a two-month a 60 day delay and uh to
consider exactly the same things we're talking about now and then that extended into three years. So, I think they've had a lot of time to think about it. Um, it sounds to me like they've kind of pretty much going with what they wanted
to originally, which is the tear down. But what I'm wondering is if the new the proposed structure is so um is so contrary to the streetscape that
um I'm wondering it is I agree with Bob. It's difficult, Robert Leer, that it's difficult to in visiting it and I've been there three times now that um to distinguish what's original and what's what's historical
and with all these additions that were not very well done. But and I've been inside too and that's a disaster. There is no flow inside. I have to agree with that. But
so say go back to saving the initial structure, the historical structure. Why originally we think maybe that was a cape like a traditional cape. >> So why not build another cape? >> Janet, let's not get we we don't have
the >> they considered building a Cape Cod to maintain the streetscape. That's all I'm asking. >> We And then my my person to my left here is going to remind me we don't have designer view authority. We really don't can't tell them how to do it. It's up to >> We can ask him to consider it, Frank.
>> Well, no. The question is historical significance or not. >> Okay, we could we can get into >> You've already voted on historical significance, Frank. >> Say again. >> You've already voted on historical significance. >> No, we didn't vote yet. >> Let's finish. >> Did we vote? >> No, we didn't vote.
>> We didn't vote yet. So, let's let's just just focus here, guys. Come on. >> You have something to say about his story because it's Fred quickly. Yes. I mean, it clearly is. Now, >> I suggested that the two additions could be taken off. I didn't say they had to.
>> That new house is going to cost. >> Let's not get into that. Now, we're getting >> Well, it is. It is significant. Yes. And there's a lot of houses. >> We have your comments. We have your comments. Now, we're going to take the vote on historical significance, folks. >> Is it something on historical significance?
No. Okay. We're going to take a vote. We have a motion. Second. Then we got public comment on historical significance. And we're going to move along. This one took longer. All right. Historical significance. Bob. >> No. >> Nancy. >> Yes. >> Stephanie? >> Yes. >> Robert?
>> Yes. >> Janet? >> Yes. >> Was it yes. >> Robert Wilson? Yes. And the chair votes yes. Okay. >> Excuse me, Frank. Now, we didn't actually do a an official motion. So, if
he could if he could just do an official motion with a >> Oh, okay. I thought we had a motion. >> No. >> Sorry about that. Correct that vote. You guys are confusing me. Let's go. >> You're confusing me. >> Oh, Bob. >> All right. I move your Chattam
Historical Commission finds that the building located at 127 Stage Harbor Road is historically significant because it in whole or in part 75 or more years old. And the commission also finds that it is associated with one or more
historical persons or events within the town and possesses architectural value or significance in terms of period and style. >> Okay. Second, please. >> Second. >> Any members of the public wish to make a short comment, please.
>> Hello. My name is Janet Whitmore. Um, I'm the owner of the home, my great grand, my third great-grandfather's home at 727 Main Street in Chadam. I am 74 years old. I learned how to swim at the age of
three at Oyster Pond. The memory of this home is sketched hard into my memory, and it's hard to think how the streetscape will be forever changed. Um, I am a
lover of antiques. Obviously, as a single woman, I have um taken on on a nurse's salary my third greatgrandfather's home. And I have found if money is the issue, um, which I
I would disagree with, um, it takes ambition to restore an antique. It takes love. And um I'm here because I passionately feel for my town which my family has
been a member of since um the Nickersons first arrived and uh the young family has been here pre-revolutionary and um many members of my family actually fought in the revolutionary
war. And just in closing, I myself am as I grow older am very concerned about my own estate and what will happen to it. I've tried um to get it on the national
registry. Um but they require um a historical representative and the person that I chose kept all the information for a year and then wanted $10,000 to represent me. Anyway, that's all I have
to say. I'm I I am concerned about this property at 127. I do not want to see any more wealth sprawl. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other members? Any of Yes. To speaking to historical
significance. Sorry guys, we >> go approaching >> for what? We're not We want to listen. >> Go. >> Okay. So um >> introduce yourself please. >> Ellen Briggs protect our past and I am
if if we can't impact this community on the value of the of maintaining these historic homes. Let's talk about what it does to the cultural economy of Chattam and they disappear. I'm just going to do a few bullet points and we can have a further discussion in another
>> very quickly please. So um the role of historic houses in Chadam serve as tangible connections to the town's history. Its story, period, architecture, culture of his time shaping shapes its unique community. It provides meaningful connection of the
past to the present. It attracts daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly visitors. It brings in significant rental and consumer spending dollars for town businesses. Shore Road, Stage Harbor Road, Maine Bridge, Seview Street, Cross Streets,
Barl Cliff Avenue, plus some streets found in North and South Chattam are filled with walkers and bikers and drivers. And they look to the left and the right. They don't even look where they're going because they're in enraptured by the historic houses that are still standing. And that adds uh and
then then add to those the amling through the old village. >> It's a way to we get your sense. So I'm going one last sentence. >> Thank you. >> Yes, the beaches and seascapes are a big attraction, but it's the historic
streetscapes that are the soul of this historic town which captures their hearts. All one has to do is just listen to them as they walk along. Do not destroy this core historic house. >> All right. Thank you very much, Ellen. I
don't want to try to cut you short, but we're dragging this one out. Okay. We're going to now take a vote on historical significance. I apologize that I was asking for consensus last time and I thought was taken a motion. All right, this is on historical significant. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy,
>> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> And the chair vote yes. Okay, now the hard part, guys. >> Do we impose a demolition delay? >> Anybody have an opinion? I think we
should do this particular one. >> I feel very strongly we should >> Steph >> I feel very strongly that we should have a demolition delay >> and all right we delay but >> to try to try to maintain some of this. >> Okay, but how long? Yes, Robert. >> 18 months.
>> I'd say 18 months. >> Go next. >> You didn't start it on. >> All right. Uh I agree with the demolition delay. I'm not going to say how long, but uh um we've got to preserve this core house.
>> Yeah. Yeah. The my thought was a de demolition delay should be long enough to be necessary and sufficient for the architect to take a a fresh look at how you could make additions to there's got to be a way to add space for the people
somehow. I mean, as you said, there's there's very clever. Many designs are possible. I agree. You can't easily come up with it right now, but the architect can come up with stuff. >> Well, you know, because if you impose it long enough, >> excuse me, >> you know, one one of the members of the
family will die and then you won't be a problem. >> Riley, thank you. >> Do you have a sense in terms of the time >> of a delay? >> Uh, necessary. Uh, at least two months, but sufficient >> maybe.
>> I just wonder this house was looked at three years ago. >> Yeah. and nothing has happened to it. So, two months I can't see doing much longer than that. Janet, >> well, I was hoping they were thinking
about it for the last three years. >> Well, obviously they weren't. So, >> so what makes us think that that we're going to be that this is going to a demolition delay is going to accomplish what we're hoping? >> Well, we can only hope, >> Nancy.
>> Yes. A demolition delay. Um yeah, I just also want to make the point that there's a 1955 um plan from the registry of deeds that shows the already the additions were built then. So as it is laid out now, it was already
like that in 1955. So the core of the house is the oldest part, but the wings are also >> on historical in terms of time period. So I just want to make that point. Well, that's that's hopefully what they'll come back with some
>> um and yes, I believe that we really have no choice but to impose a demolition delay. >> I I agree with delay. I would suggest a year, but that's either here or there. >> All right. So, I guess I have to do it. I would propose we put a 9mon demolition
delay on the uh gee 99 is 18. I guess I do compromise a lot. So, uh >> sorry. No, that's not true. Sandy, go. >> I would support Bob Leer 365 days.
>> Nine months a year. Okay, give me a motion. Robert U. Chattam Historical Commission also finds that the proposed work to be done dated looks like September 4th, 2025 will materially diminish the historic
significance of the building and therefore the commission imposes a demolition delay in the amount of 365 days. >> Do we have a second? >> Second. >> Second. Okay. Any other comments? I'm going to take a roll call. Bob, >> yes.
>> Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. >> Thank you. Okay, I knew that was not going to be easy, but they don't get any
easier. All right, we we are done with our hearings. Do we need a break? Do any members of the commission feel they need to take a break? No. We're going to press on. Okay. We have
>> under a new business item. Is Mr. Briggs here? Oh jeez. When did you sneak in? >> Just a minute ago. >> Okay, good. I'm not completely losing it. >> I didn't see him either. >> Thank you. >> I did. I did. All right. Um the subject
here and this is a discussion not a hearing per se and the discussion is uh 162 Shore Road and there is a number of pieces of correspondence and letters to be to be shared by with
the public as we proceed in this discussion. Uh we have a process for hearings and it makes it a lot easy for me. But in this case
we have a stop work which was issued on 162 Shore Road. the salt box which the this commission declared historically significant and the applicant I believe concurred and uh
we proceeded with a determination and the determination was very simply to save the salt box move it to the front of the property and proceed with certain number of uh renovations which we
concurred with. Uh I think it'd be appropriate for me at this particular point to read u a memo. Got to find it guys. A lot of paper
uh that the chairman wrote on uh the September 16th as the construction on 162 Shore Road proceeded in recent months. We have observed and were very pleased that the
efforts to relocate the soap box to the front of the property as presented to during the hearing of February 2024 in accordance with the approved determination of the commission. Unfortunately, in recent recent days, the vast majority of the salt box were
deile demolished. Needless to say, the demolition of the historically significant of is of a significant property is great concern to the community and specifically what was to be avoided. The historical commission did not impose a demolition delay on the
project as we understood there was an agreed to plan to preserve the majority of the historic structure. As the applicant agreed to exercise necessary care to execute the conditions of the determination, I requested that a stop work on this part of the 162 Shore Road
project be issued on September 15th. The historical commission formally request the applicant and the architect responsible to uh at the October 7th meeting where we are today and provide an explanation of what transpired, what remedies can be implemented. It is my
understanding that the stop work will not be halted until this agreement is approved by the historical commission. Subsequent to that uh correspondence to Mr. Litfield, uh
there was a correspondence from um the builder, Mr. Whitler, and u dear commission members, this is October 18th. I'm writing concerning our project at 162 Shore Road which has recently been put on a stop work stop a
work stoppage. Firstly, I agree I readily admit the Whitler brothers should have done a better job of communicating and engaging with all of you in the early stages of this project. Most importantly, I promise you nothing of historical value has been demolished or thrown away. The
renovations of 2007 impacted three sides of the building. the roof, the floor, the floor systems, the flooring, interior trim, windows trim, fireplace, and chimney. The historic elements, including the shore road elevation, and a portion of the north elevation, as well as two mantles, the face of the
hutch, the three doors, have have all been saved. It is true the project architect in meeting with you agreed to infill rather than demolish the s the southern and northern facing walls of the front all of which were built in 2007. Once we begin that work we quickly
realized a structure wouldn't work that that structurally wouldn't work at that point. We should have invited you to the tour of the site and discuss the issues. Instead we move forward for that. I am sorry and can fully appreciate your anger and disappointment. I apologize for my anger and
disappointment on the September 19th days. I was taken aback when I saw it. Let me finish. I need you to know that the episode has really upset me and from an early age I have the passion for history and architects. Graduated a degree in historic preservation as I sit on the historic commission in Medfield
where I live for 30 years in a 1780 saw box. My company hot my 35 years wait uh my company over 35 years has won numerous preservation awards for historic preservation. Whitler Brothers
hired by clients just as the owners of this property specifically because of our expertise in the area. We would never carelessly demolish an historic structure. Please reach out to me at any time. I look forward to discussion on October 7th.
Here we are. Now, let me say this, uh, and I appreciate the letters and the correspondence from Mr. Whit, but you know, quite honestly, between myself and discussions with Mr. um, Mr. Briggs, the
building commissioner, and zoning enforcement office, you know, quite honestly, I in my eye was upset. I really felt this was grossly negligent, you know, in terms of what what happened. You know, I'm sure there are
reasons he said, she said, you know, correspondence, but there was just negligence on part of yourself. Uh, and we're here today to talk about it because Mr. Briggs informs me the process. I'm not familiar with this process. I don't think we've ever done
it in the 20 years I've been in the commission, you know, uh, with a stop work with this magnitude. uh it's up to us the commission to discuss this and determine what the next step is and provide some guidance to the building commissioner on whether or not we agree
or disagree. I think that's sufficient preamble for anything, but I you know I appreciate your patience in that bill and I'd like to turn it over to you to to proceed. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of uh the several people
who were involved in this. Uh with us today is Doug Whitler whom you know from many experiences over the past. Also Tom Jennings who is one of the beneficiaries uh of the trust that owns the property and from Hutker Tom McNeel our
architect. Uh in your letter obviously uh you requested that we appear to provide an explanation to what transpired and what remedies could be implemented. That was sent to us on September 16th. And as soon as that
happened, I was in touch with uh Mr. M Mr. Jennings uh with Hutker and with Doug. And Doug did respond to you and I know that he would like to make a further presentation. Uh as much as I
enjoy all of you, I didn't want to be here today. >> I didn't either. You did not want 162 Shore Road to be in front of you today. Tom, Michelle, Jennings, and Hutker. And Doug did not intend that to happen
either. Uh, in his letter to you, uh, Doug acknowledges that there was, whether we want to call it a violation of protocol or a miscommunication or a screw-up to use a fine legal term, uh, it ought not to have happened the way it
does did happen. and we acknowledge that. So, if I could, Mr. Chairman, uh if I could turn it over to Doug who can give, as you requested, an explanation of what transpired and what remedy remedies can be implemented. Uh Doug
will explain this further, but I think the most important thing to consider is that what will ultimately result in terms of the public traveling up and down the boulevard or shore road is the
restoration of the Joshua Bur House as it first appeared on Water Street in approximately 1800. That Doug has retained the historical materials which were removed. they will be reassembled on site. So, if I could, Mr. Chairman, if I could turn it over to Doug
Whitlock. >> Thank you. >> Good morning. I'm Doug Wlock and thank you, Annie. Uh I hope you all um thank you for your time here this morning and uh I'm here to take you through what we
did right and what we could have done better and most importantly to assure you uh that we haven't destroyed anything historic. Uh, as I said in my letter, I have a bachelor's degree in historic preservation. I live in a in I've lived
for 33 years in Medfield in a historic 1780 salt box house. My wife and I restored that and we won an award for it. I sit on the historic commission in Medfield, so I sit where you sit. My company uh Whitler Brothers is proud
of the numerous preservation awards we've won both here and outside of Boston uh where we have a second office and I certainly never have been through anything like this before. You should have all received my presentation uh and I'm obviously I'll
take questions. Just let me go through it and explain the process. Uh if you could put up slide one Annie. Thank you. So this is what was approved for demolition on the site
and you can see the house in here. Everything else is to be removed. So the back of the house shows this dormer and the whole one foot add-on to be removed. Meaning we're saving this end which is now the north facing gable
and the south facing gable which you see right here. So, we saved, we had to flake it, but we saved this portion of the house right here because it had old material in it. Everything else was new. This was all new roof framing and obviously to
support this dormer that was added in ' 07. Um, can you go to the second slide? In 2004, Barbara Weller, the owner of the house, applied for a demolition permit. and
this commission applied a one-year delay. One year after that, she came with these plans and applied for a building permit. This was designed by Ned Collins, a local architect in town and John Meister, a local builder, took on the
project and they built this house to this plan and it's a beautiful reproduction. And you can go to the next slide, Annie. These are these plans are the stamped plans that are in the building department. These aren't the actual I looked at the stamp. Sorry. And they
they are the same date, same plans. So this shows the salt box. All this being added to the original design. These are the two faces. Um and you're right. We removed areas that
appear in the white here. specifically remove those sides that I've told you. As I said at the I said in my letter at this point, I should have invited Frank through the house to show him that
all of this was new construction. But we're all here because we care about saving history. So with that focus, let me show you what the building process was. Um if you so highlighted in Ned Cullen's
um description of the project, he writes maintain the character with materials. So he's maintaining the character of the original house. He knows he's not saving it. Um
>> excuse me, who wrote this? This is from Ned Collins plan description of construction. So he writes maintain character with materials and detailing. He does not save preserve old materials. Instead he
instructs John Meister the builder to utilize new materials and match the character of the old. He also writes, "Lift the main roof one foot and replace and insulate all the rafters." So the original ridge line now has been raised
a foot which means there's nothing salvageable from that old roof. >> Doug, just to put it in perspective because it's a little bit confusing relative the question >> what you're referring to here is Ned who's passed a while now and what he the
instructions he gave to the previous architect >> to the pre to the builder. John Meister was the builder. So when they when and I remember when you know when the Wellers came before me and us it's got a long time ago time flies you know and we
agreed yes we were going to make these changes. >> So what what is your point that you're trying to make by showing us what Ned said >> a long time ago. So Ned, so Ned said in 2006 that this is a description of
construction on the plans that have been accepted by the town >> which which subsequent by the town >> I guess I'm I apologize I'm cutting you short a little bit but subsequent to that what happened back with Ned when we
approved the previous changes. Okay, this commission took what Ned did and said that's historically significant and we want you to save it. >> Frank, can you let me finish this and ask me questions about >> See, that's the problem of you
determining what you think is or is not historically significant. >> Let me take you through the process. >> All right, go ahead. >> All right. So again this is the description of work to be done on the property and Ned and said replace sills construct all new
foundation. So basically building a reproduction. >> Yes. Uh this is a cutaway drawing from his plan and this shows so again this is for the building department to make sure
that the builder does all of this work. This is the first floor which is brand new TJIS which I will show you later in a photograph. This is the second floor which is all 2x10s to be replaced. This is the new roof system all 2x10 rafters.
So this is all new construction. The only old portion in this is illustrated by this post, this beam right here and this portion of the wall. That beam is the only beam that's left in this house. Okay. So notice this wall which you see
a fireplace opening and a new stair and this back wall because you'll see this a little later. Thank you. Annie can you can go to the next. So, this shows the house on its foundation. We've lifted it and this shows this is
all a rim board uh for TJIS, which are a modern building system in 2007 with Advantec plywood on top. This is the front face that we've saved. You can see below the she you can see the antique sheathing across the front
right here underneath the shingles. So this is old sheathing right there. You go to the next slide. This is looking in the side of the building. This is that fireplace that you saw in the cutaway opening. This is
the door. This is all new framing. This back wall is approved to be de demolished. This is the floor system for the second floor. All 2x10s, all Advant plywood strapping. This is all new construction.
the whole house. You can go to the next slide, Annie. So, here shows the illustration shows the back the picture of the back of the house. So, this is all to be removed except in the red. Approved.
This is the section of uh the house that was in the white that we were not supposed to remove. We can go to next. Again, I'm illustrating all new construction. This wall with the next phase
is a cathedral wall. It's 16 ft tall. It has an Lvl that runs across here. It has a window that runs across rafter to rafter. This, according to the approval, was supposed to be infilled. The engineers would have failed me if I
had infilled that wall. This has to have a wind shear strength to it. It runs floor to ceiling. This would have failed and we removed it. We can go to the next slide. Annie, this so basically just shows the other
side of the house. This has been flaked right here because this is an old wall. Everything else is new construction. And go to the next. This shows the original wall in place. We have not all we've done is support
it. We have not infilled it. We've not done anything to it. So, this shows the old beam running across the front. It shows the old sheathing. When they lifted the house, the sheathing ends. You can see it's one foot short all the way across because they added this whole
second wall to increase the height for the second floor. And you go to the next slide, Annie. Thank you. This shows the opening for the front door. It shows the original timbers and the beam that was supporting
the second floor which were all mortised into these joints here. In 2007, they came, they ripped out the floor, they framed this whole new floor system on top. They filled in all these studs. We have not even touched it. We've
preserved this wall. So um the end is this face which was the original face. The client chose to buy this property and preserve this pre
piece of property because he did not want two big mansions being built on this property. We are putting this back. This is the face that's going to be on Shore Road. It's going to it it is matching the old house in details and
style and that's our end goal. >> I have no doubt in my mind that when this is all done I think the words, you know, it's not done to the fat ladies things. When this is all done and you've completed your
work, you know, 162 Stage Harbor Road is going to have, you know, this cottage, this sulk backs back the way we approved it. I don't doubt that. >> Correct. >> You know what what you've done here is
presented is that well why didn't you why did we put a demolition delay on the building then? We shouldn't have. We should have put a de demolition delay on the front wall. Gets kind of silly to say that, doesn't it? Because you didn't present that. you
presented you were gonna say and you when you being not you Doug but whoever was here you know that's what they presented and that's what we understood you know and and you know you know sometimes you know a little too much you know you know the inside and you and you
know you know what is truly historic and not and I use the term truly you know I was involved when the well wanted to demolish everything >> and I was part of the discussions with her and the family. Oh, please don't do that. We got to save the but we have to
save the windmill. You know, we have to save and I think this is called sumeir is what was currently referred to. You know, it's it is important and and then I was also involved with Mr. Jennings. I think >> was the gentleman >> he walked you through after.
>> Yeah, he walked me through and and and we discussed the fact that oh, you know, all right, you want to take it down. What can I do? And we discussed well why don't we move the salt you know salt box up here which is something we commonly do when we have an historic structure
quotes historic structure may not be truly historic but an historic structure and we wanted to save it and so we really thought we had a plan and then when they came before us the previous architect presented a volume of paper I mean he killed a lot of trees you know
telling us everything and Mr. Lichfield himself was here and and I we all walked away is we're going to allow you to demolish a significant amount of that property >> which we could have put a demolition layer on the whole thing. We didn't. We
said fine, we're going to save the salt box. It was a compromise. The salt box is going to be saved. We're going to move it up. It's going to be great. Streets rake is going to be improved in some way. You know, the fact that Ned Collins was involved is really adds to Ned was an important member of the Cadam
in community and you know, we we often say something is historically significant because it was part of the fabric of the community. >> Him and his wife, I think she's still around, you know, a significant part of the town. So anyway, I I'm I'm getting a little bit off topic. So that's that's
part of the problem we have here. Okay. Yeah, you can make a very strong island that this 2x4 was in 1950 and this one is in 60, but you know what? What do what do we do? And and and that's that's where Excuse me one second. I'll shut up. You
know, that's where I feel the gross negligence was. Ne negligence. I'm saying it right. Where >> what did you do? You know, and that's that's a problem. I'm sorry, Bill. Good. >> Thank you. I just wanted to try to respond again. What we were asked to do was to provide an explanation of what
transpired. >> Yeah. >> And I think that what Doug has done fully acknowledging that the process was not followed properly, but he has done his best to explain that it and I represented the Weller family back in
2004, five, six, and seven, so I'm fully familiar with what happened. Uh, I don't think he was trying to say that what Ned Collins did was important except to illustrate to you something that Tom and Michelle Jennings may not have known or
the Hutker architectural team may not have known and for that matter Doug may not have known was that unfortunately much of what we all thought was historic was not because of the changes that
happened 15 or 18 years ago. And Doug was asked to provide an explanation, not an excuse because we know it wasn't done properly, but an explanation of what transpired. And I think he's done that. At least I hope he's done it to
explain to you that the top foot of the front facade was not original. Uh Tom and Michelle, as as Doug said, bought this property because they loved it and wanted to preserve it and because they didn't want to see a bunch of plastic
houses built, two plastic houses built on the property. The next question that you asked us to address was to how the remedy can be implemented. And the remedy is that Doug is going to bring
back from Medfield or Wyoming or wherever the other pieces are, reassemble them, and that ultimately what the public will see is what you see there. Now, we regret this. Tom and Michelle, I mean, they've spent a fair
amount of money picking up the building and moving it. >> That was probably $100,000 to pick it up and move it. And then >> more >> it was quite a bit less than that. >> If if if their goal was to knock it down, they could have knocked it down on site and saved them a lot of themselves
a lot of money >> as it's >> However, I couldn't have been able we would not have been able to move that whole wall intact to its location. It would have fallen apart. So we used the frame to support that wall to move. >> Is that really why you did that?
>> No, that's why that's what happened. I had a lot of demolition to to to happen to that house to remove that whole dormer and the staircase. There's a lot of demolition that had to take place. >> Okay. >> I have to maintain. I have to build the codes and I have to build to OSHA. I
have to make sure my guys that are working there are safe, >> of course. >> So, I have to take all that into account. >> But no, just let me ask a little aside. Was that truly why you didn't demolish it down there? It was because of that. Because you needed to have it supported.
Absolutely. >> And that's why you did it. >> Absolutely. >> That's why all of a sudden we had the full cottage of the main of the street. >> Okay. >> So that's it. >> So as to the explanation for what
happened, we regret it. We regret that it happened the way it did. Doug has already apologized in his letter and and I join and I know Tom and Michelle regret the way that it happened. The relatively good news is that ultimately what will be seen from Shore Road is
what was promised to you and the town's people a year and a half ago. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Uh I think we've heard enough. I don't know how people feel. Uh I know I feel. Go
ahead, Bill. Bob, >> please. >> Yeah. I just wanted to add one thing about the process and I wanted to commend the end result being that the the the what we see here will be restored. That's fantastic. And the path
that we took there together uh is what's suboptimal. And I just want to point out that the breakdown probably occurred before the February hearing when not enough due diligence was done to find
out how much of that building was brand new going to be destroyed. Not enough due diligence. I don't know when you came on board, but come and visit and take a look at it before you come to the commission in February. Look at the infill. Ask your engineers, will that be possible? If it's not possible, tell us
at that February commission meeting. I'm known the commission. I wasn't even there. But I think the lack of due diligence said early on is probably part of the thing we want to cure. And going forward, you know, what we do in projects I've managed is a risk
>> mediation uh chart. What could go wrong and what will you do about it? list all those risks that could go wrong like the infill doesn't work so forth and then what are you going to do and then you have all that before you come to commission and maybe going forward to
get to this great uh result which I commend you for make another chart what else could go wrong >> from where you are now so that's all my offer >> thank you >> okay uh well Steph you want to had your hand raised >> I I just have one you brought up
originally in our meeting how would you do with what would you do with the chimney? To me, the chimney is just part of it. And when you said, "Oh, we'd move the whole chimney." I thought it meant the whole house. >> Yeah. Well, that's you got a very good point because as I said in a very maybe
not strongly enough during the original hearing, Doug, there were so many asurances as Stephanie, we were concerned about the chimney, whether the chimney was 1700 or 1950. We were going to save the chimney. Yes, we were going to support it. we're going to sh you
know so to us and then I think the way it was just said by by Bob you know the lack of due diligence upfront to lead us astray you know that's unfortunate and that's why we feel this was grossly I
don't know what the word is in negligent or >> mishandled >> I certainly don't believe this was done intentionally in my opinion but it's just that the the the better word for me is the screw up is too much. Bob, you want to say anything?
>> Hey, Robert, if you do. Sorry. >> Uh, too many Bobs on this. >> Yeah, I wasn't on the commission for the first go around and naturally, as a Shore Road advocate, I was really disappointed in what I saw. Um, I thought riding my bike by that the house
had been moved to the new foundation and a day later it looked like a Greek theater. Everything was gone. So, um, I'm having the trouble bridging from moving the house to virtually everything gone. So, um, now rather than point
fingers and just punish everybody, we got to come up with a solution to get this house back. And, um, I think you I think you uh know how we all feel about it. >> Okay, Janet.
>> No, I agree with what um, Robert Stevens said. Um I I don't have any I mean obviously they didn't do this on purpose and I think it's more complicated than people realize when they get into moving these things. So um and the safety
factor too. So I have nothing more to add. >> Nancy, >> um I wasn't on the commission when it was heard originally. Um it it also but it makes me think that not only um you know due diligence but
but maybe we need to think about clearly articulating our expectations about we are not imposing a demolition delay with contingent upon this you know this is our expectations of what we expect to see. if had they had been articulated
then it might have been a more clear path to saying well we laid it right out you know so that we know that what you're saying and what we're hearing and what we approve is all the same thing um because I even think um you've started
to lay out some suggestions on what the remedies look like but I would like that clearly specified in writing you know so that we are really clear about what it means means to have it look like that at the end and bring back wood from Montana
or wherever it is. You know, which parts are on site and are flaked and waiting to be put in? What are you bringing back? What What is the remedy that you're proposing? I think we need to ask for these things to be in writing. And
when we make a decision, we maybe want to think about doing more than just saying as you presented it. But like if we're if we're really worried about or concerned about particular things being in place, we should articulate that in writing in our decision. I'm not sure
how that works, but >> Well, let me say this could >> sir. Go ahead. >> If I could and Mr. Briggs can confirm this, but uh obviously this proposal required approval from several boards, conservation commission, board of health, as well as your own. The zoning
board of appeals special permit references the Hutker plans dated whatever day they are and that house will be replicated. That's part of the decision. And I don't know whether you want to respond further to that, but it'll be the the house that was
proposed. You if I could >> What do you mean the house that was proposed? I'm not sure. >> The appearance of that is what will be rebuilt. >> Yeah, but >> but I'm sorry. Excuse me. That's not what we approved. >> We didn't approve
>> approved that. We approved. Excuse me. >> Excuse me. >> We didn't approve the appearance of it. We approved that. >> That's the difference here. Look, let's let's hold on, guys. Let's That's the difference here, you know. Yeah, we got
other boards. You got zoning. You got all the other ones. That's fine. But Mr. Briggs, thank goodness in Chadam, he he it he follows what we do. If we say we wanted painted pink, we don't have that authority, you know. He says, "Yeah,
they you put a painted pink." And so that's the difference here. We didn't say appearance. We said that one. >> Okay. And the fact that that's not what happened, that's the gross negligence in my opinion. Having said that, let me back up. Nancy, just hold on. You know,
you made a very good comment. You know, if we were to write everything that happened at the hearing, it would be about 90 pages long. We don't have the staff. The town doesn't have the money. Let me finish that happened. I'm talking
about the upshot. >> Let me let me finish. I understand that. But you also alluded to what what happened at the meeting. >> A lot of what we do is based upon trust that when somebody says they're going to do something, they do it. and how they
do it. We don't tell them how to to do it exactly. We just look at the end result and that's the difference. And we we rely upon the hearing, the notes, the video, that's the testimony giving and we expect it to be followed. And I agree
with you well to what's going to be next. >> I I guess also like I guess just to the point of what I don't want to belabor it, but we are we are not concerned. We are we actually don't have purview over what you put up after we approve a de demolition. Our we approved a lot of
demolition and did not delay that demolition because of a plan that showed the preservation of >> that structure >> three walls of the structure as it was at that point new and old. That was what
I believe the commission thought they were approving. So >> yeah, you're right. So that but you know so if and and your plan shows the red and the white and so we refer to that what you showed us in the plans dated that date which indicated what you're
going to demolish and not going to demolish that's what we approved. So >> well said. >> Okay. >> So I saved the front of the house. >> Yeah. Stephanie, >> I just um >> I went back and looked at all the meetings >> to see what had happened.
>> And one of the words we used many times was preserve, >> not knock down. >> Okay, hold on. I'm I'm I got a crack in my neck. I'm sorry. This side of the room, Bob. >> There was a voice coming in from somebody else. from online.
>> Yeah, somebody online is uh >> just trying to clarify some rand random voices that are coming through. Um and and I I agree with everything that Nancy was saying. Um it raises the question in my mind. Uh I can't remember who said
it, but Mr. Whitlaw probably is that everything is there. What What does this picture represent? >> That represents the north side of the house. That's the portion that was flaked. So, we removed it rather than let it get damaged to go back in place.
>> Okay. But that that then is what you're in an indication of what you might be doing to bring this thing back to where it was supposed to be. >> So, so the plan the pres preservation is that face which we saved the side and
the other side. So, we saved the left side. We can't save the right side because of structural issues. So, we saved the face. We did not save that front roof which was all new framing. >> Right. Understood. Okay. I just I'm
thinking in in my mind as I guess guess we all are. What put it put it back together. What does that mean? Is that really doable? Will be will it be a significant step in saving the old materials which we intended to do which I guess yes and no for part of what what
you're planning for this. >> Our planning is to rebuild >> hello >> to this structure. >> Hello. >> Yeah. >> Could you please silent your phone? >> Thank you. probably here. >> Um and and the other point um that is
that um I guess Mr. Wilson made it the best is that what was missing is a real clarity about what we really wanted to be done. And I I'll digress for a moment saying when you're on the his conservation commission,
there is an agent and the and the orders are about 10 pages long. They're not just simple things like this, we reference the the uh plans, I guess, perhaps more than or less than we should given what could could go wrong. So,
it's a lesson, but it's up to the town to supply more resources, I guess, for us to be able to do that. >> We we approve the end result. Okay. Well, we also >> well, if if we're saying you need need to maintain or preserve certain factors
in there, that does not show up in our written document about our findings and our order. >> Well, our our >> and I don't think I don't know that it ought to, but I'm just saying that's the exterior, Bob. No. So, and we approve
the, you know, the determination said this is what it was. This is what it's going to be and this is what you're going to remove. And in this case, it was said by Nancy, it was very clear what they were supposed to remove. Okay. Now, granted, some of that what we told
them to preserve wasn't built a 100 years ago. It was built 50 years ago or 10 years ago. That's not that doesn't matter. That's not that you know, this is this is the determination. this is what you're supposed to do if you disagree or something happens during the
construction and from a structural point of view, from a safety point of view. Pick up the phone. Mr. Briggs, a very accessible guy and and we would have done it. So, >> and and we are very much aware of that, Mr. Chairman. There and again, I want to reiterate further what Doug has already
said. We acknowledge readily that the process wasn't followed. >> We we apologize. We we whatever the right words are, we know that. >> But as as a brief comment on something that you said, obviously, as you know better
than I, that preservation of historical facades and preservation of historical materials is important. Preservation of something added in 2007, notwithstanding that the process wasn't followed, but
preservation of something added in 2007 is somewhat beyond what most of us think of as the commission's goal. >> That's correct. That's correct. But it's a process that's had to be defined. Look, ladies, >> I I acknowledge that and I apologize for that. The process was broken,
>> but it it's also hard when you open this up and everything is from 2007. And I know that I'm supposed to look at it and go, "Nope, it's been it's old." But it's not and it's all tied together as we move forward to this with this structure. >> Understand? >> So, >> well, it's a big job and you got a lot
of work to go on. I can appreciate, you know, making 100 different decisions. I think we have understood what has happened and let's not go back anymore for it. The question at this point, we got two questions. What are we going to do? what are we
going to ask the applicant to do as a remedy to it and whether or not there is any if there was a violation and I think the building inspector and myself as chair felt there was a violation they violated the determination regard the
road to hell is paved to good intentions they had good intentions well sorry okay and there needs to be some kind of remedy and in my mind there needs to be some kind of acknowledgement of a penalty of what they did and why they did it so we don't do it again. Okay.
And that's how I feel. Now that's me speaking personally. So I guess uh let's take the easy one. I think the remedy and I think we have in you know indicated you more than once during this conversation that you intend on
proceeding and I'm going to say it and you tell me yes or no. you intend on proceeding with the plans to restore as much of the historic material quotes the truly historic material and I'm even going to take it a step further or the
material that was there which you may not have determined it I don't know if it ended in the dumps already so you can't take it back but you obviously what you set aside if I understood was those things that you felt were truly historic so as part of what you're going to do is you're going to put that back
as best as you can and I guess the term you use infill and re and and and proceed with that construction. How long do you think that's going to take? >> I think you'll see that structure up in a month. The outline of that structure. >> Okay.
>> Less than that. >> Not the interior, but the exterior work. >> Exterior >> with about a month. >> Yep. >> Okay. >> And the historical materials will be added installed as process goes forward appropriately. >> Understand? Yes. Robert, you got a quick one rel to that?
>> We're we're all looking at this photo here uh about the back of the property. Do you have a photo similar to this so we have some idea of how the whole thing's going to look? >> No, that we already approved. >> Is it going to look like this? >> No. No. In the when were you on you want
the commission when we approved this? >> No. >> Okay. We'll give you the copy of the application. >> I'll cut. >> But what I don't think we should this is not a hearing. I don't think we should address any changes to what we've already approved. We got enough complexity here in my opinion.
>> Yeah, I wasn't suggesting changes. I just wanted everyone to be clear. >> Wait a second. Slow down, guys. I can barely >> All I'm asking is is to see that everyone on the panel here is clear what the entire three-dimensional house is going to look like from the front. and
not back here again >> saying, "Oh, gee, we didn't think about that." >> Well, I depend upon Mr. Briggs and the building department to ensure that what was approved and what the build the the building permit appro you know was
approved. That's what they're going to do. I don't think we want to re re go back to it. You're not planning any different changes relative to what was approved. Not without a direct contact with the chair of the historical commission. >> Okay. Yes, Bob.
>> Yeah. Just a brief comment that if there are milestones along the way going forward like the two-month projection that you made that you feel we should review, maybe we want to have a brief uh >> Well, he's indicating 30 days. You mean
to provide a schedule of how he's going to proceed? Well, no. I just if if they if they're if they're halfway through the reconstruction, they want to invite us to a site visit or something, that would be not very good >> to prevent what happened. >> Well, we have that we have that opportunity in the form of Mr. Briggs.
>> Okay. In this commission, we are not inspectors. Okay. >> And we shouldn't be. You know, if we if we have a question, we have a problem, >> we should call the building department and say, could you look at that? Got it. >> And he will. Jay, am I saying that correctly? I don't mean to put words in
your mouth. >> No, that's fine. You did a fine job, Frank. >> Say again. >> You did a fine job. >> Thank you. No, I mean, it's important that we not become Okay. All right. Uh, anybody else uh relative to No, let me proceed.
>> We we would certainly be be willing to come back if you wanted us, Doug or I or both of us, if you'd like us to come back. >> Okay, fine. Uh, >> we can set up a weekly coffee if >> I'm getting the little pink hand raised online. Yes. Does somebody online would like to comment relative to this
particular stage? >> Yes, I would. >> Yes. What? Can you introduce yourself, please? >> Hi, my name is BB Hunt. Um, I own a house um 126 Shore Road, two doors away
from the property you've been discussing. I'll be very brief. I don't want to get involved in blame. You Everybody can take that up for months if they want to. And that's been said for this morning about blame. Now, I'm
interested in the future. I I like the picture of what they're going to do with the house, but I've seen enough strange appendages along Shore Road um
to be I'm still a little ler just because this is the picture that doesn't mean it's going to remain that. Who's going to say there won't go a big porker share or decide to have a big circle drive and um balconies all the way
around just because we seen that picture now um why h I think was it Nancy said we needed to have in in writing what's going to happen and I know that you can use as you're going to use as many
historic um materials that were saved as possible. Uh, and I know that right now they intend to make it look like an historic home. I just don't know what what
um what guarantee we have that what we're going to have is what there is in the picture and it's important that Shore Road look. >> Can I >> Can I answer your question? Can I answer a question? >> Sure.
>> Sure. And is that was that I if I understand your question and I apologize it's always difficult to hear through the uh when they're online. Uh your concern that that the applicant is going
to you put in the historical uh elements and that it's going to look exactly the way he's showing in the picture. Is that correct ma'am? >> Yes. >> Okay. Let me let Mr. Whitler wants to answer that and I'm fine. So we are going to build that picture was taken
from the final drawings. We are going to build to that and Jaybriggs is going to make sure that we build to that. We have this has been submitted. A permit has been issued and I have I can't suddenly expand the footprint or change the
design because it's been extended. >> Hopefully that answers your question and I think this this issue came up here. The the question of how the town of Chadam performs its activity. We perform it through the building department, community development and the building inspector and Mr. Briggs is the is the
enforcer if you will and his he has the enforcement agency agency to ensure that what was approved which drawings are improved in fact are done the way it is. I know as Jay would said he'd like to believe we get 100% compliance with
everything that goes on but it usually isn't and there are always changes and that's part of the process. So again if I could the the specific elevations are referenced in the ZBA decision and J charged with enforcing that. So no port
corairs no porticos no ports or anything else >> no changes yes >> sorry just to clarify because um she mentioned what I had said I I think we're very safe with knowing that the plans are going to be followed um that is what has been approved by all the boards and we have Jay and everybody. Um
I I think what I was recommending or thinking is that even now that we specify what our expectation is of the historical materials which you may not see that are going to be what is going to happen so that we it is the front wall the way we see it is the wall that
has been flaked is that is that the sum total of what we're expecting I think we should outline I still I feel like that's what you've basically said. >> Would you like to write something up? Well, I would like to have somebody outline in writing what the remedy is.
We are going to do the front wall, the sidewall that's flaked, the chimney, whatever it is. What's coming back >> is being saved. The sidewall was flaked. It will be put back up. And those are the only elements. >> That's it. That's only that's all we're getting. >> Okay. Well, that's what I >> those are the only that's all we're
getting is the front. >> That's our expectation. So, I just think that we >> chimney is gone. Everything else is gone. >> Chimney was built in. Well, I would if we make a motion, I would recommend that maybe we we if we're going to have a motion to accept this. I don't know how we're going to handle it. I would be
happy if we just spelled that out, those two lines, that this is our expectation of what the remedy is. Um, so that everybody's clear, the whole town is clear that when this design comes out, which is going to look very historic, it's also going to have a sidewall and a
front wall that is historic and and we understand that that's it. >> Okay, for clarity, >> quite candidly, that's the easy part of our discussion here, guys. And it's already 12:30. We need to proceed. Okay. I think we clearly in my mind and if we could generate it in writing before we
make a decision to make you happy. N seriously I know that but I think it's clear the front and side wall. >> Okay. Having said that >> having said that can you tell me what you'd like to speak to would speak to the issue of what we're saving.
>> You got to come up and make it short, Fred, please. >> We need to move on. I thought I heard originally the chimney was going to be saved too. >> Say again. >> The chimney was going to be saved in what period >> chimney >> is gone. >> It's gone. >> It's gone. >> Was it historic too?
>> Well, you know, I don't want to get into that discussion. The chimney that we approve which is historically significant is gone. If we made a mistake and it's not truly historic, we don't make mistakes. Okay? We said it's historically significant. It's historically significant. Move on. Got
it. >> You know, what could I tell you? That's it. >> We We don't go through every 2x4 in the house and say this is historic, that's not historic. You know, I don't get paid enough for that. So, anything else, Fred? >> That's it. >> Okay, great. All right. We have
determined what of his what is being saved from our We've determined what is being saved from the original determination. And that's where you have to judge it, guy. What did we approve? We approved the whole house except the back. Everything else is gone except the
front and the side. They are going to save it and they're going to proceed in constructing the structure as it was approved in our original determination. I think that's clear and I'll exercise that execute that into writing. The next
question is are we done? Is that it? Should we say that's it and there is no penalty involved with I consider gross negligence? I feel this is gross negligence and some kind of penalty is necessary.
>> Mr. Chairman, if I could be heard very briefly. >> I'm sorry. Go. >> If I could be heard very briefly. >> Pardon me, stop work effectively 30 days ago. Uh if the commission directs Mr. Briggs to lift the stop work order, it
will be given an upcoming Monday holiday, it will be almost a month to the day. uh a 30-day at $300 a day penalty is $9,000. I suspect that the
cost to Whitler Brothers uh in a variety of ways is considerably in excess of $9,000. So, a month of lost work in a prime building time of year, uh I would see to be a reasonable penalty. I'm not aware
of the commission having imposed penalties in the past. And there's also a difference between negligence and intent. >> Absolutely. >> And I would simply suggest to you that we've paid a penalty. Uh and I would
urge you to direct respectfully urge you to direct Mr. Briggs to lift the stop work orders so that that can be returned to Shore Road sooner rather than later. >> You sound like you've done this before. Fortunately, I have not.
>> No, I mean the eloquent way you put it quite honestly and I mean I'm being facicious. Very good. Because you you're you're articulating what I'm thinking and I appreciate that. The only change I would make to that is you know we know when the stop work
started. Okay. I would propose that we lift the stop work in such a way that you begin the work but the fine will end not at a date certain but when it's completed when the
effort is when the effort >> when the effort let me finish when the effort to complete the structure as we said in this form not the interior is completed that could be 30 days I asked the question earlier to Mr. uh Whitler, how
long is it going to take you to do this? And he said about 30 days >> to get the shape. >> And I agree. So I guess what I'm saying it's the 30 days which we have incurred plus the 30 days to get it done which is 60 days. >> You don't like my
>> I didn't volunteer payment of a of a fine. I simply said that the the require the legal maximum as I understand it is is $300 a day. I was by no means suggesting that it be or 30 or 60 days. I was simply explaining that a price has
already been paid. >> Well, I I guess I've taken what your suggestion and say I agree with but I think it should be a penalty >> in addition to what you feel that you've already incurred. >> He's saying that he's
>> should not happen at all because he's already paid the price as a builder for >> I understand that. >> So he's not making >> I understand that. I'm not stupid. I understand that. I'm saying I don't agree with it. I think there should be a penalty. >> Okay. Well, let's vote on that. >> Well, let's discuss it. Yes, ladies and
gentlemen. It seems getting a little testy now. Slow down, guys. >> I'm not >> slow down. No, not you. Slow down. Yes, Stephanie. >> I disagree with what you're saying. >> Which one? >> About having another month's fine. >> You don't think there should be any penalty at all?
>> I think they're really penalized by already. >> Okay. So, there be no penalty. All right, let's let's that's that's I'm giving you my position that I feel there should be a financial penalty based upon the gross negligence. >> Yes, Sandy.
>> Frank, I was at the original meetings back in February where some of our board members were not. And am I happy with what happened? No. Have we embarrassed Mr. Whitlaw enough? Have we slapped him on the wrist enough? Absolutely.
If you want to impose a penalty, make it something. Make it half of that. Make it $150 a day. If we have to impose >> how long >> for 30 days. >> Okay. Well, that's your that's a good suggestion.
>> Okay. But I also think we need to condition our vote on making sure that we as Nancy said that we write down we have in writing exactly what our expectations are and what will be
delivered by Mr. Willaw. I worry that am I hearing correctly the framing of this house you s suggest will be finished in 30 days and the front will look like that? >> No. >> No. Okay. Shape. The shape the
>> just the shape shape. Okay. >> That's what I wasn't sure and I was thinking wow that's a really good delivery. >> It would Yeah, it would be. >> So it was clear to me that's what he meant and that's how I would write it up. Yes, Bob. Um I
unfortunately have been witnessed a few of these things before and just saying oh that's okay go and move ahead a little delay is uh fine for the for the permit but it continues to happen so I do think there should be some kind of a
consequence but in addition to waiting out the uh building permit issue and something that is will will act as a deterrent not just uh force them to make a correction they realized they should have had to make. So I'd be in favor of
some not substantial but just significant fine. We're we're very much aware that this was not done properly. As I indicated the cost um that Mr. Mrs. Jennings as beneficiaries
of the trust have already borne in terms of uh time and expense. I've spent more than 20 minutes or so on this over the last 20 minutes and I don't bill as much as you did, Mr. Lear, when you were practicing, but my my point is there
have already been significant expenses to the applicant. >> We we got that. Let let us continue. Bob, how far do you how what do you suggest of a penalty? >> I I don't really have a suggestion. I don't really have a suggestion as to what would act as a deterrent, but it
may be more symbolical than anything else. But let's just say as >> well, we need a suggestion, guys. We got to move this along. >> $150 a day for the 30 days. >> There you go. >> Is that additional, >> Bob? Go down the other end. >> Is that additional? >> Additional to what?
>> To to the 30 days that we've already had. Is that in another 30 days? >> No, no, no, no, >> no. Just the the first 30 >> during the period of time that the building permit was in effect. Yes, Bob. >> I I concur totally with Robert Lair's suggestion. I like think that's appropriate. >> $150 for 30 days.
>> Should be some kind of token thing and I think if you divide it by all the billing rates of the people in the room, it's >> Okay, Bob. >> What about token? >> Go. >> Uh I don't know about that. Uh what I would I'm not going to disagree or agree
about uh trying to penalize them any more than they've been penalized, but I would surely like to see this part of the project become a priority. >> Well, I would like to see this part of the project become a priority in the whole >> Okay. Well, we can include that in the
in the decision >> and that's just my two cents. >> No, but in terms of a financial penalty, do you believe >> I'm not going to comment on that. >> Well, come on, guys. You want me to do it? Yes, Stephanie. Uh, Janet, go. >> I I obviously they didn't do this on
purpose and they've incurred significant uh costs beyond what they ever uh incorporated in the estimate and what they gave to the owners was I was there for the original meeting. They pointed
out to us, right, as Sandy said, what was original and what wasn't? And most of it was pretty new. Um, and if we're going to get into this game, uh, how do we deter how do we determine what's intentional and and negligence and
carelessness and I mean, really? >> So, you're saying no penalty? >> Yes. Oh, they they're paying a penalty. >> You're just hold on. You're saying no additional penalty. saying they're very much they've paid a penalty. >> Nancy, >> I would support a penalty um for the
reasons that Bob laid out and it's not so much unfortunately for this applicant's intent, but I believe we have got to hold >> $150 forgiveness rather than permission cannot really, you know, exist and we have to I would support some kind of
penalty. >> What can you be specific? >> I'll support what Bob suggested. >> Okay. I think we've got some kind of cons. We got to move this along, gentlemen. >> When the builders, >> for those who didn't make a decision, I'll make a decision and put forward. >> Well, the builders better build that in
then. >> Nancy Janet, please. You don't just speak out. >> Ridiculous. >> Yes, it is ridiculous. You can't just speak out. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> All right. We seem to have
we seem to have a consensus of approximately $150 for 30 days. >> Mr. Chairman, if I could ask for a vote on that and particularly in terms of left and that 30 days, uh, today is
October 7, so 14, 15, 20. >> I haven't yet articulated yet, so give me a second, please. Everybody likes to interrupt around here. Slow down. I if we seem to have a some kind of a feeling at least three or four of us a
consensus not a vote bill of $150 for 30 days in the 30 days we could we could tie it into when it started or the 30 days we finished or the 30 days it's going to take to complete the building. What I would like to do is I will
generate with Christina a summary of this discussion for the members to review and then we'll vote on it at our next meeting because we don't seem to have ability to come up with a consensus right now. We don't have to do it now. So this effectively the stop work remain
on order until our next meeting. When's our next meeting? >> October. >> October 21st. >> Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, that's >> Let me finish, please. Thank you. Or we could do it another way. We a lot of
impatient people there. Slow down. Or we could do it another way and ask the stop work be lifted to begin the work, which we're approving here. So, it moves and we could still potentially give you some direction as it relates to a penalty. Is
that doable? >> Please. I would take direction from the commission as to when they want the stop work order lifted. >> Okay. I what I would propose that because I think there's a consensus that we lift the stop work so they could
proceed in the direction of restoring it with the work that we've articulated here and I'll write it out for you. And that work would be to put the two sides back together again of these so-called truly historic and to proceed to build rebuild it the structure to get back the
to the uh the framing situation that existed. >> I would just want a date from you saying when the stop work order is to be lifted. >> Fine. We >> I think Mr. Lichfield suggested after the holiday. >> If I could when can you start Mr. Whitler?
>> I would start immediately. >> Mr. Whitler is ready to go forward. You know, I'm I'm not saying we don't lift it immediately. >> There's a fine that says this has to be built. This structure has to be done. I'm going to >> No, I'm not saying we we hold the stop work. I'm >> Frank. Frank, I'm talking right now. Yeah. >> I'm going to be done well before 30 days
if you're going to try and impose a fix. Uh >> I'm sorry. Say it again. >> I'm going to be done well before 30 days if you're going to impose a fine on this structure being seeing this design. >> What what I think is generally being discussed here is lifting the stop work
immediately. So you could proceed, but also potentially a consensus, which doesn't exist yet, and as Mr. Lichfield pointed out, one of the members left, was that a fine of approximately $150 a day for 30 days, whatever that comes from, that's the fine. But I will, what
I'm going to do is ask Mr. Lichfield, excuse me, Mr. Briggs to lift the stop work immediately so you can proceed in accordance with discussion we have. And at our next meeting, we'll vote whether or not there will not be a fine. Is that doable? Jay,
>> are you going to be providing me with some language on the >> Yes. >> incorporation of the materials? Are you going to get that from the the applicant from Mr. Whitler? >> Incorporation of materials. >> Incorporation of the historic materials. >> Yes. >> I think it should be produced. If you could do that >> by him,
>> if you could do that pretty real quickly, get that back to uh to Jay, we'll use that as the essence of the lifting to stop work. >> Okay. >> And we'll deal with the penalty if in fact there is a penalty bill at our next meeting. Thank you.
>> Uh my only concern about that is we've got four people here today. uh they might all feel it appropriate to be here for yet for another meeting to discuss a penalty. >> Well, I think it'll be it'll be a yes or
no at the penalty. >> Yes. That excuse me one second. I think it'll be a yes or no whether there's a penalty or not. Either the motion fails or it'll pass. You want to say that you want to come back and argue whether or not a penalty should be imposed.
I had generally thought that hearings were in order to hear but uh I defer to you Mr. Chair. >> Yeah. Well, this is discussion and not really a hearing per se. Okay. And we'll put it on the agenda for the next meeting. >> Just wait a second. I'll put it on the
agenda for the next meeting for an item on the agenda and then we'll take a motion. Okay. We can't take a motion unless it's on the agenda and there is nothing on here. It's just discussion. Actually, in
Kandor, that's contrary to the agenda. If Miss Basset would like to refer to what it says about fines, >> I'm sure I'm standing. One second, Janet. Yes. >> May I say something? >> I guess so.
>> I just would like to um point out that um Stephanie Hamilton is not going to be at the next meeting because she's having surgery on her ear. >> Okay, fine. Thank you. However, >> we still have a quorum. All right. The reason I wanted to do that, members of the commission, is we
don't have a clear consensus. I am going to write I'm going to write it up and provide some documentation as Nandy suggested and we'll have that at the next meeting if that's acceptable. The other thing we can do right now, if you want to, we can take a vote. All right.
I will put a motion in effect. I vote that we I move we we provide a immediate lifting of the stop. You got this, kid? An immediate lifting of the stop work in accordance with the discussion here related to restoring those historic
elements which are still at the site and incorporating it into the design which was previously approved at our determination effectively put it back the way we approved it. We realize that this will not include all the historic materials in our opinion but new
materials in order to complete that effort. I further in this motion that we impose a fine of approximately $150, not approximately $150 a day for 30 days, which is the time of the stop work. And whatever that adds out from arithmetic,
whatever that is, $150 times 30. That that's a fine to impose on the applicant for what we consider was a negligent situation, a grossly negligent in situation. Is there a second?
>> Thank you very much. >> Would be 20 days as of Mr. Chairman. >> Any discussion? Sandy, you want to say something? >> I do. I want to vote on this and I'll be at the next meeting if we if this were to come up again because I was at the original when this was approved.
>> All right. But we're voting on this now. Bob, are you okay? >> I I would like to ask Mr. Lichfield a question because he made a comment about this not properly being noticed on the agenda or suggested that possibility. >> No, I was suggesting that the reference
the word fines is in the agenda. >> Okay. I thought you said whatever was there was it says possible recommendation of penalties for non-compliance. >> That that's what I was saying, Mr. Lair, that your agenda refers to fines. I would simply point out that if the
commission deems something to be appropriate, it's 22 days, not 30 days since the stop work order. And I'm not sure it's going to have a deterrent effect. I'm not sure Mr. Whitler needs one, but that's to the commission.
>> We can agree to disagree on that one, but I >> understand. All right. >> Thought you said that the agenda says fines. It does not. It says recommendation of penalties for non-compliance. >> Penalties. My apologies. >> Okay. >> So, in your opinion, are we legal to do it?
>> Yeah, I think there's enough notice, and I don't think Mr. Lichfield is claiming a lack of notice that a fine issue might come up. >> No, lack of notice is not my concern. >> Okay. Legitimacy, I guess, perhaps, or appropriateness, whatever. Okay.
>> I I take it the applicant doesn't feel we should penalize it in addition to what we've already done. All right. So, we have a motion. We have a second. Come on, guys. We got to get rid of this one. Uh, there any other discussion? Okay, we're voting on the motion to
restore it where as it is and a penalty of $150 for 30 days, Mr. Leer, >> that's not it. >> It is. >> I'm sorry. >> I vote yes on that. I think that's it. >> Uh, Amard's room. Sandy, I
>> correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's 22 days. Say again. Isn't it 22 days? >> Excuse me. I think that that Frank is not imposing it for the period of work. You're imposing 30 days. >> I'm opposing not I'm lifting the stop
work. >> Yes. >> And that the penalty >> I'm just clar it's he's not trying to impose the penalty for the period of the stop work. He's imposing a penalty of 30 days. That is >> I'm glad everybody wants to interpret what I'm saying.
I'm saying $150 for 30 days. >> What? 30 days. Mr. Chairman, please explain to me. >> What? 30 days? >> 30 days. I I want to do the arithmetic. You want me to do the What is 30 time 150? >> 4500 >> 4500. We're all fully aware of that.
>> Thank you, V. That's the penalty. Okay. I was using the 30-day $150 a day, which was >> Come on. Let's >> What? 30 days. If you want to say $4,500, Mr. chairman say so >> well I'm going to say the arithmetic of 30 time 145 which is what Bob
>> where does the 30 come from Mr. chairman, the >> the 30 days was referred to your comment that we've already have a 30-day stoppage at 300. And Bob said, "Well, maybe it's not 100 300 for for 30 days,
but 150." And I said, "Fine." So, I used his language. I apologize to you if you were insulted by my lack of >> insulted had just I'll be quiet, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Okay, Bob. That was a yes.
Anybody else not understand what we're voting on? >> I understand. >> Bob, >> either one. >> I understand. >> Yes. >> Is this you starting with me? >> Yes. Sorry. >> I I vote yes. >> Yes.
>> Robert. Yes. >> Yes. Uh, sorry. Nancy. >> Yes. >> Okay. Stephanie's out here. Janet? >> No. >> No. >> Okay. Chair votes. Okay, I will prepare.
>> What about them? >> I'd like to vote. >> I I got you voted yes in the beginning. Oh, okay. I got you first time. You're the first one I asked. >> What? These guys must have taken something before this meeting. Okay, here we go. Uh what I will do is
generate with with uh with uh Christina a narrative of what we just discussed and send it out to you as soon as possible. Thank you very much. I appreciate it and uh good luck. >> Well, all right. I guess we should have
a thing. >> That's okay. >> Is there any other votes that you're taking? >> No, no, that's okay. We did enough. >> We got a couple of quick items on the agenda for those of you who want to remain. If not, you can all resign at the same time. >> Um
>> I can stay. No, we can we can adjourn the meeting because it seems to be deteriorated. And anything else? I'll pass it on. Get a motion for adjournment, please. >> So move. >> Second. >> Second.
>> Okay. Uh any comments? Bob? >> Yes. >> Nancy gone. Stephanie's gone. Robert, >> what am I voting on? >> Ajourning. >> Yes. >> Bob >> Wilson? >> Yes. >> Okay. Chair votes no. Oh, Jesus.
>> Oh, I didn't get to vote on the