Hey, hey, hey. Good morning. Uh, hi. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and welcome you to the December 16, 2025 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Before we begin, there's a couple of announcements that we need to make.
Please note, this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please notify the chairman. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28,
2025 signing of chapter two of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general GL 30A20
until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the
order. A reminder that people who would like to listen to this meeting while it is in progress may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410 conference ID 373755470 hashtag or by joining the meeting online
via Microsoft Teams to the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simal cast on Chattam TV Xfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide for real time access.
Okay. Uh the first item on the agenda is our roll call. Uh Bob Leer, vice chair >> here. >> Nancy Bar clerk >> here. >> Stephanie Hamilton >> here. Robert Stevens
>> here. >> Janet Tennyson >> here. >> Robert Wilson >> here. >> Sandy Porter is absent. Okay. Uh and the chair is here. We have a full uh complement of members. Uh so uh we we
can proceed. Just one quick aside, we do potentially we have one open position on the commission uh for an alternate and a a woman by the name of Mora. >> Help me Robert. Morook >> or Cook >> right has uh submitted a brief resume to
me from Robert uh Robert Stevens Robert and uh we're we're considering her well we're uh forwarding information to the our uh Dean Dcastro and hopefully we'll be able to fill that slot slow shortly.
Thank you very much. So, we have uh a a continuation of a hearing and a number of new business items. I'd like to take prerogative from Mr. Chair. We we'll do the minutes in a second and switch items around and we're going to do new business first and then do the
hearing afterwards. Unfortunately, I have uh to leave by no later than like 11:15, 11:30. And I apologize for that. And I really wanted to get this business, new business addressed because we have to address the select board tonight and I need something from the
commission to confirm uh a previous decision. Having said that, let's do the minutes. We have minutes of December 2nd, 2025. Uh thank you very much, Annie. Well done as usual. Any corrections, additions,
deletions? Yes, ma'am. Uh this is very small. Um but I just wanted to note that Arthur Edwards is mentioned on the form B, but his role and his shaving shops that was not mentioned. So thank you. >> Okay. Motion for acceptance.
>> Move we accept the minutes with small change. >> Thank you very much. No other comments. >> I didn't I didn't second it. >> No, I haven't read it. >> Oh, you didn't read it. >> Second. Oh, sorry about that. >> Oh, you didn't get them?
>> I I just got looked them out. >> Oh, okay. We didn't email them out. >> I just second it. >> Okay. Well, we're good. All right. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, thank you. Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson,
>> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh the the next item which I'd like to address uh from our agenda is a uh a new
business item and uh this is something that we have been uh unfortunately or fortunately dealing with for many many years and that is the issue of the uh 776
uh Monoi uh theater property 776 Main Street and specifically at this time it's the application from the applicant uh Chattam Productions for to the HBDC for
a request for demolition of the theater building uh which is one of the three remaining properties uh buildings on the property as the HBDC over time has given them permission to demolish some some of
the items. The reason I have it on our agenda is that the applicant U Chattam Productions in his uh response to the HBDC
request for demolition the appeal of that decision to the select board is interesting the the way the legislation's written uh on an historical commission if we come up with
the determination there is no appeal to the select board. The appeal goes to the uh direct to the courts I believe I'm correct. Uh but with the HBDC you can appeal to the select board an
initial process select board can either approve it send it back or deny it and it's a little bit outside our bill baywick in the sense we don't have any jurisdiction of properties within the HBDC
no direct uh jurisdiction but the historical commission since goodness gracious going back as long as I've been on the commission has been dealing with the Monoy Theater property as potential a property which was worthy of
recognition and potentially listing listed as a national register district in the uh with Mass Historic this historical commission and I I did send you some information. Christina sent out some
emails about it and and our history goes way back. Okay. Uh as early as I've been on the commission and I guess that was in the early 2010 or 2010 or something like that and again in earnest in uh in
201 17 and 19 when the before the property was sold. what I had sent you and for the and also in your packet is the form B's which is the first step that the commission usually takes when
it has a property that is considered wording it. So the first action that officially occurred was in find the date and I think it was in to the the previous uh commission uh Nicholas Avery
who was a preservation consultant and I don't know what the date of that particular one there we go it was all I was right June June June 1st 2011 done so this commission in 2011 provided to
mass Mass Historic and Mass Historic received a completed form B on the 776 Main Street. It was part of that process that that previous uh consultant uh Avery
uh made the the determination on the commission on the form and if you go to page six uh National Register historic places criteria statement form. So effectively the this independent consultant preservation consultant felt
that the property was eligible individually eligible under three different criteria for listing on the national register of historic places. That's the first step the historical commission usually takes to officially make a request to mass historic to have
it listed. As you're familiar familiar with and for the members of the public, it's a multi-step process. First, you do the form B. Then the commission formally requests mass historic to for a determination of elig eligibility, a famous DOE. Is this
property in fact eligible? The historical commission didn't do that. Who knows? We're a very busy place and for a number of reasons. And we did not submit it. Quite honestly, of the hundreds and hundreds of form B's that we have, there are many properties or
areas which potentially could be eligible. But we as a commission have to make the determination, is this something we pursue or not? Uh we didn't pursue uh some areas. For instance, when we finally decided to pursue stage harbor, we got egg on our face because
the applica the the owners of the property really resisted strongly and we didn't pursue it. So, whatever reason, we didn't do it until much later on. And then the commission who was dealing with a new preservation
consultant uh Eric Dre and we then turned Eric Dre on who's our preservation consultant to update the form B with additional information because if you look what happened in 2010 the Avery that preservation
consultant says well you probably should do more more detailed information. We hired Eric Dre and he did it and in 2019 Eric updated the form B. Okay. At that time the Monoy Theater
property was changing hands. What I'm actually doing is rehearsing my speech for tonight to the select board. The seat the the property changed hand and a new a new owner came on board uh Chadam Productions uh Mr. Greg Clark.
I personally spent a lot of time talking with and meeting with Mr. Clark over his intention on the property because he was looking for the historical commission to support him. And quite honestly, as you see with the records of the information
we provided you, we did support him. We thought, hey, this is great. Somebody's going to come in. They're going to maintain the theater. They're going to save it. They're going to apply for national register designation. By the way, you know, it this doesn't come free. When we do these things, we have
to hire consultants. We don't have a big budget. So, we don't just do it willy-nilly. When Eric uh excuse me, when uh Mr. Clark and Chadam Production indicated they were going to pursue it, we said, "Fine,
here's everything we did. You pursue it." And that's when things started to go south. Okay. uh over from 2019 to 2025 or 2024, uh Chattam production has been in a
quotes, say it politely, a dialogue with the town of Chadam and attempting to to find a way that he could save the property. It's not our business to get into the what and where, but we have reached a point where Mr. Uh, Clark has
uh requested permission to demolish the building. I wrote a letter and I and I I I'm looking for you guys to comment. I I know I had originally said I was going to wait to this meeting to write the letter, but things are moving very
quickly and I was told if I want to get it to the selectman, which are meeting tonight, I had to get it to them on Thursday. So, we I did that. So what I the purpose of this meeting is for this discussion for as far as I'm concerned is I'd like to get your comments on the
letter if anything I should I'm not going to rewrite the letter but if I need to note it when I speak to the selectman tonight or any particular comments that's part one. Part two I really think it's appropriate because if
you read the the uh response from CHA productions they kind of blame the historical commission. It's our fault. >> Nice. >> You know, it reminds me of the I'm take my football and go home. You know, you know, it was it and and I was really annoyed quite honestly because we worked
very hard with this gentleman and and I was all right, you have your reasons, but don't blame it on us. We did what we thought was the right thing to do in supporting you. So, having said that, are there any specific comments on the
letter or things you would like me to to modify or say? You can, by the way, this meeting is open. Any member of the commission can come if you got nothing else to do at 5:30 uh and speak. Uh and secondly, I would like a motion to reaffirm our our commitment that this
potentially property was is historic. It's very simple. Is it historically significant or not? If it is okay, now what do we do about it? But that's his decision. He owns the property. So the letter first if we can any comments or anything. >> Yes.
>> I would just I would just like it emphasized more that um we were hoodwinkedked. >> Okay. I'll try to be as uh gentle as I can on that. I don't know if I'll use the word hoodwink, but uh I I
certainly made the point. I'm doing it there publicly that I'm disappointed. It's almost like I'd rather be going to the dentist than doing this tonight. You know, it's just not one second. Yes, Nancy, you you had something. >> Well, um, appreciating that, I also, you
know, I don't feel like that was right. I actually would keep it really simple because when you get into the ins and outs of the story, I get a little confused. And I would say that the bottom line is that we have this has
been declared in every way that the historical commission can historically significant. We have voted on it. We will vote on it today. We have a form B and we have hired a preservation consultant to do the research who has
declared that the house is eligible for listing. That all speaks to historical significance. And so I would actually stick to the fact if that's what they're trying to say that it's not historically significant. Forget about all the details. This house is historically
significant and we have done the work to show that. >> By the way, if you noticed, I'm holding my uh something to my ear. Thank you, Mark. It's working. >> Yeah. So whether or not it's on the National Register, historical significance and national register status are not one and the same. They
house can be historically significant without being on the National Register. save them all the time. >> What are you doing at 5:30? >> Anyway, >> have the world's busiest day. I'm sorry. I >> Okay. Yes, Robert. Yeah, I had one comment and that is right along the same exact same lines is that if we do vote
it to be historically significant today, which presumably we might, probably we might, uh we could re we could uh rewrite the letter with today's date saying we've declared it to be and our our various consultants have always done
the research. Well, if we do that, I will ask our illustrious uh helper here to write a letter and I'll hand it to the selector. A >> lot stronger letter. This one sort of comes off if you read between the lines that we've never really declared it. >> Right. I would reaffirm it. Not that we
declare it. Sorry. Not we we're not declaring it today. We declared it a long time ago. We're reaffirming actions that have been declared in the past. >> Got it. >> In writing. Got it. Okay. Robert, anything?
>> No, I'm just saying anything over two significant paragraphs is too much for me in the business. >> Yeah, I know. >> I mean, this really requires to go lock yourself in a room and try to digest all this. >> I'm sure it's very good information, Frank. You know, veryious in this.
>> Well, I'll be honest with you. I'll be I was starting to doubt myself and then Christina dug up a lot of the old men and I went back and looked at the and watched the uh one of the meetings with Don Aman was still here and uh Mr.
Berling game and and we had a ra I guess the only other member who was here was uh was Stephanie, myself, Sandy and Christina and um so yeah we did this you know been there done that. Okay guys I got that. Anybody else? Bob
>> no >> no all right so I guess at this particular point make it simple Bob can you can generate a motion reaffirming >> take that off when you speak >> I'm I'm getting feedback. Yeah. >> Okay. Sorry. >> Okay.
>> Yes, I Yes, I can. Um, I move the Chattam Historical Commission reaffirms that the building at 77 the theater at 776 Main Street is historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75
years old or more. And it also finds that it is associated well let me just take this out of the form B and that it's locally significant because it's wellpreserved example of Greek revival and colonial revival styles and are assoc is associated with
influential individuals who played an important part in the history social and cultural development of Chadam. The Monoy Theater possesses integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and association that meets the criteria of A, B, and C of the
National Register of Historic Places. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Okay. Uh, any members of the public wish to speak for against the application or the motion? Seeing none.
>> Sorry. >> Yes. Could you please come up? This is my first time. >> Um, my name is Brooke Thomas and I own 51 Elephants Lane in the old village of Chadam, a home built and I'm sorry. We're going to be This is
>> No, no, I know. This is not about that. This is about the Monoy Theater. >> Oh, okay. Sorry about that. >> I'm here for both, but this is about the Monoy Theater. >> I apologize. >> That's okay. Um, so my home was built by noted naval architect Spalding Dumbar, the cousin of Harold Dumbar.
Um, and recently celebrated an inhome viewing organized by the occasion of the Chadam Historical Society 100th anniversary a few years ago. The interior of my home has a mural walls painted by Harold Dunbar and they're absolutely stunning. Today I'm here to
oppose the demolition of the Monoy Theater. Chadam's value isn't just its coastline. It's its character. And character is made of the places that tell our story, not the places that maximize a parcel. Once we start
knocking down the buildings that carry our cultural memory, we don't modernize Chadam. We erase it and replace it with something you could drop into any wealthy coastal town in America. The Monamoy isn't just an old structure.
It's a symbol of the arts in Chadam and a direct thread to the people who built this town's creative life. Starting with Harold Dumbar's early work, converting this space into a community arts venue. That legacy still matters and it still
echoes. This town is already under pressure from constant redevelopment. If we can't protect a landmark like this, one that even our historic business district commission recognizes as worth preserving, then what exactly are we
preserving? Keep the monoy. Let's be the generation that adds to Chadam's story without deleting the chapters that made it special. >> Thank you very much. Do you live in town full-time? >> Uh, no, not full time.
>> Okay. Because you live full-time, I tell you. We might have another opening on historical. I'm I'm sorry. I'm always selling. It's a necessary part of this process. Okay. Well, thank you very much. I um And well said. Thank you. The other question is, what are you doing at
5:30? >> I'm coming. >> Good. >> Okay. Very good. All right. Uh okay, guys. Uh I think we need to do a roll call on the motion. I really appreciate it. Uh Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, Steven,
>> yes. Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Chair Oess, thank you very much. So, if you could put that together and uh >> All right, going back to the agenda and um >> Okay, >> we have uh a continue there was a
continuation of uh 65 Alphant. I'm going to not pronounce it correct, but somebody will correct me. >> 65 Elephant Lane. Uh, I'm not sure why we're here, but hopefully we'll make it
quick because unfortunately we don't have any additional information or new application. You have in your packet. The only new information which we really weren't going to discuss now was information from Jay Briggs
uh memo dated December 9th which is the uh this was as a result of the meeting that uh Mr. Briggs and I had with Bob Lear try to get a better understanding of the
issue of mass historic uh commission and excuse me uh Cape Cod Commission interpretation of the FEMA regulations as it relates to buildings and properties in the National Register or listed on the National
Register and that was provided to us for future guidance. So, uh, I see Mr. Riley has ascended to the, uh, >> Good morning. I'd love to get a copy of Jay's memo if I could. >> It was sent to, uh,
>> it's on the website. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Well, no, wait a second. Uh, was it It was sent to uh >> Um, it is on the website, but I'll email it to you right now. >> Yeah, but it >> if it was sent to Chris. >> It was sent to Chris. Yes. Chris Chris was the applicant at the particular
time. Are you now representing? Uh >> yes. >> Okay. >> The uh >> Oh, here it is. >> Chris has it. >> Oh, >> sorry. Chris. >> Sorry. >> Basically here. >> Okay. Right. So the um I'm new to the
case as you can tell and I but I did watch your first meeting and the the um where the members were pretty emphatic uh that they would not support elevating the structure which I understand
somewhat the um you know we believe that >> Bill excuse me are you going to present new information. >> No, I'm going to ask a question. >> Okay. >> But I want I just have a prelude to get there. That's all. >> No, that's all right. I just because we
were hoping to get some a revised. The last conversation I had with the applicant was that they were working on some kind of a revision potentially. And is that the case or not the case? >> The um it's yeah, it's not the case. I mean the
situation is that >> it's not the case. >> Our you know we inquired about insurance uh if the building wasn't elevated and the insurance agent told told us that
the failure to elevate the building to the top of the FEMA was like parking a car on railroad tracks. Sooner or later a train's going to come along. >> Yeah. >> Same thing, you know. So the um
the house had been flooded twice. You know, there's been experience down on Thea Lane where somebody only elevated the house to the extent to get above the previous flood and then the house is flooded again. So they had to go through the expense of elevating that house again. That's the
Gershman property at the end of Thea Lane. And we don't want we much as we like and admire the Gershmans we don't want to do what they did which is spend money twice for the sole purpose of protecting the building.
So since you know the members are uh opposed to elevating the building perhaps the best thing to do in terms of use of time simply refers to the Cape Cod Commission. >> Okay. So, if I understand what you're
saying, and I guess I'm looking over at Chris, uh, you know, who we had a conversation with, at this particular time, you don't want to submit new applications. You want to send it to the Cape Cod Commission, >> right? Because the clients
uh, >> okay, >> don't want to partially raise it. They want to raise >> That's fine. All right. Fine. So, what I would like to do is uh is, you know, we don't have any information and you submitted some new drawings today. something or >> some photographs, >> new photographs. And I'd like to give
the the members of the commission time to look at that information >> and then that put it on the agenda for our next meeting, which is when >> we have um no applications for our January 6th meeting, >> but we do have a meeting January 6th. >> Yes, we do. Yep. >> And then we'll take it up and have a
conversation at a particular time. We don't usually like to send things to the Cape Cod Commission without any, you know, the Cape Cod Commission does not want us to send it to them if we don't have to do that. We have a situation where this application is in fact the
National Register property, a contributing structure, National Register District, and we never really had a clear discussion yet with the commission members. So, this is kind of shortcircuiting the process, Bill. So uh yeah, I I understand your request and I
would prefer at this particular time that we as a commission have an opportunity to address that and all the information which we we have and then make a decision to refer it or actually not refer it was to make a decision and deny it because our application is twofold. We don't just refer it to the
Cape Cod Commission. We would also potentially impose a demolition delay and we're not at ready point to have that because I was told you're submitting new information in the revised application. Now you now you're telling me you're not. So at the last minute you're changing the game and
>> the first place it's not the last minute. >> I'm sorry. >> We're going on to January 6th. >> It's the last minute. We were told you were submitting a new application and we agreed to continue it. At this particular time, you're not submitting anything new and you're changing you're
changing the request. So, we're going to continue. >> One of the one of the other things we >> continue this to the next meeting on January 6 and one of the other things request that we could let me finish and stop interrupting. Thank you very much.
>> I know it's difficult but try. >> Okay. So, we're going to continue this to our next meeting, January 6, in which we will consider your request and look at the additional information. We also have getting additional do uh uh material from neighbors who are who are
commenting. And so, before we make a decision, we have to look at all of that. Now, we're not going to look at it the last minute. >> Yeah. No, I agree. And I just >> if you would submit >> what I've what I've learned since I was retained is that the uh I know a lot of
folks are believe that the house can just be partially raised through a historic exemption and the what I've learned and ask you to confirm it uh is that >> yes >> if if the foundation has to be modified
in any substantial degree the exemption doesn't apply. Now, I was just told that. I don't know if that's accurate or not. >> Well, that's that's it, Bill. We got a lot of opinions and we need to focus and a lot of this has to refer to unfortunately, not unfortunately, with
the building commissioner. We don't make those decision. It's up to him. >> He's the one he's the one who wishes to waiver. So, >> right. And I just I'd also like since you mentioned the demolition delay, um I'd like to point out that this property
is at risk for flooding. >> Yeah. >> And if it floods again after you impose a demolition delay, I believe that the commission and the town would be liable. >> Wonderful. Love that. Good, good, good comment. There's also testimony that a
lot of other houses in the area would would receive, but no work was done to remediate it. So that's a problem. I would encourage the applicant to remediate some of the problems so that the mold which they're complaining about does not get worse. >> Okay.
>> Thank you. >> Let's motion to adjourn this to our January 6 meeting. >> Excuse me, Frank. I just to get the letter. We usually read the letters that come in. Is that all right to read that one letter or should we do that? >> Well, we could do it now. We could do it
January 6. We're not making a decision. We could do it in January 6. Um, >> all right. Let's do it now. >> Okay, let's do it now. >> Um, oh, and before I do it, uh, Bill, you should look at the last paragraph of the letter from the building commissioner, which addresses his
opinion about the foundation. Um, okay. So, this is a letter from Robert and Pamela Veo, uh, dated December 16th, 2025. I apologize for the late response to this meeting, but neither I nor some neighbors received advanced notice. My
wife Pamela and I are deeply concerned and opposed this project. Many of us on the Mill Pond suffered water damage to some or all of our h buildings in the historic flooding event of December 2023. But all of us except the owners of
65 Alphamitz Lane acted responsibly and remediated the flood flood damage immediately to protect our property. The owners neglected this step, causing the rest of us to live with the pervasive smell of mold the last two summers to the extent that we often have to close
windows and run air conditioning. Our own remediation contractor joked the owner of number 65 probably planned demolition by neglect. Ms. Picardo has punished her abutters by her neglect. Second point, 65 Alifiments is landlocked and has never been given
rights or easement to cross or utilize our driveway or land, nor the land owned by Bart Dunar, who has granted us easement from Alphamit's Lane. Yet, despite his mis despite this, I think it means Miss Picardo's renters and
contractors have consistently used both Bart Dunar's driveway and parking and our land without ever being granted or nor even asking permission. The typical response we hear when asking others to not utilize our collective property is, "Don't worry, we have the owner's
permission." In addition, I could write an entire chapter chapter about the bizarre and completely inappropriate frat house conduct of her renters's utilization of many of our neighborhood properties, but that is not gerine here. Last point, we are concerned this
process has been executed in a disingenuous fashion. I can't comment on the historical significance of the building at number 65, especially after this late 1940s building had largely unpermitted modifications by previous owner Robin Diston in the winters of
1996 and 1997. Sincerely, Robert D and Pamela Envelow. >> Okay. >> Sorry. They are the owners. Sorry. Owners of 47 Lane. I realized it not. >> Yes, Mr. Mr. Ford.
I know this is a public hearing and I uh and I also know that the chair has um a tough schedule in terms of timing. I just want to get on the record that um we will address the comments made by Mr. Riley at the next hearing. >> Yes. >> I I won't take the time to do it today because I know time is is a difficult
issue, but >> I didn't want to I didn't want to go let it go by uh when brother Riley speaks without saying that we'll have something to say as well on >> Yeah. Well, there's some in new information presented and you know, I would like time for us to adequately consider it before we make any rash
decisions or any decisions at all. >> Right. I'm not sure any of it's new information, but that's okay. We'll I'll talk about it again on >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Bye. Now, >> just inform Jay again for that what we're doing. Yeah. I'm sorry, Bob. Did you want to say something? >> No, I'm just going to
>> Okay. Motion to continue. >> Thank you. Um, I move that the historical commission continue this matter uh to January 6 at the request of the applicant. >> Second. >> Okay. Do we have any other comments?
We'll quickly do a roll call once I find my roll call sheet. >> Sorry, I have a comment. Just I'm not going to be here on January 6. I'm flying back from overseas. So, if there's a quorum problem, I'm sorry. I just clicked into that. Apologize.
But they usually have Wi-Fi on planes. >> I'll do my best. >> Okay. All right. Uh Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. Thank you very
much. All right. Um, okay. I've got a few minutes. If you guys should bear with me, I apologize for this moving things along, but it's good way we get things done quickly. I can go home earlier. Um, we have just a
few old business items and um and I'd just like to comment quickly on it. Um, demolition by neglect. I'm still waiting from u responses from uh Have you got anything from uh Christine? So, I believe last time she was here, I think
it was in your court to bring something to her, kind of a base of what you would think. >> Um, >> yeah, that's true. Yeah. But also, she was going to >> inquire of response on she indicated she's waiting for responses.
>> Okay. I have not heard. I just I will check in. Yep. >> And we will in a new year address that. Okay. uh what we need to do and the only really important thing as far as I'm concerned uh is
I believe we have consensus and maybe we need to just have an informal discussion a little bit amongst us. We all seem to agree that the administrative approval process is working. It's it's it's eliminating the need for for uh
applications which are kind of minor and it's it's good for the town. It's good for the applicants. It's good for us not to deal with which was obviously not you know doesn't require a full hearing. Thank you very much for coming. >> Okay. Uh and the next the next side of
that was well not only is the modification of the particular property you know by the way this is working pretty good. Thank you very much. >> That's good. >> Getting all the stuff smiling.
Um, you know, the the issue of whether or not it's historically significant. In other words, it could be a major change to a particular property, but this property is no way historically significant. And I know that's a fine line. Um, and I'll be honest with you,
I've been talking to Eric and I've been talking spoke with Sarah Korge before she left and other members in the business of historic preservation and they said, "Well, Frank, that's a slippery slope. It's a slippery slope to delegate that
authority. It's almost like the same kind of slippery slope when you're dealing with the concept of 75 years. We say 75 years, Mass. Historic says 50. And people say we should make it 200
years. Well, okay. And I guess, you know, I I keep going both ways on this thing, you know, in my own mind. Should should we just put this aside and and and not
attempt to uh to fiddle with it and leave leave it working? And yes, we're going to get some u some applications where it's a little bit, you know, stressful for the owners that they have to come before us. It's obviously not
historically significant. But I think the vast majority of the times when something comes for us and it's more than 75 years old, I think eight out of 10 times we say it's historically significant. you know,
uh, and the work and I'm I'm kind of go going around a little bit, but you know, Eric did a pretty good job for us in doing the form B. And if he felt the property really was, he would say no. He he said no. And and that's to my mind
has always been kind of the uh the by line if Eric says no, and he's he's usually right that it's not historically significant. So, I'm I'm going to talk enough. How do you guys feel? Do you think it's something we want to fiddle with? Yes, Robert. >> Yeah. My idea would be of the last 50
administrative approvals we've done, I've only participated in maybe 20 of them. >> Have we made any mistakes? Do we sense that we've made mistakes? >> No. >> So, I think it's working. >> But, but the one thing, Robert, we're not talking about changing the
administrative approval process when it's a minor change. We're talking about when an application comes before Christina and she's, you know, she's the gatekeeper here and it's it's a home that it's 75 years or more. Technically,
it should be a full hearing, but Eric has said no. He didn't do a form B because it's not historically significant. But we still require them because it's 75 years to come before the commission. The applicant fills out an application,
pays their 200. Is it 200? >> 150. >> 250. Wow. >> 150. >> 150. And they come before us and we say, "Ah, this is obviously not historic significant." And I end up apologizing. Sorry, you're here. And I was just saying maybe we should short circuit
that process. I'm seeing two ladies shake the head. No. >> Go. I >> I I think we should leave it the way it is. >> Okay. I really don't think it's that much of a burden >> to fully demolish or signific demolish if it triggers I and it's over 75 years.
I think it's I do think it's worthy. I was going to say if there's something in between like where >> there seems to be a need. It's it's a relatively minor um job but the
historical significance question is there. Then my my thinking is the person who does the administrative review makes a recommendation with their administrative review that I recommend that this is not historically significant because I do not see any
evidence of architectural or we have no form B that gives narratives. So I I guess for me it depends on what is the request. A full demolition of a house 75 years or older it seems to me should trigger Yeah. But it seems like if it's
just a question of well the historical significance has not been declared then I would include that with the administrative review and can they bring the recommendation then we're still all voting on it. We still I could say hey wait a second you know. >> Yeah but wait a second excuse me Janet
but but but we do provide administrative approval of homes which are historically significant. >> Yeah, >> right. But >> we already do that. >> I understand. But the recommendation comes to us to re to look at what is the re the >> whether or not it's historically
significant. >> Well, no. What I'm saying is administrative reviews are still re approved by the whole commission. >> Yeah. >> Okay. We it's still brought to us to say we are recommending administrative approval of this because it's historically significant but the work is
negligible. I'm just saying that couldn't it also be we recommend that although the work may be significant the house is not historically significant that's the administrative approval recommendation being brought to the whole board and then the whole board >> still approves it
>> I agree with you but it's kind of what we're doing now >> right Janet go ahead >> I think then it becomes a subjective you know like a personal opinion and I think we should leave it the way it is because we might miss something by by changing
it. I think it's not a burden. And I >> All right. >> Yeah. I think what we're doing is fine, but I also think that we could probably do this without a change. Like we're already or are you saying if there's no I guess what I'm asking is does the administrative >> Let me give you a scenario. >> Yeah.
>> All right. >> Go. You want go ahead. You want to talk? You want you you're about to go. Um I was going to give you an example earlier on, but I think what we had discussed with town council is um you know
an example I have somebody coming um they're demolishing a crawl space in a 76 year old house that's going to come to you probably but in this case we could have maybe done it administratively. Um >> but is is the house there's no form B
and there so you don't know about the historical significance in terms of that's hasn't been >> correct >> right >> so I think in in certain cases like that we're trying to circumvent a whole meeting um but I I kind I see what you're saying also with
I think we just need to talk to town council a little bit more and maybe get another some more opinion on on the the process >> one second Janet Robert was >> Thank you Thank um what problem are we trying to solve? Is it the $175 $150 fee
or is it our own time? >> I mean the I think it's a combination. >> Can I just let me ask >> Can I wax forward? Yeah. But >> the problem with Sorry. >> I think it's beneficial >> for the people to come here >> and participate. It's part of the town. >> Okay.
>> And they get something out of it. They know their house is important and that what we think of it is important. and an extra an extra 10 minutes for me. Gladly do it. Not a problem. But what problem are you trying to solve? >> Yeah. >> Well, the problem we're trying to solve,
it was a question that asking the problem. One second. The problem we're trying to solve, at least from my point of view, is when someone has a home, which is 75 years, just right at the threshold, it's obvious that it's not
obvious to me and maybe somewhat obvious to Christina who's becoming the 10th member of the historical commission, that this is really not historically significant, but you have to come. Well, the applicant said, "This house is not historically significant." you know, you
you it says no on the form B because you're obviously your preservation consultant said, you know, this is really not worthy of a form B, the time and money to do that. But Christina does her due diligence. He fills out an application, pays his 150, he comes
before us. In some cases, the applicant hires an attorney and they come before us and we say, "Yeah, this is not historically significant." We do not we say the house is not historically significant. Therefore, there's no
demolition delay. Now, what's happened? The applicant has you know Christina is spending time and money. You know, everybody's doing work. Now the question which I'm saying is that just as we do something similar with an administrative
review process when there is an application for a minor change a window change or you know going to add a relatively change in a in an historic building or in a non-historic building. Christina says you don't have to have a
full hearing. Why don't you apply for an administrative approval? It doesn't cost them anything. They fill out one page. They give us a little bit of information, not all the details you have to do with a full application. She calls me, I either myself or I sign one
or two members of the commission. You guys look at it. You say, "Yeah, this is relatively minor. The change is not affecting the historical significance of the property. It comes before the commission and we reaffirm it. That's it." But
the problem we're trying to solve >> is if if there's a a major change, and now we're getting back to where Nancy is. Somebody has a house that's 76 years old. He wants to demolish it or he wants to make a major change, but yet the
house is obviously not historically significant. >> Do we still drag him through the process? And before I acknowledge these two hands raised, and I think the answer is no. we should just leave it the way it is. But go ahead. >> No, actually, um, thank you for like clarifying me where you've come from
that because I absolutely believe that if a house has a significant request for demolition and is over our threshold, it should become before us. And partly because I'll just say this, Eric had said when he met with us that he's
changed the way he reviews it. And all due respect, if he can't see a house or he hasn't done the historical research, a house cannot look significant but actually be related to a historical events or you he just couldn't see it on
the driveway. So absolutely I'm I'm backing away from my flexibility. >> You know, now I remember what I didn't like about you when I first came on the commission. She's always right. Anyway, go ahead. I I I reaffirm my position. I keep it the
way it is because, okay, it's just a crawl space, but then, oh, gee, we found this. We're going to change this now, too. We're not coming back to them. >> Okay. My and I'm going to say to my my dear friend Steve Berlingame, who's no longer with us. This was one of he had
two things that he wanted us to do and he's no longer with us. And uh sorry, Steve. >> So, anyway, I did I did what I >> Good. Yes, Robert. I just like to add something is that if there's a full de demolition like we're talking about when the applicant comes in here this is a
prelude to the ZBA we're setting them up to let them know that the historical part of Chattam is important >> and they should not go out and spend a lot of money for architectural plans that don't fit the the roadscape or the
seascape or whatever it might be. So I think the process is working. It's it's not a burden in time. I think the only time it's a burden in time is sometimes on a cold winter day and seven of us go up to look go to look out to somebody that wants to add a rail to their step. >> That's when it's a burden. And I think
it's also a burden. Sorry, I'm going to jump outside the box here. I also think it's a burden because there's a bit of seasonality in our work. I don't know what the seasonality of our work is, but I've noticed that some meetings are intense. we have a lot of applications and other times we're dragged out in a
snowstorm to to review something that we just talked about last week. >> I know. >> So, I don't know if there's such a thing as flex hearings where we're required to have at least one meeting a month for sure. And if there's a a seasonality burden, then we add a second season.
>> I could go on about the time. I would love to get some young people on this board that would take an interest, but a 10 10:30 meeting is not possible. All these people work. >> So, there's a lot of give and take here. I I just I just think that there's some common sense that we need to think about
how we Okay. >> do this. The time is not a concern, >> right? >> Along here, we're >> Yeah. >> All right. Good. Yes. Robert, anything else? >> Just one thing. How about young at heart? >> How about young at heart? >> Yo, young heart. >> Young at heart. There you go. Okay. Age
discrimination. We got to be careful. He's chairman of the ADA uh committee. >> Yeah, it's true. Um I just one brief comment too. Um I agree I guess most with Christina's point that when we talked with town council what two months ago or something like that. Um we had an
idea about changing the wording of the uh administrative review part in the in the regulations and town council said, "Well, if you do this and that, that requires a change in the bylaw." And I frankly don't see where in the bylaw it it says that specifically. So I
would before we at least take one more shot at town council before we make a a determination on this. >> Well, you know, I I hear what you're saying, but >> but if we leave it the same, there's there's no >> my sense at this particular point that the vast majority of the board says leave it alone.
>> Okay, then that's fine. But I think just be aware of the town council intervention there. And >> yeah, no, I I agree. Well, thank you very much. But again, you know, we just never had a chance to have this this discussion. We keep talking around it. Okay, I'm done. And uh want to thank you
very much. Uh and I appreciate it. And uh if you could do that and uh email it to me, I'll I'll get it back to you. And um you leave at what? 4:30. >> 4:30 or 4:30? >> 4:30. >> Okay. I'll stop by, pick up copies of it
because I want to give it to the select at the meeting. All right. I move we adjourn the meeting. >> Second. >> Okay. No discussion. >> Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson,
>> yes. >> And the chair vote, yes. Thank you very much. And I do appreciate your help on the Monoy Theater. >> Hey everybody, have a happy holiday. I'll take a picture, but I'm not all wrapped.