Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and this is the June 17, 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, please notify the chairman. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 acts of the
signing of chapter two of the acts of 2025 certain provision certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law 3820 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 persons who would like to listen to this meeting while
while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410. conference ID 865897167 hashtag or join the meeting online via Microsoft Teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live
broadcast and Simo cast on Chattam TV Exfinity channel 72 despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide real access. You reduced the type face on that didn't you? I'm wondering I'm
Thank you very much. I know you're trying to get it to two pages. Okay. Okay. All right. Here we go. Uh thank you very much. We need a roll call to find out who's here. Uh Bob Leer, vice
chair here. Nancy Bar clerk here. Stephanie Hamilton here. Sandy Porter here. Janet Tennyson here. Robert Stevens here. Stevens here. and alternate Robert Wilson here and the
chair is here. We have a full uh seven members of the commission. Uh Robert's Robert Wilson is the alternate. Robert will participate in the in the hearing and in uh questions. He just will not have a vote during the meeting. Okay. Uh
just quickly, the minutes of June 3rd, 2025. I think Annie did a good job in capturing the extended discussion on 389 Bridge Street and I'm going to be sure with Christina
that the determination makes it clear are how we would like them to proceed and I think they agreed to. Any other comments, questions, suggestions, changes? Yeah, I get an A+ today. Okay. Motion. So, I move we accept the minutes
as written. Second. Second. Thank you very much. Okay. No other comments. Quick roll call. Bob Leer. Yes. Nancy. Yes. Stephanie Hamilton. Sandy Porter. Yes. Janet Tennyson. Yes.
Robert Stevens. Yes. And Robert Wilson. Yes. And the chair Vess. At the public notice, we have three Roberts, so things get a little dicey sometime. All right,
we have uh three applications and um I'm going to ask uh the uh public and the the the chair I'm going to change the agenda a little bit and move the uh the third one 2516 69 Orleans Road and keep
uh 70 Sears Point last rather than tying some people out because it might be a little longer than our normal uh hearing. Okay. So the first application is 2514 uh we heard under chapter 158. This is a
technically a partial demolition of 141 Kapikn cut. Okay, that's close enough. Would you come on up? Uh this is for the members of the commission and to
the public. Things happen. Okay. I want to just get a little preamble here. Uh there's no question this property at this address has a very historic home
uh which goes back into the 1700s and over period of time I'll probably giving you a speech there was an addition not an addition but basically another structure put on the property. I don't know how they got away with that from the planning board from us but they
did. So the the problem is or the question is uh we're really not addressing the historic property but that's not the way the system works. An address is in an address and what this case the address
there's only one address for the property which has two two structures independent structures. So having said that, technically we probably could have handled this a different way, but why don't you introduce yourself and just quickly give us an overview of what happened and what Good morning. My name
is Joe Pillo, owner of Perilla Construction. My brother and sister-in-law bought this house in 2020. And uh we did some work on the main house and on the and on the annex is
what we call it. And the deck was rotted on the bottom layer. It was rotted right through. The dogs were getting caught underneath. So I removed it just it was a safety hazard. And the stairs that went up to the second door were also
rotted and rickety and we didn't need them. There's stairs on the inside. It was just so I removed them not knowing that I needed a demolition permit to remove rot which I didn't understand at the time. That was in 2020. Since then I
got my mass general contractor's license. I pull permits in Chad Towns all I understand the rules a lot better now. So that being said, I did take it down without a permit.
So okay, uh I think most of us made the site visit. Um so I guess we get a sense of what happened. It are they literally two homes? Two No, it's it's Is it a cottage? Is it's a
it's like an little in-law apartment. Yeah. So it's considered a house and a cottage. Correct. Okay. That's how they because it's not subdivided for too long. A lot of it a lot of it was done before my brother. Of course. Yeah. No, I just was interested because that's part of the issue. What happened? I believe so. It was it was marked as
eight bedrooms, eight bathrooms, but legally. Yeah. It can only be okay. Two and five. I guess I'm asking two. So that was the issue I believe. Yeah. I'm asking that in a form of an apology really from my perspective between Christina and myself. You see the
address? Well, okay. Well, you know, it's more than 75 years historic home 4B. we're going to hear it and then when you start looking into it and and for just a quick aside for the members of the commission at some particular point I don't know maybe in the fall we're going to revisit our rules and regs
again to try and get get some sense from the from the uh staff if you will just how far we can take our administrative approval. So something like this technically wouldn't come through the, you know, the town doesn't need his 150 bucks, you know, and you know, we don't
have to put everybody through because it's an expense that we we probably shouldn't bear the individuals nor the town. So um okay, uh I don't believe I mean from my view and Bob I I need your help here because I don't view the structure we're
worrying about as historically significant versus the the other property. But I don't know how we go proceed. And so does any will anybody have any comments about this whole thing? I I'm maybe a little confused about which the the
centerpiece is the old barn. Is that how that works? There's an old barn. Yes. And that's historically significant. Yes, it is. Okay. So, I guess we really have to I I think we can deal with it by saying we find it's partially historically significant, but that the
activities which took place did not um Got it. hurt that part of it. All right, good. They improved that part of it. All right, that's that sounds good. All right. Um what I can run around the room, but does anybody really have anything more to add? I seem we have a
consensus that this is a something that just happened. Okay, Robert. Um Bob, let's just get to the 4. Um, I move that the Cadam Historical Commission find that the a structure
located at 141 Cotch Pinnick Road is historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75 years old or more and it is also associated with historical persons and events of the town of Chattam and it possesses
architectural value as stated in the form B that it's a wellpreserved and detailed example of traditional regional type Um, and therefore we find it's historically significant. I'll second it. Okay. Any
other comments or questions? Any member of the public wish to speak for against the application? Okay. The historical significance we're voting on. All right. Uh, Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Stephanie,
yes. Sandy, yes. Janet, yes. Robert, and the chief vote, yes. All right. All right, that's part one. I'm also moved that the Chattam Historical Commission find the proposed work to be done dated May 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. Any other discussion? Any members of the public wish to speak for against the application? Seeing none, Bob? Yes. Nancy? Yes,
Steph. Yes, Sandy. Yes, Janet. Yes, Robert. Yes, the chair votes. Thank you very much. Thank you guys. Have a great day. Welcome to Cadam. Okay. Uh again, I'm going to just flip so we move it quickly through this. Uh
Mr. Miner, you're in attendance? Yes, I am. Okay, very good. Uh application 2516 671 Orleans Road. This is a an application to fully demolish demolish a
cottage on the property. This property as your sheet, your summary sheet indicates uh it's for a full demo, but the commission had determined that it previously was not historically
significant. did not impose a demo delay, but a determination ran out and the applicant needed to reapply. So, this is another one which falls in the same category of what we just discussed. We got to find a better way to handle this uh so it's less less of a burden to
the public and to the administrative cost to the town. All right. Uh Brian, why don't you just quickly introduce yourself and just tell us what's happening again? Uh, good morning. Thanks for, you know,
having this hearing. Uh, I'll just quickly go off on Frank's comment that I would call this an administrative expiration of something that's already been uh, reviewed and designated not
historically significant. So, nothing about the building has changed since 2022 when it first went through the process. I believe I might have the, you know, the year wrong, but the the punchline of it all is um we're continuing with with our plan
to replace the cottage with another structure which is already permitted and um and and I had overlooked until just a few weeks ago the fact that your previous review had expired. Okay, good. All right. Again, pretty
straightforward. Does anybody have any comments about the application? I think we have consensus that we should we should go through the process one more time administratively. Yes, I'm sorry. Oh, I'm I apologize. Why don't you come forward? Please introduce yourself.
Well, okay, good. Just for information as you as you're coming forward, there seems to be a consensus that the commission is going to allow it, but please Thank you. Um, I think we were here before when he got the introduce yourself. My name is
Barbara Harris and I own the driveway that Mr. Miner uses. Yes. For his constructions and um I have no idea um what's going to happen. I understand that it's going to be torn down and that's not relevant. Yes. My concern is
my property uh which is being used by him. The apron at the end of the driveway is in desperate bad condition. It's uh chunks falling off of it all the time. As you pull into the driveway,
it's created a huge dip. Could I interrupt you a second? Yes. I know it's not a concern of yours, but No, no, it's not. No, no, no. It's not wrong word. It's not a concern. Not that it's not a concern. It's a concern of course, but we have no jurisdiction. What you're speaking of and quite
candidly should pro properly be addressed to the building the building commissioner, Mr. Briggs. Okay? You know, and and I think that's correct. Uh and in the annex right here, Christine Basset is upstairs and they will listen
to it and provide the appropriate person to talk to for that kind of discussion. Okay. All right. So, I thought the last time you were here or I was here with the the application for the tear down um
that you required him to maintain or repair any things that had happened in the driveway. I don't think so. That may have been the zoning board. That may have been the zoning zoning, you know, because I think he had to go to zoning or planning.
Okay, Mr. Miner, is that correct? Uh um we we went through every part of the process as required. I'm sorry I didn't get that. It's kind of a non-answer. Said he went through every we we did go through every part of the required process and everything was approved. Got
it. So he repaired Was that Ryan that you repaired the destruction on the on the apron? It's really not this is really not gerine to our discussion. I apologize for that. But but you nobody's not
making you know your your issues your concern should be addressed to the building department and they can provide you with someone who's responsible and the necessary enforcement. Thank you. All right. All right. Thank you very much. Anybody else wish to speak for
against it? Yes, ma'am. Sorry. I just want to clarify for the public in just because we all are very aware of the situation that again we're talking about a a separate cottage. The property itself, the main residence is historically significant and we're
talking about the property outback which is a totally separate cottage. Yes. And I just wanted to clarify that because it we hadn't said that. Yes, we could make that clear in the motion. Mr. Mer. Okay. Yep. Um, I move the Chadam historical I move the Chattam Historical Commission
finds that the cottage located at 671 Orleans Road is not historically significant because it does not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2 AB or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a dem
demolition delay. Second. Thank you very much. Any member of the public wish to speak on the issue of historical significance? Thank you. Seeing none, we'll do a roll call. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Stephanie,
yes. Sandy, yes. Janet, yes. Robert, yes. And the chair votes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you all. Oh, yeah. We So that's right. We need We clumped it together. We clumped it together. Yeah. All right, guys.
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. You know, we used to do that. We used to do it all in one. And and yeah, but it at sometimes it got confusing. So we my friend Mr. Bob uh Bob Allo was the one
who Yeah, I can see I think sometimes it's appropriate and sometimes it's better to do it separately. Right. in the simple ones it is, but that's another one where it probably could have easily been done as an administrative review. Yes, I agree. And but we need to change and by the way, we'll talk about
it under old business, but they what's holding this up, not holding this up, is we're trying to get town council to give us some guidance on how to proceed with that. All right. Um here we go. Uh, application 2515
70 Sears Point to be heard in accordance with chapter 158. This is an application to uh well to make some changes personally significant in nature to uh
home. There is a form B on the property. This property is uh interesting property when you know who who built it and who lived there over years. So um we do have some issues
to to take care of uh on the survey list. I'm just wondering anything else on the in the overview. No. Uh having said that uh personally
I think some of these changes rather significant but we need to talk about it. So why don't you introduce yourself Leslie? You just said um my name is Leslie Schneburgger Schneburgger Collective. Um nice to see all of you today. Um I'm here representing Susan and Greg
Shorton. Um the new owners of 70 Sears Point. May I go ahead and and present? All right. U May I go ahead and explain the project? Explain the project. Yeah. Right. Exactly. Yeah. Is are you going to start
with that sh that chart? Uh that works fine for me. Um that's fine because I think that says it all. Okay. Um if I may, thank you for moving us to the end to give a little more time. And if I could take a little bit of your time. Um, I'd like to tell um actually summarize the history of the property um
and then talk about um what we're proposing to do. Um so as all of you probably know um the Ruth Sears Reed house um is at 70 Sears Point. Um it was part of the um Willard Sears property that was established in 1910. Um in 1922
his daughter Ruth Sears Reed um p purchased that portion of the property. um in 1930. Um I'm going into some of this because there was question yesterday about the age of the home and the age of the structures. And this is a little bit of the history of it. Um in
1930, uh there was a deed recorded by Ruth Reed Sears that um Ruth Sears Reed, I apologize. Um that uh showed the the main cape um the square of the cape on the property. So we know that the house was in the area at that time. Um, in
1940s, uh, additions were put on. Um, her son is Ted, um, was Ted Williams Reed, um, the architect. Hope I'm getting that right. A little nervous. Sorry. Um, Ted Sears Reed. Um, and what he did
was he, um, added to the house. Um, so his mother, Ruth, I'm going to skip ahead and then backwards. Um his mother Ruth um actually uh was friends with the next owners, the Eckert family that has owned the house up until the Shortens purchased it last year. Um and through
conversation with her, they learned that um Ted used this house um as um a reproduction of sorts even in the 1940s. So the beams that are in the house, he's act he actually salvaged from um a old
shipwreck. So, the living room has these beautiful wooden beams um that he got from a shipwreck and put on into the house. Um the living room has um a really beautiful what the Shortens are now using as their dining room to kind of highlight has this beautiful woodwork
around part of that central three three fireplace area. Um and that came from a project he had worked on an antique um in the in the Western Mass area and um was brought down and recreated into the house. Um, so it's my belief that the
sun rooms, which are slab on grade, um, that are at the front of the house as well as at the back of the house, I believe he he put those on, um, adding to the L that was there. And then the Eards um, in the '9s um, created the
breezeway that's in the middle as well as built above what was an existing shed. They built above what is now the current garage. Um so the house has gone through many many evolutions um which has kept it standing um in its glory um
in that area. And the Shortens um are a family of five. They have three daughters and one son um college to um recent graduate and actually one is working in interior architecture. Um and
purchased the home uh to say on a whim is unfair but did not intend to purchase the home. Um they love historic homes and as any of you who were there yesterday um found from Susan um she actually painstakingly had re restored
um a home in Harwitchport that she assumed was going to be their forever home but had always been watching this house and when it um went on the market um although I believe it was a late later time on the market I'll explain that a little bit as well um they
couldn't resist it was just too perfect of an opportunity to purchase just for their family. Um so, uh I actually started working with the Echards. Um the house had been for sale for quite some time before the Shortens did find it. Um and uh there were problems with the sale
in that quite often um people looked at, as you all know, this is a very iconic location. Looked at a view of the amazing Chattam Lighthouse that you can look out at and 180 degree views of the water, which is our seascape. um and
just wanted to tear the house down. Um which was really a challenge. Um and so the Echards actually through um their second listing agent um connected with Schneamber Collective um to envision some schemes of what could what the
house could be and prevent people from tearing it down. So, I worked with um both uh Sam and um Ellen who had lived in the house for a long time. And they um told us what they've always what they loved about the house and what they
could see doing differently um and improving on the house had it stayed theirs, things they would want to change because they hadn't had um the time and money to invest in it in quite some time. Um, and we came up with a number of of different ways to make sure that
we preserved that original cape. Um, it was serving as five bedrooms. So, there were three teenytiny ones upstairs that shared a bathroom that you couldn't quite get into cuz the toilet was actually blocking the door, which is a theme through the house. The first floor
had the same thing. Um, and a little bedroom that was um, in what we're now going to have be the kitchen. Um so we always looked at ways we could open up that part of the house um so that it really was used um and that is what we did in our design um is um embraced the
water side um and and recognized that living room, dining room, um primary suite, everything that they're really going to be entertaining and spending their time in um was was made comfortable and preserved. Um the change, the biggest change in that area
of the house is the small sun room that really is facing right out to the water. Um we're proposing to remove that sun room um because it's a a hard to use space and cutting off a lot of the living room. And so um we are rebuilding
um a narrow a wider but shorter um as you you can see sort of actually at the very leftmost side. Oh, let me get used to this. So, this is coming off and it's narrower, but the footprint because we're also in conservation, um the
footprint is longer and expanded. So, that allows for that spa that that opening to the water to be enjoyed from the living room. Um and it still has the same balcony for the bedroom up above. Um the other things that we looked at with
the ecards was then once we did that, where are we going to get the space that a family's looking for from this property? Um and quite often it was the connector in the middle as well as rebuilding the garage um at the end. Uh this property is completely in conservation, has um a lot of zoning
non-conformities as well as the historic importance. Um, so juggling all of those things, um, we had a number of schemes and the shortens came in and said, "I don't want to look at any of those. I have no interest. I know all about old houses and I love the I know exactly
what I'm going to do. I'm going to put a bunch of bedrooms in um in this little attic space up here and we're going to create some extra extra things." And as soon as they actually got into the house and really looked at
the house, they recognized that the structure would not support a second floor right there and that the bedroom spaces and just the areas they were thinking didn't really fit in the way that they did. So we came very close to this the back to um the studies we
had done with the echards which was let's get the the front of the house the cape um really usable. Let's take the um viable uh material. Um this is a different sort of preservation as far as
the garage isn't historic, but the garage um is good structural sound material. So economically, let's use that for part of your construction and then in the middle, let's see where we can get some extra space for you. Um so we were able with that to get a full
foundation if we step away and protect the um other areas which gives them some nice space in a basement. Um it also created an area to allow us to say here is the driveway backside entry to the
house. So when you come in um you you feel like this yard here is is separate. It's the front door of the house, but it's in a very unusual location because of the way the driveway has evolved now that it's not all family houses next to
each other. So, we look to make this middle piece acknowledge that you've come to the house, you have a place to come in, and that's the family and everyone um entry area. Whereas, this becomes now your gathering
area. The front door is actually where you go in and out on that little front lawn. Um it's what is in most houses a backyard but it's the front yard to the water. So it created some separation between the two areas. Um we did have we
struggled a lot a lot with the roof lines. Um you can see the garage is one roof line that is a certain height and the house is another that is actually a bit higher. Also, interestingly, the garage is um almost 2 feet floor
planewise higher than the main house. Um so there were a lot of challenges of how do you get one to meet the other. Um, and so we used um the gable of this new part to separate it from your eye so
that you have something that breaks and it allowed the garage roof to go all the way over as well as for the house roof to go all the way over. Um, if could could we advance to the opposite side of this essentially the other long elevation?
Thank you. Um, so at the back of the house, um, right here, as you can see up above, um, is that original cape. Um, and then here is, as you can also see up above, is the, um, not so pretty side of the
garage. Um, it has a very different pitched roof so that it could have as much height as it could. Um, it was built in a very utilitarian way. Let's get some space above this garage area. Um, but as I
said, it was it's well constructed. The shortens aren't tearing everything down. They wanted to work with that. Um, so again, we looked at how can we do a gable that's in this addition area that will bring it all together. So we did, I guess, drag the garage roof a little bit
further. And then we really broke it. So what faces the water is the much a much more traditional um sloped roof uh similar actually to the dormer of the main house um which we did um drag as I
said with the other roof we pulled um and dragged into the addition. So the house the the historic house in essence has spread into um the new house. And this was our um study of how to help the
Shortens find a way to bring a really wonderful home into use for them for many many many years to come and generations to come. Well, thank you very much. Leslie is very complete as always. I was smiling at the beginning
of your uh presentation because usually when someone is there for something as significant as this, the first part of the conversation is trying to convince us how the house is not historic. And you know, oh, this is, you know, this is
not historic. You know, it's not even it's barely 175 years old. And um and so I again, I was smiling. I wasn't laughing. I was smiling listening to you, you know, uh, giving the speech about the Sears and and the history of the house and, uh, and the significance
of the Sears. I mean, when we we say something historically significant when we we one of the items is, you know, did someone, you know, who owned the home was significant to the history of Chadam? And and certainly Sears Point, the Sears and and uh the the monument
and Province Town, you know, everything that the family's related to is is is quite significant. uh you know the date of the house whether it's 1910 or 1930 1940 it to me personally is not you know is that
that's a given and I think you're not going to have an argument for the first part of the discussion when we say that this property 70 point is historically significant having said that our job really is okay what do we have what what are we doing
are the changing you're making. I'm giving you a speech now. You know, does it affect the historical integrity of the original historic property? I know from the get-go, you know, I look I know the property. I know it from the water.
I know it the seascape the ste sees uh uh you know is is important to the community. You know, we've had about three three or four homes on Sears Point in the last 10 or 15 years, which we've lost to major development, you know, and
every time I sail by and see look up and see it, I I said, "Oh, there it goes." And uh 70 CS point still there. Debbie's house is still there. But and and I think from my point of view, you know, we'll we'll get everybody else's comments, but let me start off by saying
when I look at you know, the changes that you're making. If we if we agree that the most historic part of the house of the property that we want to save is the original cottage, okay? And the view of that cottage from
the from the sea. There is no street, if you will. There's a there's a path if you find it to get to it, you know. and and I'm my concern is that the changes that you're making to the original house in terms of these I guess that's called
a eight could go to 20 uh you know the changes you're making to it is that called an antucket uh roof or something dormer. Yes. Say again. Ant dormer. Yeah. I mean, you know, compared to what was there, you know, what was the historic house and then the the the
small windows in the front of the house with the the significant amount of I love this word, fenestration that you're adding to the to the cottage from the front and the back. Well, that's a that's a big change on what I consider a significantly historic home. On top of
that, you know, you're you're moving you're you're enlarging it, making it a good couple of feet. I don't know how many feet you're you're stretching it, you know, and the roof line is continuous. If it's just one roof line,
it is and you know one of one of the basic tenets from our from my perspective and I think the historical commission when we do have an historic structure and people have you know things change 1700 somebody had a child they built an L. Another child built
another L. The house has changed. Change is part of part of life and it's part of the the history of Chadam. We we like change, but we're trying to, at least we are, in my mind, save the integrity of the original structure. I would agree with your discussion and your argument
relative to the the the so-called uh connection, you know, that the the in between that you you need you need that property, you need that space in order to make a living. All right. I would I would I would accept that, you know, and even the design of the gable versus the
whatever that's called, you know, I'm not an architect. electrical engineer I can help you is fine but h in my view and how can we and I know you struggled on this just looking at the work you did how can you do that but how can we
maintain the original cottage you know better I know it's going to change a little bit but the changes that you're making to that original college to me are quite significant we've lost it you can't find it there's no separation there's no separation with the roof
lines and there's no separation with the the front plane. It's all one large building. Quite honestly, somebody look at this and I look at the bottom of that, I say, "Wow, that's a beautiful house that's designed." But that's not our job. Our job is to try to help and
save the the integrity of the original historic structure. This is this is this is hurting me to tell me this because I know how I know the good work you do and that's from my point of view. So, I'm trying very hard to to go into much structure. How the heck you going to do that and still maintain what you want?
So that's my preamble. Having said that, we'll go around the room and see where you feel. Robert, how do you feel? Yes. Oh, Robert, see my Bobs. Go ahead, Robert. Either one. Choose. Yeah. Uh, I will add to what Frank says. I agree
with what he's saying. I have four concerns. Uh the uh first concern is that the you can't really recognize when you see this bottom uh version on on on drawing 2.0,
you can't recognize the original iconic uh cottage uh house. It's a it's a colonial revival really classic iconic house. and you can't really recognize the eye is not drawn to it. It's drawn to the center. Uh the new entrance sort
of subtracts the focus on the original house. You don't even see where you should go in to the original house until maybe an afterthought. The other thing is there are 13, if I count them right, 13 windows instead of four, which is
like uh I wouldn't say egregious, but I guess I let that slip out. It's a lot of windows and so that really takes away from u from the uh the view on the top which is really the iconic iconic old
cottage. And finally the volume the volume of the addition is seems to be too big. It should be if you can make this a little bit if you could go back and revisit it and make it a little less tall and less volutric. I know you've
added a center stairway inside of it and a new sitting room and so forth. Uh can you do that without making it such a large volume and such a tall volume? So those are my uh most of my comments. Bob,
I agree with what's been said. I it was also occurring to me that the the excuse me center section is contrary to what the Cape Cod Commission would recommend for um avoiding uh substantially changing the the
architecture. In other words, it's sub it could be could should be subservient to the rest of it. So that as Bob says that it's not just a continuous thing. You it's hard to see where the old house was,
especially when you've made the windows significantly different in terms of the fenistration. Um, so I'm I'm hesitant to approve this without getting some modifications so that we can that the old original house will stand out as
being historic. N I don't want to belver the points that have already been made, but I completely agree with what Frank and the two Roberts said. Um, and I'll but I will repeat like you know the guidelines for
historic preservation and rehabilitation and adding on to an old historically significant structure are that you can identify very clearly the original structure and you can identify the new ch the changing the modern additions the
later editions and the way this is one roof line just kind of you know takes that away. It also I heard yesterday such passion about preserving the historically significant details of the interior and what I see happening on the
outside is the opposite of that is not looking at what is making the original traditional cottage historically significant. That's the windows, the simple dormers, the the simple windows,
um the roof line and all of that is being lost. Um, there's an awful lot of demolition that's involved in changing all the windows, in taking off half the roof to create a new type of dormer, in taking off the right wall to to add a a
thing. So, um, and and just the massing of the the addition. I mean, I think we all respect and want and appreciate that they are trying to maintain a h a historic house and build something that their family can live in. We understand
they need more space, but this looks like a whole new house that's plunked in between a garage and an existing house and it does not achieve any of the things that I just talked about. So I will just agree with what
everyone else said and hope that there is some thought about how do we actually maintain the historical integrity of the original structure which they seem to care so passionately about and I know you do Janet.
Well I understand what everybody's saying but um I think these people want to live in this house and the the little mourns of room. I mean, the only way to have this historically significant part that some boats are going to see on
the way by um is to just leave it the way it is and not use it, frankly. Um and I I I'm not sure that that's the best solution. I mean, this family is willing to to invest a lot of a lot of
um of uh resources in this and they're trying to file uh to follow the conservation and the historical guidelines and um the other options were to just level it and we're seeing that all around town. So, um
they're not going to use that little sun room. having visited it three times. They're not going to use that little sun room like that. So, the only way to have save this historic is just is just leave it leave it alone. Well, okay. Yeah, but that's not before
you move on. No, wait. No, no, no. Let's let's not get a debate. We'll say let's go around the room and then we can debate or have a discussion. I don't have a problem with You have no problems with the application at all. Okay. Well, sure. Yeah, they can re they can uh revise it to make us
happy, but I think the family wants to live in it. Yes, but okay. They're saving the chimney. We can get back to that. We can get back to that issue. Janet, go ahead, Steph. Yeah, I have one question about the middle section. What is the material on the siding of that?
Because it because it looks like it's totally a different siding. No, it's all uh just at the siding is all white cedar. So it would be So it would be one straight Oh, yes. I'm with Janet. I
think um that the house is being saved. I think we've heard that um otherwise there'd be demolition and we'd be losing the house completely. Sandy, I have a I have a question and I've
looked through and I just Does the middle connector is it set back or is it set forward? Forward by two feet. By two feet. And is there could roof line be broke? I guess it
can't be. I've been looking at it and trying to and since I can't draw a decent stick figure I you know I take um I never say no to anything but we did extensive studies on the roof line um and this was um a solution that checked
all boxes as far as head headroom joining of making it congru. Um, so I don't see um I have a feeling I'm going to need to, but I don't see a different um this roof line came out of
a very concerted effort and um it given the iteration we got to and honestly where it is um I think it's a nice separation between all the different um years and generations of this home. Okay, I have another question about the windows. Mhm.
Are they would they consider putting one window in each one of as I look at it the dog the doghouse dormers on the end of this new Nanducket one? Could they be like two over one? Could we go through and and excuse
the style of the windows? Janet ask Janet. No Janet just hold on. I can't hear him. Oh sorry sorry the question of the question. Yeah, I can't hear either, but that's okay. What did you say, Rob? My question about the windows. If, as
I'm looking on A2.0 zero on the bottom. The dormer, the proposed dormer, if you took out the two windows and put in one window on either end of that doghouse dorm, those doghouse dormers on the either end the
doghouse dormers and could we change the windows to two over one to make it sort of I don't know more historic looking? I actually don't have a great deal of problem with this application. Okay,
Robin, those were my suggestions. Well, this is Hello. Yes, this is a tough one because I know how hard the architect worked on trying to make this a livable house. So, I'm kind of on the fence here. When I when I first look at the at the bottom, you know, the the the new
house, what stands out is the centerpiece, which is modern. And then the old house has kind of disappeared. And thank you, by the way, for saving the chimney. Um, but if you look at it, if you're just standing in front of it
as you would on the second here, it just looks like now it's a modern house. Before it was a historical house looking over the um waterway there. So, uh, this is a tough This is really a tough one for me. Um, okay. I I wanted to get a
quick sense, you know, not going in Yeah, but it's okay. Not going into the details, but what you you know, it's kind of a tossup right here. Okay. 4334 4334, you know, on how this could go and I would
suggest, no, it's up to you. I know what all the work you've done, but I would suggest that we can, you know, I think you heard some very significant concerns. you know, the center section, the the dominance of it, the continuous
roof line, the lack of separability, you know, and I realize, you know, you made a comment there just now. You checked all the boxes. Well, guess what? we didn't some of the boxes may not be checked and and I know that you're
dealing with the owners and and they they would like and and I know architects are twix in between you know this is what they want but I I I would prefer and then we could take a vote on it we could take a vote there's no question historical significance I think we have a consensus on that the next
step do we want to impose a demotion delay absolutely not and we appreciate the comments that a couple of members members made about, you know, the fact that they want to save the house. Unfortunately, we're not we don't we're not involved with the interior. Okay.
All that work. We're you know what we're involved in. You know, the exterior and the loss of it. The the comment was the the severability, the the consistence of the of the roof line, the volume. Well, the volume is okay as far as I'm concerned, but it's got to be separated
somehow from the and and I would I would ask personally and also we can take a vote on it is that give give us give us some time you know I you know let's let's adjourn let's whatever we call it continuence thank you very much you know as much as you
want you know to to take another look at it and then come back to us and you can come back to us and say this is it. You know, fish are cut bait and we could do that. And you know, I don't want to play games. I don't want to do a crapshoot.
But I think that might be the best way. And some of the changes you could make in my mind, you know, are not that significant. You know, the roof line, change the roof line a bit, separate it. The back and the front separated. You know, the the Nantucket dormers versus, you know, a
more traditional dormer. you know, when you came before us in 2004 and the uh the uh the garage, you know, okay, that was already, you know, something significantly different, but it's far it's far away from it. Okay.
Now, you know, you you're it's a problem. I have a problem. And I think you heard from three or four of the members that they feel strongly about it. That's okay. You may get the vote, but I don't think that's what we want right now. Would you would you do that?
Yeah. Could I have a minute though? I have a few things if I could respond a little bit. Yes, absolutely. Um I'm very I'm familiar with the Cape Cud Commission. I completely understand the thinking of make sure that the historic house um is acknowledged and that people
can recognize here's our jewel of his history and here is our house that married to it nicely. But I also do believe there is a an approach that says this is a house that has evolved over time and that is continuing to look like a wonderful home. And so I do look for
some consistency and ways to actually read the cues of the existing house. And if I were one of the Sears architects and I wanted to add on to this house, yes, for historic times when I can't get my contractor to get everything to match
up, I'd probably do a jog. But I also can see ways to actually make the house itself still look really wonderful by enhancing it and and with challenging roof lines. Um I do think we acknowledged
um a new middle modern um addition to this home as well as a a slightly hidden addition to the home. Um, I just want to put that thought out there and it's a valid it's a valid thought, but that's not what we're about. I understand our
job in terms of historic preservation is exactly what it says. And there were some comments here about, well, you got to live in the house. We know you have to live in the house, but they bought a very historic home, okay, in a very historic prop, you know, area. And okay,
you need to respect that. And and when you look, I can look at the bottom of that drawing. It's a beautiful house. I'd love to build that house, okay? But that's not what we're about. I mean, zoning would probably say, "That's a great house. Go ahead, go build it." Okay? But we're not zoning. You know,
that we're something different. That's the purpose of this commission. That's why we're here to try and help and maintain and preserve as much of the historic architecture and that exists and this loses it and that's that's the problem.
That's the heartache from my point of view. Yeah, it's a burden on the owner. Absolutely. We know that if we put an 18-month demolition delay, it's a lot of money that's going to cost somebody. We don't want to do that, you know. We really do not want to do that. We want to do find a way that we could, you
know, say, "Yeah, that's it. Really did a good job." Not that this is not a good job, but in my mind, it's not it doesn't preserve the uh the architectural features of the historic house, which get lost. Yes. And this Nancy, well, I I don't
know. I I I know that you don't like a lot of like discussion between us and I don't certainly don't want to argue with my colleagues because I guess I I really respect everybody on the commission and their opinions and I and I do feel that we have lost that this that although
it's a nice design and yes it it there's nothing wrong it's a nice house design I just feel like it is actually demolishing so many parts of of the historic structure. So I actually would like to know for example you know why
Janet feels like that's not happening like because I would normally we would look at a house and often think the same thing. So I would actually like to know why you feel that's preserving the house. I would love to have more on that. Okay. I think it's almost impossible to preserve the house frankly
because well from what the owner was having to say uh that the upstairs in it the bedrooms are minuscule and the bathroom doors you can't open. Yes. But there is something in between though
what it is and what it become. I guess that's all I'm saying. It doesn't have to be all or nothing. Right. Yeah. You see that's the issue that check the boxes. Yes. They checked all the boxes. They made everything they want. But by doing that, whatever whatever is there from an historic point of view, Yeah.
Yeah. They c they has to be done differently. They they could do it. They We've seen it done all the time. I know. I think the only way you can do it though is to just set that set that little part that house apart like the McCarthy's did and then and then build a
big house that has got the We did a study to that end. That is the way um if I may. Um, that is the simplest way to preserve a house is to completely separate. And we did a study and it took up too much square footage as far as zoningation
and and if I may, one more thing. Um, the owners didn't like it at all because it meant that they were in this antique totally separate from their family. Absolutely not. I don't think any of us would I don't mean to provoke. I'm just giving the background that we have. I don't
think anybody is suggest Yes. I I got them. I don't think anybody is suggesting you this is not a fiveacre plot. We know that you can't do that. This is not the McCarthy plot. We know that. But there are ways to separate it. And I think you know Yes. I'm sorry, Robert. No problem
at all. Thanks for the attention. I get a That's okay. Yeah. No, I'm I'm very much in the uh uh interested in the exchange you you both had. Uh Janet and Nancy, the uh the the the to me it seems
like there must be a way to make the house livable, more livable, significantly more livable with more volume with a nice basement so forth without so much volume in the middle without such a tall structure possibly
not orthogonal. You got it on an orthogonal roof line, possibly consistent roof line with the others. I don't know. But you you're creative. You you've looked into things. I know you could do it without maybe 13 windows. Maybe it could be six windows or you
only four now. So uh just make make sure that the iconic house stands out and and uh still make it liveable. It must be a way. I don't think it's impossible. Okay. I think I would like if you agree it we'll do a continuence. Yes, please.
Okay. and just let us know. And I know you got to go back talk to your client. Are they online? No. Uh I I'm sorry I didn't say at the beginning Susan had planned to be here. A family matter came up. I'm She was sorry she couldn't join. No, but I you know and they could watch it on TV. They can get on notes and you
know and the way this works I don't have to tell you you've been around the block. If the answer is no, that's it. Well then we take it from there. But we'd prefer not to be it. That's I try to tell people why did you let that thing get demolished? Well, we didn't let it get demolished. We failed in not
being able to change the mind of the people to try. It's a demolition delay, okay, to to try and at least convey our thoughts and and feelings from an historic preservation point of view. It's an iterative process. We'll see what happens where it goes. Absolutely.
You know, if it's something really Germaine, I'm going to move on. What be the the point was made I think in the beginning the the sale of this house was contingent upon not de demolishing it. That's immaterial. That's immaterial. No, it's not immaterial, Janet. It's
immaterial to what we do. It's immaterial to the Cadam Historical Commission. Well, it's immaterial to us how much they pay. It's immaterial how many children they have. It's immaterial relative to how many bedrooms they want. We're here to deal with the preservation
of the historical architecture and character of the community and we try our best. This is not a yes or no. This is a process. Okay. Half of a good half of the commission has problems with it. And I think the applicant is being very
gracious and going to go back and take a look and she can come back and say no. Or could you come back and say all right, I'd like to try and do something to satisfy both. It's not a it's not easy. That's why they get paid the big bucks. Okay. Frank, can I just ask
another question? Um, it occurred to me that perhaps the the historic change to the or the historic addition to the zoning bylaw which will allow flexibility to maintain a house as is might help with your um you mentioned the footprint a couple of times. Very
good. Um and I I I was a conservation commissioner for six years. I don't see much of a problem with that, especially if you don't go towards the the bluff there. Right. Right. Um so that it that may not be such a hurdle, but zoning
could be helped out by that extra footage you might be allowed. You aware of that bylaw? Yes. Thank you. Did you consider it at all? I did not. So, thank you for reminding me. Yeah. I mean it's not only it's it's coverage and also well setback is not an issue but it's
coverage and uh and quite honestly you know the the zoning board approached me the chairman uh over about a couple of months ago they want to propose a change to the town of Chadam's zoning bylaw to include historic preservation as a
reason for a special permit. you know the the criteria you know they can give a special commit historic preservation's not in that but because there's so much concern in the town of Chadam with the loss of our historic character of the community that let's add historic
preservation so if they get a a you know the neighbors object everybody object but they say yeah but this house is so historic we want to preserve it check mark allow them to do it so all right okay at this particular point yes ma'am we do need a motion for a date specific
further continuence Yeah, unfortunately we our next meeting well is guess what it's quite important that we I mean I'm happy to continue but I I would hope there's some consideration that we can
be heard as soon as possible. Well, uh July 15th is our next regular meeting. Sooner than that? No, no, that's that's fine. Okay. No, no, no. I just wanted to let you know when our next regular meeting was quite a Leslie if we needed
to do something special. We could hold a special meeting. Thank you. No, no, I this is this is a this is important enough and I think there's enough compassion here, you know, about it that we want to do that. So, uh it's a be we need a motion to uh continue it to July
15th. Um, I move the historic commission continue this matter to July 15th with the agreement of the applicant. Okay. Second. Okay. Second. Second. Thank you very much.
And I lost my pen. We both did without mics. Okay. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Stephanie, yes. Sandy, yes. Janet, yes. Robert, yes. and the chair vote.
Sandy, thank you very much for approaching the microphone like that. Thank you. Thank you everyone. Okay. All right guys, we have a couple of things that we need to discuss in terms of the
agenda just for information and we can get out of here shortly. Uh the West Chatam Housing Development, the next meeting is July 17. Okay. So, the just so you know the
process the historical commission the zoning board has our comments as well as comments from everybody else and an extensive amount of dialogue and they're going to be meeting on July 17th. Uh hopefully at that meeting we'll receive
some guidance from the uh zoning board of adjustment when they want to address the issue of historic preservation. So, it's it's a it's a long drawn out process. Not long drawn out, but you know, we're on top of it. Um
review of the rules and regulation. You going to share something about town council. All I have to share is that we are back and forth and um we're going to bring something to the commission soon and he has agreed also to meet or to come to a meeting and discuss it with it with everyone when it comes time.
Very simply, put it another way, when the council makes an opinion, it's got to get reviewed internally by the town manager, you know, before they let us, the public see it because once we see it, the public sees it and they want to make sure we're not. So, that's but I
think we have enough examples of things we might want to change in the future. Uh, the next item was the determination of eligibility of the Nickerson Homestead. Uh I my my finger was getting tired by
dialing mass historic but I did finally track down um uh who actually was doing the work and I got a positive answer that it's on her desk. She's writing the final report and we should get an answer within one or
two weeks. I I probably shouldn't say, but she seemed to be positive, so I I think we're okay, but they wouldn't tell me officially. So, that's happening. I know the Nickersons are quite pleased about that whole thing. And uh and I hope the conservation foundation also if
in fact we have uh potentially another national register site in Chadam. The next step would be the actual report. Now, in conversation with Miss Donovan, we think we have identified the funding necessary. It's about $15,000 to do the
next phase. And so, it's got to work on that. So, that's the thing that happens. And that probably will take another six months or a year, but we're moving ahead. Uh Christina, give update on uh the form A's and B's.
We have we're in talks with Eric Dre and going to be working on a contract with him. Okay. So we're at the contract phase. So that's moving ahead. Demolition by neglect has been neglected. Nothing from I do not have anything an
update on that. I know I've got a actually I do. Excuse me. Sorry. Sure. But they are reviewing the previous meetings um that um that you had discussed in previous meetings and I believe Christine will be putting together something soon. Sorry, I forgot
about that part. Okay. All right, be patient. It's not my strong point. Uh, sorry. Of Oh, the Coast Guard boat house. Things are moving ahead. If you 90 Bridge
Street, if you get a chance, go down there and you see they're starting to put the pilings in for the uh boat house, which would then be relocated from from um uh the boat house. Uh where is it?
Quincy. Quincy. Thank you very much. Uh Quincy and back into Chadam, which would be a great site. And so hopefully by u fall of next year, we'll see it here. Uh no administrative approvals. Okay. So-called chairman's report. Just very
quickly, uh, you have on your desk a copy of an email that was my my request that Katie Donovan uh, our
director of community development in a request for legal services and effectively, long story short, we shouldn't talk much about it because it's not on the agenda. There is a piece of legislation proposed in this mass legislature which could make significant
changes to local historical commissions effectively pass a is everybody here get on the list serve and get the notices from mass historic Nancy I guess Nancy I are the only ones who like to emails there's as members of the
historical commission you can go on this mass historical she's she's pressed the button button. I feel it's like the gong show. Go ahead. I was just going to say I can send the information if you're not if you're not on there. Thank you. But it's very it's interesting and what
happened here is back about five or six weeks ago, somebody said, "Hey, I just heard the legislature is considering a piece of legislation which would effectively take local control away from historical commissions. It probably won't happen, but it's once some thing
something like this is being discussed, it's dangerous, put forward by the AIA, that's the architectures group that thinks they should change how historical commissions operate. So anyway, we're on top of it. Thank goodness Katie's on top
of it. And I'll keep you keep you informed. All right. Um I just wanted to just to remind people of our preservation awards which would be next year in 2020 uh 2026. Uh Christina has
gotten up 10 inquiries for an application. So I want to begin the process with by beginning the process mean Christina and I will update the form. Robert, you know you know know what we're talking about the the Chattam
Preservation Awards. There's a group. Bob, you you Okay. You knew. Do you know about the preservation awards? Yes. Okay, good. I wasn't sure. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't talking. There's one out in the hall for the uh light for the uh mill. You got
it. McGover with Grisma. Okay. So, we're I'd like to start the process because we have so many potential applications. It would take some time to do it. Uh just to quickly point out for those who are interested, the Godfrey windmill is going to be operating this Saturday.
Hopefully there's some wind and we're going to be grinding corn. If you're further interested, Colonel Godfrey, guy named Rolod is giving a talk tonight at 5:00 at the Atwood about Colonel Godfreyy's history. Of course, entre my
windmill. All right. And um I don't know how many people got a chance on Saturday to go to the Atwood farm. Not the outward, the Nickersonson family association, the raising of the barn. So they begin the process of uh the barn. This is the barn that we saved we with
the Nickersonson family association from 68 Shell Drive which we have strongly believe was William Nicholson's Junior's homestead. That's all I have which is probably too much. Any other comments, questions,
deletions? Our next agenda again is our next meeting is July 15th. Pack a lunch. It's eight applications and um hopefully it'll be a rainy day so we won't feel too bad. I was going to say nine now because we just continue. Nine. I don't know how we're going to do
this, but we will do it. We will get through it. Thank you very much. Um okay, we get a motion for a German. Frank, did you want to bring up about the time? Say again. Did you want to bring up about Oh, yes. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Time
9:30 or 10:30 for site visits. Okay. Personally, morning's about the best time for me. Okay. And I prefer the 10 to 10:30. And and I and I think, you know, I think the majority of people do a show of hands.
People who prefer 10:30, raise your hand. No opinion. Well, we got four 9:30. One, two, three. Four. 43. Robert, would you you vote? He voted
for 10. I have tennis at 8. So, I'm I can probably get a sub for tennis. All right. So, what was the 10:30 again? I'm sorry. I can't count. One, two, three, four, five. Okay. So, it's 10:30.
Good. All right. I can't make it. That's right. You know, the site visits are important most of the time. They're not important all of the time. And um and you know, I think
what's the purpose of the site visit? For my view, the purpose of site visit is oh yeah, this is a historic house. You know, because the pictures don't necessarily tell. And I think this capichnik or whatever the heck you say it was a good example. I was looking at the wrong the wrong place. You know I
was I was not looking at the right one. And so you know you were looking at the wrong house. Is that what you said? That well I was saying but you know where are we and uh it's important that we know physically what's going on. Oh he was looking at the main
house and thinking that's where the main occ I had read the forms. All right. Good. Good. I'm glad everybody knows what's going on. I don't paperwork people. Okay. A motion to adjurnn, please. I move we adjourn the meeting. I'll second. Second. All right. No
discussion. Bob, yes. Nancy, yes. Seth, yes. Sandy, yes. Janet, yes. Robert, yes. And the chair votes yes. Thank you.