Heat. Heat. Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and this is the June 16, 2026 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Uh before we formally start the meeting, there are a couple of notes that we have to
mention. Uh this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly after for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please notify the chairman.
Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2028 signing of chapter 2 of acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting
law general law 3820 until June 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 that the public can ac adequately access the
proceedings as provided for in the order. reminder that people who would like to listen to the meeting while it is progress may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410 conference ID 262163783 hashtag or join the meeting online via
Microsoft teams through the link in the proposed agenda while this is a live broadcast and sim and simalcast on chatam TV channel 107 72. Despite our be best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access.
Okay. A first order of business is a roll call. Bob Leer, vice chair >> here. >> Nancy Bar, clerk >> here. >> Stephanie Hamilton >> here. >> Robert Stevens >> here. >> Janet Tennyson >> here. >> Robert Wilson >> here.
>> Peter Donovan alternate >> here. And last but not least, Sandy Porter alternate. >> You were here. >> Thank you very much. So, we have a full uh complement of regular members at the meeting, which means that the alternates
will participate in the discussion, but they will not be voting on today's applications. Uh before we start, I want to just note that I want to change the agenda unless anybody has
major major objections uh to bring uh 10 Kingsbury Way up after seven Lenu drive. Those are three applications, 44 Vineyard, 76, and 10
Kingsbury Way, which should be rather straightforward after this site visit. And I think the other members will agree. So I think it will facilitate matters and not have uh applicants stand around because we have two longer potential applications, one in the
National Register District and an historic structure on school street. Uh so uh having said that uh no objections we'll do that. Uh next item on the agenda is the minutes. We have two sets
of minutes. One from May 19 and June 2nd 2026. Let's do the May 19th first. >> I'd like to make a motion that we accept the minutes from May 19th, 2026. Before we vote on that, could I add a
suggestion to the um minutes on the second page? The one, two, three, fourth line. After Harvard Business School, I believe I also said that the um a previous occupant had been Princ president of Princeton University and
their family still owns the house. >> Yeah. >> Okay. Get that, Annie? >> Okay. Uh, see a motion on the minutes as modified. Get a second to that. >> Second. >> Okay. All right. Any members of the
public wish to speak? All right. Vice Chair Bob Leer. >> Yes. >> Nancy Bar. >> Yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes.
By the way, the chair forgot to vote that I'm present. I apologize for that. Okay. Uh, next uh set of minutes is June 2nd, 2026. Any comments, corrections, additions.
Motion to accept. >> Move we accept the minutes for June 2nd meeting. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Any comments? Uh, Vice Chair Bob Leer? >> Yes. >> Nancy Bar. >> Yes. Stephanie Hamilton, >> yes.
>> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. >> Okay, very good. Moving along. Uh, the first application we'll be hearing will be 26011
44 Vineyard Avenue. Could you please come forward if you're here? Uh this is an application on a property. We had a site visit yesterday which we appreciate the applicants being present
to give us a sense. There is no form B on this property. It is not located in any national registered district and the town survey prepared by a preservation consultant is a no list. What that means
is no, we would not uh expend our resources to generate a form B for the property. Uh having said that uh it it probably is the consideration of the uh the commission not going to speak
for them that this this property particular property although it does meet the age requirement excuse me attorney pages this was built in 1950s correct? >> Yes. Uh so why don't just introdu introduce yourself quickly and uh and
generally speak to what you're planning to do. Although we do take a vote first relative after you speak relative to the property whether we consider it's historically significant. If we determine the property is not historically significant, obviously we
have no no uh >> problem, >> no nothing to say quite candidly to the application, but just for the general public, why don't you give us a quick overview of what you're planning to do? >> Uh my name is uh Mike Theo from Theo Property Services. Uh basically on the
main house to the right uh there where we'll be taking the front roof and back roof off and putting a full shed dormer on the back and the dormers along the front and replacing on the lower half of the house is existing
vinyl siding and the uh owner wants to put the Hardy clapboards on the front and on the left side here that are all the old white cedar shingles. We'll be doing the uh hardy
white clapboards there as well. >> Okay. There was some comment or discussion at the site visit relative to the siding and we appreciate the fact that >> and the the remaining three sides they will eventually do all new white cedar shingles.
>> Okay. Very good. Well, okay. Uh members, why don't we quickly unless someone has some really strong comments relative to what's being proposed uh relative to these the uh whether or not the property we consider is historically significant or not. So uh can does have any issues
or concern? We'll start with you. Historically significant Robert. Yes, I did visit the property and uh it uh is attractive for its vintage and but it I don't deem it to be historically significant. >> Thank you,
>> Bob. Robert. >> Yes, I was on the site visit as well and uh I don't think it's historical. I like the house but and I like what you're doing but it's it doesn't fall in the historical bucket. >> No, >> I don't think it falls in the historical
significance. >> Thank you, Janet. I went on the site visit. I agreed. Not historically significant. >> Sam, >> I have nothing to add. >> Thank you. Bob, >> nothing to add. >> All right, Sandy. >> Nothing to add.
>> Robert, I'm sorry, Peter. >> Uh, nothing to add. >> Thank you. I think there's general consensus that we don't find the property meets the criteria for historical significant. Just one quick side. this property 1950 the public is going to be asking why are you even
looking at this property that is an issue that this commission is trying to wrestle down grab that grease pig it's a tough one we have a bylaw which defines historical significance the beginning of that at 75 years >> I think the public needs to understand
in 10 years most of the houses in Chattam including Riverbay are going to be 75 right >> and so we have we have some issues to discuss USS and we'll be we'll be talking more about in I think one of the comments from some uh uh someone else in
in the community is maybe we should get a group together to to discuss it besides just the commission itself. So we'll we'll talk about it but again as far as this is concerned a motion probably is appropriate relative historic significant Bob. >> Okay. Um, I move the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the building
located at 44 Vineyard Avenue is not historically significant because it is does not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2 A, B, or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second.
>> Thank you. Any other discussion from members of the commission? Anybody in the public wish to speak for or against the motion? Seeing none. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson,
>> yes. >> Frank Msina, thank you very much. You're now an award-winning preservation. >> Yes. Yes. >> I'm in the club now. >> Robert received one of our preservation rewards at the preservation award
ceremony and uh we appreciate it. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay. Uh, next application is uh 26012 76 Lenu did I get it right? Drive. Uh, again partial generalian heard in fur
chapter 158. This is a again a property which is uh no form B located not in the historic district on no town surveys and no list. But this property is approaching 100
years old. So u you know another another wrinkle on the whole issue. And so why don't you introduce yourself sir? >> Thank you. Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the board commission. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of uh David Parker. David unfortunately could not be
here today. uh he has owned this property and also the one that was sort of behind you on the other side of the lawn at 40 Leno Drive uh for the last 20 odd years. David has long roots in Chadam and would like to make some
changes to it. Uh we understand of course that it was apparently built around 1929. It has been uh modified, changed, added to over the years, which is not at all
unusual for older homes. Um, and we are seeking, David is seeking to put on a an addition on u the site that you saw, singlestory edition. Um, the uh I sympathize with the comm the chair's
remarks about the 75 year old cutoff. I will soon be historic based on that determination. Uh which is a separate problem. That's a personal problem. But while it is uh historic in the sense of it being part of the Leno Drive
neighborhood, the LA sisters uh developed that and they owned the property originally. I don't know that it meets any of the criteria for having for you to find it historic, but we certainly would understand that you might. However, I don't think that the proposed addition and I don't I don't
think you need to find that the proposed addition uh would uh change any historic uh designation that you might uh seek to make. We do appreciate you coming out yesterday morning. Most of you were there and uh recognizing you have other
issues today. That's essentially all I had. We'll be happy to answer any questions. >> Thank you very much. Um, one of the nicest parts of site visits on the historical commission and the many years I I've been on it is discovering new neighborhoods in town. It's amazing. You
go down a street and you you discover, well, this is just not a street. This is a whole neighborhood, a whole community within within Chadam. So, it was kind of nice. Mike, my I I thank you for your time and your brief presentation and I guess I tend to agree although this may
be two houses which are stuck together. It's really not clear that from my perspective it's historically significant. But having said that, we'll start at this end. Peter, any comments? >> Uh no comment for me. >> Sandy,
>> I I don't find this historically significant. >> Thank you, Robin. Yeah, I was at the site visit and we we did discuss sort of what what is the old part and we're not entirely clear, but it did appear that there there was a chunk to the rear
where to the rear that uh may have been the original part, but it too may have had dormers added on to it. So being able to define that historical piece is a struggle and therefore I don't think it rises to the level of historical significance. >> Thank you, Nancy.
Um, I have trouble not declaring a house almost a hundred years old in our town. Um, not historically significant. Um, and I do think that the Leno sisters and that little development and building a cottage that grows higgledy piglety is
um a little bit um iconic for the period. Uh, so I do not see any problems. I'll jump ahead and say with what they want to do. I find them sensitive. Um, I don't believe they impact on any historical
significance, but I have a challenge with declaring this house not significant. I think there are elements of it, including original materials that um that are intact fully, look like they are, um, that go back to um, almost 100
years old. >> Je, >> I agree with Nancy. I I think it um it does have a couple of reasons to be historically significant. As u Mr. L Mr. Lichfield said, the neighborhood and if
you really examine it with a fine tooth comb, you can find the original some of the original, but I no reason to not go ahead with the improvements. I don't think it will ruin the historic significance of it. I agree with the two
ladies to my left, but I don't think that it's going to cause a problem to do what you want to do. >> Robert, >> I agree with the three of you, >> Bob. >> Yes. Um, I visited the site and uh I
it's clear it has some old bones hidden in there, but there have been multiple layers of renovations and uh I agree that's sort of charming in a way as Nancy says, but the the uh historic aspect is not visible. They're kind it's
kind of inside and it's not our perview to go inside the house. So, I'm going to say really not historic, but I can be a minority. I'm okay being minority voter. >> Well, I I tend to agree both sides of the room here. Uh but I think just as
the uh our preservation consultant doing the surveys looked at it, you know, does it meet the criteria of historic preservation as historically for historically significant? It may have some bones. It may be there may be some
parts of it which which are old. And this reminds me of an application we did last week where inside the house surrounded by multiple generations of of changes. There was an there was a you know probably a house which was maybe a
hundred years old but it ain't there anymore. and you know uh you know that so from my perspective I don't think it meets our general criteria to declare it historically significant on any of the ground rules we use or any of the
criteria that we use in terms of style period you know etc etc so I I would I would not support a motion to claim it's historically significant having said that I want to move things along and so Mr. Chair Mr. the vice chair, if you
would make a motion, we can get something officially for discussion. >> Okay. I'll start with the not historically significant one since it's on top here. I move the Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at 76 Leno Drive, Chattam, is not historically significant
because it does not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2A, B, or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a demolition delay. Do >> you have a second? I'll second the motion. Was a second.
Bob seconders motion. >> Okay, we're up for discussion. Um, you know, there's criteria in the bylaw and u, you know, just because we have an old piece of wood in a house doesn't make that house uh historically
significant. This may be two houses that were, you know, put together, but generally within the bylaw, it just doesn't meet the criteria and I think it's a slippery slope to go there. Yes, Nancy. >> Uh, the bylaw also talks about association with um our town and public
figures and we have not done a narrative history of this house. So, we cannot definitively say >> that's because >> right. But I'm just saying you cannot say that it does not have any of that significance when it hasn't been done. Well, the point I wanted to make is we
hire a preservation consultant to do that work and it was determined that >> he has not done the research because he looked at the house from the exterior. Correct. From an architectural perspective. I'm just saying >> okay >> it's just a point to make that the bylaw
does not just talk about architectural significance. It talks about other significance and that has not been researched. >> That's correct. Absolutely. because we don't do that. To do that kind of research on every home in Chadam which is more than 50 years old would be a
tremendous expense and God bless us if we do that. So having said that uh anyone else wish to speak before we do a vote? No. All right. We'll take a roll call on the motion that the property in question is not historically significant.
>> Mr. Lear? >> Yes. >> Nancy? No. >> Say again. No. >> No. >> Sorry, Stephanie. >> No, >> Robert. >> Yes. >> Janet. >> Say again.
>> No. >> Robert Wilson. >> Yes. >> Uh, and the chair votes yes. So, we have four yeses and three nos. So, thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> We'll proceed. >> All right. We will then proceed to the
next application which is 45 school street um >> no >> we're going to do 10 Kingsbury >> Kingsbury I'm sorry >> 10 Kingsbury >> Oh 10 Kingsbury sorry I'm reading my own agenda. Sorry but thank you very much
Mr. Litzfield and Christina to keep the old guy on the path. All right. 10 Kingsbury Way, which is another street that I've passed a thousand times and never really knew the name or the fact that behind all of
that there's a charming neighborhood. Um, again, this property, uh, there is no form B on the property. It is not located in the National Register. It is no on our list of survey and has not be formed the commission before us. This is
another elderly house. It was 86 years old. I say elderly because it's approaching my age. And uh I don't like to be considered old. And um u Mr. Litfield, why don't you prepare us? >> Thank you very much. Uh here on behalf
of Colin Hines uh who actually is now a year round resident of Chattam uh who could not be here today, but the Hines family would like to make some changes to this house. Again, you were down uh most of you were able to get to the site yesterday. Uh the addition on the stage
harbor roadside is fairly modest, allowing for some internal improvements, a closet and bathroom and so forth on the first floor. uh that from the rear is somewhat more extensive, a couple hundred of square feet, but again fairly
modest on a structure which while chronologically uh within the jurisdiction of the commission, I'm not sure that it is associated with any historic person. Um,
it is not in so far as I could tell of any particular architectural style uh of which any of which preservation is particularly warranted. Uh, if you find it to be historic, that's certainly within your authority. But I would ask
that you not impose a demolition delay for the small uh revisions or additions to the house which the Hines family would like to uh incorporate. Be happy to respond to any questions. Thank you very much. Um, similar similar situation. Uh, charming
house. Does it meet an architectural style? Does it historically significant? In my view, it is not, but that's my view. And we'll start again. Peter, any comments? >> Uh, none really. I I don't find it historically significant. So,
>> thank you, Sandy. It is a charming but not historically significant. >> Thank you, Robert. >> I agree. It's it's sort of an interesting put together, but if there's a historical core to it, I could not
differentiate it. >> Thank you very much, >> Nancy. >> I agree. I didn't find a >> wasn't able to find a historic center to the house. >> I agree. not historically significant.
>> I agree, >> Robert. >> Um, considering you're just 213 square feet being added and it is a charming house, but again, I don't think it falls in the historical bucket. >> Thank you.
>> And I agree I agree with Nancy and all the others on this. >> Say again, Bob. Sorry. >> I agree with Nancy and all the others on this. >> Great. Okay. All right. We seem to have consensus on this one. Uh, so why don't we put a motion in effect and
>> Oh, hello. >> Um, my name is O'Neal and I'm I received this notice. I'm in the butter at 14. >> I'm sorry. Slow down. I'm sorry. >> I I didn't see a hand. >> All right. Yes. >> Could you just uh stop? We didn't hear the beginning. Could you introduce yourself? It's appropriate at this
particular point for some comment um on the motion, but just to let you know, it looks like we have a motion potentially for being non-historically significant, but go ahead, please. I'm sorry, ma'am. Introduce yourself. >> That's okay. Yes. Yes, of course. Um
yes, I didn't realize this me. First of all, my name is Robera O'Neal. Um I own the property next door at 14 Kingsbury Way. >> Thank you. >> Along with my Yes. along with my two sisters. Um, and uh, I didn't realize
this meeting was in regards to whether the building is historically significant or not, but it I I guess I was interested in the sense that um, our house was built um, I believe around the same time. So, I was just curious if
ours would ever be historically significant as well. But that's another um, issue. Obviously, we don't have any intention of doing any modifications, but what uh 14 Kingsbury does have on the property at 10 Kingsbury is a
utility easement. And so our utility lines run through the backyard at 10 Kingsbury to their driveway and then out to the street. For some reason, many years ago, um I guess we never uh were
um feeded a nub or whatever. and we have always been tied in with the sewer line since since we own the property. So, I just wanted to bring that awareness. I know it's on the deed, but um you know, our utility lines do run through the
property and um and then just that I'm going to you know, I'm literally right next door. So, I was just curious about uh these improvements. >> Uh well, thank you very much. Uh I think you know just generally the your first
comment relative to it's the process we go through to determine whether a particular house is historically significant and if we find it is not historically significant according to our criteria in the bylaw. We don't impose any kind of a delay and the
applicant is allowed to proceed to the building department and withever changes that they proposing to make. uh as part of that your comment relative to the access and the street that's really without our outside our purview and if you have some questions I think it's
best the building department or I don't believe you're going to be going to zoning for this uh Mr. Oh, you are. So, they are going to zoning, the zoning board of appeal. So, you could contact the owner or the attorney for the owner if you have any comments and that's what
I would suggest. Thank you very much. And again, a charming charming neighborhood and uh appreciate appreciate your comment. >> Okay. >> Thank you. Thank you very much. >> You're quite welcome. All right. Uh we have a motion relative to not being historically significant. when we take
that motion and see if anybody else has any comments or potentially a motion. Sorry, B. >> Right. I move the Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at 10 Kingsbury Way is not historically significant because it does
not meet any of the dish definitional criteria in section 158-2 A, B, or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Uh, any more comments on the members of the commission? Any member of
the public wish to speak for or against the application? Seeing none. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennis Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes.
>> And the chair votes yes. Okay. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Our next application is 2613. Um, can I ask the control room? Mark,
could you get me an earpiece? Thank you very much. I appreciate it. I And I apologize for the slight delay. Uh, okay. The next application is 26013
45 school street. This application just hold on folks. Let me get myself together. Unfortunately, a lot of paper. This application is going to be heard in accordance with the demolition delay bylaw chapter 158. Appreciate that. In
addition, it will be heard under the uh uh section 12E of the Cape Cod Commission Regional Policy Act of regarding property situated in the National Registered District pursuant to an application for substantial authorization or a contributing
structure in the National Registered District. So that's the property and that's the criteria. So, just to give the member of the public, you know, a little bit of uh background, uh the applicant,
this property is in the National Registered District as we've indicated uh by the application. it it is also a contributing structure in the national registered district and as part of that property. There is a form B which we we can talk about later
and it has not been before the commission before. Uh this is a significantly older property 114 years old and again contributing structure which means there's been a lot of research and uh history done on the on
this particular property. uh the applicant at the request of the uh council, Mr. Mr. Lichfield, we did hold the preliminary u meeting just for members of the public so for just open and
transparency. The applicant requested a brief meeting with the with the chair and the process that we use is that the chair and the vice chair, Mr. and I No, we didn't. It was the chair and and the
clerk, Nancy Bar, who met with the uh applicant uh was the applicant, the owner, and the um and the the architect who's here. And uh we had some comments uh about the application
and which is again all off the record. So, not all off the record, it's you know, nothing binding. And we did make some suggestions to the applicant relative to the location of the not of the particular structure, the national registry structure, but of the potential
addition which would be put on this structure if the commission allows allows from that perspective that the historic property to be moved. I'll I'll I'm probably saying too much and I'll let getting ahead Mr. Lich Mr. Lichfield
and so I will then at this particular point turn it over to him. But I just want to just remind members of the commission, there's effectively two things happening here. This is an application to move an historic structure, not to demolish it per se,
but under the uh criteria of the National Register District, a move of a contributing structure to the National Register District is effectively a demol a demolition by their definition. If we if we concur, especially if we consider
there been any changes to the historical integrity or historical significance of the property, that's for us to determine. But so there's two things. We have some jurisdiction as it relates to the move of the property of whether or
not it's it was a demolition or not and whether or not it's historically significantly the loss of any of historical significance. we have to consider the streetscape, but also there's the issue of the addition. Generally, we don't have any authority as it relates to what goes on to the
property, but we can talk more about that. I just wanted to put that in perspective because it can get complicated. Sorry, Miss Litchfield, could you please introduce yourself? >> Thank you very much. Bill Litchfield here on behalf of the homeowners. Doug uh and Regina Heldrith. Doug is here uh
to my right and with me also is Bill Miello, their architect. We appreciate the time of uh couple of commission members and meeting with us very informally to discuss what is proposed, what uh might be feasible. We appreciate
your guidance. Uh the Heldrits purchased this property almost 15 years ago and have been I think you can find by the fact that it has a preservation award wart uh have been good stewards of it.
Uh it consists of a house uh built circa 1912 uh approximately 1912 by a gentleman from a tailor from Boston by the name of Crosby. He apparently acquired the h the lot a couple of years before that. Uh
but built the house around 1912. Uh it uh there it has been uh obviously very wellmaintained. The Heldrths uh would like to make some
changes to the overall property which consist first and foremost of preserving the Crosby House by moving it intact with the exception of a more recent addition of a deck which they proposed
to eliminate. It's not part of the original historic structure. uh but to essentially move it down to the lower lot further to the north on School Street. Uh the uh Heldrs uh as you
discovered when you went out there. Uh the Heldrths like many houses in Chadam uh are not getting any younger. Uh and they uh have had and may in the years to come have increasing difficulty
accessing the house. As you know, it is at the top of a rise. The driveway does not go up. A former owner used a golf cart to take groceries back and forth, which is not overly practical. Uh while Doug happens to be a retired physician,
he is uh had some treatments of his own in terms of knees and back and things like that. The chair is familiar with the latter. Uh and they would like to have a place for onefloor living. The only way to do anything to the Crosby
House uh to make it suitable for onef flooror living would essentially destroy its historical significance. and they don't propose to do that. What they do propose is to pick it up and move it intact
down to the lower lot. Flaking is not proposed. The architect, Bill Mosciello, has done a considerable amount of work on its structural structural integrity uh and feels comfortable that given that it's it's almost overbuilt
uh that the structure, the timbers and so forth will support moving it down uh to the lower lot. And what ultimately will result uh is the rendering that is on the screen or into the plan to the
plan to my left and your right. They are identical. Uh the small uh wing which is now on the south side of the house will be retained. The house itself will be reoriented to face school street. when
it was built u circ in 1912 uh there weren't a lot of trees in the town of Chadam anywhere and it was presumably cited to provide a view of both the mill pond and of Chattam harbor. uh that's no longer the case,
but relocating it will put the front door uh on the school street side and make it more appropriately visible and have it remain a part of the school street uh streetscape.
uh sort of a an odd I read the correspondence that the commission has read and I'll get to that later, but I have a somewhat different perspective on what the Heldrris are proposing and how one might react to it. I see it as
preservation. I see it as important for the old village neighborhood to maintain the house, relocate it, reorient it as Mr. Crosby might have done in modern days,
but to preserve the cultural and historical importance of that and in fact recognizing as the chair said that one of the considerations that you have is the possibility of a discretionary referral to the Cape Cod Commission. And
I know that you were in touch with the Cape Cod Commission last month and I know you've seen um the words that I'm about to quote from Liz Callum, their planner. quote, "Given that the project proposes relocation rather than fully or
partially demolishing it, and because the building is not individualist to the National Register and does not have a recorded significance with its current location on the lot, the historical commission could find that relocation is a
preferable option to ensure preservation." The Heldrrisths want to continue to be good stewards of the property. They would like their family and generations to come to continue on in the
neighborhood with a one-story house to be built at 45 and this structure to be moved uh to the north. And in thinking about the old village, something with which several of you are familiar,
the uh national register document uh the original filing with the n for the national register from 20 odd years ago uh quotes my late friend Claire Basley who said that
the old village was in many ways a movable feast. The Benjamin Mallow's house was moved across the street from where it is now. A number of houses in the old village have been moved. And given the nature of Cape Coders, moving
houses was entirely typical of how properties were maintained and preserved. Thank you. To meet the needs of the families who were owners. We're not proposing to demolish it. We're not
proposing certainly not demolition by neglect and we're not proposing anything that is not in keeping with the old village neighborhood. Might be useful, Mr. Chairman, if I could uh to defer to Bill to talk about exactly what is
proposed in the relocation. >> Appreciate it. Just briefly introduce yourself, sir. >> Yes. My name is Bill Masiello. I'm the architect that was hired by the Heldrs to assist them with this property. >> Um thank you members of the commission. I'll uh go over here and have a little discussion about what we're intending.
>> There's an electronic pointer which is good. So you need to stay you need to stay near the microphone. >> Okay. So >> is the electronic pointer working? >> I don't think the pointer is going to work as well then. Um okay. So as you can see in this image
here what we had done is this is the proposed relocation of the house. That entrance porch is facing the opposite side of School Street. The intention is to relocate the house and put that in a more prominent location in keeping with
the rest of the facades along School Street. Now, this house can relate to an entrance way that's appropriate um to what its original intention was as an entrance. Of course, it was an entrance with a view and as as Bill had uh mentioned, the view is no longer there.
It's some pretty ven dense vegetation in the back and that is uh disappeared. So with this reorientation, we're in keeping the house completely intact. It'll be on a new foundation. Um there is a smaller garage which is not on the
register. It's less than 75 years old. We would be moving that slightly so we could put this house near or the garage near that house on that property. But the intent is to put the house somewhat in line with the houses that are next door to it on the left. Um, and as you
can see in this image, we have the old stone pillar gates which would be used as access for this house uh as as the driveway. Um, and anyway, that that was the intent for this. Any questions about the relocation?
>> Well, why don't you just continue through unless where are you going to go next with it? Are you going to stay on on this on the relocation? >> Well, how how do I go in in so far? Let me try to
>> It's the top red button. >> Oh, it's the red button. Okay. >> Oh, okay. It's a pointer. Uh, could we move to another slide? I don't know if I can advance that. >> Mark, could you lower the lights a bit or increase the
intensity? >> Okay. So, >> I think that's going to help. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. So, this is currently 45 School Street. Right now, there's a an embankment that's on this on the side of the property right here. And on on top
of it, there's a row of private edges. The intention was to build this house in the current location of the of of of the Crosby House, but push it back away from the street slightly. >> Let me let me clarify one thing with you, okay? What we're looking at, just
to make it clear, what we're looking at is the proposed new home in the location of the existing house and the existing outline of the house is shown by that red that red outline. Do everybody understand that? >> Yeah. >> So that's the current placement of the
of um Crosby House right now and the proposed proposed house and just position to it on the opposite side. So, it goes slightly away from the from the street um a bit. Um we're intending to keep the plateau that's here. We did
have a proposal to make this a little bit safer by taking the the front embankment down slightly and then putting a a small stone retaining wall along the side of of the property. Uh and then putting some hedges back or or hydrangees. We again it's just a
proposal to uh to address this. There are some maintenance issues, ongoing ma maintenance issues with with this embankment that's that's here um that the owner is has struggled with. Um and there's also because it's on an opposing curve, uh any walkers that are along
that side of the property, it's pretty unsafe. Um, if we were able to just take that grade and just drop it slightly uh along the edge of the property, it would make it a lot safer in case somebody had to get out of the way for an emergency vehicle or uh, you know, perhaps somebody was driving erratically, you
know, looking at texts, whatever the situation that could be hazardous would be. Um, but there is no way to get out of get out of a vehicle's way if you're if you're walking along this area right now. So, anyway, it's just a proposal. Um, of course, the the existing uh
private hedges that are there have been incredibly wellmaintained. It's uh they were put in by the Heldrith some some years ago. And uh the new entry drive would be on the right hand side of the property and it would come in a turn and go up onto a
plateau right here. So they could have full access to the garage and the house. Again, the house is designed to be one level living primarily with a few rooms upstairs, but they're not the primary part of the house on the second floor. The primary res residential piece that the Helds would be using every day would
be, you know, a master suite on the first floor with appropriate uh size bathrooms, oversized doorways, um make it much more comfortable for living. Right now, the existing house is pretty challenging for that because of the elevation that it's set at. With the
main entrance being located on the opposite side, it's up at a higher elevation. It would be very very challenging to go inside the house and try to renovate it and make it more accommodating. Um, as you know, as as we age, we always have more more challenges. Um, and you never know what
what situation uh is is ahead of us. So, they're trying to be proactive. They love this property. they'd like to build and live in that in that spot. And their idea of moving the house, I think, is a um I think that's it's sure it's a challenge. It's expensive, but they do
want to preserve it by by relocating it. >> Okay. It it it might be observed in passing that there are people in this world who would purchase this property
and tear the house down. >> Uh not saying they painted chartreuse like some people in the old village have done. >> It took 10 years, but it's finally changing. I don't think uh Doug or Regina have a a pallet of that sort, but
my sense is that while there can often be negative reactions, that a reasoned analysis of what is proposed, spending the time and the money and the
energy to preserve this house rather than tearing it down is the sort of thing that might warrant commendation rather than appribation. The old village changed. It's changed for years.
I don't remember there was when there was an ice cream shop next to the parking lot at the Coast Guard station or the lights, but the Penny Packer House was an ice cream shop. I don't remember when what was Poor
Fortune was a gas station, but it was. The old village has changed many times. It will continue to change. Fortunately, it has your guidance. It has the support of the rules and regulations of the
national register registration and it has the overview of the old village association. But I think this sort of a proposal is entirely something is is something which
should be entirely respected rather than criticized merely because it is a change. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh what I would like to do is uh as I think I began in the beginning there there's two elements
here and let's let's go back to the the proposal where we have the majority of our our uh jurisdiction and that is the relocation of the of the pro of the home and talk about that from consideration and I think you you you said a few
things but I want to make it clear within the record. uh when I said a few things things were said at the site visit but I'd like to you know just to make it part of the record if we say uh and discuss that because if the commission uh agrees to allow this home
to be relocated and we we we have we often have uh allowed homes to be relocated in order to save them. We do it often. We get a property where where someone wants to build a monster house on it and there's a an historic property
and if we're lucky enough that the property is big enough, we we ask them, can you move it to that corner of the property and convert it to a guest house or in one case unfortunately on Shore Road, it's being converted to garage, but at least it's there. The essence of
the historic structure, you know, we're there and that that's kind of what we're talking about. Uh so I wanted just to again for conversation within the record. It was a conversation yesterday that it is your intention to pick it up
and move it but uh not flake it uh remove the the uh the the uh the deck which was a modern more modern deck and obviously because it's more modern deck also because structurally it's not really part of the house and it could
easily create problems. uh and you're going to you're going to move it to the back of that you're going to take it down the back of the property and move it over. At least that's the current proposal. And uh and I guess what we did have in the conversation is certainly
assurances that if we do allow this that you know there's a there's enough engineering work to be done and and of course the building inspector will be involved in that. You know that we assure we're not going to lose it. If we move it we won't lose it. But I just
want to quote as you did before on some of the information uh from the Cape Cod Commission uh in determining whether a substantial authorization whether it's a substantial authorization or not the s historic I'm
talking about the move of the house the historical commission should clarify from the applicant regarding the particulars of the relocation to asssure that the building will remain intact and its historic details preserved. If the commission does have enough information to determine that the building will be
fully preserved, the relocation may be considered substantial authorization and in that case would be referred to us. So part of our determination could be if we determine similar I'm not giving Mr. Mr. Lichfield's comments, but if we
determine this is a way to save the house, you know, we want to ensure that the house is going to be fully preserved. Now, there is an issue, by the way, that some have brought up. Well, yes, you're going to fully preserve it, but you're going to turn it
around and it's not going to be in the existing location. And that to some people is a concern that it's no longer the streetscape of what is there now and how do we address that? And that that that's something that we we need to
address. Yes, >> if I could respond to that, Mr. Chairman, you've been to the House. Um, those of you who went out to the school street side of the house saw the current
front elevation, which is much less attractive than the front of the house. And I think that for the benefit of the neighborhood, having
the front facade facing the school street is sensible. Now, we know that, you know, 200 years ago, houses were faced south to maximize warmth in in the uh winter. Uh that's not the case with
this house. It was built long after that when there was some degree of central heating. But to me uh and to our architect, I think that's a much better impact on the streetscape than having
the back of the house facing the road. As for the willingness of the applicant, the commitment of the applicant to move it rather than flake it or otherwise, yes, that is. And if there are issues which make it impossible, obviously we
will consult with the building department and with this commission uh for any change but the intent is to pick up what is there and move it downhill. I'm not an engineer. I haven't a clue as to how that is going to be done. I will
also say for the benefit of of the public and the neighbors that the helds aside from being good stewards of the physical structure or of the man-made structure are also very very much aware of the importance of the trees uh one of
which may be the single best example around of its species. So, we're going to do everything we can to preserve all of those trees. And if there's a limb that has to be moved or cut, we will do
our best to minimize that. But the trees are going to be preserved. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh what I'd like to do at this particular point is, you know, proceed with within the commission. Uh but let's try to proceed, you know,
looking at the relocation of the house. Okay? and then we can come back to address the second issue. But let me do the first one uh first. But why don't we start? We'll start down there. Robert, you have questions or comments or >> Yeah. >> I have uh some comments about the whole
project is which is a package of two building two houses. >> Yes. >> Which I will I'll shove those and just answer. >> Yeah, let's do that since because it's going to get confusing in ourselves. I think if this were just moving the house and preserving it as they're doing and
facing the street, which gives everyone a nice view, I don't have a huge problem. >> Okay. >> But it isn't just that. So, I'll get to that. >> Robert, um, I'd like to hear my colleagues u I'm not experienced in the new village, so
or in the old village, so I'd like to hear more what they have to say. >> Okay. Steph, >> I don't know if this is the time for this question, but was there any consideration of building the new house on the property that you want to move this to? >> Yeah, the HDRs have been working on this
project for years. Uh, I have a site plan that was started in 2022 and Bill can perhaps respond to that. But one of the concerns that that we have u or one of the goals that we have uh is to have
some degree of view of the mill pond. Moreover, there has recently been a lot of change at the property behind the house which is a main street property. So that the helds now look at and and would look at from the new location look
at what's basically a three house parking lot. uh they didn't make those changes. Some others did. So, their preference is to have the I don't want to call it the retirement home. We'll call it Doug's retirement home, not Regina's, but to have the new house
located at 45 School Street, but it has been considered. And Bill, if you want to comment more on that. >> Did you say a treehouse parking lot? >> Three A parking lot serves three houses. Correct. Yes. >> Three houses. >> I thought he said treehouse. >> It's in the northeast corner. It was
pretty pretty wide open. There's quite a few cars there in the summertime. >> Um so what so the reason why they wanted to have the house located the the newer home located where it is is because it's it's it's the property where they live now. They want to stay there. Um they love the property. They love that
property. They also like the house that they're in. They want to preserve it. So their idea was well it's really hard to renovate this house because of the size of the footprint and the way it's configured and trying to you know have something for access for vehicles right now for them to get a package delivered.
They actually have to drive up on the lawn and drop something off at the front door. There's no access for them to get up to that upper level where where they're at right now. And they're and and they're having challenges with it and it's it's difficult. So I'm sure people can understand that. Um once they
make that journey up to the top, then what do you do? Then you're confronted with, you know, a primary suite that's on the second floor. You've got some spaces down in the first floor with really narrow openings. It's very very difficult to renovate that and make that
work as something that would be e easier to uh to live in for a longer period of time. Um, so by putting a a new home there, which would of course address any concerns people would have about aesthetics and facades and materials, we
it needs to be something that's tasteful and people can appreciate on on the commission. Of course, right now the h that house is not designed, but it's this is just a concept for for the house. So >> which house is that? >> This would be the proposed house on the on the property at 45 school street
where the Crosby house is currently. You're talking about >> Oh, so if you go back to the site plan, if you don't mind just going back one one slide. >> This house is not designed. >> It's partially designed. We have a we have a layout for it, but it's not finalized. We stopped. That's why we wanted to come talk with you.
>> What What are we looking at if it's not designed? >> So, what you're looking Yeah. What you're looking at is a schematic. It's a schematic level um image of the house. It's a schematic floor plan. It's a schematic site plan. We don't have the floor plans in here because we weren't ready to present those to anybody. And
right now that's uh that's part of this discussion >> and and and as the chair said the issue on which you're concentrating right now is the relocation of the the historic structure. >> Yeah, I know it just was >> and and to further what Bill said a little bit any renovations to add a
firstf floor master bedroom would result in loss of historic material would impact a house which is listed. So we think that relocating and preserving intact is more appropriate
than trying to expand the existing house which has been unchanged for 115 years. >> I don't think anybody is going to argue that point. But as Stephanie said, why not build the new house >> on the open property? on the open
property >> because you know what we're going to be dealing with here when you look at the comments is not just the loss of the you know everybody I think I think we're all in violent agreement as expression goes if this house were to be demolished well
we won't let's not demolish it let's just move it but the concern is more so and I'm speaking for the other members of the commission I apologize for that because it's it's obvious well we're not going to demolish it we're going to move it and we're going to save it. That's
wonderful. You know, we give you an award for that. Uh but the question is what are we doing to the old village in terms of the streetscape? That's really the I love the expression the elephant in the room, which we're not we haven't even got to it yet,
>> but that's could Dr. Heldrith respond, Mr. Chairman? >> Yeah, sure. >> Hi. Thank you very much for for all your help. the uh we own those three lots. They're three separate deed lots. And as owners of the lots, we obviously want to
live on the lot. That gives us the best views, the best feeling of where we're at. We're up on the hill. We don't necessarily want to live at the bottom of the hill looking up at the other structures. And so our primary residence, we really want it to be on those three properties where it feels best to us. You know, we're going to
spend a lot of money here preserving properties. We're going to spend a lot of money building a new house, which we're open to design suggestions. Well, that's not something that's >> Well, we did we did make some design suggestions at that preliminary meeting and you didn't do that. >> Well, we're not trying to spend a lot of
money on architectural plans if we're going to get denied and have doesn't work for free. So, so, so we're just trying to give you a schematic concept. We're open to questions about that. And I and I I appreciate the fact that this is what we have here is a dialogue that
we're not looking for a decision because in my own mind, I'll be very candid with you and I there's a lot of we're not sure. >> This is a this is a tough one. This is not an easy one. It's not, you know, from that point of view because what you're asking us to do and we haven't
even gotten to the public comment and the people and what they're concerned about and what they're concerned about is the streetscape of the old village. >> I think everybody recognizes and we have the National Register District issue and
the Cape Cart Commission as our backs stop here. >> You know, refer it to the Cape. I'll be I'll be honest, very candid with you. If we refer this to the Cape Cod Commission, it gonna be a slam dunk. No problem. Because their view is going to be the house, you know, that you're
saving the house, that you have an historic property and you're saving it. They're probably not as concerned as we are who live here about the streetscape of the old village. And that's a little bit of a difference. And by the way, I
just for the the National Registered District, excuse me, the Cape Cod Commission makes it very clear to me. Please don't send it to us. Not that you can't, but try to work it out locally. And that's what we're trying to do. And I appreciate the fact that what you're just saying here that this is a
conversation. And I think I think we should continue the conversation because we just really started. This is not going to be I'd love to see it. We got a decision that's could prove it. But unfortunately, it's it's angsting. This is an giving people a lot of aida. So Janet, I'm going to jump to you to to
proceed. Let's just get some initial comments if you don't mind just see where people are going. Okay. >> Yes, Janet. >> So um I would obviously we kind of all agree to be the best if you're going to do this best solution would be to build the new property, the new house on the
on the vacant lot and not uh ruin what's you know change what's there now. uh which is and I know that uh changes like this have been made around town, but I think this is different because it's in the NA it's in the
National Historic Register District. It is kind of the the anchor of the of the old village. I mean, when you come in and there it is up on top of the hill and it just um I think it'll be detrimental
to the neighborhood, frankly. And fine, we save it. We turn it around. It's not going to be the same. I think it will. It's basically a demolition and it's going to look like a demolition.
>> Yes, Nancy. Um I uh think that moving the house and preserving it is fabulous um in isolation, but we are in an old village
national register district and in fact the Cape Cod Commission does explicitly talk about alterations that should be considered substantial alteration. And one of the bullet points and this is
what's stumbling when you go back and you look at what are what are we what are what is our purview in terms of regulations and I'll read it. It's very short. Relocation of a historic building if the building has not been previously moved and it will change important
relationships to other historic properties or the surrounding district. established street setback setback patterns and orientation to landscape commons or to resource areas should be preserved. So that's a very explicit
Cape Cod Commission guidance regarding what we should be considered substantial alteration. So I don't believe the move itself is a detrimental in fact like you said it should get an award to save the structure and we are all about saving
you know intact historic structures especially in the district however in because it's in a district we are also according to guidance from all the laws from what I know and from the Cape Cod commission itself need to consider the streetscape and the
relationship of the structure to the surrounding area. And I agree with my colleagues who've said that it's on top of a hill. It has a relationship to the neighborhood that is very visible. Even if you can't see it all because the hedge is grown up, it's there. And when
it moves down, it will lose its prominence. So the historic house loses the prominence that it currently has. And a new construction house takes over that prominence. I totally understand why you want to live in a house on top of that hill and why you want a new
house and you want it to be on one story that that is not in question. But looking at what our job is, I struggle with the fact that in spite of the letter we have from the Cape Cod Commission, the guidance they have given us tells us that we need to consider exactly what this is doing as a
substantial alteration. >> So that's where I'm at. >> If if I could, Mr. Chairman, looking at your rules and regulations as to how they apply to the Cape Cod Commission, you have charged yourselves with taking into consideration
the extent to which the proposed project preserves or destroys significant amounts of historical materials. >> Yes. >> The answer here, zero. The last referral you made to the Cape Cod Commission involved a uh proposed demolition of 988
square ft of a 2100 ft house nearly 50%. Here 0%. >> Okay. >> The regulations go on to speak correctly about whether the proposed project preserve the structures historic character, which it does, and protects
the structure's historical significance rather than overwhelming the historic structure or site. No issues there. And then again, as Nancy indicated, Miss Bar indicated, whether or not the proposed project includes the removal or alteration of a defining land form, I
think you can find that it doesn't. >> Okay, I hear you. Let's proceed. We're never going to get done with this. I would like to continue getting initial comments from folks. Uh Robert, do you all you want to jump in now or >> Sure. >> Okay. I apologize, but again, I'm
looking for just the top level. You know, we didn't get into the >> high level 10,000 ft. Okay. >> Yeah. 10,000 ft or maybe eight. >> I want to applaud you for trying to save this house. It's a gorgeous house. I had never actually seen it in the way I saw
it yesterday. Um I have to agree with my colleagues in some ways because it it's going to lose prominence. There isn't any house that you could build on that hill that the neighbors are going to like. There's a lot of opinions on this, but I can't think of anything that you
could build in that location that would be the same as what you already have. >> Okay. >> And um uh so in looking at it, my first thought was, why not build a a nice circular drive up to what is now the front of the existing old house, and it
would solve a lot of those problems. Um, you have three lots. You obviously have some rights and um I'm just going to say that's my 10,000 foot view. If >> Yeah, >> Bob.
>> Um, I have views that are similar to much of what has been said. I I think what um is being lost here is how as Mr. Stevens just said that the prominence of this structure and how it sets out, it's listed in the form B as is correct on a
sharp curve on a hill overlooking the water in both directions. And when you come down school street either way, it juts out in front of you. So such you have to walk around it and it's very different and it is
according to the plan could be made a subordinate structure on that property. And I think that that is a significant thing in the um streetscape. And just to provide some statistics from
the plans on that, the current location is about 24 feet from the street and the foundation is elevation 45. All right. It's going to be moved down the hill to elevation 32 feet and be
about 40 feet from the street. So there's a major change there in terms of where it not only where it sits but the the height and the closeness of that the existing house to the road and the proposed house set back where a garage
is now. So that Robert mentioned um prominence. I think that that's a key factor here. And just in passing it was said that the garage is not on the register. It is a contributing structure in the National Register District. The
uh Cape Cod Commission letter says that um it's not individually listed on the National Register. It's a contributing structure on the National Register. does not have recorded significance with its current location. The form B prominently
mentions what I just did on a sharp curve on a hill overlooking the water. So those whatever they're thinking I doubt they came out and looked at it but they're wrong in terms of what their um starting basis is there. Um, and one
just one final point at this stage, turning the house 180 degrees so it the proper front will be on the street. I don't know who decided what proper was. Um, was it the architect? They said Mr. Crosby made a mistake when he cited the
house where he did there. There's a short answer for that. But what's important is what house was listed on the national register. Not somebody thinks what is proper or what somebody was thinking in 1912.
That portico is facing not facing the street. That's the way it is. That's what's historic. So you're changing it because you don't like it. That's too bad. Final point. I agree that you can get everything that Mr. Lichfield wanted
and said the clients wanted by building a house down the street. You maintain your old house, you can use it for whatever you want. You've got your living quarters. You don't like the view of the driveway. Uh that's what arbor vid are for. >> Okay. Uh
>> Sandy could >> go ahead Sandy. Let's proceed with the members. >> I'm going to abstain from this discussion. I won't be here to see it through. That's really sneaky. I'm gonna abstain too. I don't want to
make a decision. Uh, >> I'm sorry. By the way, what Miss I'm going to interrupt the proceedings here. This happens to be Sandy Porter's last day or as a member of the Chattam Historical Commission. Sandy, I met
Sandy when she had Christina's job and that was in 191. Anyway, and so she has been around the block as far as the historical commission is concerned and she she left the town as their administrator or whatever they call you
these days. Um and u she joined the commission. So she went to the other side, you know, and uh and she has been a u a good friend and a and a strong member of the historical commission. She's always been there and every time Cindy wanted to say, "Oh, I don't want
to be reappointed." We would I would say, "Oh, please, Sandy." And she's here and uh Well, thank you very much. I'm sorry. I apologize for that. >> Good. I I was going to ask, Mr. Layer, but >> let me let Peter finish and we can reach a point because I don't think I think
we're going to adjourn. Go ahead. >> Um I think it's a you know, an admiral proposal um for the property owner and obviously a big heavy lift financially. Um, I think uh the streetscape of the new house and the facade would have to be,
you know, considerably uh >> considerably >> looking considerably historical looking to get it passed. Um, that'd be what I would say. So, >> you're talking about the new house. >> The new house. Yeah. >> Yeah. I think he's hit the nail on the head, Mr. Lichfield. Uh, I think, you
know, if we take a vote right now, it's not going to be the vote we want, you know, that anybody wants. I certainly don't want, you know, you know, 18-month demolition delay and referral to the Cape Cod Commission. That's that's unacceptable. We shouldn't do that in my opinion. I think we need to find,
you know, you you are from, you know, notwithstanding, you know, the comments from the public yet, you know, about don't do anything. I think something is going to happen here, you know, and should happen and we uh and we're not I don't think we could just ignore that.
But before we do that, could you please go back to the view of that? You know what you're proposing on the screen? Oh, I'm talking at the wrong person. The boss here. No, what's proposed?
It's uh >> Oh, that's it. Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. Okay. you know, when we met briefly with myself and Nancy in the preliminary review and possibly even in your other
informal meetings, which we trust me, I really appreciate the fact that we were talking before we're here and and there were comments about, you know, the garage being right in front and right in your face and maybe
it should be someplace else on the property, you know, uh, to try and lessen the impact of the change and I just would I would hope that you know the I'm sorry I forget your first name
sir >> right you know looking for a dialogue and I think you're hearing the dialogue and wow we don't want we really don't want this thing to change all right that's fine that's initially the initial reaction but I hopefully we can find a
way to find some kind of a compromise where in my opinion in that there is some change that's allowed because I think what you're doing to save the structure is important. Yes, you could just put in a recommendation to demolish it. But by the way, Mr. Lynchfield, if
we refer that to the Cape Cod Commission, they're not going to allow you to demolish it. They can say no. At least I believe that's the case. And you don't want that. Okay? And you don't want to demolish it. So, we're trying to find a way to to save it. No. Yeah, you
could make you could make a lot of changes to the house to make it the way you want it to make it more livable, but maybe the way to make it more livable is to move it. Okay. Uh, and I would hope that we could find some kind of compromise in that particular >> Dr. Held, I think, wanted to respond to
something. >> Robert, just hold on. Thank you. Um, just a couple comments. You know, we're we're more than willing to bring that house closer to the street. We're more than willing to change whatever that front facade looks like on the street. We're more than willing to make it taller. It sounds like you want it
higher, not lower. I mean, all of those things can be worked out. So, but I think we're losing uh a little bit of of the whole project here, and that is we have the benefit of owning three separate lots. they happen to be next to
each other. But that should not be something that's part of the decision of what we do with the house north because we could potentially just sell that lot down there. I mean, we don't have to have that lot as part of the idea. We could come to you with the idea that here's our house on 45 school. We can't
live in it. We want to make renovations. We want to make changes. And I think that would be a difficult process for us to live in and for you all to decide that it's appropriate. But we we can't live in the house that's there currently. We have to do something. So we have the benefit of having that lot
below. And because we have the lot below, we want to be able to preserve this house. But but I don't think we should look at the two lots as that's our solution just to build something down there. That's not our house. I mean, we that's our lot. That's not our house down there. And we can do whatever
we want with that lot. I think in the future we're trying to do with that lot what makes sense for the preservation of the house on the hill above but the hill above we're happy to make concessions and and things that make it look look good. >> Okay. Are you agreeable then if we we
summarize this at this particular point and >> go back I heard you I heard you guys and go back and take another take another look another schematically I know I don't got to spend a lot of money this guy's expensive uh you know of something different or what
>> well if not to speak over my client um and we haven't talked about what possibilities might be uh if the commission is not inclined to make a decision ision today. There's one difficulty because you don't meet again, I don't believe, until the middle of
July and you only have one meeting in July. >> Yes. >> Uh if you see fit at a future date to impose a demolition delay, I would request that if it were 18 months, it be
18 months from June 16. >> I I can't I can't I can't commit to anything either. >> Well, I can't. Now, wait a second, Mr. Lichfield. Bill, I can't commit to how the commission's going to vote. You mean you want me to take a vote that if we impose a demolition delay, it's going to start? I could do that. But, you know,
we're talking two months. If we do that, even if we don't, who says we're going to do it? If you come back, if you come back with something that's appropriate that we say, "Oh, it's wonderful." I was simply saying that if you do in the future today
in do in the future impose a demolition delay in order not to delay the client further the homeowners further. It would strike me as equitable to date that 18 months from today. That's all I was asking.
>> I I we refer to my consolary. If if if in if if in July you would decide to impose a demolition delay, you can impose it for 17 months is all I'm saying. >> So what Bill just said, you would have to instead of imposing an 18-month demolition delay, you would do a
17-month demolition delay, but you can't backdate the determination. You have to make the determination. And yeah, >> I I agree with uh Christina obviously, but um yeah, we can do it that way. >> We could also impose a two-month delay. I mean, you know, come on.
>> Well, we we will the total delay from this date will be 18 months. >> That no delay be more than 18 months from today is all I was asking. >> Okay. >> Yes, ma'am. >> That is up to the commission. Yes. If they if you impose an 18month demolition
delay in July, it's 18 months from July 14th, unless you impose a 17. >> Unless we impose a less of an 18 less than 18 months. >> Correct. >> Is that what you're asking, Bill? Maybe I'm misinterpreting. >> It's really very simple. I think that no delay would be beyond
December 15th, 2027, which is 18 months from today. >> I can say yes, we'd consider it. I can't I can't commit the commission unless I take a vote. >> Let's listen to somebody else.
>> I hear you. Yeah. Do you understand? Do you want me to take a vote? >> He wants to talk. >> Yeah. Yeah. Robert, go ahead. >> I don't know to what we're talking about here. Second. Yes. Go ahead. >> I want you to settle what you're talking about first. >> Yes. Go ahead. >> Oh, I don't know if we'll ever settle
it. Okay. We're going to go quickly because we're going to adjourn this meeting and I would ask the applicant who's coming up next. Can I impose upon you to allow us to adjourn your because we're not going to have time to do a full
hearing of your applicant. I'm going to ask you to delay it till our June 14th meeting. >> Sorry. >> July. >> July. July 14th. >> We're not finished. >> Yeah, I know. We're not going to be We're not going to be finished. I'm
asking the applicant. >> A lot of prep. >> We're not going to get done. >> So, I'm going to just end the meeting at noon time. Go ahead. >> Thanks very much for giving me just a few minutes. >> Yes. Can you hear me? Okay. >> Yes, I can.
>> Yeah. Uh, it's really the package of the two buildings on the streetscape. >> Yes. >> That, uh, gets my attention. It's not the single building being moved, which I think is is fantastic. >> Well, effectively that is, >> if I can just finish. >> Yeah. >> Okay. The package really uh is makes a
huge impact on the neighborhood as you drive in. You see one building and then another one. You don't see you can't see you can't see 45 right now. It's a big hedge and it's a very graceful lawn with a small garage right now. It's really graceful
evoking a lifestyle with of >> the past right now and that's gone. And so what would be built makes it almost not recognizable. You'd go there and you'd say where am I? I I went away on vacation. I came back.
It's it's not recognizable. So based on that, I'm saying uh my opinion really is to urge the applicant to uh >> well that's what we're trying to do. >> Try to seek an a solution that has a lower impact. >> Say again
>> solution that has a lower impact on >> of the new addition >> on the historical on the streetscape >> one at a time. You can't talk out Janet. I'm sorry. Yes. The package of two buildings is to me excessive
and uh I object to the appearance of it in terms of the changing the entire character as you move in. >> So you're saying you don't want the building moved? >> I'm saying go back and consider the whole package and come up with something lower impact
>> on the new building or on >> Robert's suggesting a highway. Uh others have suggested others have suggested building on the existing site a one-story house. >> Okay, >> there's various solutions lower impact. >> All right, I hear you. >> Thanks. Okay,
>> what is being said is what I was think I was trying to do what I was discussion I was trying to have a couple of minutes ago was that if we consider the fact of the relocation of the building if we agree that we would I'm going to take a straw vote right now. not thing. Do we
agree that we could allow the relocation of the historic building to the other side to the other part of the property independent independent of what is being added to the to the property on the new?
So, how do we consider it's just a straw vote? Do you feel that you could if there is a a reasonable there's something different happens to the property in terms of the streetscape that we would could allow the relocation
of the building from one side of the property to the other? That's just a straw vote. Robert, this a straw vote. There's Robert. >> Yeah, I would go for that. Yeah. >> Okay. Robert, too. >> Uh, probably not. >> Probably not. >> Probably not. >> No.
>> Two. Janet. >> No, but we have a lot of other people to hear from. >> Just a no because we'll never get through this. Yes or no? >> I don't know really what you're asking me. I can't consider the move of the building in isolation. >> Move the building to the other side of the property. >> I can't I'm not going to consider that in isolation.
>> Fine. I was saying Robert I given what I just I said a few minutes ago. I don't think I can consider that either, but >> Okay. Sandy abstaining. >> PETA. I I'd consider it. >> Say again. >> I would consider it.
>> You consider it. So, we got about three votes. Yes. Four no, >> which means a a negative vote relative to >> relocating the building and potentially referral to the Cape Cod Commission. So, you see where people are going.
>> Now, Frank, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. That's not what my vote said. >> You didn't vote. You abstained. You said you didn't understand it. I upset that. >> I I did not. Okay. We had a majority of the commission members just said they would not consider it moving it on the
property. I just want the applicant to get a sense of where the commission is going. This is a complicated situation. So, just be careful. You can't do everything at once. Bill, any response to that? Well, if that is the case,
uh, then the commission could vote to impose an 18month delay and we wouldn't lose any time. What I think may be missed by the negativism or by the negative votes was the preface to the
question or maybe the second half of the question was that if the commission were happier with what is proposed to be built on top of the hill and I would never say is subsuming the role as a design review
board. But if in fact that happened, perhaps some of the no votes might be inclined to be yes votes and they would allow >> I would hardly agree and that's what I was >> Well, I don't think your colleagues would. >> Yeah. I don't know. I don't know.
>> In in which case it's kind of been a waste of time. >> Yeah. Well, it is in some ways, but I'm hoping I was hoping that if you were to back off and provide us with a different addition up top and let us consider that
on July 4th, maybe by then some votes might take a look at it. >> Well, they they've said that they wouldn't consider it. >> I know. I'm I'm frankly appalled. I've been around for a few weeks and I've never heard that from a board.
>> Ask what? >> That we will not consider revised plans. >> No, no. I think that's not what you heard. I think what you heard I tried to isolate. >> That's what I said and that the >> that's I know that's what you said, Bill, but I just asked the question, would you consider relocating the
building? And it was a negative no. So, if you want to proceed, then then let's proceed. At this particular juncture, >> it's not up to me, Mr. Chairman. It's up to your commission. >> Yeah, I understand. No, I had asked you if you would have an ask you ask you if you would adjourn and take a look at
look at it and >> sir. Yes. >> Yeah. If they if they are deciding >> I'm sorry. Could you say that again? >> I'm saying if they are of the opinion that they would not be in favor of relocation, then bringing to you another plan for the top of the hill really
doesn't do me any good. Well, let me let me do it one more time to clarify. >> Options as to what I can do with the property rather than preserve it. >> Okay. >> Which is not necessarily a good good decision for anybody. >> Nancy, do you understand what the applicant is asking at this time?
>> Wish you had confidence. >> I do I do understand what the applicant is asking. >> I'm sorry. >> Yes. >> So, you would consider it if in fact >> I would consider any proposal that's put before us. I'm just saying I'm not going to vote yay or nay about this plan
without seeing a full plan. And I felt like that's what you were asking. >> No, no, that's not what I was asking. What I was asking was there are some members seem to say they never would consider a relocation of the building in any no
>> probably second. >> I'm open to seeing the whole package, >> right? I am. >> And I said, I based on what I know so far, I'd probably say no. But I don't want to see the house moved, I don't want to see it demolished. >> I agree. >> And sometimes we just have to bend a
bit. I'm more concerned with the people in in the old village. I mean, if you took a took a popularity vote on what's about to happen here. >> Excuse me. You know, Robert, no matter what we do today, tomorrow or June 14th,
it's never going to be accepted. >> That's not true. >> We can't find it. It's impossible. >> It's impossible. It's like cutting the baby in half. >> Impossible >> to find a a consensus among everybody. The consensus has to be among us on
members of the commission. That's where the consensus has to be. Robert, you're leaving. Yes, Nancy. Go ahead. It sounds to me like we all maybe I'm not sure about the applicant um but that we are looking for a continuence that we are looking for
more time. >> Thank you. >> Okay. So So could we possibly have a motion for a continuence? Perhaps it wraps in what Bill was trying to >> Yes, Nancy. Excuse me. We already asked for that continuence and right now the
answer to that was for what? What do you want to do? And I think the comment from the attorney was that I don't want to waste more time. >> Now if that's has changed. >> Yes, Steph. >> I don't think I understood it that way. >> I would be interested in hearing
anything that they had to say. >> Well, let me ask you hear that you hear this conversation. M. Tennyson wants to speak and then I'll respond. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. >> Go ahead. >> Don't we h we have to take everything into consideration, I think. Right.
Don't we have letters and uh and people to hear from? >> Yes. >> And other >> We do that usually at the end. So we'll proceed. >> You mean you mean we we do have a after the vote? >> Janet, we the last time I checked, I was still running the meeting. Thank you very much.
>> Okay, Bill. >> Having heard Miss Hamilton and Miss Bar, I think I they may have it doesn't matter. I now understand from at least a majority of the commission, not from two members, and
I'll speak about that separately, um that the commission would be willing to consider the package if it is more satisfied with the house proposed to be built on the hill. And as Miss Bar
suggested, if the board would the commission would also be cognizant of the time factor, uh then yes, we could accept a continuence to the date which I will been bantied about back and forth, but I believe it's July 14,
Bastile Day, uh would be the commission. >> Let's not negotiate. Come on. You know, we're wasting a lot of time. Very simply, yes or no. Do you agree to a continuence to reconsider the application? >> Yes. >> It's simple. Without we're going back
and forth for no reason. >> The commission I'm trying to get a consensus from them. I think if we do something different with the new house, it's possible you're going to get a positive response. It's possible. No guarantees. You want to take that risk
or not. That's really very simple. Bill, >> I said yes approximately 40 seconds ago. >> Well, that's good. All right. Thank you very much. I think also just personally if you would consider the things we discussed in the preliminary meeting, we might have a better chance of finding
some consensus. So having said that, we're going to get a motion. >> Well, we do need to read the letters that were submitted for this meeting. Okay. >> So, we're going to get a motion to continue this application, but we're just going to read the two two letters we have. Nance, go ahead. You could do
it. Okay. Um, this is a letter dated June 13th from Winnie Lear, president of the Old Village Association. Dear commissioners, the board of directors of the Old Village Association represents property owners in Chadam's
Old Village National Historic Register District and many who care deeply about the Old Village to preserve and protect the historic nature and architectural beauty and integrity of the area. We write to express our concerns regarding the plans to move the house and garage
located at 45 school street. We believe that the proposal constitutes an application for quote substantial alteration and requires a referral to the Cape Cod Commission. Substantial alteration is defined in chapter 15 158
section 8C of the town bylaw as one which jeopardizes a structures individual eligibility for listing in the national register of historic places or its status as a contributing structure in a national register historic district. The Cape Cod Commission has provided guidelines and
examples of alterations that could fit this definition, including quote isolation of a property or alteration of its setting such that the historic character and integrity are no longer reflected in the site. Examples may include relocation of a structure from
its original site. End quote. The application proposes to move the main house on the property, a contributing structure, and move it down the street and place it where a garage, also a contributing structure, is now located and proposes to move the garage further back from the street and down a slope.
The MACRIS form B which provided the basis for including the house in the NHRD describes its setting as quote on a hill along a sharp curve in the road and a view of Mil Pond and Chattam Harbor end quote and its design as being of
quote general Georgian persuasion. Due to the house's size and prominent placement on the top of a hill and on the inside of a curve overlooking School Street, the house is an imposing landmark when viewed from each street direction. It was obviously intended to stand out from neighboring dwellings and
provide water views to the east and west. The proposed new location is lower down on the north slope of the hill and set further back from the street where it would not be readily visible from either direction. The garage would effectively be removed from the landscape. The applicant has attempted
to explain the change by proposing to turn the building 180 degrees so that the side that was facing the backyard would now face the street. This relocation is purportedly quote to properly to properly show the existing front doorway and porch roof properly as
originally intended front of the house end quote. This change would alter the placement Mr. Crosby chose when he built the house in 1912 and place the front doorway side east facing east. Likely that placement was intentional and possibly allowed him to showcase the
view of Chattam Harbor. The Old Village Association requests that the Chattam Historical Commission find that implementing this proposal would be a substantial alteration to to contributing structures and initiate the process to refer the matter to the Cape Cod Commission. We encourage the
property owner, the architect, and the Cape Cod Commission to work together to avoid this substantial alteration of the property and to maintain both the historic setting of the structure and the character of the streetscape. It's our hope that a collaborative effort will ensure that characteristics of the neighborhood. we all value are
sustained. Sincerely, Winnie Lar. The second letter I'm going to read is from Ellen Briggs, founder and president of Protect Our Past, dated June 15, 2026, to members of the Chattam Historical Commission. It has been brought to the
attention of Protect Our Past that the current owners are asking permission to radically change the buildings that have been sitting along 45 school street since 1902. This proposal includes moving the two major contributing buildings off of their foundations, thereby changing this historic
streetscape, which is legally pro protected by its position in the National Historic District of Cadam's old village. Plain and simple, this proposal is in violation of the preservation regulation, which has the purpose of saving the historic integrity of School Street. In turn, this old
village is an iconic section of Chattam revered by year-round part-time and visitors of Cape Cod. Walker Walkers parade past this location in pursuit of witnessing h history. Yes, they are saving the house and garage, but a proposed newly constructed structure
will take this original house's place, altering the streetscape. Once that is gone, it is lost forever. Protect our past is opposed to this plan. Please send this owner back to the drawing board with the direction of maintaining the original house as it currently lines school street. The garage has also
contributed to the streetscape view and should remain where it is. There's plenty of land behind the house to create a satisfying solution for the current owner. Gratefully, Ellen Briggs. Finally, we have input from Elizabeth Kellum, the community design
planner of the Cape Cod Commission. Her first >> What are you reading? The original? >> I'm reading both. >> There's multiple letters. >> I'm reading the first one and the last one. and then then the second response. >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> So, I'm starting with her first input to
us regarding 45 school street. >> Thank you for sending this. It is up to the historical commission to determine whether the relocation is a substantial alteration. This will depend on whether the historical commission believes the relocation will preserve the building's
historically significant or character-defining features and whether or not it will change important relationships to the surrounding district. Given the project proposes relocation rather than fully or partially demolishing it and because the building is not individually listed on
the National Register and does not have a recorded significance with its current location on the lot, the historical commission could find that the relocation is a preferable option to ensure preservation. In determining whether it is a substantial alteration or not, the historical commission should
seek clarity from the applicant regarding the particulars of the relocation to ensure that the building will remain intact and historic details preserved. If the commission does not have enough information to determine whether the building will be fully preserved, the relocation may be considered a substantial alteration, in
which case it would be referred to us. The second input was following um our meeting and I think a submission of some updated or expanded plans. Uh thank you for the update. The only change I'm
seeing is the removal of the existing hedge followed by a slope regrade and an an addition of a fieldstone wall and new plantings with no changes to the historic building nor its proposed relocation. If so, I don't have any changes to my previous comments, but
please let me know if I am missing something. Sincerely, Liz. >> Thank you very much. Okay. Um, any members of the public wish to speak for or against the application? Well, we're not taking a vote, so I'm not
going to do that now. Let's wait till we have the uh the actual vote and then they can speak to the actual motion because we don't have a motion yet that we're going to speak to. Uh so especially since we seem to have a continuence for a potentially a new
plan. So uh I would like to make a motion that we uh for the applicants agreement. We continue the application uh to the July 14th meeting. This is the application for 45 school street
which is number 2613. We have a second to that motion. I'll second it. >> Second. >> I'll second it. >> Thank you. We're motion is to continue the meeting to the fir to the to the
July 14th for the applicant's concurrence. All right. We're going to do a roll to all on the continuing the motion. >> Um I would like to suggest a revision. Do you want to vote first? I would like to suggest an addition to the motion >> to make a motion to the motion. The motion is for continuence.
>> I realize that new application. I realize that I'd like to add something. >> Make a motion to to modify it. >> I move that we modify the motion for continuance to add that should we decide at our July 14th meeting to issue a demolition delay that we issued that
delay for 17 months instead of 18 months. >> A second to that motion. >> Second. >> All right. Now, we're going to vote on the motion to make it 17 rather than 18. God bless you. All right. Bob, >> yes. Nancy, >> yes.
>> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson. And the chair votes no because we're just wasting time. All right. Now, we're going to vote on the primary motion to continue to July 14th. Bob, >> yes.
>> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Chair Vess, thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. Okay, I'm going to come on up. We've got about 15 minutes to try and get this done because this meeting is going to
end at 12:30. The vice chair will take over at this particular time. You lost the chair. What's going on? >> I don't know. >> I left because I had to come get.
>> All right. Um, gentlemen, I am I'm Bob Leer. I'm the vice chair. I'm going to get started with this and I'll start as Frank does. Why don't you introduce yourselves and tell us what what you want to do? >> I'm Jason Thanos, owner of the property
at 90 Old Harbor Road. >> And I'm Bill Lant from Llant Construction Company. >> Okay. We uh most of us were out at the site meeting site visit yesterday and we have a general idea from that but the general public does not. So if you want
to give us an explanation from the uh drawings up there and we'll be ready to get started. >> Yeah. >> So we have uh Jack Keer who's the architect online. >> Welcome to present the project. >> Hi. Hi everybody. Uh Jack Keer here in
Farmington, Connecticut. I'm the architect for for Jason's house. Um what the house was built in 1775, so it's 251 years old, I think. Um so what we're looking to do is and um
Christina has the plans up. Uh what we're looking to do is there's an addition on the on the back of the house, which you can see in the pictures. Um, and then the uh what what we're looking to do is is get rid of
that 1961 edition and do a new addition u that is uh about 300 square ft larger than it is but uh on the footprint and making that addition twotory.
So, um, what what we're looking to do is to to to take that down, do the twotory edition on it. We're looking to keep with some dormers the the front the front portion of the house, the original
portion of the house with uh changes uh replacing windows, repairing doors, and just upkeep. With that, we're looking to put a uh new foundation, lift the house and
put a new foundation under the whole house. Um, including the uh the uh the new addition. Uh we're looking right now there is kind of a barn shed in the back that uh they use as a pool house that we
are looking to also keep. We're just adding um some new sliding barn doors to to that. So, that's that's kind of the overview. of what we're doing. We're looking to match the materials that are there, the wood shingles for the siding,
the trim, uh the double hung windows. Uh we're looking to any new windows would be simulated divided light Anderson 400 series. So, we're really looking just to kind of extend the house backwards. Um
what what was important to us is to keep this addition the ridge of this addition is one foot lower than than than the original house. So that you know when viewed from the street it's it's it sets back. So keeping the we'd like the house
to read as you know the primary portion of it and then it just gets it gets extended in sort of the same vocabulary the same roof pitches the same exterior.
So um toward the backyard. So, so uh this this this slide shows the the south elevation that original doorway the just like the previous discussion uh the
front door is facing and not where you would expect it. It's facing the side. Uh so, but we're looking to just repair and and and just repair and repaint it and keep it keep it where it is. We are looking to add some dormers on the front
of that on the south side to the bedrooms and then then you can see the addition um toward toward the back which is you know you can see where where that is. I don't know if we want to go to the next one.
This is the the the north side. We have that section that comes I'm using my pointer. I apologize even though no one else can see it. Uh we're looking to just repair the the existing front door. We're keeping that sort of leanto shed
that's sort of the uh the original mudroom or I don't think they called it that back then. Uh that's kind of going all the way back. We're kind of keeping that the windows in the same place where is and then beyond that is where we're
doing um the addition which is in the plans a new kitchen and on on the first floor and a primary bedroom on the second floor. And then you from from these views, you can see the uh the the barn doors on the
on the new barn doors on the shed. Just replacing some individual doors. And uh I think I think that about covers everything that that you wanted to do. I would say that the foundation we're
looking to to face with uh brick veneer. So it won't be concrete. So that's uh so we we we really want to be faithful to the house and keep it keep just keep it keep it going into the future.
>> Are you planning to do any lifting of the house as part of this process? >> Oh yeah. >> And the whole thing or >> Bill, do you want to speak to that? >> Yeah, we're looking at taking the addition off the back. Uh the addition
was done in the 60s. We're looking at taking that addition off and then raising the main house. There's not um a significant foundation under the house now. Um there's just a small area for
the mechanicals. So the thought was to lift that house up, dig down, put in an 8ft foundation, brand new foundation, and then bring the house. >> An 8ft basement, you mean? >> Correct. 8oot basement. Yeah. >> Okay. And and where how is it going back
to the same height, same elevation? >> It is. It would be at the same elevation. >> Um Frank, do you want to post postpone this at this point or >> say again? >> You want to post want to postpone this at this point or
>> if they want it's up to them. If not, then we continue. >> Okay. Um I was going to ask um we are in possession of a letter from uh Mr. Dohy who was one of the prior owners of the property. I wondered if had if you'd had an opportunity to look at that and had
any reaction to it. >> Yeah, I this is Jack talking again. Yes, we did get it and we did have something and I actually did a few markups. If I could share the screen, I could show you what what our reaction would be. >> Okay, go ahead.
>> Oh, thank you. I don't know what >> select tab to share. >> Oh, okay. Got it. G got it. Sorry. I'm sorry. This is a different teams thing than
then. Let's see. Now you're looking. This is not working. the way I planned it, by the way. So, I'll I'll be quick. Well, I I do feel the need to comment that it's at least my practice that we
don't give consideration to things that are handed out at the hearing because it's not fair to excuse me. It's not fair to us and it's not fair to the client um to ask us to make a recommendation based on
>> 45 seconds of review from a major project. So, um I have I have no problem getting it and I appreciate the changes, but I I would be asking for a postponement to give us a reasonable time to um review these proposed changes
and uh >> so we can have a a logical discussion about whether they uh solve problems that the may or may not have. So, these these proposed changes are are merely in response to comments that Jason has had
with the previous owner. Um, it's not something that um we thought would be required. Um, it's not these aren't comments coming back from the commission. Um, so we just bring that
we're looking for clear direction on something, a project here that's going to give the Panoses what they want and um is going to be acceptable to the historic commission and preserves the integrity and the the history of the
home. Well, that that's fair. As you may gather, we're under a time constraint here in terms of coming up with a really reasoned >> discussion based on details. >> How many copies we have? >> So, we just need some clarification. You
hand I have I have five papers that I have A1, A2, A3, A4, A5. Um, but we don't have packets for each of the commissioners. Is that correct? Again, these these were just these were just printed off for discussion. They
weren't submitted for approval. It was just so that we could discuss and get a clear understanding of what the direction of the commission is. I didn't know that the commission would think that uh you know the the public comment
would be required and and part of that. This is just our response showing that we're willing to work with the commission and take into account uh comments from, you know, the past owner and other people uh to make sure it's a project that everyone's pleased with.
>> Well, I I certainly appreciate that and I and I we obviously will, but it's the the timing and the ability to really do a meaningful review. Um Nancy, you have a hand up. Yeah, I I think in part this may have been to some comments during the site inspection because I I I
certainly felt like we needed um a submission that showed like the full demolition and that windows being demolished. You know, windows being replaced are part of the the demolition exterior features um the the lifting and
the the replacement of the foundation. So it looks like you've tried to give us a more complete picture of the historic material or the parts of the historic structure and I do think though that we need to be able to consider that and not
>> like that I felt yesterday that we needed to see it all together. No, I I I understand. And at at this point, our goal is to is to get the feedback um to make sure that all the concerns are addressed so that we can, you know, we
can get to a vote and we understand the time constraints here. >> Missing sheep, >> chair, Mr. Vice Chair, >> Mr. Chair. Yeah. >> Yeah. So, uh I apologize for having to leave you. I really do. I uh So, uh
there's five sheets. There are five sheets to this this new addition here just to clarify. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> But we only have how many copies? >> Three. >> Yes. >> You have more.
>> We really don't have enough to >> and they're not collated. >> He's doing that. Does >> Well, he's doing that. Does he want to read this into the record? Yeah, >> Nancy, while we're collating that, >> Nancy,
>> read that into the record. >> Okay, I'm going to read a letter we received um that's been referred to into the record dated June 15, 2026 from Abigail Dardy and David Dardy. Uh they are
>> okay they're going to explain relative to the above reference property 90 Old Harbor Road. My wife and I have concerns with the proposed new addition and the impact it will have on the existing 1775 Full Cape residence. Our particular interest in this project is prompted by
the fact that 90 Old Harbor Road had been owned by my wife's family for 59 years from 1956 to 2015. As longtime caretakers of the property, we are pleased to know that the current owner is sensitive to the historic importance of preserving this important structure.
Our concerns are as follows. With respect to the two proposed double window a dormers on the south side of the original structure, we feel that they are too large. We believe that two or three single window a dormers would be aesthetically and historically more appropriate. I have attached a
photograph showing three a dormers on a full Cape residence at 390 Old Harbor Road that is 36 wide by 32 deep. The subject property is 34 wide by 29 deep. This is the picture. With respect to the two proposed shed
dormers on the north and south sides of the new addition, our concerns are as follows. We suggest that each shed dormer be centered on their respective roof. As shown of the proposed west elevation, the shed dormers on the new addition are higher than the dormers
proposed for the existing structure. We think they detract from the westerly profile of the original structure and suggest that they be lowered so as not to be visible from the street. With respect to the windows as proposed, we are concerned about the lack of any
continuity between those to be used in the original structure and the new addition. We hope that the owner and the historical commission will address this hodgepodge of windows and come up with a mutually satisfactory solution. A proposed windows include double hung sash windows, casement windows, transom
windows, and fixed windows. B. Proposed windows include 6 over9, 6 over 6, 9 over 6, 9 over 9, and 3 over3. C. The proposed north elevation calls for a bank of seven windows 9 over9 on the first floor of the new addition. We
suggest that consideration should be given to a different configuration of and total number of windows. Although architect grade composite roof shingles have come a long way over the years, we would hope that the owner will give consideration to using red cedar sing shingles instead. We recognize the
not insignificant cost differential between the two. However, this historic 1775 full cape deserves it. As the attached photo shows, the new owners of 390 Old Harbor Road replace the previous architect grade composite roof shingles with red cedar shingles. The difference
is quite compelling. Yours sincerely, Abigail and David Dardy. Mr. Mr. Vice, >> of course. >> What is this that you just gave up? >> So, it was a draft. Vice Chair, can you
recognize me? Thank you very much. >> Yes, I do. >> I didn't have my mics on. What is this package? >> I'll let Jack had more detail, but it was uh a draft to attempt to address the concerns from the letter from Mr. Dhy. So, we're expressing our flexibility and showing uh an alternative.
>> So, they're changes to what you are propositionally proposed. >> Yes. >> All right. >> Yes. to adequately do this, we really need some time to look at it. Okay, we just get it. We just actually now finally
collated. So I I'm sorry, but I think you know I want to give you a fair hearing here, you know, but doing it on the fly like this, we're going to have problems, trust me. So I >> I understand we also received those comments. >> I understand >> yesterday, >> but you know, it wasn't insignificant
the comments. So I think you with all due respect you need to give us the courtesy of allowing us to look at it and understanding it. The worst thing we want in these meetings my wife I have to call you back. Sorry I a I
apologize to the public. Thank you very much. I thought I shut it off. I would ask that you give us the the courtesy of let's continue into the July 14th meeting and and and I think we're going to get a a better better sense of where we are. Okay.
>> Could I ask if there were additional comments that we could receive guidance so that when we have our meeting on the 14th that we could be in a potentially a position to get our project >> Robert? Yeah. I visited the site and I
had uh four positive things that you're doing and I acknowledge that the foundation um the uh roof line treatment is is good. Uh the uh and preserving a 1775
building is fantastic. So all this is good and the only concerns I have are in the DY letter. It's the dormers seem a bit too big and the windows are um are hodge podge and so forth. >> Let's not get too much into details. Just general fast, right? >> Yes, Robert. No, good. I'm talking about
>> 20 seconds. >> I know. No, >> Robert. >> Yeah, I agree exactly with what he said. Thank you for saving this wonderful house. I like the changes that suggested if you can incorporate that.
I'd like to apologize that you had to wait so long today to get to this. Thank you. >> Thank you, Steph. >> The thing I was most concerned about was the cedar shakes um and the hodgepodge of windows.
Otherwise, great. >> Thank you, Janet. >> I think um the proposed I have no problem with the proposed changes and look forward to the next meeting. >> Thank you. I I'd like to see as much as possible in the historic main you know
structure that when you you are replacing the the roof the shingle the are you replacing the sheathing as well underneath >> if I had some confusion with um the highlighted areas that were changed
because I know we talked yesterday at the site that the windows were not noted as as being changed. I was under the impression it was just structural items that were being demolished because the siding and the roofing is obviously going to be taken off and replaced. So,
if I could get some clarity for that for the next submitt. So, I make sure I mean essentially the whole existing house would be highlighted because of siding, roofing, >> um, windows and and I just want to make sure that the submitt is correct. the original sorry I have a list that I can
pass on to you that is taken directly from you know how the the regulate like the mass historic commission defines some of these things um but you know certainly window these are architectural exterior architectural features of the house and that includes so I would say
as much as possible what we would like to see is like with like um or historic you know what would have been there historically if you're going to replace something that's been added that's modern that's that's the idea deal. >> Um so certainly cedar >> shingles would be you know over you know
plastic um roofing um windows like for like I realize you know as much as possible looking you know and feeling you know less plastic more wood always good um and I think um having the addition kind of reflect
that. The other thing that I noticed before I saw the Dy letter it myself was that although the roof line is the same on the addition, the dormer height is higher and that is kind of obvious when you look at it from the street and I think it would be great if you could
take that down the way you've taken the roof down so that the historic house remains the dominant structure um especially from the street view. That's my main >> appreciate the comments. what Nancy just said, then I often don't
agree with it. >> Bob, I'm sorry. >> Sorry. Do we um So, we're I think commission is back at the point we'd like to continue this until July 14th in order to um review it more clearly and give you a chance to also have a look
and see whether to what extent you would like to change things. Is that agreeable to you? We we appreciate you hearing us and we appreciate the feedback and allowing us that feedback so that we can prepare um you know the changes and get the
plans to you uh for the next meeting. >> And we would we would like to get the plans at least the hopefully the Wednesday before the 14th what or the Thursday. >> We will get them to you quickly. I assure you. >> Yes. usually. >> Oh, the Tuesday before. The packets go
out on that Wednesday before. >> Okay. >> Mr. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion to continue the application to our next meeting on July 14th. >> I'll second that. >> Uh, we'll do a roll call then. Uh, Mr. Wilson, >> yes. >> Mr. Stevens,
>> yes. >> Um, >> yes. >> Yes. >> Shannet, yes. Nancy, >> yes. >> Frank, >> yes. >> The vice chair votes yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for your feedback. >> Vice Chair, I'd like to take over back the meeting if I may. >> Yes.
>> Just quickly, guys, and I apologize for the for the rush, but that's uh just back quickly on the agenda. We had no uh administrative approvals uh on old business. You've got some information
relative to my previous request to the to the director of community development to get the select board to consider preservation restrictions. They are going to consider it and at tonight's uh meeting 5:30 here. Uh it is on the
agenda to discuss our recommendation. You have a copy of Katie Donovan's request. this is it's probably going to go forward because if you look at the as she said anecdotally here the town attorney had no problem and he feels
that we I'm looking at Robert you know that we should we we can we can proceed transfer that send that home that we can proceed and there's a process for doing it and I don't expect but you never know what happens when you get five or six people together you get different
opinions and sometimes things don't go as easily as you thought they would so we'll see we'll hopefully tonight. I'm going to be there. If you have nothing else to do, tune in. Um I'm waiting for the u information on the uh the boat house.
There was a little bit of a problem in in budgetary issues, which I think you saw in the paper, but apparently it straightened out. Uh I had was concerned there that our restoration was going to either be put on hold or somehow scale back. But we're back on track and the uh
consultant Eric Dre has concurred on the white and the and the red roof color. So we're we're kind of good on that. And the Nichson Family Association, I'm waiting for that application and uh very soon. So I didn't get any comments from
any members of the commission. So, I assume you read it and you had no comments that uh she did a good job >> other than the fact that Eric Dre found a couple of minor problems. So, that's that's that's pretty good. So, hoping that we'll we'll proceed.
>> Okay. Um at this particular point, we can you get a motion to delay? I mean to con to adjurnn. My mind is >> I move we adjurnn. >> A second. Okay. >> Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes.
>> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes, yes. We now adjourn the meeting or wait for the light to go out.