Heat. Heat. Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and this is the November 18, 2025 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Before we begin, there are some announcements that need to be made. Please note, this meeting is is being
recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please notify the chairman. Thank you. Pursuant to Governor Healey's
March 28, 2025 signing of acts of ch signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law 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 the
order. A reminder that people who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410 conference ID 665127282 hashtag or join the meeting online via Microsoft team through the link posted
on the agenda. While this is a live broadcast and Simocast on Chattam TV Exfinity Cadam channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide for real time access. Thank you very much. First item here is the roll
call. Bob Ler >> here. >> Nancy Bar >> here. >> Stephanie Hamilton >> here. >> Robert Stevens >> here. >> Janet Tennyson >> here. >> Robert Wilson >> here. Sandy Porter is absent. Do you
hear from Sandy? And the chair is here. Okay. All right. We have a quorum. Uh and we could proceed. We have um first item of business is the minutes of uh November 4th,
2025. And again, I'm always fascinated how Annie captures the essence of the discussion. >> Could I make a motion? >> Makes us sound good. Mhm. >> I'd like to make a motion that we accept the minutes. >> Great. >> Second. >> Okay. No other comments, corrections,
deletions. >> Okay. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And oh, wait a second. Were you not here, Bob?
>> Bob was not here. >> Yeah, you weren't here. So, you abstained. Okay. >> If you didn't know, you abstained. Okay. And the chair vess Thank you very much. Okay. We have um two applications um
uh one continued from November 4th, 2025. Uh 6 65 Elephantes Lane. uh which is continued and one new application 89 Barliff Avenue wonder uh
okay before we start u the applicant uh in form of Chris Cannon has asked for some comments we don't have anything other come on up Chris we don't have any new information from the applicant but for the public's information and for members
of the commission and hopefully you've all read that the I requested comments from the Cape Cod Commission um which is thing we do on pretty much proform when we have a an
application in the national register district especially a contributing structure which this application is for and uh a change which in our opinion we felt potentially was a sub substantial alteration which could threaten the
national register status. So the it's rather a long couple of pages. We're not going to read the whole thing. Uh but for the members of the public, the uh Cape Cod Commission provided information as it related to
their opinion and background. They did provide us some guidance as it related to the uh flood plane regulations and historic structures in Massachusetts and specifically whether or not this application would trigger code
compliance or whether or not an exemption is potential which we had discussed briefly at the previous meeting. So this is something we have to discuss with amongst ourselves and also with the building commissioner as he is the he's the major domo if you will.
He's the guy who makes these decisions for guidance from us. And in addition to that, as I said, we have uh opinions for the Cape Cod Commission. I'm not going to go into now of what they suggested on what could or could not be done, but having said that, just for my way of
introduction, Chris, why don't you take it from here? So, um, thank you. Um Chris Cannon uh representing Anne Picardo, owner of 65 Lifts. Um so I did a uh deep dive last week um
into all this information um and uh one of the things that I, you know, did to start with was uh I met with the neighbor and uh because I was sort of I walked away from the hearing sort of feeling >> Chris, do me a favor. Get a little closer to the microphone.
>> Sure. So I walked away from uh the last hearing uh with the impression that uh you know maybe maybe we should be looking to uh uh find a halfway point. Um you know it was clear that this uh this group was uh doubting this should
be done. So to be polite. Um and uh so you know I did a deep dive once I had the time to do it and uh read all of uh Cape Cod Commission's information which by the way is really wonderful information. Um no matter what
you're doing. Um I went to FEMA's information, read everything I could find there. Uh Cape Cod Commission provided me stuff that FEMA couldn't provide me that FEMA should have provided me. Um, so you know, if you're looking, go to Cape Cod Commission, you'll find it there. Um,
I, you know, looked at the house itself, what it could take, you know, to be done differently. Uh, I studied what it meant to get an exemption, what it meant to get a variance. Um, spoke more with Jay
Briggs. Um, and as I said, I had formulated my own opinions because I've been here in Chadam uh full-time for about 43 years. I've observed what you've observed. Um,
and uh, you know, so my opinion is uh, this elevation 12 is kind of nutty, but it is what it is. It's out of my control and um, it's what FEMA has chosen for whatever reason. Uh, I don't have the
expertise to doubt them. I guess neither do you. Neither does anybody here. Um, so, you know, I'm sort of left with that. Now, come midweek after I'd met with uh the neighbor, after I'd uh done
all this research, uh I reached out uh again to Jay uh Briggs and uh you know spoke about the exemption, which he would be the one to offer the exemption. Uh I have no reason to believe that Jay would ever offer an exemption. Jay has
been uh steadfast in his belief that this house needs to be brought into full compliance with FEMA which is 2 feet above base flood elevation. So that would put it at elevation 14 top first floor. That's precisely what we came to
uh to you originally with. So, uh, after that, uh, I reached out to the Cape Cod, uh, Cooperative Extension, which is the county essentially. Met with or spoke, uh, by way of email with,
uh, their specialist, and her advice was to lift it to into full compliance. She reached out to Cape Cod Commission and as you uh your board also did. We
received yesterday morning their opinion which also seems to concur that this building and it's all about life safety. It's all about preserving the buildings. So between the two, everybody seemed to
agree the house needs to be lifted to elevation 14. That being said, um the commission uh expounded on how one would go about that. I'd already read all of that in their their guidelines, so it was
nothing new to me. Much of it I did intuitively. It's what we do. Um we did a change of materials which uh honor the building itself. Um,
she did mention at the uh Cape Cod Commission did mention that there was a need for two eress. I did that. I also came up this week with uh what I think might be a a good solution to not have a spiral. Um, which would be to put a
hatch in the floor and find a way to do it in that inside section. Uh, so that one could have a second egress. Uh, but it would be by way of going through the floor. Um, and it wouldn't take up square footage. It would just be something. I have not run this by JBGs
yet. And, you know, we'll we'll see if there's a way that we can pull that one off. Uh, but it does need two forms of egress and that was the main reason for the uh the spiral. So, the spiral I think uh essentially could could easily go away. Now, personally, uh I think
it's reasonable to uh assume that uh it's it's fair for someone to have a deck. Though the uh commission didn't really like the idea of a deck, though all their information uh includes decks in guidelines. It just tells you how you should do it. And
typically, they say you should do it on the front of the building and on the back of the building, but not on the side of the building. And if you are going to wrap it, be modest in the way you wrap it. They also recommend uh using u cable
rails because they sort of uh downplay the rail itself. So um do you have the images that I sent? If we could just go through these images, I think it would be helpful uh to understand. Um >> what are we looking at?
>> So that is the satellite image of the the whole area. uh first light uh boatyard uh being on the the green dot on it. Actually 49 is the 49 is 65. Um and so I thought it was
kind of interesting just to look at this because the grouping of buildings goes from what shows here is 61 to 47. And uh if we can look at the next one, this is 1960.
that uh you can just see how's this thing work that is 65. This is the building next to it that's since been torn down that building. Um we can look at the next one. It's not so easy finding these
things, but um I was able to go to a property that I did uh you approved uh about 5 years ago during CO and um I know for certain that I was at elevation
11.5 when I took >> Where is this? >> This is the same area. This is 65 here. >> Okay. >> Okay. So this is what we're looking at. So this is one of the views out from
across the the pond a bit. Very similar to what one might experience. >> Um you know it's a hodgepodge of grouping. You know the whole grouping and we got one building here that's pretty tall. Building here that's pretty tall and the three buildings in between
right here that are not so much. Elevation 11.5 is right there. That's eye level from where this picture is taken. So, you know, I looked at it and thought, well, okay, so you start to see that it's already 2 feet below the
adjacent building just from the window heights. So, u that was I was able to measure on my computer. So, just knowing where it was taken. So, I thought it was important to show these groupings. So, you know, yes, the three in the middle are much lower
than the other two that are flanking it. If we can look at the next picture now, you start to see it sort of the same uh building next to it. This is 65. This is uh the shack behind 65. This is
uh Gold Residence, Gold Shed, and Gold House. So, you can sort of see that the roof line is well below this house and this house. This one was always pretty high.
This was a little shed in the 1960 photo that was taken that was removed. It may still have a part of the shed in it. I don't know. Um that was done I think sometime maybe in the 80s or 90s. I'm not really sure when that was built.
But things morph over time that there are buildings that are taller there. And that is what you see. This is what you see from from the water. And yeah, elevating it will make it higher, but the other two will eventually elevate as
well. They'll have to. They'll get flooded out. >> They don't have to. >> Is the storm this year? Is it 10 years? I don't know. >> That's That's a That's an interesting argument you're making there. >> I'm just No, I'm just I'm not making an argument. I'm just saying it's true. >> What you going What you're trying to do.
>> I'm I'm just saying it's going to happen. >> We're here We're here to talk about your your your building. >> Fine. >> Okay. So >> building cluster of your >> all of these people reference that the other buildings will eventually do it.
>> I don't think so. >> They do. In the in the letters that I received, they're ref, you know, they're referencing that these buildings will eventually do it. So and they're saying that the the coastline changes. That's just what
happens with coastlines, you know, essentially. So, >> okay. I I hear the argument you're trying to make. It's not necessarily what we're about. >> Yeah. >> In terms of historic preservation, >> correct? But what you are about >> contributing structure in the National
Registered District and the loss of the historical significance of that building or that cluster of buildings. So, >> right. And that will be up to you to determine whether or not it's a loss. >> That's the reason for an exemption. >> Yeah. So, I'm not the one that grants the exemption. So, >> no, you're not.
You know, that's out of my >> You're the one who's requesting it. Okay. Yeah. >> Well, yes. I suppose that that could be I'm I'm requesting it if we do something other than full compliance, but I'm not >> You could do something other than full compliance.
>> Excuse me. >> You could do something other than full compliance. >> One could. It's against the advice of the county and Cape Cod Commission as far as I can see at this point. At least the opinion. >> It's their opinion. That's correct. >> Correct. So um
you know that's sort of where we are today. Um that you know we have been given through all of the powers that be uh the information that we should be going up. >> So are you going to provide something to
us? So I think that uh that's the next place where we would have to go is what would be the what we'd be looking to do finally. Um everything that I get tells me that the 4 foot is not going to fly. I'm not
going to get the exemption. I mean that's that's just the given. >> I have not but I've >> and I haven't asked for it. I've had conversations with Jay with the process for us to requesting an exemption. Yeah. There is a process. >> Yeah. And that the process is for the commission to determine that in fact
this is a contributing structure in the national registered district and whether or not in accordance with the guidelines provided by Mass Historic and also FEMA whether or not this could this could apply and whether an exemption could be granted. They are granted. Exemptions
are granted. Okay. Uh and there are a lot of reasons for it and a lot of reasons why not. But it still comes back to you as the owner representing the owner. You know, you you want to do this. You want to raise it airgo the issue of the FEMA. And I I agree with
that and I understand that. But there's the question of whether or not something different could happen if there could be some kind of a compromise. You know, you ask what can you do? I mean, even from from what provided by the Cape Cod Commission and comments here, the spiral staircase, the deck, you know, all these
things, there are non-starters. you know, the mass of the building, the fact that you're making a two-story building out of a one-story building by enclosing it rather than just putting the pilings on. These things that could be acceptable to the commission, but we can't tell you and we won't tell you
what to do. >> It's up to you to provide something back to us so we can we can we can discuss it. Go back to the Cape Cod Commission and and make a decision on that. >> Yeah. And we're, as I discussed with you yesterday, we're not looking for an opinion today. We're, you know, I hope
that you all have seen the Cape Cod Commission's information. >> Yes, we have. >> Okay. So, uh, you know, I think that for me it went a long way though. As you know, I said I started the week last week, you know, with and right through
Wednesday with the mind that maybe there's a halfway point here that that would be acceptable, >> right? Yeah. We I mean, Chris, as you said that, you know, very clearly. >> Yeah. >> We prefer not to refer to the Cape Cod Commission. The Cape Cod Commission would ref would prefer that we don't
refer it to the Cape Cod Commission. They would prefer us to to resolve the issue locally and that's what we're trying to do. But we do need something in front of us in order to attempt to resolve it. >> Right. Do you think you'll have that at the next meeting? >> Oh, I can have absolutely have that.
>> All right. December 2nd. >> Just hold on one second. December 2nd. >> Okay. So, that's that's that that's good. All right. Um, yeah. Some people have some questions. Yes. >> You referred to letters. Are the letters the ones you talked about or are there
other letters from a Butters that you would have? >> No, I don't have anything from Butters because you know that's not the the argument here right now. >> Steph, I believe he's referring to the memo I sent you from the Cape Cod Commission. >> Yeah, but I wondered if that was what he was talking about.
>> My wonder was he said he had other letters and I didn't know if that included letters from a Butters. >> I don't Chris, there are no other letters, right? I have I have one an email uh that I had with uh uh Shannon Holst from Cape Cod Cooperative Extension. >> Okay.
>> Um that's >> if you want to share that fine. >> Yeah, I think you know I I'm not going to read it out now. No, you don't have to >> but uh I I certainly am happy to >> to share that or have her write something to >> Yeah. >> to you. Um either way. Um,
>> if you could do that, then I will also have a conversation with Jay just to understand where we all are and then we can proceed at the December 2nd meeting. >> Sure. >> Yeah. Yes, Robert. >> Yeah. Uh, you mentioned a uh 4 foot plan
and an exemption and I'm I'm just trying to follow the music. What in your view does that entail? It's apart to from the baseline case which you're proposing which is the elevated one. >> So what is your what is your view of that? My my view of of uh the 4 foot is
if we were to lift it 4 foot that would elevate the house the bottom of the structure of the house. So this would be looking at it in a slightly different way versus the top of the first floor being some point above flood flood zone. Um they would sort of take a look at
flood zone and say well flood flood zone be damned. >> Here's where the floods actually were >> and would in entail pilings. You said >> it would entail pilings. Anything else? Can you describe it or anything? >> Well, I couldn't get it. It'll it'll what would it require?
>> It would require lifting the house in in my view. >> Yeah. Okay. >> Um I couldn't get it didn't catch >> to 2 feet above the the known flood that we've had, the highest flood that we we are are familiar with. >> Y >> it's marked on the house all all through
the interior. And so that was easy to get. And so, you know, I looked at I said, "Okay, well, if I was 2 feet above that, would I sort of be meeting the intent of of the uh yeah, what FEMA is looking after.
>> So, that that was uh you know, where I started where I spent a pretty much a week and a half after meeting here uh looking into. And um but everything beyond that took me to a place where full compliance
seemed inevitable. >> All right. Look, gentlemen, lady, I don't want to have the meeting for December 2nd. Okay. Yes. >> You had something. >> Um does FEMA ever decide, you know what, that the water level is so high maybe that house shouldn't be there to begin
with. It could continue on. Does FEMA ever decide that, you know, since the water level's rising and um other people are dealing with it, other residents are dealing with it, but that that it um rather than raising it and having a
tower over everybody that shouldn't be there, maybe these houses shouldn't be there anymore. >> Maybe the houses shouldn't be there anymore. >> That's what I'm saying. Does FEMA ever come to that conclusion? >> Well, well, you know, this issue of property rights and all that kind of good stuff. FEMA just provides guidance
and the purpose of this whole thing is insurance. >> It's all about insurance. >> Well, property rights and we have big cranes and barges coming in and wrecking the marshes that is all around there and everything. I mean, >> you that's another meeting. >> So, there are there are I I have in one
case seen an avenue where uh an engineer came and questioned FEMA's um elevations. >> Sure, you can question. >> And we're able to to get it reduced. Um, I suppose that's possible. It's its own process. >> It's an algorithm. Guess what?
>> Yeah, >> things work. >> Yes, Nancy. >> Um, I don't want to have the meeting that we're going to have, but I do think it's important because we've been talking about the whole exemption thing. Um, I understand what you're interpreting from different input from people. Um, but I think what Frank said
about the exemption is important. And if you wouldn't mind, I'd just like to read Go ahead. In the Cape Cod Commission and um Cape Cod Cooperative Extension flood specialist guidelines, their first frequent frequently asked question says, "Does the substantial improvement damage
exemption for historic structures mean all flood plane requirements are waved?" And the answer to that question is the exemption can be interpreted as an exemption only from those flood mitigation activities that would preclude the structures historic
designation, which is what they recommend, or a complete exemption from all flood mitigation. The local building commissioner may make this determination, but should do so consistently for all qualifying historic structures. is recommended that they
consult a historic preservation specialist to confirm whether flood mitigation activities would threaten the building's historic designation. So, I want to make the point that the Cape Cod Commission started their feedback to us by saying raising this does
>> alter significantly the historic integrity of this building. And then they went on to say, but if no one's going to give an exemption, then you have to go up 8 feet. And I think we want to be at the place where we're still considering an exemption. >> Exemption. >> Yeah. >> Because that is our job is to preserve
the historic integrity of the structure. I just wanted to make that point. >> No, it's good. And you all have that. I believe I gave you that memo. So, okay. >> Yes, Robert. >> I've read through this. Uh, thank you for coming back. Uh when it comes to an
exemption, maybe this is a silly question, but one of the exemptions is on the height, but a second exemption could be on the percentage of funds that you would be able to apply to do something different. You mentioned at
the last meeting that you were ham hamstrung because if you decided to do some kind of a renovation that you could only spend a certain percentage of what the current value of the property was. So I'm just wondering if that's a second
type of exemption so that it wouldn't need to be raised the full amount but maybe you could get more money to do something halfway. It just seems to me common sense is out the window on this. I don't see it being approved. I mean, I don't see it being approved with this
new heights that we're talking about. So, anyway, that's my question. >> Yeah, the the uh exemption is basically the exemption as I understand it from uh FEMA's 50% rule, which uh is kicked in
by substantial improvements. So, you're essentially exempting the substantial improvements from that rule. So, um, that's assuming that the town would would want to grant the exemption. Now,
the town is aware that if they do grant it, they become somewhat liable if we pick some random number and they approve it. >> Yeah. Let's let's let's kind of end this conversation. Gentlemen, this is a conversation we need to have with the building inspector in terms of, you
know, we could we can all speculate on what is what is not inde. But I don't want I don't want to get into speculation. This is the historical commission. Okay? And whether or not we can or cannot have an exemption is a subject for discussion with the building inspector, which I'll ask Jay to be here
at the next meeting so we could have that authoritatively rather than us speculating what we did. And just remember the Cape Cod Commission, these are opinions. It's not guy, it's not direction, it's opinions. So let's let's deal with it. So unless somebody has
something related specifically, you know, let's move on and um we'll see you December 2nd. Hopefully as soon as you can get something to us. >> Yeah, we'll do that. >> Yeah, I got it. Thank you. All right, Chris. >> Yeah. Is that Absolutely. Don't go away. No, >> not
>> Yes. Someone wishes to speak. I do need a motion. >> Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman, and uh members of the commission for giving me the opportunity to address you. And I I'll be brief. Um I represent um the Ghoul family, which are the other two um
only other two uh buildings that uh Chris has referred to in uh the pictures that he's he's walked you through. Um first, I'd like to uh thank Chris. he has been in touch with us and and uh uh in touch with my client. There's been uh
some back and forth. Um no resolution um has has been reached, but uh we hope to keep that communication um going and and uh we understand the commission is encouraging that. At least that's what I'm hearing from uh the commission this morning.
Um I'm buoied by the fact that the the commission appears to be uh willing uh to um explore this whole notion of an exemption. Um I think it's a positive one. I think this is a case that cries out for an exemption. Um it does require
the cooperation of other uh regulatory officials and frankly other boards that this may go in front of um to get behind uh whatever it is that can get worked out for an exemption uh with this committee. A key to all of that of course is the building commissioner as
as you indicated. Um um Mr. jam. Um, I'd like to just u have you continue to focus as as we enter into this stage of of considering an exemption and what it might be uh also on um why we're here
at least according to the presentation at the public hearing. And that was that there's a substantial um uh improvement u being proposed. Um but we heard two things. One uh Mr. Canon testified that
his clients did not want to raise the structure. Um, if you've watched the hearing, it's it's very clear that was very encouraging to my clients um that there was no uh intent to raise the structure.
What is triggering uh uh the need to raise the structure? Um, this structure, as the plans show, uh, is being raised up without any change in the structure whatsoever. It's not like they've got to
take off the bottom two feet because of the flood damage. We were told that there is no damage. There is no structural damage. This can just be lifted right up. So, uh, query, why, um, can't they just fix
the house in its current location? Well, we're told it's mold. Okay. The house, let's assume is worth the testimony was, and I'm not sure that's market value, but market value is what the statute and regulations say,
$130,000 or 140,000, I can't remember which amount. Um, so you can spend $70,000 on mold um without triggering a substantial improvement. So, if you did that, you
could leave the the building right where it is, which is what his client would like to do according to the testimony is leave it right there and fix the mold problem. Now I've been involved in a number of situations where the substantial
improvement issue comes up and sometimes uh the substantial improvement issue gets spread out over a period of time and a period of building permits if a building permit is necessary in order to undertake the mitigation. And um there are building commissioners
that uh work in that fashion that if you phase the work out and pull different building permits for it uh then you may even be able to spend more than 50% of the value of what it was at the beginning. So, we'd also like uh the commission um to know about that and
explore that cuz frankly, if they really don't want to raise it up and uh it's mold that's the problem because none of the structure has to be replaced. None of it's been structurally damaged that that was the testimony. Um what is driving all the expense? Well, what's
driving all the expense is the cost of raising it up. But if you never get to that trigger, well then you don't have all that cost. You don't have the new foundation, the new pilings, the raising it up, the cranes, the catwalks, all the other
things that we're talking about here that are incident to and the result of raising it up. So, there's a threshold issue here, and I'd ask the commission to add that to uh what you've decided to do, which is uh talk about an exemption,
which I applaud, and I applaud the applicant for at least listening to that and considering that because you're right, the applicant has to be on board. But if the applicant truly doesn't want to raise the house up, there's a threshold issue that's causing all of this, and that's um the mold. And it
would seem to me that maybe there is a way to address uh that substantial improvement issue at that level if you really don't want to raise it up. >> So I'd ask the commission to be cognizant of that as as we go forward. with respect to an exemption. This is
kind of a broader question and I would hope um you know the building commissioner has his regulatory authority but at the same time this is really a town issue and and a a publicwide issue. It's it's important for the entire district because it sends
a message as to what's going to happen um if others come forward. And it may well be Chris may be absolutely right that um just raising it a couple of feet or a foot or whatever um uh is enough to
take care of what FEMA says has got to be 8 feet. And um uh there is no desire on the part of my clients. I can tell you that. And there are no letters from my clients saying that they're going to raise their their structures up because I know that's where your question was coming from and and there haven't been.
and they they like the way it is. They like the fact that they're all historic structures and they're all contributing, but um raising it up creates all the problems that they identified in the letters that are already um in your record. So um I would hope and I'm sure
Mr. Jim, and you you're are probably already exploring this that um this could be uh a discussion beyond just the historic commission here in town that you know we we need to do something and there are a number of towns on the information that has been passed out by the Cape Cod Commission that have
wrestled with this and come to a protocol where exemptions kick in and uh it's kind of a group thing and and um we would hope that you would look at that as well whether it's 4 feet or 3 feet or two feet, whatever works here. I realize
Chris needs to get his clients building out of the risk and threat of another flood if they're going to put some money in it. But, um, we're hopeful that the exemption process can work. Um, we're appreciative of the applicants effort so
far through Chris and we hope they continue and we hope you look at it as well. >> Well, thank you >> and thank you for allowing us to make those comments. >> No, I appreciate that. And interesting enough, you know, you this also has triggered something else that this commission has been dealing with unfortunately quite a lot in another
areas of town, Little Beach area, which is Floodsville. Okay. And over the last oh maybe seven or eight years, we've had at least 10 homes in that area which have come to us got to go up, >> right? >> And you know, there's something I really
never thought of which was in the Cape Cod Commission. you know, all right, you got to go up 10 feet, but you don't have to make it look like a threestory building. >> And and there and what they indicated there, just put pilings. In other words,
you still have a singlestory building. Okay. On pilings versus skirting it and creating a whole another living area, a living thing. Well, we say, "Well, it's not. It's just storage." Well, guess what? It's it's >> No, I I I I saw that and uh I think they
they offered it as well for people behind could actually see through and see the water. I mean, they had a number of reasons that they >> uh interesting, >> but but we're hopeful that we we don't have to get to pilings that there'll be some sort of exemption that the applicant with the assistance of their
architect can figure out and um that we can get your committee uh at that point and we can get the building commissioner and other boards that this will have to go through um at that point as well. So, we're we're here and and my clients are
willing to work and um willing to be a part of that if we can. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, we need a motion, Bob, to continue the hearing. >> Can I just Can I just respond? >> Okay, sorry. Yes, go ahead.
>> Well, maybe I said that the clients did not want to lift the house. I think what I said uh in fact was that they weren't looking to right that was not on their agenda. That wasn't their bucket list of items that they wanted to lift this
house. This was a product of a flood and logically that flood will happen again. Happened once. These storms are getting worse. They should lift their house out of
harm's way and that would be good preservation. >> It's an opinion. Thank you. >> Just introduce yourself. >> Uh Kyle Gold, 61 alithments. Um I just wanted to make a few more comments with respect to the structure here. You know,
I think one of the most resonating things is something that Chris has said moments ago when he was showing these photos, and it was a passing comment, but he said, "These photos are very hard to come by." And I think as we look to the historic nature of this area, I welcome any of you to go downtown and
look into any of these stores, there is a hundred of these type of photos that sit there and encapsulate what the historic part of the mill pond is. Uh you I also think that's important to say that even though that this is a single structure that we're looking at, there
are over 12 structures located within that flood plane of which my family owns six. And so whatever decision we're choosing to make here to move forward is something in a non-threatening way that will resonate as precedent for what the
other structures can do. And I think that for such an area as this with its quaint nature, we are going to be turning it up into stilts, right? And if we go down this path and you know, our house is on the corner here. There's a million people that come
down during the summer and view the shore and look at the houses and take photos and everything. And I think that that's an element that would be greatly lost within the historic district. We also talked about Mike Ford talked about quickly about stretching out the progress on how you can alleviate FEMA
buckets by doing things over time. This property that they're calling a family home or a house as a rental unit and it hasn't been used for four years. So if they cared about it, why aren't they here and using it? It seems like we're trying to protect someone's financial
asset. So something that they actually care about. >> Thank you. >> You're welcome. Thank you. Okay, guys. We need to move on. We need a motion to >> What? What's the date, Christine? >> It's December 2nd. >> I move the Chattam Historical Commission um
schedule reschedule continue this matter until December 2nd. With the uh support of the applicant, >> I'll second that. >> Thank you very much. Any comments? None. >> Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes.
>> Janet Robert Wilson, >> yes. Yes. >> Yeah. Vote. Yes. Okay. Took a little longer than I thought it was. We got a lot to do, guys. Uh 25 04489 Barl Cliff to be heard in accordance
with chapter 158. This is a um quite a interesting little house. Uh 1730 colonial era home. Um uh and uh it's in a beautiful spot.
There is a form B on the property. It's got quite an interesting history and uh a lot to be said for it. Chris, why don't you uh give us a quick introduction? I assume there's no argument relative to his house being historically significant. >> Absolutely not.
>> Okay, good. We can eliminate that quickly. >> I was going to suggest you just go through that. >> That's hard. >> That part of it. Um well I'm still Chris Cannon so uh we can dispense with that part. Um representing uh David and Caroline Cole
who are here with me today. Uh some of you met them yesterday. Um so uh we began I don't know about a year ago to look at um redoing their kitchen. Uh their kitchen
is um pretty old and uh they live here now full-time, which I think just happened this year. Um and uh so we looked at uh you know what we could do to to design the kitchen into the existing space. uh hoping to maybe add a
little bit to make a mud room and uh hopefully renovate the uh little uh porch that's there, the glassed in porch. And we realized through the process that uh the structure is just deficient. It's degrading. It's it's
sagging. It's uh there's not much to the uh glassed in porch. Um I think you know the glass itself may be holding up the roof, which is only 2x4s. Um, and the door that goes into it, uh, is about six foot two high. Ceiling
inside is about 80 inches. Um, so, you know, um, it there's not a lot of logic to uh to working with it. We we tried to uh we have a nice kitchen design uh, but it's very limiting uh, inside the
building. So, we started getting builders out to uh, you know, sort of price things out for us. so we could get a sense of the cost of the project. We had about four or five different ones. I don't have the exact number. Um, and each of them came through and they said,
"Why are you even trying to keep this? Why aren't you tearing it down?" Because part of the thing is that we're also looking to put a a basement area beneath it. And uh, you know, we could support it back and do that at at great cost. That's always the case. Um and um one of
the things was that we realized well there's no access to beneath these buildings. Not not the 1730 building, not the the portion that we're looking uh we're requesting to uh remove and reconstruct. And we're looking to reconstruct it with you know maybe a
foot higher uh but basically the same form and then have have an a small addition. So, um, so what we realized was that if we could get a foundation underneath here, we could then gain access to all the mechanical uh
potentially be able to get underneath the uh the main 1730 house and uh get mechanical under there, which is sorely lacking. Um, house uh is a hodgepodge of heating uh at this point. I don't even
think there's any air conditioning, is there? No. And you know, we'd like to avoid having many splits, which you know, pretty unsightly. Um, so, you know, in doing uh the heating work, we'd, you know, love to be able to get underneath everything. So, we thought,
well, let's run it up the flag pole. It's kind of where we are. and see, you know, if this uh piece of the building was as important uh to you as the the main piece, which is, you know, the um the Kohl's want to keep the house. They love the house.
They don't want to make the changes, but they recognize the need uh for this particular u piece to have some uh better structure and better height. Um, I was explaining to somebody yesterday, I did a house uh that was sort of similar uh and did a
kitchen uh that was three and a half inches out of square from one end or out of level from one end to the other. It's a pain in the neck to do that. And in today's world, and that was 35 years ago that I did that, in today's world, everything's done in in a cabinet shop.
And you know, they would have to come in and do some custom work on the site in order to make everything level. Here it's the same kind of thing. it's just sagging and uh so that's where we are. Uh is it his historically significant? Absolutely the 1730 portion is. I
couldn't tell you on this wing. I don't think that the the uh glass uh portion is. I think that was probably done in the 60s. What I could tell on uh as best I could in looking at the chronology viewer this morning uh Cape Cod
Commission um it doesn't look like any of this portion was on the house in 1938 but it also could have been in shade and just not showing but um it just didn't look like it because the buildings themselves were kind of white in the in
the image. So it could be there. It's just hard to tell. Right. >> But that's as far back as I could go to. >> Very good. U Thank you very much. Uh as you alluded to, you know, some of us made the site visit and and uh got a chance to meet the uh the Kohl's or the
next generation of the Kohl's uh in home. Uh and uh quite honestly, Chris, a very I think a very thoughtful uh attempt to uh expand the house, but still, in my opinion, maintain the integrity of the the the most historic
structure by still uh updating it and certainly a problem where it's down so low. That's that's a that's a problem. Don't have a FEMA issue, but you're going to have water issues eventually. Anyway, so uh yeah, so why don't we uh just quickly uh you know proceed uh
along everyone here and Bob, why don't you start? >> Uh thanks Frank. Um I did not make the site visit yesterday, but I did go out on Sunday and uh Mrs. Cole came out to find out what I was doing there, I assume, and uh gave me some background
and discussion about what they were up to and why. Um, and my view of it, looking around, um, taking the the drawings with me, um, I don't have a problem with it negatively impacting the
historic u character of the house and I I think it, um, would bear given the size and the proposed height that the height I thought was important um, but it doesn't intrude with the I guess
character defining features commission calls them. Um, so I'm okay with Chris's presentation and his plans. >> Very good. >> N I just want to talk about the date a little bit. Sorry. Um, but uh I think I
guess I just want to say I don't think the porch seems like that's a pretty recent addition. Um there's an 1894 bird's eye view of Chattam that um shows the house and definitely shows a front L that looks
very like the kitchen edition. So it it may well be historic within our terms. Um and I so I just want to say that you know you it's not a huge area. I I'm not going to pretend to understand all the mechanics required, but you know, it's
not a huge you can lift a relatively small structure to put a foundation under it. I I think it's all of these things sound like they need to be done. Um I guess I just question I realize that it's more expensive and I have a lot of respect for not having to
undertake that, but I don't want us just to brush off this edition because it certainly looks like it's well over a hundred years old from what I've looked at. I looked at the same pictures you did. It's really hard to tell if it's there. Um, so because I'm seem to be that person on a commission, I'm just
going to say I do think that the kitchen area is a historic L that was built before 1894. And so I think we should know that when we're making the decision for it to be torn down and replaced. I think everything you're proposing is tasteful. Um, I would love to see and
and I think it does not compromise the historic integrity of the 1730 original house. Um there's also a picture here of ill grandma who owned it um at one point that you may have not have seen. Um but so the stories are there for the house
that it it does have some of that integrity um that goes longer including the L. And so my question is is that something that you did you just decide not to consider it after people I mean I know that builders will always say you have to tear it down like why would you
save this little bit? Um it's historic. >> Yeah. Uh is that a question? >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Um I as I said this this whole process began until I filed for this which was
what maybe six weeks ago. Um uh I we had been trying to keep it and uh it was just that the feedback was you know consistent throughout and those guys were you know doing what they could to
poke through it in ways to understand it um you know what they would have to do to it. So um that was just you know as a as a product of feedback and um otherwise you know we always knew it was saggy. Um, we knew that there were going
to be challenges. We knew there's added cost, much added cost. Um, you know, when you when you hold a house back or lift it up, uh, you can't really lift it. You have to hold it back here and then go under. >> Um, so um, but it it is necessary to put
something beneath it in order to really access uh, all the mechanical. >> No, I I can hear you on that. >> There's no no question the added costs are going to be there. uh but they're reduced dramatically when you remove something and you start from scratch. >> Right. So full demolition. So you're not
saving any part of that part of the house at all. >> So that portion of it uh I would say, you know, no the rest of the house. Absolutely. We're we're not looking at all to tear it down. Um you know, it was just that that small wing. You know, again, we always assumed that because
there's no floor uh it's a brick floor in the in the uh glass in portion. >> No, I think the glass in portion is definitely not part of my comments. I would knock it down tomorrow. No problem. >> I'm just just having a little bit of a
problem with the whole wing going away um being fully demolished. Um >> just just I I'm sorry I wasn't able to come yesterday. I really would have liked. >> That's okay. This is why we're here to have this discussion. >> All right. Yes. Well, I was there
yesterday and um I uh agree with um Bob Lear's assessment and I having and actually I did go inside even though that's not our purview and I can really see uh from that standpoint why they
arrived at the decision that they did to even though they didn't really want to part with it that it really needs to be um it's the only way really to deal with it. So, I have no problem. It has been in the family for 40 years and uh now
it's theirs and living there full-time and I think they've thought about it long and hard. So, I have no problem. It's historic, but it will not significantly alter the um it will not diminish its importance. I don't think Steph.
>> Yes. Um I don't think it'll diminish the historic part of it at all really. I mean, there's a little bit underneath, but there has to be. >> Robert, >> uh, I agree with my colleagues here. It doesn't seem to be anything significant.
>> Yeah, Robert. >> Yes. Thanks. I did visit the house yesterday and appreciate the uh uh detailed tour and it's uh the main house uh is uh spectacular with a center chimney and I just wanted to confirm
that the chimney will stay. We're not touching it >> because it was not shown on the drawing. >> Yeah. Now, sometimes it's it's uh it's a little more than I want to do it. >> It's not on the drawing. We'll have to correct that. >> I would correct the drawing, please. Anyway, so u as to the L, I think, uh
you know, there's a so many pluses to this project. Uh uh the foundation is going to benefit the main house. The updated modern functional heating system is possible. There's only one foot higher on the new L. And maybe if it can
be as to the historic part of the L, if they can make it look pretty historic, it' be great. And I think overall the benefits of doing this project maybe outweighs the necessity necessity of uh taking out taking away part of it.
>> Okay. Just comment Nancy. You know, I I actually agree with you because when I first looked at it, you know, you know, and then looking at his comments and doing the site visit, it was obvious the house that element is is more than 100
years old. It may not show it all, but I guarantee you once you start demolishing it, you're going to find this 100-y old timbers and things inside that house in that in that addition. Um, and it just blows my mind the way they put it so
low. I can't believe that Barliff was raised that high over time. So, I don't know. It just sometimes streets tend to get higher, you know, but in this in you know, 17 17 the 1730. I was watching the revolution uh burns and you know, we
talk about 1770. This is 1730, guys. Okay, this was here before, you know, probably a bunch of Brits lived there. Anyway, but >> you know, Frank, if I can just comment, just having watched my own house for 30 years, uh, which is now kind of below the grade. >> Yeah.
>> Um, and you know that I have a house that is considered historic. Uh, and you got to weigh in on it. Um, we're now having to go back in and grade around the entire house again 30 years later. So, it does happen. It happens quickly. And 1730, my god, it's it's amazing. It's not two feet under.
>> There's a lot of dead leaves around that house. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Anyway, but my my point I was trying to make, Nancy, is the fact that I looked at it, but then I looked at the design of the additions, you know, they they had certain character, but I don't know about character defining issues and
that's why I I really just felt and also because the proposal from my point of view was relatively modest considering the kind of things we get sometimes. So anyway, u >> are you saying that you don't believe the L is historically significant? Is that kind of where you're recommending?
>> I think, you know, it's a compromise, you know. >> No, I'm just I'm not arguing with you. I'm honestly haven't decided how I feel yet. >> Yeah. No, I agree. Um, I'm just asking. >> Okay. Uh, I think we seem to have a strong consensus. Uh, Bob, why don't we do the historical significance and get
rid of that quickly and then we'll combine them. >> Okay. Okay. I move this Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at 89 Barcliffe Avenue is historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75 years old or more much more. And commission also
finds that it's associated with one or more historical persons with related to the cultural and social history of the town and possesses architectural value or significance in terms of period, style and method of construction. >> Second. >> Okay. Any other comments? Any member of
the public wish to speak for against the application? Seeing none, uh, will roll call. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes, yes.
>> We combine both of them. Yes, we did. >> You're looking for the date. >> I'm looking for the date of the plans. the date of there's uh August 19th. >> Okay, that well I've got I've got August 19th on the plans, but it does say preliminary. So just so we're
>> well we can still use this as the PL as the the defining plan for us to give to building and department. >> Okay. Jadum Historical Commission also finds the proposed Jadum Historical Commission also finds that the proposed work to be done dated
August 19th, 2025 will not materially diminish the historic significance of the building and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Thank you very much. Any member of the public wish to speak for or against? Okay, seeing none, roll call. Bob,
>> yes. >> Nancy, I'm going to abstain. Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. Providing the chimney drawings
>> and the chair vote for it. Make sure it's in the minutes. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Pleasure meeting you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> All right, guys. We've got Is uh Eric here? >> Yes.
>> Okay. Is uh Christine coming down? >> Oh, okay. >> Eric, before you go, Eric, this is uh Come, come forward. >> This is Eric Dre. >> Go to the podium.
>> You hear me? >> Go to the podium. >> Eric, are you there? >> I am. Yep. >> Can you hear me? This is uh Nancy Cole's son. >> Oh, >> Eric. >> I was just Hi, David. I know. I was
thinking >> his his his mother was one of my mother's best friends. >> Yeah. So, >> it's so great to see you, Eric. And and uh I'm I'm remiss. I haven't talked to your mother in a long time. So, I hope she's doing okay. >> She's doing all right. And I'll definitely tell her that we we saw each
other today. I just talked to her this morning. I I hope that the impression >> and I know and I know your mother would be thrilled I know your mother would be thrilled to know that you're still in that house. That's great. >> Yeah, it it is indeed. So, great to see you, Eric, and and look forward to >> Yeah, you too, David.
>> Thank you. Sorry about that. >> That's great. >> It's a small town. >> Okay. >> And I and I agree that house sits very very low, so I understand the value of a foundation there. >> Yeah. You know, I was looking at the application and and and this morning I
was looking at the form B and I said, "My goodness, that's Nancy." You know, anyway, small world. Okay. Uh we're in old business, no new business. And the first item we have is the um issue of
the u uh recommendation from the preservation consultant in updating the survey plan. I asked Eric, we're a little bit behind, but I wanted to spend a couple of minutes because we have a couple of new members on the commission and and for the members of the public to
just quickly Eric in uh I don't know when 2023 or whatever it was, he did a quick update of the survey plan and provided recommendations to the commission on how we could proceed. And Eric, I'll let you do the talking, but
can you give us a quick overview for the members of the commission and also for the public who may be listening in, you know, just what what is this? What are these form B's? What's this all about? And when did the commission do something about it?
>> Um, well, two two of the most vital components of preservation planning are identification and protection. And for historical commissions, identification means uh conducting an inventory. And that by inventory that means the form
B's that we that you often look at as well as area forms. And um every historical commission throughout the state, you know, has is in some state of trying to develop a comprehensive inventory. And and I'm happy to say that Chadam, you know, is is is very well
along that path. Um I got involved back in 2013 and first did uh 52 formbs uh within the CHBD. Um and but then before proceeding with additional phases of survey work, I
recommended uh that we do what's called a survey plan where you uh have the town generate a database of every building over x years old. And in Chadam, we chose the 75 because of demo delay. Um,
and then and then fold into that database and that came out to be about 2500 buildings and then folded into that database all the buildings that had been surveyed already. Um, and then conducted uh a a windshield survey where I went
out and drove by uh every one of those uh buildings to determine whether there's anything, you know, physically that, you know, compels something to be surveyed or not surveyed, you know, such as lack of visibility or that has been severely altered. And um out of all that
work, we generated a a series of recommendations back in 2015. And there's a a a street index uh for that. And we broke it down into prioritization of high, medium, and low priority and then some with no priority
at all. And um since that time, we have completed the inventory for all of the recommended in the high and medium categories. Um but also another almost 10 years had passed and so we thought it might be a good idea to revisit the rest of the recommendations and come up with
a revised or updated survey plan moving forward. And that's what and that's the the cover page of I we did it in 2013 and then updated it uh in 20 I mean 2023 and updated it in 2024. And the core findings from that um updated survey
plan is that um you we have 635 formbbs that I think are are done and to a sufficient level of you know current standards. Um, we recommended that or I recommended that there's a hundred buildings that have not yet been surveyed
that should be and these include uh resources within the two national registered districts where it's likely that you may be looking at them in your role as in terms of preservation planning on the protection side. Um, that there are properties in the NR districts, commercial properties that still haven't been surveyed that are
over 75 years old in the CHBD. um and good examples of colonial revival uh and post-war traditional houses and mid-century modern houses. um so and so so that was one part of the recommendations from the updated survey
plan. Um and then I also, you know, we looked at the survey that had been done in the past. And um there are 245 survey forms that were completed between 1978 and 1991. And you know, interestingly, you know, looking at 89 Barliff, that is
an example of one of the ones that was done in 1991. and um they're generally well done for their time, but there's just a lot more information that typically would be gathered now if they were be if they would were to be done or
updated today. Um, you know, back in '91, there was no access to online, you know, vital records, you know, resources through ancestry.com and other such websites. There was no ability to do title searches. There was limit less ability to access certain historic maps.
And so forbes today typically include a lot more information. And so to the extent that you also feel it might be recommended to do, I I think it would be of value also to update some if not all of those 245, you know, form B's that are 35 years or
older. Um but I I but my understanding is that and and so and so since that time funds have now been generated to do uh another round of of about 33 form B's and and uh the decision of which
buildings to do you know would be will be decided in conjunction with you all and my understanding at least working with staff and Frank so far is that and understandably is that they would like to prioritize the buildings that have not been surveyed at all yet. So, you know, so do
start to do those out of that list of 100 um that I recommended to be done. And so, if you if you all agree that that should be our priority moving forward, then you know, we can decide how to decide how to decide which of
those 100 uh which 33 of those should be done next. >> Right? You know, if you look at this page three of the uh Thank you. All right. If you look at
page three of the form and it's on the screen right now, uh, inventory in Chattam to date, I think, you know, this this really says a lot about the Chattam Historical Commission and the debt in my view that we owe the original commission
members and how it was created. You know, yeah, we're about demolition delay. we were about uh you know enforcing the National Register District and all that kind of stuff, but essential to any historic preservation efforts is the documentation to know
what you have. And I think very early on the historical commission back in the 70s when it was created u you know acknowledged that it was essential that we knew it was an old town. We knew there was a story, but we didn't know the real story. And and the form B's,
you know, allowed us to document. Nancy can attest because she and I are prone for we used to do these ourselves. There was no Eric Dre. Okay. The commission members when you got hired on when you got appointed to the commission, you were assigned a street and you had to go
do the form B's. Good luck on that one. Okay. It became very apparent very soon, you know, as a lowly electrical engineer. I'm not a historian, you know, and and then the idea, the concept of hiring professionals uh over the years
and and I think Eric has done done good duty for us in the last 10 or 15 years and and the completion and and I think it's important. I know when I attend various meetings of other historical commissions and other towns on the Cape,
we're head over heels on a lot of towns. I mean, you know, this is not Concord and Lexington, you know, in terms of a deep history of uh the thing, but we do have a history that is well documented and I think it it bodess us well when of an application, you know, what is this
house? I mean, this beautiful house we just heard 1730. I mean, you know, that that is amazing. and the house is still there and it's still standing. Anyway, now I'm pontificating. I apologize, but I thought it was important that we and there's a couple of new members to the
commission, uh, three new members relatively, you know, get an understanding of the depth of the history of of this and what we have to do. And quite honestly, it ain't easy getting money to do more. And we will, and we're at that point. And I do
appreciate Eric's uh Eric's uh guidance on on this particular matter. Uh does anybody have any other questions or else I can sum up a bit? Yes, Robert. >> Yeah, I just had an observation that I did get a chance someone provided was it
you Nancy the list uh the detailed list of maybe Yeah. >> Oh, >> yeah. But I I went down the list and I looked at houses that I I know about and uh I'm like you an engineer and I don't
have uh any uh claim to be a historic expert or anything but I do have my impressions and I will say some of the buildings that were ranked L in my view they should take a second look. So anyway, but I won't say exactly
which ones. C certain people I know that live there might not want to be >> because it might limit >> well things. So anyway, >> just to just a clarification. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. Ju just a clarification that I I guess that that actually was part of the
goal of updating these the survey plan in 2023. >> Great. >> Is looking at all those that were designated as L and re-evaluating whether they should in fact be surveyed. So some of those buildings have now definitely been added to the list of Yes. >> Excellent. Excellent. Yes, Nancy. Go ahead.
>> Um, Eric, are you going to update the actual street listings so that if we wanted to see the change in designation from no to L or L to high or like that's what I'm finding like um every time I want to look and say has this like
sometimes I've looked for a form on the Macris database. It says it's done on my 2015 list. Macris doesn't have a PDF and I'm like uh what's so if we had an updated list I'd know if that had something had been noticed and changed
in those 10 years. Um, anyways, >> yeah, I guess I guess unfortunately I I provided a comprehensive updated list in 2023 and 2024, so I guess it didn't get circulated to all of you, but I I have done exactly that and and um but I can
resend it. Um, and it it it the list I have now documents everything that has been surveyed and the date that the survey was done and those that I recommend for survey now. and rather than and one one change we made is RA the ones that I don't recommend for
survey now I don't have in that column a no u because I think that got interpreted I think things you know opinions and times change and so rather than saying something should not be surveyed I just don't issue a recommendation on on on on the rest of
the properties but the but the the the streets the street index that I have generated now for you will have exactly what you're looking for. >> Great. So, it's not just the ones you've updated, but it's the full street listing like the 20. Oh, that's awesome. Yeah, I would love maybe we could have
share that again. Um, one more question if you don't mind. Sure, sure. Go. >> Um, if there's if there's um something that is noticed that is incorrect or there's a question about an existing form B or why isn't there a form like when MACRIS, you know, we say there's a form, MACRIS doesn't have it. How do we
resolve those? Is that something we should be working with you? Should we Is there a way to like a correct a form B that's been uploaded? Um I'll talk to you offline a little bit more about it as you're working on the project maybe about what I'm coming things I'm finding in specifically. But I guess what I'm
wondering is in brief what is the process for changing or editing a form B that has already been gone to MACRIS? I mean, if it's a form B that dates to the 1970s up to 91, the process some I I
think sometimes should be doing an entirely new form B. >> I'm I'm generally talking about more recent ones. I think >> if there's more recent ones and there's sort of corrections or additional information has been discovered, there's a there's a a form called the continuation sheet. >> Okay? And you you would you would
include that information either under the architectural description or historical narrative, you know, you know, heading and then that would be added onto the onto the, you know, scanned in. >> Yeah. >> Can I suggest have a conversation with Eric?
>> Yeah. Is that part of I guess I'm trying to find out is that part of his commission, come out to us with a recommendation and we'll work with Christina relative to how we maybe want to get something else. >> Sounds good. modify the contract. You know, this is an ongoing thing. And that
was kind of the purpose for today, introduce the subject and say, "Hey guys, you know, we're not done and there's a lot more to do, but it's like a funding thing, you know." >> I think maybe some of the forms were that were done like in South Chattam during when they were trying to get a whole bunch done. >> Yeah.
>> Um I Yeah, I have some questions about them. Maybe >> I I I know I I >> I didn't do them and I I agree. I agree with you completely. >> Okay. Well, we can have a conversation then. And that would be great. >> Eric, thank you very much. >> Okay. >> All right. Thank you guys.
>> Eric, thank you. We'll be in touch. >> We're Everything's copacetic contractwise. He's off and running. >> Um, we haven't given him >> We haven't given him marching orders, but yes. >> Okay, great. All right. >> So, is having a conversation with him? Okay. I just don't want to like start
using his time. >> Unfortunately, >> I don't want to start using his time. if just let me know when I can contact him because I don't want to start using his time if he's not on contract. >> Yes, I can have that conversation. >> You can give him a call. He's fine. >> Okay. >> He's he's been with us a while. All
right, guys. We've I thought this was going to be a short meeting, but unfortunately not. U we we have one other thing which we really need to address because we've been talking about it for years and I'm getting tired of talking about it. Uh and that is the
next item, the demolition by neglect. Uh Christine O'Grady is I think online. Hi Christine. Uh and uh I guess staff and I have been worrying about
this for a long time and unfortunately you know it's like the military hurry up and wait. Um and um and so you know during COVID we got kind of turned off and thing didn't happen and we did a lot of
research Steph did a lot of research up front and and I decided that we decided was we got priorities knocked around a bit to uh to look for some help from the staffwise uh and then Christine came on
board uh and I asked Katie Donovan to you know assign her this task and the task I guess the way it's been interpreted at this particular point is a staff report for a summary of what's happened and what's not happened. So uh
you all have a copy of it and hopefully you've read it. Uh and you know and I my only comment up front Christine you know it's a good summary of of where we are of of where everybody else is. Okay. And
um and like you say in a couple of places you're still awaiting response about the success or not success but u and then you provide some u
I guess I would call it suggestions and uh what we can or can do. But uh you know in my mind at least maybe I'm on a beating a dead horse here.
I don't believe that there is a question of whether we do or do not need this. And as I said from the beginning this is a tough one. It's not an easy one. I've done it in my other life. And how do we how do we proceed? So I guess you know
without you know completely shortcircuiting it is what is your what's your sense in summary of where we are and what in your opinion we should or should not how we should proceed and that's really the question at this particular juncture I'm kind of looking
for a little help looking for the stones as we step across the water you know like how could we proceed because I think there is consensus within within the commission and I think clearly And what just happened here with the um
uh the Monoy Theater is a good example of demolition by neglect uh which we know it's not de being demolished and hopefully will never be but you know we we think we want to do something and and you're given us a lot of tasks here what
we can or cannot do but what would be in your opinion a way to proceed with this you know from a priority perspective? Well, let me start by saying um I am not a preservation planner by trade. Um >> I have worked with preservation planners
in the past and I've worked with communities that focus on preservation planning. Um I basically, like you said, I took your your previous um things with your last planner that you worked on and kind of went through them and looked at it again. And then I also happened to
look at what the Cape Cod Commission is doing now. So they've kind of changed their, you know, they've kind of changed their philosophy a little bit on it. And I see that the, you know, in some places they have stayed away from the residential piece of it. I I get the
impression that that's not what this group is looking to do. Um, I I don't I don't think that I have the the knowledge or the wherewithal to kind of tell you what you should or shouldn't be doing at this point. I'm just trying to to give you some options that you can
proceed and then if you tell us how you want to proceed as a group um you know but what I am I am also pointing out is that you know there are some obstacles with what you want to do. I mean, and the biggest one is, you know, when when home in if you decide to do it for
residential, you know, is if if a homeowner says that they do not have the money to do it, they do not have the means to do it, you know, do you have an actual funding source to back that up or not? And, you know, if you don't, then maybe that's not, you know, real an a realistic option for
you to proceed with going about it. you know, maybe you should start with the with the commercial or maybe you should um you know, focus on certain groups or certain areas of town, you know, because you can't save every structure at the end of the day, right? You can't save
every structure. You can't your interpretation of what you know, neglect is might be different from what the homeowner, the property owners is. You know, they they might not see it the same as you. >> Yes. Um, so unless it's clearly spelled
out, you know, and you do have a way to help them get over it if they do have a financial problem, you know, then that gives you a little bit more teeth. But you can't I I don't think you can just arbitrarily, you know, I mean, you have to have something clearly defined what you consider neglect. So I guess that's
what some of the things that you should be considering if you want to really pursue this. You know what what are the what are the criteria because you have to spell out the criteria clearly to everybody as a starting point. You know what do you consider neglect as a board?
What do you consider to be you know um uh a safety concern? Are you are you looking at those things? Are you looking strictly at the outside of the uh you know the whole entire property? Are you looking at the structure? Are you you
have to spell it out for what you what you expect of people and what you know there has to be a clearly defined set of guidelines for them to follow or for you to point to and say this. And then you also have to have the backing of the select board. You have to have them
saying to you yes you know we will put some financial monies or you know give you some money to do this so that you can help somebody who comes forward and says that there is a financial thing or else you have to have the option to do waivers you know and realistically you have to be considering whether or not
you're going to be granting more waivers than not and does it become you know a burden on your commission you know is it be is it better to focus on certain areas is it better to get your inventory back up to date first and get that in line. Um, is it better to
concentrate on it seems like the the Cape Cod Commission is leaning more towards reuse of, you know, of certain properties. So maybe there maybe there is some type of a contingency fund when something gets to a level, you know, where some somebody maybe can't afford it. Maybe you suggest that it, you know,
that they go into some other other thing and that you you look at it for a commercial piece instead. You know, I mean, there's a lot of different things. I I I just I guess I need more direction from you. I can't spell it out for you. I I I think you make you made it clear
and in from your perspective and I guess you know well we didn't make it clear enough relative to what we want from your office uh from my perspective u you know the terms of documentation I think as
you as you heard in the previous speaker Eric Dre there's no question Chadam has done an excellent job in documenting what we consider historic structures in the town and that's what we're trying to protect protect those structures which
are historically significant from demolition by neglect. You know, drawing a fine line between a commercial property and and a uh and a residential property, you know, that yes, okay, that's that's an issue and those are
decisions that have to be made. I wasn't looking up front, you know, to make all the decisions. I was looking for a pathway. How do we proceed? And I think, you know, we've taken it the first step in that there are a number of communities that do have a demolition
delay and they are being enforced minimally, but they are being enforced and it's on the books and some more towns are considering it as we the pressure on on homes and and properties is uh is increasing. So I guess maybe
the way for me for us to proceed on this okay is uh well I'll we'll they hate subcommittees but maybe Steph and I will get together and outline something on paper to give you some guidance on how
we could or could not proceed. Yes. >> One of the things I found very interesting, I looked at the material that I had collected five years ago compared to the uh stuff that you had material that you had provided us and it seems to me that especially Orleans some
they're going backwards. They're they're going away from >> Yes. Yeah. >> So I don't know if you have to look into that. Yeah. Robert. Yes. >> Yeah. I just had the uh basic question. Uh I assume the basic problem is that
there are some nice buildings out there that kind of are uh disintegrating before our eyes and we want to intervene in some way in a in a productive way. So uh right now there's no intervention going on and uh so it would be good to
would a first step be question would a first step be to identify the top 10 top five historic buildings that seem to be being neglected >> well you see >> that already been done maybe it's already been done >> yeah I think this this came about when
this commission had at least two or three structures which were very historic which were demolished. One was 1715 or something on Bridge Street. You know, the house was just completely neglected. And guess what? They waited long enough and boom, you know, it came
down and and we had a couple of them. This this is not a widespread problem. This is not this is not, you know, a problem where like there's 50% of the houses in Chattam are being neglected. Okay. It's very specific and that's then
I agree with you. What I was looking for and I think what I need to do is be more definitive with with Christina in terms of some of the criteria that you know could not proceed and we'll do that and again this was just the purpose we've been trying to get together and it's
been difficult you know ships passing in a night to find time to talk about this. Yes, Janet. No, I I I agree with what um Bob Wilson is saying, but I think what Christine is saying is that we need or someone the
town or us needs to define what neglect is. I mean, we know it when we see it, but it hasn't been written down. >> And that's that's it. >> Janet, you're absolutely right. And that's shame on me. Okay. I was looking for a planner to tell me that. Okay. And
it didn't happen. >> She can't do that. >> Yeah. Well, she can do it. She just has to be told how to do it in my opinion. Yes, Nancy. >> I Okay. >> Um, sorry, never mind. >> All right. >> I was just going to say that I do think
it's important um I that the experience does seem to be that demolition by neglect is an issue, but when you try to >> address it, >> um it is tough to do this from a policy
and that people who places that have tried it are backpedaling a bit from it. So we should take that I mean I you know as learning and I also think that we should the idea of do you do it in your historic districts like you know that maybe starting it in a limited b way but
certainly defining what we mean >> sure we could you know we didn't appro we didn't approach this I didn't want to provide this is what I want to do I kind of like give me some sense of what's going on out there you know what's the world what's happening in the world give me a sense and I can give you some a lot
of towns where it's very successful not necess neessarily in Massachusetts, but there are a lot of places where it's working quite well. And uh anyway, Christina, >> so I think maybe what you should do is you should start by if if there is a community that you know, whether it be in Massachusetts or not, is you get a
copy of their bylaw and then you work from from that and you you know, you clearly >> define what the criteria are, what you consider neglect because maybe what you consider neglectful is different from what I would see, you know, or somebody like me, right? So that you have to clearly put that out there, that
criteria. When the planning board looks at, you know, something for site plan review, they always go back to their criteria. So, you know, and that's how they that's how we go through each each application. So, if you really want to have a demolition by neglect bylaw and
you want to bring something forward to town meeting, we need to start with a you need to start with something. So, if there's a good example, there's no sense in reinventing the wheel. just fit that, you know, to and I can give you the ones that I've seen here, but if you know of another one, I could point you in the direction of that and then you could
start to mark it up as a group and then you could put in the pieces that you that you see because again, you're all looking at it and you're all saying it's neglected. But what is it? And then you also have to have a plan of action. Like I mean if somebody comes forward and says they don't have the money to fix
whatever it is that you know whatever it is you can't I mean >> there's a myriad of issues get blood from a stone. >> So you need to have some you need to have a plan and action to help them to get to that point. In some cases that might not be the case.
>> That's just one issue Christina. you know, you you gave a long laundry list of things that yeah, we should consider it and I agree with you and and and we we can do that if if that's how we want to proceed. In the meantime, from my perspective, I would just ask you where you are still awaiting, if you could
pulse those communities for me and find out if there is any input and then we'll get we'll get back together at some particular point and I'll try to get together with Steph and review some of the stuff that we already did years ago and kind of dot the eye, cross the tea
and come back to the commission with some kind of an outline on how we proceed. Guys, this thing has been sitting around for years and you know, we just wanted to it's one more thing on my bucket list here before I leave and uh and I was wanted at least to get it addressed. Christina, thank you very
much. I do appreciate it. Thank you. >> You're welcome. >> All right, guys. Uh I need to move quickly here if we may. There's a couple things just quick announcements if you may. Um, Monoy Theater, you know, you you saw
what happened. They were denied the permission to uh demolish the theater. Uh, they're 99% sure they're going to be appealing it to the board of selectmen. We'll see where that happens. But, you know, I've been in involved with the
Modoy Theater for a good 15 years, one way or the other. And uh I still have in the back of my hind we're going to find a way to save that structure one way or the other. Uh this is Chadam. Uh we've done it in the past and uh we'll find a way. I'm hope hope springs eternal. Uh
but and nothing else to add on that other than we are we are where we are. Uh I'm going to pass by the issue of uh uh rules and regs. Bob, we'll get that at the next meeting if we could. Okay. And this is very simply for us to make a
decision how we want to modify the rules and regulations and provide a suggestion back to town the community development on this is how we think we want to operate if we want to delegate the issue of historical significance. We all know the issue. We get an application. It's
obvious this thing is not historically significant. Why are we here? Why are we spending time and money to do this? And is there a way we could legitimately legally shortcircuit that process by allowing staff, this young lady to my
left, right, to be involved in that? Okay. Uh just a quick quick things I wanted to comment uh on the uh the Nichson family association and the archeological dig. Uh there was a meeting I had with the Nickersonson
family association and the Cape Cod Foundation. It was a good meeting. It was a coordination meeting with Holly Herbster of PLA, the archaeologist who now is preparing the actual application. She continues to be very very hopeful that based upon the comments we receive
from Mass Historic relative to the determination of eligibility. We're going to get there. It's it's not if we are going to be designated, it's when. But it's going to take a good two years. you know, those of us have been around with the old village and with the
South Cadam, it takes time for it to happen, but I I think I think we have a good a good a good chance for that thing to go forward. That's the only other thing I have uh from my perspective. Sorry it got so longwinded. Oh, sorry. We had a meeting, Christina, myself, and
Janet, the preservation awards committee. It was a good meeting. We now have uh two representatives from the HBDC plus an ATL large member Tom Gilmore who's on the ZBA. >> Steve >> Steve >> Steve Bor. >> Okay. The other fellow, right?
>> Okay. He used to be on the HBDC. All right. So, uh you know, we we are moving ahead. We think we're thinking about possibly moving the preservation awards ceremony to June rather than May, but we got to talk about that. And the other thing quite honestly is we potentially
have a good five maybe 10 applications. We'll see. >> Just wanted to tell you that uh Kevin has resigned as of March so he'll be changing the committee. >> Yes. Yes. Uh yeah, that's I seems like yesterday I was trying to help Kevin
find a job and now he's leaving. So uh yeah, so if anybody's interested in becoming executive director of the historical society, there's an open position. Yeah. Anyway, you got spare time. Anyway, u yeah, that's uh we're going to miss him. He's he's been a good
guy. Uh that's pretty much it, guys. Um you did have in your packet a copy of the 2026 uh calendar >> last time. >> Yeah, take a look at it. See if there any areas that you're not going to be around, you know, so we should know up
front. We still have at least one member of the commission alternate position open. Please keep your noses out there if we can find somebody. And of course, Sandy is been on off. She's not sure she wants to continue. Uh so we we might
have a second a second uh position open on the commission and it would be good. Thank you very much. Listen, something else. Motion >> clerk. I move we adjourn.
>> I'll second it. >> Rob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes. Thank you very much.