[Music] [Music] [Music] Heat. Heat. [Music]
Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and I'd like to welcome you to the August 19, 2025 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Before we start, we have a number of announcements uh to go through. Uh please note this meeting
is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please notify the chairman. Pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28,
2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025, >> unknown participants is now joining provision certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law 3820
until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that persons who would
like to listen to this meeting while it is in progress may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410 conference ID 266712763 hashtag or by joining the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda. While this is a live
broadcast and simalcast on Chattam TV Exfinity channel 1072, despite our be best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. Okay, our first order of business is roll call and we need to do that
officially. U Nancy Bar clerk >> here. >> Stephanie Hamilton >> here. Sandy Porter alternate is not here. Janet Tennyson >> here. >> Robert Stevens not here. Robert Wilson
not here. Vice Chair Bob Ler >> here. >> And the chair Frank Msina, I'm here. Okay, we can begin. We have a uh oo a few items to get
through. Uh and I think we can hopefully move pretty quickly through them. Uh first we have a couple of sets of minutes which we need to dispense of. One of June 17, 2025 and one of uh July
15th. So first we'll do the June 17, 2025 minutes. Any questions, comment? Yes. second paragraph on the third page. Um, let's see. Rebuilding it to be wider but
shorter as weak as removing. And I'm not sure what the weak supposed to be. >> But shorter as >> I think it's as well as. >> Pardon? >> I think it might be as well as as well
as >> as well as. >> Annie, you okay? Okay. Anything else? Okay. We got a motion to accept the minutes as modified. >> So move. >> I'll second. >> Okay. Quick roll call. Bob,
>> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> And chair votes yes. Okay. Uh, next item it will be the minutes of
July 15, 2025. Any comments, corrections, additions, deletions? Yes. >> Last paragraph on page four. Uh, actually the last sentence. Mr. Ahern added are also proposing. >> Which one?
>> Last paragraph. Last sentence. >> Mr. Ahern. >> Mr. Ahern added are also proposing. They are maybe they are also >> they could be >> okay >> or he is >> they are also >> okay Annie
>> anything else that's the advantage of having a retired school teacher on the commission >> kindergarten remember >> kindergarten that's okay uh roll call Bob >> yes >> Nancy >> yes >> Steph >> yes >> Janet >> yes
>> Jeff votes yes thank you very much okay Before we proceed into the regular agenda, as posted, we have a piece of correspondence which uh Christina our
assistant here has noted. He's uh uh Mr. Maldun, you're online. >> I am. >> Okay. Uh I guess what we're doing here is we have a request. This is this is the last item on our agenda. 2521 and
20. Am I getting that right? Oh, are those the right numbers or is that a that a typo? >> That's a typo. That should be a 25. >> Okay. And hey, I caught something. 2521
uh under 158 and 2521 under the Cape Cod Commission Act. And there's a correspondence and request for continuence to September 2nd from the applicant. So we need a motion to confirm. Mr. Ler,
>> I move we continue the the hearing to September 2nd with the at the applicant's request. >> Second. >> Okay. Uh Paul, uh so are you are we going to have a different design or we just going to continue the conversation if I may ask in a nice way?
>> Uh we will have a different design. Say again, >> we've been working, we'll have a different design. We've been working hard to to refine the design, work with the existing house, and um have there be some continuity between the original existing and this new proposed addition
uh which will be focused on the rear of the house, but we're we're not quite prepared with the documents yet. We will be prepared for the September 2nd meeting. >> Okay, great. You know, appreciate your cooperation. Okay. Um, >> just for that and the members of the public, we'll take a quick roll call on
the motion. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> And the chair votes. Thank you very much, Paul. >> Thank you. Take care. >> Have a good day. Okay, we have uh
five applications that we're going to or four applications we're going to hear. I think we can move quickly through them, at least one or two of them. Uh the first one is 2526. Uh it's a uh a request for a demolition.
Uh on 693 Orleans Road. This is a full demolition. There is no uh form B for the property. And when our consultant, preservation consultant did the analysis of those
properties, I forget when exactly, it was listed as no and not and and is not located in national register. The no meant that the uh effectively the the uh
consultant thinks it really wasn't worthy of us spending our time and money to go through the process. I'm I'm giving Mr. Lichfield speech. Sorry. Uh, Mr. Lichfield, why don't you introduce yourself? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Lichfield
here in behalf of KD Terrialt, who as trustee owns this property with her husband, Mark. Uh, they purchased the property last year. Those of you who were able to come to the site visit saw that that is essentially what you saw
when you went there. Miss Hamilton lives in the neighborhood, so she may have gone out on her own. The structure is old, but uh as the consultant correctly said, uh it's certainly not within an historic district. It is not listed on the national or state register. And I
don't think that there is anything historically significant suggesting that the property is associated with any person or event or cultural or political history of the town. Uh it has no uh particular architectural details. It
arguably may have been a full cape reproduction when originally constructed. Obviously, it's had many changes since then. We would ask that you uh not impose a demolition delay. Whether you find it to be historic, I think is a challenging call for you to make, but that's your discretion, not
mine. >> Okay. Uh I think it's uh we do have a piece of correspondence from from a neighborh. Why don't I just read that quickly and uh it's from uh Ellen Hour.
>> Eileen >> say again >> Eene >> Eileen sorry u nice handwriting. I have been in a butter to 693 Allens Road since 1961 64 years the year I got married and I am
also the abutter with the longest boundary line. This property has not been known to have any historical buildings, but rather than have been valued for its land as a meadow, door kernel availability, and beautiful floral landscaping. I wish the new owner
much success in building a new home in this wonderful neighborhood as we are multigenerational residential area. Thank you very much. August 8th, 2022. Okay. Uh, I think at this particular point, you know, let's quickly look
around the room to see if there's any comments or questions. >> Yes. >> Um, >> I have one question. Are any of the parts of the house going to be saved? >> No. If if there is any desire for, for instance, those fans, if anyone would
like them, we could make arrangements for them. But there's no intent to reuse any of the current materials. >> Thank you. >> Okay, >> Jenna. No, I can see why. It's in pretty rough shape. So, um, no, I don't see
historical significance. >> Any >> I have nothing to add, >> Bob. >> The only historical thing we discussed yesterday was this was a kennel for many, many years. So, I have been there in that context, but long ago.
>> Yeah. And I guess I agree. unfortunate. You know, it's pretty little house, a beautiful spot, but u you know, maintenance and time, you know, takes its wear and tear. Know sometimes you like to see a little house like that that was able to be maintained. You
could keep it and then add to it and stuff like that, save some elements, but it's just beyond beyond that point. So, I would agree. So, uh, I guess the first thing we do is just confirm or the issue of, uh, historical significance. Bob.
Yeah. Uh, I move the Chattam Historical Commission find that the building structure located at 693 Orleans Road 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. >> I'll second. Second. Any other discussion? Members of the public for or against the motion? Seeing none, uh for the public's information, will we take this first step? Determine if a property is
historically significant. If we determine it is not, then the applicant is free to to go forward with whatever it wants to do with the property. If he does, then we go to part two and discuss how we can approach and try to save any historic elements of the property. So
seeing none, we'll proceed. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> And the chair votes. Thank you very much, Mr. >> Thank you very much. >> Okay, moving along. Uh the next
application is 2527 94 Mil Creek Road. Uh this is also an application to fully demolish. We always get nervous when we see those words fully demolished. U and it's to be heard
within chapter 158 and uh again this has no form B on the property uh nor is it in the national register and it's a no in the survey list when we did it. So it similar
category to the previous property. And once again, Mr. Lichfield. >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Bill Lichfield here on behalf of Frank and Whitney Heavey who were here in the audience and who those of you who were in the site visit met yesterday. Uh what is there
now is a circa 1950 3/4 cape. Uh the heavies for uh a number of reasons including the fact that Frank works from home and the fact that Whitney's mother is going to be moving in with them need some additional room. The uh existing
3/4 cape will be uh replaced subject to zoning board of appeals review with a similar structure. Uh it'll be a full cape. Uh it will have traditional design. Uh what is there now, however,
is only marginally Thank you very much. That's the proposed replacement, although not strictly within your purview. I thought you'd like to know. Uh again, we we think you can find uh based on the lack of a form B, based on the age of the house and so forth that
it is not historically significant and uh we would ask that you not find u or not impose a demolition delay. I think that the uh the criteria A, B, and C uh don't apply to this house. And that is
essentially where we are. Okay. Um, all right. Well, I guess could be simple if we if we concur that what's there now is not historically significant and basically concurrence with our uh
our applicant. Uh, tell me what what is at the bottom of the I'm just looking at that. Oh, I see. It's the it's the bottom of the front develation. Okay. I'm looking at I'm looking at it. I don't need it. I got it. I figured it out. Okay. Very good. Um All right. There there's no other structure besides
that. No garage or anything on the property? >> Not that I'm aware of. No, >> no. I mean, you don't planning just was I just was interested. No, it's a very nice house. It's charming and I think, you know, the neighbors going to be happy. Nobody likes to see change, but I
think it'll be fine. Well, as we pointed out yesterday, we're we're going and the heavies are insistent that we retain the large willow in the front of the house so that it'll keep the streetscape rather the same. >> Right. Yeah. >> Okay. So, the question here really is very simple. Do we consider the house
historically significant or not? So, let's go around. Steph, >> I don't have anything. >> No, I think it's not historically significant. >> I agree. I think we need to look at these um kind of on the cusp cottages
and look at where the context and everything like that, but I don't see anything um it's cute house that's architecturally or otherwise historically significant. >> Yeah. Well, you bring out a good point relative to context because we do have a situation in town where we have large
accumulation of cottage communities that we we hate to see lost and and the uh but in I think what it's going back there it's not the same but it's very close to what it is. So that's point. I'm sorry, Bob.
>> The the only historic thing I can think of as a prior owner was Bob Manetti, who was my predecessor as chair of the conservation commission. I don't think I don't think that counts. So, >> well, if it was if it was you, then it would be different. That would be historically significant.
>> Okay. Uh I don't motion, Bob. >> Yep. I move the Cadam Historical Commission finds that the building located at 94 Mil Creek Road 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 demolition delay. >> Second. >> Okay. Any member of the public wish to speak for against the application? >> Okay. Seeing none, Bob? >> Yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph,
>> yes. Janet. >> Yes. >> And the chair vote. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you all. Have a good day. Moving right along. Okay. Uh 55 Seat Pine Road 2528
>> which is not on the map. >> Say again. >> It's not on a map. >> No. This is a map brand new this year. Cine is not on it. >> Seine. >> Mhm. >> Oh yeah. Well, it's not on that map, but
Google got it, >> let me tell you. >> So, uh, this is an application, uh, in accordance with chapter 158. Did you find it, Steph? Okay, good. U, and we had a delightful site visit yesterday. And uh
very simply, this is a property in which there is a form B on the property, although not on the National Register, and it is what we call done, which means we did actually do a survey of it. And there is a form B, which I think the owners have a delightful location and
delightful property. And um why don't you introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what you're planning to do? >> Thank you. Uh my name is Roger Hoy. um architect lives at 174 Foxhill Road and I'm representing the owners uh two of
whom are here um Hwan Tomlinson and her husband Bill Noel um and my wife as well uh supporter for all that we do. Um our intent here is to try to maintain the character of this
this house. Um uh we're so pleased that four of the members of the commission were able to come yesterday uh even with a 25 mph northeast wind blowing off Froz. It was a little on the chilly side in the back.
But uh you got to see the the house at its best really. And our intention is to try to to leave it pretty much as it is uh right now. Um, just a minute of of history. Um, Roy Thomasson, who is the owner's
greatgrandfather, bought all the land on Nickerson's neck, um, and formed the golf club that's now known as Eastwood Hoe. Um, he had also flaked and moved two 18th century buildings to create the first clubhouse
up on the hill. And he also flaked and moved a third house um at which he placed at 174 Foxhill Road which we have lived in since 1935. Not us, but the family. Um
and uh it's a uh that house was sold by the Tomlinsons to NY's family uh back in 1935, 90 years ago. We're about to welcome the sixth
generation of Rosenberry Hoy uh family in that uh on that piece of property, which is is also kind of fun. We're connected uh through uh NY's mother and Awan's
grandmother were sisters, so we are connected right down the line uh with with these two families. And it's really kind of fun. Um uh uh you have the the site plan. Um th this house um started
off I guess as a real estate office uh for the new development >> of Harbor Ces. It was right at the at the gate just beyond the gate. Um and basically has uh has been there was it was sold after the Harbor Croes got
going. It was sold into a residential property and has been um Hwan's family bought it uh in 1989. So they've had 35 years of uh of use and her sister and children will be the
third generation of Tomlinsons to uh to live on this this property. Uh what uh what we're hoping to do here um is to to maintain uh the foundation.
Annie, could you bring up that foundation plan? So this is a a copy of the actual foundation. Um there's a six- foot tall basement to the left with a bulkhead and then a crawl space under
the octagon which is the windmill and then the uh uh crawl space on the rear elevation going back up towards the crow pond. Uh it's our intention to leave that foundation just as it is. We're not going to add
anything to the footprint of this house. Um there is a huge chimney on the backside. Um Annie may bring that next plan and uh maybe the picture that
there at the bottom. Uh you can see that the chimney. There's a fireplace on the inside. that outside fireplace uh which is actually now being held up with wood uh because the lintil on the back side of that has has caved in and
has started to fall uh into that uh into that outside fireplace. Uh the pointing on the chimney is is not good at the top. Uh and it's our intention to take that um uh out demolish that piece of
it. But all the structure around it, including the um windmill, will remain uh as as it is. And there'll be a uh a window and a a stud wall that will uh
come in at that exact location where the outside face of the fireplace is. Um and that window would look out onto the patio which again does not get touched. Uh and uh all the rest of the fenistration on that uh wing of the the
house will remain as is. Uh and uh u the uh the house itself uh is uh a white cedar shingle uh which we intend to to maintain. Uh the all the corner boards, trim etc around the
windows and doors is all also white cedar which we intend to uh to keep. Uh and uh the only place that uh uh we're going to make any major changes would be on the windmill itself. Um and that is
the siding on the windmill because it it's pitched uh the shingles have started to deteriorate between probably the the uh loft floor and down to the ground have started to cup and deteriorate so that they have uh failed
in many cases especially at the base. So uh we're going to leave all the shingles roof shingles are also red cedar with uh with cedar uh ridge caps. Uh we're going to leave all that in place and the only thing we're going to do on the windmill
itself is to resside it and add two windows. Um all the windows on the the that section now are uh awning windows and we'll be matching the that that window um uh which will I think show on
the on the other picture. Annie, yeah, there's a you can see the two windows above the entrance door um are awning windows, four pane um windows, and we'll we'll match those uh one
window in the loft area and then one window on the first floor which is going to be converted into a uh to a kitchen. uh but the as I said perimeter of this entire thing will remain just as it is uh and to try to maintain the character
uh that is there on site uh uh as we as we speak. Um the only other thing is that we we have a actually uh Hwan's mother has bought a wheel. Uh if those of you who
saw the wheel as we walked by it or got blown by it um yesterday uh is in pretty bad shape, but we have a wheel that's almost exactly the same size. and we're it's our intention to replace the wheel. All of the of the works uh and the uh
the top uh of the windmill all look to be in reasonably good shape. So again uh we'll just do whatever we have to do to maintain the the look of that just as it is right now. So, I think that's a that gives you an
idea of what what we're uh looking to do for the for the job and be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Uh >> Mr. White, I got the feeling you've done this before >> a few times. >> And you get an A+ on your application and your presentation. Trust me, we get
some doozies, you know, and and the biggest problem is figuring out what the heck is he trying to do, you know, and uh and uh and just as the form B indicates, this is certainly an iconic uh an iconic structure. But it's interesting because, you know, you look
at it, you say, well, it's 1956. It's not old. And let me tell you how many arguments have with people. Well, you know, what are you what are you doing? It's not old. It's, you know, it's not 1700. And and the question of what is history? What's historic? and what helps us maintain the historic character of
the community and and certainly this is it and I and I know our uh I think it was Mr. Dre, our preservation consultant. I had talked to him and you know it was delight when he he does these things and sometimes he gets a house and he's really delighted to do it because it is interesting and and the
history of the of the property uh you know and of that whole part of Chadam on how it was developed is a long story. Just wanted to a question before I open it up. You have to go to zoning. >> Yes. >> What for if I may ask? >> Well, that was a good question because I
wasn't sure. >> You're not sure? >> Why? But um it was >> you're not increasing well you are increasing the footprint technically >> 20 square feet uh with a can lever off the backside. >> Okay. But let me just quickly if when you go to zoning the issue is
that you're exceeding the percentage coverage because it's not a big piece of property, >> right? U we we passed a bylaw change to the zoning a couple of years ago which indicates or provides if a home is historically significant which we
determined which I believe we're going to reiterate here today this is historically significant you get you get additional coverage it's allowed in other words the bylaw you know the town finally recognizes we wanted to preserve
an historically significant home that okay if they just need another you know two or three or four whatever the percentage is I'm not sure what the percentage is Bob that in our bylaw change um but it's something in other words that you know I want to maintain this historic house but I need another
you know x number of square feet so by by right you have the authority but anyway so when you get to that point think about it and and let us know through Christina because we can be an advocate and say hey this is historically significant you know he he
is entitled to do that but the historical commission has to basically you know uh say so we would do that but I just noticed that you know you have it that you have zoning in there or that you represent zoning but let us know >> the house is 700 square f feet and the site is 15,000
>> oh so it should not be >> and we're adding 20 square feet uh but not to the foundation only we have a can lever a two foot by 10 foot can lever to make that one room that's only 9 foot deep, 11 foot deep at that point. So, it
it will act as a as a a premier uh bedroom rather than having to switch the the bed around and put it up against the wall. Um, so that's that's really it. We had thought and Tom Stella, who was did the site plan, had thought that because
of it was so dimminitive that there wouldn't be an issue with zoning. But when I submitted it originally, uh, building felt that we ought to go to both of you. >> I'm really glad we came to you because that was >> Yeah, that was fun for us yesterday.
please let us know and Christina will will alert me when you're up when your meeting is and you know we could we could make that clear and you know I don't know if necessarily need an attorney but you know but it's clear it's a very clearly written that if a house is historically significant and
historical commission determined it is historically significant by right you're entitled to this additional coverage. Okay. All right. Uh, quickly one second. Okay, just quickly let's go around the room. Um, Steph,
>> I do not believe it's historically significant. >> You do not? >> I believe it is, but I Well, I believe it's historically significant, but um, in a very slim way. >> In what? >> Slim way.
>> Okay. I think it's ex historically significant, but I think the minor change they want to make is not going to impact the historical significance of what they want to do. >> Nancy, >> um, I just have a question out of
curiosity. It's not real clear from our form or for what you said. The the windmill was purposebuilt in the 1950s or was it moved there from another location and then, you know, >> Well, we have a question about that. We >> our understanding was that it was moved.
It was a water windmill. >> Okay. >> And it was moved uh and it looks like it because the the framing on the windmill is different than the framing on the two editions, >> right? >> But we we don't have any written record
that that was. >> So the wood is probably older then. >> It Yes, it is. And it's different. >> If you have nothing else to do with a few hundred bucks, you can do dendocchronology and date it. Well, or maybe like one of those aerial maps or something will show it in the area. >> That's a fascinating thing. I really got
into that. This dendocchronology, it's like within 10 years they can tell you where the tree came from. Anyway, okay. Anything else? >> Um, no, I think it would be interesting to to ascertain that, but um >> I think it is >> I agree with Janet. I think it probably is historically significant, but the
changes are not >> Sorry. I agree with Janet. the changes pro it probably is historically significant but the changes will not negatively impact that historic character. >> Okay. Uh I concur. I believe you know it
it is historically significant and the changes are you know will enhance the livability and also the uh the fact that it'll you know things need to be fixed up and minor changes are consistent with historic preservation in my opinion.
Okay. Uh members of the public want to speak for against the application >> want to come on up. >> Just to reinforce about the fireplace, it's actually dangerous. I mean, there are bricks. Children could be hurt just walking by it. And so it's a big plus to
get rid of it. And the others at the hearing with EBA is on the 28th. So >> what is the date? >> The 28th >> of >> of August. It's like 10 days from now. So >> Okay. >> Um so it would be I mean maybe they
would decide they don't even need to hear it if you spoke to them. I I don't know how that would happen. >> All right. We'll look we'll look into that. >> It's on the agenda. It will have to be heard. >> Okay. Do you know what it's very hard for?
>> Probably extending maybe a nonconformity of some sort. I would say >> extending existing non-conformity >> and 20 ft seems like a little bit, but a lot of people go for a lot less, but >> Okay. >> Yeah. >> All right. Well, all right. Thank you. >> Just Yeah. >> All right. Thank you very much. Okay. Um
we'll need a motion. Bob. Yep. Um, I move Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at 55 C Pine Road is historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75 years old or more. And we also find it's associated it possesses architectural
value or significance in terms of style, method of construction. And I guess that's it. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> Second. Thank you very much. Any member of the public wish to speak for against the application? I don't believe there's any correspondence.
Okay. Uh Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Chair Bob, >> yes. >> Chair Vess, uh, okay? >> Now we need to approve it. >> We determined it's historically
significant. Now we have to >> Sorry. Cadam Historical Commission also finds that the proposed work to be done dated July 7th, 2025 will not materially diminish the historical significance of the building and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay.
>> A second. >> Okay. Any other members of the public wish to speak for against the application? Seeing none. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> See, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Jesus. Thank you very much and we'll
we'll stay in contact. Thank you very much. >> Good luck on your noon time sale. >> All right. U All right. Got to try and do this. All right. The next application is 2529
552 Shore Road. Again, chapter 158. technically a partial demolition of a significant property on Shore Road. And what we have here
is a property which there is a form B and uh it is not located in historical commission in a in a national registered district and um it's quite an extensive change
in the sense of uh mult multiple things being and uh so why don't you introduce yourself uh yourselves and we can u have a discussion. >> Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and
members of the commission, attorney Mike Ford representing the applicant and uh new owners as of June of this year. Um Mr. Scaton and and Miss Gibbons. Um upon
buying it and uh uh meeting with uh PSD represented this morning by John Barker, their head of architectural services who's with me today um uh gave direction to them that uh they wanted to preserve
uh even though the entire structure is in in somewhat difficult condition. um it hasn't uh hadn't gotten a lot of care over the years, but they wanted to preserve that main section um of the house that we looked at yesterday when you were out there.
So, uh, a plan has been put together, um, uh, which we looked at a little bit yesterday, but we'll present to you in more detail today, um, to demolish, uh, the wing on the left side of the property as you go in. Um, and then, uh,
to replace that, uh, with a a new wing. That wing is, uh, substantially, uh, consists of four garage bays. And then when you get down to the um area where it actually uh meets the house, the rest of the house itself, uh there are um a
series of rooms at that end of the house um that are uh attached to the garages and attached through doorways to the main house inside. Um that part of the house as they looked at it uh was one that uh they felt that they could not um
uh frankly renovate. uh they saw no need for all that long series of garages. I I think their um their u desire and hope is to be able to replace that area with the the new section on excuse me on the
left. Um and uh sometime in the future uh probably build a garage on some other detached portion of the property. So, uh, this property, um, as near as we can tell, dates to somewhere between
1920 and 1928. There is a form B. Eric Dre did it, did a a good job. Um, importantly, I think he did not recommend that it be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Um that said, in looking at the uh tests
under chapter 158, uh this not being um in an historic district, I think that uh or being on the register itself, um it still does, as I I think Mr. Dre pointed out in his description, particularly under architecture,
um represent a kind of a colonial revival style house, uh where the second floor kind of sits in garrison form on the top of the of the first floor, which we observed when we walked around it yesterday. and um similar perhaps in
terms of size, a large house uh to those houses that were built during this time period um along Shore Road um along particularly the water side of Shore Road. And so um when asked yesterday was historical significance an issue, I
answered no. I think there probably is enough here for the commission to make a finding um under that u architecture uh that this not only is old enough um but indeed um through its architecture is probably qualifies at least portions of
the house um as significant. That said, um we could not figure out the age of uh the um garages uh that are proposed to be demolished. Um Eric seems
to indicate his best thought was Eric Dre in his form B uh that they might have been built um in a couple of fits and starts. It looks like two of them are older than the other two. We thought if you read his form um closely um as
reported to you yesterday or to some of you as we were walking around Mr. Barker uh through extensive uh photographic uh analysis of the history of this area um they seem to u start to show up on aerials uh sometime in the 30s. So,
they're old um as well. Um but they are an area that uh if you went inside them at all and just stuck your head in, um there's not much to them. And um uh we would suggest really don't carry a great deal of historical significance, any of
the four of them. So, um, the folks who have lived in in this house over the years didn't seem to me to jump out to help in terms of this being historically significant property
being initially um um purchased by uh an Emma the um and then uh she was from Rhode Island. She actually built a house, she owned other land over an old harbor and built a house at 458 Old Harbor according to the form B form and
conveyed this as a vacant lot umh to a doctor from uh New Jersey, Montlair, New Jersey uh James Hannon. And this kind of became known historically according to Eric as the Hannah house because of
that. And he owned it until looks like he conveyed it out according to the records of registry deeds in 1930. Um, and at that time is the first time in a deed it's described with the premises together with the building thereon. So, we we think it's pretty sure that it got built before 1930 given that description
in the deed. Um but other than the doctor living there for a bit and then a uh um a textile guy from Buffalo who lived there for a while um uh and then there was a whole series of of owners over the last um 50 to 60 years ending
up with our clients um this year. I don't think that any of them jumps out at least at me as somebody who was important in the history of Chadam. Notwithstanding that, I think the architecture is still something that you could rely on in finding this is significant as you do your analysis.
So, um, we're assuming that that's where you'll go and we'd like to make our presentation based on that finding. I don't know if you want to make that finding first and then have us go with our presentation. >> Thank you very much. I got the feeling you've done this before. Um but uh yeah I you know I'd like to
just to comment briefly you know what Eric's form B and and it's interesting because you know we could tell at least I did familiar with him he's kind of mixed in his writing you know and like you you commented well he doesn't say it's it's eligible to listing on the
national register but let me just say a couple words that's true individually it really is probably not worthy of listing But if we would have done something that we were thinking of doing about 20 years, which is to list Shore Road on
the National Register as a National Register District, this house was a contributing structure. In other words, it's contributing. We were talking about four contributing to an area of large majestic homes, you know, and I always when people complain about these big
McMansions, they said, "Wait a second. Every house on Shore Road is is a large house, you know. What are you talking about?" you know it's but I think so it is it does it does maintain a certain amount of colonial revival and an era which we we would like to try and
preserve u and from my perspective from that point of view it probably as you indicated uh Michael that it is worthy of at least some some significance you know in trying to protect it. I would say, you know, I would vote yes, it is
historically significant, but I also agree with the work that you guys are attempting to do, you know, is probably consistent with maintaining that historical character. So, I don't know how the commission feels. Do you want to proceed with the issue of historical significance or not? Yeah,
>> I think it is historically significant. >> Okay. Uh, Janet. Oh, that hesitation. Well, um, well, loosely defined, it's historically significant. I mean, there are a few
aspects of it. You know, 1930 makes it historic style, Shore Road, but >> making the case for historically significant. >> I think it's historically significant. However, the plans to maintain that that
>> exactly right look different >> is important and I think it's been taken into consideration and having visited it and uh it needs a tremendous amount of work and imagine the fact that they're willing to save the main portion and
restore that to its beauty. I think it um I think it's a good thing. So that's how I come out. All right, dance. >> Yeah, I think it's historically significant. I I I >> Are we gonna have a continued discussion after >> Oh, yes. I plan to do that. I just
didn't know how I'm not going to shorten I'd like to talk a little bit more about it. >> Michael, you know, he spent time and I thought we should talk and I agree it is worthy of >> historical significant but I'm also caveing it up front. I think the applicant is doing a good job here and we'll talk about it. All right, Bob.
>> I agree with that. All right. Why don't we proceed without, you know? >> Okay. All right. Fine. So, uh, with that assumption, we'll proceed. And what I'd like to do is turn it over to John Barker, as I indicated, the he's the the
U supervising architect over at uh PMA Savory to Silver at this point, and have him kind of walk you through uh what the changes are that are proposed, what's to be demolished, and what's to stay, and what the changes are uh to that portion that will be preserved. Uh so that you
can then we can then get to that point of the discussion. We did bring um kind of a trim board so to speak just to kind of uh give you an array of some of the trim features that were there which we thought were important they're saved
when they were taken off but just in the course of discussion as he refers to things we thought it might be illustrative and >> really appreciate that. >> Yes. >> John you want to >> Yes. Uh >> John John let me interrupt you half a second. Could you go to the site plan first? It's H0000.
Just a quick question. I want to get out of the way and put that up. >> The threecar garage you're just showing there is not that, you know, because a couple of times, Michael, you indicated future. That's not happening.
>> Not currently. That's a >> Not currently. No, that's not part of this application. >> All right. No, I just It's on the plan. >> Yeah. This is our master plan for the long-term development of the site. >> So, it's contemplating the >> TBD. Got it. >> We just kind of want to show you there's other things out there that I just
wanted to not necessarily under your jurisdiction, but you know, >> no, >> that's fine. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Go ahead, John. >> Of course. Um, and I think it was brought up yesterday that the elevations are are helpful, but the 3D >> Yeah. views which is H500
>> um have the side by side existing and proposed >> um really beneficial. So what you're looking at here is uh the top left is the existing 3D model of the current structure and the top right is the
proposed uh both of which are looking exonometrically from the southwest corner of the property looking at the front elevation. um where you see in the existing building the fourcar garage with the crossing gable roof structure
um and the little shorter connector piece um being removed in its entirety. We're mimicking that same gable aesthetic uh on the new mudroom entry that pushes closer to the main core of
the building. Um the piece that is I guess at the kind of crux between the garage edition and the main house um is in the worst form of disrepair uh of the the whole house. So this small section
here foundations crumbling um framings's rotted out. Um so we are proposing that we kind of of carry this similar gable form in the new elevation um extend the existing main ridge line
to capture and um land that mudroom addition piece um and tie into the main structure. Um there are a couple other minor smaller moves on the front elevation. Um there's a proposed new uh
dormer on the front elevation and highlighting the front entry. Um one of the architectural challenges with this house is there are actually four entry doors on the front elevation. Uh which is architecturally confusing. Um there's
door here at the main entry here. There's a door at this connector piece which we believe was um originally an outdoor living space breezeway that um at some time in the building's history
um was enclosed and then there's a fourth entry here. So the proposal is to make the main primary entrance into the main structure the predominant feature the predominant entry point on the
building. Um we're preserving the existing ridge the chimneys on the front elevation. Um we'll be replacing the windows in kind on the front elevation. Uh replacing the shutters. um replacing documented the trim profiles, rakes, uh
window um the corbals on the garrison. Yes, >> six over six double hung windows on the front elevation. >> Um >> really trying to kind of keep the architecturally significant historic
character of the front elevation um intact. On the rear side of the house, there's been of more noticeable modifications. Um, for example, some large plate glass picture windows that certainly aren't
historic. Um, this singlestory um curved arked uh addition that houses an extension to the living room and dining room um that was sort of glombmed on to the historic building, completely out of
character. um both of which are being replaced on the rear the picture glass windows. Um we're showing a new bay window and then we're pulling again this gable form forward in the new proposed design on the rear side of the house. Uh
and then mimicking it with a second um matching gable. Um, and then as I mentioned on the front, the existing main ridge line will be extended to capture the gable on the rear at the
it's the northeast corner of the structure. Um, >> how about materials? >> Yes, materials. Um, we're matching all of the, uh, existing red cedar sidewall shingles with that really, uh,
exaggerated exposure, um, which really gives the the structure a unique character. The roof will be all new red cedar shingles. Um, all the trim will be painted white, um, matching profiles.
Um, so we're trying to preserve uh the materiality, the aesthetic, the appearance of the structure with some modifications due to neglect and uh maintenance of the structure as well as um slight
adjustments to the way in which our new clients plan to use the house. Well, I think the materials, you know, in terms of the architectural elements in when itself, you know, worthy of the fact that you can and and are going to
do that, I think is significant to maintaining the historical architectural look and detail. You know there's no question the the scope of the change is significant and you know and we we get if people want to get into some of the details but you know my observation
quite honestly is I look at it you know step back and I look at the uh the form of the original the roof lines you know uh specifically the roof lines and there are some key ones you know that you you have maintained the chimneys of course is our favorite subject uh you know the
kind of uh the penistration which it looks like you're gonna reduplicate >> pretty much. >> We're not broadcasting anymore. >> What What do we have to do? >> We need to take a break. There's something wrong in the control room. >> Okay,
rats. Uh we have to take a quick uh a quick break here. is due to technical difficulties, we need to just take a break. >> That's the old TV line. You're aging. You're aging yourself. Frank >> says I'm on the air.
>> It's a name only. >> Okay. being totally transparent. I was using my cell phone uh during the meeting, which is shouldn't do that. And I was texting the the four people that I'm supposed to take sailing at 12:30 that
>> I'm going to be a little late, so I apologize for that. >> At least you weren't playing poker. >> That's right. No, no. I tell I was, you know, I was saying the worst part about this beautiful weather and everything else with the storm coming in. There's going to be one day
in between. Yesterday I was out on a boat, almost got blown off, you know, it was blowing so hard and then um and Wednesday, Thursday, forget about it. Storm lines. >> So, we're we're still broadcasting, >> okay? >> And we're going to the teams, but I have
no control over your audio for the recording. So, >> keep your microphones on. close to your microphones. >> Okay. >> And um I'll just make sure we're still broadcasting. >> Okay. >> Okay. >> So, I should just continue. >> Yes, please.
>> Okay. Uh looks like we temporarily corrected our temporary difficulties and we're continuing. But I guess what I was trying to say is that I, you know, I feel very comfortable with how you folks are proceeding. I'm and we can get into some of the details if people have some c specific uh elements but certainly
>> I do appreciate the uh the effort and the expense of doing something like this. So anyway that's having said that but why don't we just open it up. I do have one question >> certainly. >> Um on Okay, let's go down to the
proposed renovation southern and let's go to the back and what is that little extension at the top? At the top back of it not following exactly. >> Okay. Go to the bottom one. >> Yes.
>> Go to the back and all the way down to the end. >> Yes. >> No other end. >> Yes. Yes. Now go AC go to the back of Okay. What is the sticking out of the roof? >> Oh, up here. >> Oh, yes.
>> There is an existing um Koopa on the garage structure. Um here that's very prominent from the front as you enter the driveway. Um you see up on the top of the the roof line here that we are matching exactly and
relocating to the new gable end on the front. Almost looks like it was a home to swallow. >> Yes. Thank you. >> As you as you approach, you get the the gable with the Koopa uh as it exists today. >> I think it's in the pictures. >> Jac,
>> no. I I have no questions. I think it's a good plan. >> Thank you, Nancy. Um I um I think I have more comments than I have questions, but um I think it's important because um when we look at these things for people who are doing these kinds of plans, um I
think that >> um it's a little um unfortunate to me that all the garages are being totally demolished, particularly the ones the set closest to the house because that looks like it may have been the earlier one and then the other one came later.
the one with a Koopa currently looks like it may have been closer to being original. Um, having said that, um, I believe retaining the other, um, front um, detailing and roof lines and
everything you're doing um, goes a long way to kind of ameliating the loss of those garages. And I, um, really appreciate that. And so I um do not have a huge problem as I would if you were
making significant other changes to that side of the house which looks like it has is very close to what it was when they built it. It hasn't been extensively changed then I would have more problems. But because you're working so hard to retain th that
original detail on that facade, I feel better about the loss of the garages, even though I think that one set of them is kind of really does add to the historical significance. On the other side, if somebody was proposing the
changes in massing and windows, fenestration, the things that that you are proposing, if all of those changes were to a facade that had not already been extensively changed, I would have a big problem with it. However, the fact
that on the rear, all those windows, plate glass windows that are clearly been added far more recently, as you said, those semic-ircular additions, it that part of the house has already been extensively changed. So, I also do not
have a problem with the extensive changes to the water side facade. Um, but I would if it was at felt as close to the original as the front. So overall, I do not have a big problem really any significant problems with
these plans and I appreciate the work you've done and what you've done to show us how you're going to keep the architectural detailing because I think it's significant. It's not, you know, the most important, you know, typical kind of structure in Chattam, but it has its own unique details and I appreciate
what you've offered. I'm sorry to make it so long. I think your comments are instructive as we think about the future with other sites. So that was helpful. Anyway, >> yeah, very much so. Thank you. You know, it's interesting the garage and why I asked I asked about the garage three or four times there at the site visit. And
again, I was hoping that you would include the garage because what reason is I hope when you put the when you do the garage, think about what you just took away because if this was another kind of an application, we would
probably beat you up and say, "Okay, why don't you save the garage, pick it up, and move it?" In other words, so the the whatever that those elements of the property in 1920 whenever that was built, I don't care what 1920, 1930, was
it 40, but it's still there. And so just and I hopefully you're going to get that job. >> I hope so too. >> And but you know, think about that when you do that because I think it would be very, you know, you know, we do it a lot. You know, somebody has a very historic property, but they want to
build a monster house. We said, "Okay, take the historic and just move it so we don't lose it." >> Now, I gather from what you're telling me, the condition of those garages is just not movable. I mean, garages, you'd see >> there's nothing holding it together, you know,
>> and the framing is very slim. >> Yeah. No, I I understand. I understand. But just just a thought. >> We seem to be in electro mode, Nancy. Anyway, so, okay. Uh, other than that, yes, Bob. Um, I have a question similar to NY's, I guess. That the lower right,
the the southeast axon, the lower part that looks like there's some kind of a turret in the back. Is that what that is? Or >> that's a that's what I asked. >> You could blow that. >> I think it's about the the windows, the
twotory windows that have the peak in them on the bottom left. >> Yeah, that >> above that that thing. Yes. What is that? Well, >> it looks different than the dormers. That's all. >> Looks like it's triangular.
>> Yes, it's a a three-sided bay window with uh the roof lines coming together to a common ridge. Um, >> okay. Okay. It it looked well, first glance, it looked to me like it was a sort of a separate turret there, which would not have made sense to me, but I
get it now. >> Gives you that impression. >> I get it. Um and and also I very much I've bel labored PSD before about their um elevations and how they're misleading or hard to fathom and this these axons
are a much better rendition of what things will look like than just a row of different roof lines as you look down the elevation. So thank thank you for that. You know, if you think about before computers, if we were to ask an architect to generate that kind of I guess that is orthographic, is that
called orthographic or isometric? >> Oh, before your time. In other words, to do it with a with a ruler and a pencil would take a long time. >> I mean, you probably >> press a button, you know, >> those roof lines. >> Yeah. Anyway, all right. I think we have
got a good consensus. We would need two motions. one relative to historical significance and then whether or not it's to delay if that's okay. Bob. >> Yeah. Uh I move the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the building located at 552 Shore Road is
historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75 years old or more and it possesses architectural value or significance in terms of period and style in and of itself, but also in conjunction with other buildings in the area.
Second. >> Thank you very much. Uh, any other comments, members of the public? >> Okay, we got a quick roll call. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes.
>> J vote, yes. Okay, part two. Cadam Historical Commission also finds the proposed work to be done dated July 21st, 2025 will not materially diminish the historic significance of the structure and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> I'll second.
>> Thank you very much. Any other comments from the public? Seeing none, Bob? >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Jesus, thank you very much. Really appreciate your times. >> Thank you, Mr. Ford. I just just noticed
um the address on the application sore. >> Oh, >> I take full responsibility. >> All right. >> Give my best to Aaron. Hope he's not working too hard. That Peter is enjoying his semi-retirement. >> Old retirement now. >> Is he? >> Yes.
>> So, he's now just pushing the grandkids. >> That's right. >> All right. Very good. Okay, guys. We have a number of things quickly to discuss and very positive. Uh if you don't mind run to the uh old business of the agenda >> participant is now exiting.
>> It's all right. Go ahead. >> Okay. Uh very quickly uh the West Cadam housing development. They're not moving much from my perspective of our comments. You know, they're going to paint the doors different colors and
rather to meet the height locations. They're going to do this. They're going to squash everything down. I don't know what zoning is going to do, whether or not they're going to deny it and this thing goes into court, but there's a meeting this Thursday the 21st at 2:00.
Uh unfortunately, I'm not going to be here at a wounded 10. So, if anybody feels like attending and speak for yourself andor the commission's comments, it's you're certainly welcome. Uh the other thing that developed with the housing is that the um
Pembrose has provided their plans for the uh the second development in South Chattam uh on Meeting House Road pretty much a mirror copy almost exactly the same buildings are building in and it just is in my view
a shame that they they can't be more creative and just recognize if they make the buildings different It's going to be a lot nicer. It's going to look like a Well, anyway, so no comments. Uh, having said that, uh, very positive on the
second item, rules and regulations. We finally were able to get a meeting with the council, Jay >> Talman, >> Tal Jay Talman, the new town council. We had a very good meeting with Bob and I, Katie, and um, and Christina. Christina
did a great job in uh articulating to the attorney what our issues were and what we're trying to do. We're talking about the issue of historical significant. We're talking about the issue of properties. It's not our agenda, so technically we're not going
to say much because you have in front of you copies of the existing uh rules and regulations and determination of applicability. That's item B. Uh and secondly, you have a just a page from
our rules and regulation. what needs to happen here and the attorney agrees if we want to find a way to have like for instance that houses that came to us we had you know like it's obvious there's no form B you know you know it
really could have been done administratively >> just like we crept up to the issue of administrative approval of very small changes we want to try another way to determine historical significance we're not abdicating that responsibility. It
still is the historical commission's responsibility. But if we want to have him an applicant avoid a full hearing process, all the costs, the attorneys and everything else and have it done separately with a consultation of a maybe a member, two members of the
commission and the preservation consultant and staff. In other words, that decision would still be ratified by the commission would have to come back just as we do now. So, it's a process and the bottom line of what the attorney indicated, yeah, we can do that. You can
change your rules and regulations to put that procedure in place. I've asked Bob to take a shot at it and he will how we would change the wording, but we still need to modify the bylaw in the sense that on item B where it says the the
commission shall hold a public hearing and determine uh determine whether or not is historically significant. So he needs to just do a little lawyering and and coming up with some different words which says it's not just the commission
but maybe staff or something like that means we're going to go to town meeting. He was a little concerned about town meeting. I'm not concerned. I think we can we're doing something positive. It's the issue how many times what are you going to do about Riverbay in 20 years? you know, you know, that we need to
address it and I think we need just as we've been very I think we've been very transparent with the public in the years I've been on the commission that, you know, we are recognizing and sometimes things got have to change. So anyway, at our next meeting, it'll be on the agenda, but we'll have something to actually, you know, review, but I wanted
to give you a heads up. Okay. Uh, number three, apparently we found out that Mass Historic Commission is got some kind of a log jam. Uh, that we're not the only ones who haven't received the determination availability
that there are other applications which are jogged up there. We originally were told we're going to answer in 30 days. It's been months. >> So, uh, I'm going to be finally writing a letter with a nicer tone and say, "What's up, guys?" we'll find out where
we are. Our friends at the Nichson Foundation are very, you know, what's going on. And I just say, well, you know, we've we've done what we can and we want to take the next step because we still feel positive they're going to say yes, but we still have to find the funds and do an a formal application.
Uh Christina has been busy with Eric Dre in terms of coming up with the proper contracting language and procedure for him to begin the update of the uh the form B's. interesting in discussions with the attorney the form B's become an
integral part because the there's something that somebody a professional consultant looked at a property and said nah other words you know although you know that's not a final determination but it gives you information to deal with you know you know you get an
address what happened here you know and somebody did the research or at least some of the research not as extensive as Nancy would have done but some of the research >> can I ask a quick question about Is there like a way that um it feels like like some of the properties where
they're just drivebys like that's going to become more of an issue if they're hidden and >> Yes. >> if we're relying on whether or not there's a form B than if there's not a form B and that kind of somehow infers. >> Yeah, but Eric Eric did every house no matter where.
>> No, I know. He does. I'm just saying it. I noticed on this one it said because I can't see it more. I can't see it from the road so I don't know how and I thought well that could be a problem with certain places. >> Oh yes, absolutely. >> Um and then I also there was a couple that I found didn't have forms but are
have really old dates. So I just if we rely totally on whether or not there's a form I think we need to be really careful. >> It's one more it's one more tool you know. >> Yeah. And you we need to do what we do a site visit. If someone's putting an application, they need to they they
legally probably don't have to say yes, but we tell them if you don't let us own the property to really look at it, you know, >> it's your risk. >> It's your risk. All right. Good. I think that's good. That's why next time we meet, we'll go into discussion. >> Sorry, I just had one thing to say. He in his contract there is a windshield
assessment. I think that's what Nancy is referring to. Um, and then also I just wanted to put this out here, too. Nancy had found a couple that don't have form B's. If anyone else has any questions, we can make a list for Eric that he can start on once the contract is finalized.
>> I mean, I have found a couple houses that have dates of the 1700s that we do not have form B's on. >> Yeah. Well, >> so that's nice. >> Yeah. >> Okay, great. All right. Uh, next item, demolition by neglect has been
neglected, but I I have been told they're going to they're going to try and rep prioritize some work. And again, bottom line, I'm looking for I just want the staff to give me a position and then we'll determine what we're going to do. >> Yeah. >> You know, >> um,
>> my biggest thing on that is I think that we have to somehow have a consequence. >> Yes. >> We can't just write the rule. That's have people follow. >> You got it, Steph. >> Uh, the Coast Guard boat house is the work is proceeding pretty well and it's
scheduled to come back this fall. Um, we'll see >> this fall or next fall. >> Say again. >> This fall or next? >> Yeah. >> Really? >> Yeah. They've almost done with the pilings. >> Oh, >> I hope I still have my boat in the water. I'd like to sail down with it. >> This says fall 2026.
>> I thought 2026. That was my understanding from Gary. >> Wow. Yeah, that's the plan. Sorry about that. >> Now, hopefully I'm not wrong, but I'll check it. >> Uh, no, no administrative approval. And
we did have one correspondence about 75 hallway, which uh has asked to withdraw its application from the Cape Cod Commission. Excuse me. >> And they will be submitting a complete new application to us. Sorry, there was
this agenda went out um before the a ratification came through and I did put it online so we can talk about it, but for 407 Old Harbor Road um I believe Nancy and Bob took took a look. There was an administrative approval for some
um work in the back of the property. >> Can we do that? >> It's on It's onlineicial. You just you you did not receive it. It was ratified after the packets went out. >> Okay. >> Or excuse me, it was decided. >> Who did it? >> Nancy and Bob.
>> Can one of you say something? >> Well, I it took a while to find it. I'll put it that way. And if you rumage around in the backyard, you can see what they're up to. But I don't I think it's just removing stuff that was added later that
shouldn't have been there. So, I have no problem. >> Yes. And and maintenance of Yes. existing. >> Oh, yeah. The the the a new uh rubber roof or whatever, right? >> All right. Well, thank you very much. That's the that's kind of the issues we're working on. Okay. Good. >> We need to vote on the admin approval.
We do. >> We need a I move we approve the um the property through administrative review. >> Second. >> Okay. Any other comments? Thank you very much. >> Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy,
>> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. Janet. >> Yes. >> Chair votes. Yes. One last thing. Preservation awards. I need to get our act together. You didn't get You didn't do that, did you? The copies of the forms for the
>> I did not. I'm sorry. We do have one more correspondence. >> That's right. What I'm going to ask um Christine to do in the next week or so is to send me copies of last year's request form. Christina tells me we've already got 10 potential applicants. So
>> good. >> That's good news, but you know, it doesn't mean we don't know what that is. And I looked at it. So I still want to do the the due diligence and send a letter to all the the people who have been and participated in the past and
say I pass some houses that I think, boy, we really should have given that award. And people don't, you know, it's like it's just something to do. But uh I think we'll do and then I'll call the meeting of the group and uh the commission the um the committee consists
of myself Janet from the historical commission um Kevin Wright and another young woman from the commission I can't think and then two members of the HBDC. did we we still need a at large member
>> you know we need an odd number you know so I guess I would ask and some of you to think about >> uh someone who's involved in historic preservation >> I just maybe Ellen Briggs or somebody like that you know from pop you know
who's who's not on the historical commission not on the HBDC but still and you know it's like two or three meetings that's it you know it's not a big deal >> so if you did send some recommendations back to me and to Janet, you know, we'll we'll meet and we'll go forward. You
know, we we get uh get a lot of feedback from people about that, you know, and I think it's a very positive thing. You you you in the beginning. >> I founded it. >> Well, >> sorry. And I'll tell you why we have those plaques if you want to know. It's
only amount of characters that fit on the plaque. >> That's why they look the way they do. That's why they're so what? >> Well, you you know how the plaque like it's like it says certain things like well you just there's a certain number of characters you can have and it's the
only one that fit into the budget and so >> that's that's why don't you have more information? >> I totally went through that. Understood. >> I know because that the the plaques are a defining moment. I got to watch what I say now. You know, we used to have
fundraising and I the fundraisers went away. So, I convinced the town and the town limits us to five, but we're going to do more than five this year. >> I can tell you that I've done a search of sign shops, you know, that you can order online and they are still limited
unless you want to spend like 200 bucks a plaque. >> Yeah, I know. >> So, >> I >> Yeah. Award 2020. Yeah. Right. >> Yeah. I Anyways, I'm I fault. It's all my fault. >> All right. Quickly, what year? >> What What year >> did we start it?
>> Oh, well, now that is it was a long time ago. Um, 2003. Does that sound right? 2004, 2003. >> I'm trying. >> I can look it up. I still have all the old files. >> I I we don't put what year it is. >> That sounds That sounds about right
because I had to go back because we have the >> the um old not the plaques, but the big things >> the write ups and everything like that >> and I have them too. >> It was 2000. did it at the at the lounge at the Chattam Bars in the first one. >> I remember that was a big deal. >> And then we did it at the Wayside.
>> We got free drinks and free odd. >> Yeah, I Yeah, I think they did do that for us. >> Now we get a piece of cheese >> if we're lucky. Yeah. >> Okay, here we go. I think we're done. Unless somebody wants to stay. All right. Got a motion. >> I make a motion that we retire this
meeting. End this meeting. >> Thank you. >> Second. >> All right. Thank you very much. Uh Bob. >> Yes. Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> And the chair vote yes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it everybody's attendance.
[Music]