[music] Heat. Heat. [music] >> [music] >> Good Morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and this is the November 4th, 2025 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Before we start, there's a number of
notices that we have to read. Please note, this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled on demand viewing on a smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please notify the chairman.
Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Haley's March 28th, 2025 signing of chapter 2 acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law
general law 3020 until June 20th June 30th 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure that
the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order. A reminder that people who would like to listen to the meeting while it's in process process may do so by calling the phone number 5089454410 conference ID425225122
hashtag or join the meeting via online via Microsoft teams through the link on the posted agenda agenda. While this is a live broadcast ensemble cased on Cadam TV Exfinity Cadam 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide
real time access. Okay, having said that, the first order of business is a roll call. Vice Chair Bob Leer. Bob is in transit. He may call in and participate. >> No, it's not Bob. That's not Bob. Bob, you here? >> No.
>> Oh, it's not Bob. Oh, I'm sorry. Okay, >> Mr. Leer, are you u with us? >> He is not. >> I'm sorry. >> I'm sorry. >> Say again. >> He is not online. >> I'm sorry. >> That's not That's not him. BL. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Bob is absent. Nancy
Bar >> here. >> Stephanie Hamilton >> here. >> Robert Stevens >> here. >> Janet Tennyson >> here. >> Robert Wilson >> here. >> Sandy Porter. Sandy is absent. and Bob is absent but we the chair is here so we still have a quorum
uh and we can proceed. Okay. Uh we have a number of hearings uh which should keep us busy for the next hour or so and we'll get right into it. But before then we have the minutes. The
minutes of October 21st, 2025. Any comments, corrections? I look at my teacher. >> I move that we accept the minutes of October 21st, 2025. >> Great. >> Second. >> Any other comments?
>> Great. All right. We'll do a quick roll call on the meeting minutes of October 21st. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janna Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes.
>> And the chair votes yes. Okay, good. That was simple. Okay, the first application we're going to hear is 2540 151 Main Street. Uh this is to be heard
uh in accordance with the uh chapter 158 of the demolition valaw. And also because this property is in the National Register District, we're also going to be hearing it under the uh section 12E
of the Cape Cod Commission. So uh Mr. Ford, >> good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the uh commission, Mike Ford representing the applicant, the McCarron family. And uh with me is John Barker uh of architecture uh for uh PSD, the
design builder involved uh in the project. Um this uh no question this is a very historic uh building. Um the front portion um was the old uh or parts of it were the old Andrew Harding uh store uh
infamous in its day um uh in terms of uh a meeting place as well as a place that where you could get fishing gear and supplies. And um in reading the formb, I was I was uh most interested in in the
uh anxious uh benches that were kept out front where people would go and talk and and the fact that Joe Lincoln, who uh brought us so many uh novels on uh about the cape, got a lot of his information uh from sitting on these benches themselves in front of the old store. So
rich history, no question. We've got a very significant uh front portion of the building. Um before I have uh uh Mr. uh Barker go through uh what the proposal is. Um I will tell you that uh since uh prior to
being uh or no, excuse me, since it it was registered in the National Register, there've been a couple of additions and uh one of them uh was a carport. Not exactly sure how the carport got there or frankly for what purpose since this is a contributing structure in the
National Register, but you'll probably be um disheartened to know that u the alterations we want to make is to eliminate the carport. [laughter] Um but that frankly is what it is. That was there in 2006 and and we're going to be replacing that. Um I believe anyway and
I think you'll agree after you see the presentation by Mr. Barker that uh what we're going to put there uh will be much more in keeping and in character with u uh the history and architectural structure of the Andrew Harding store. So with that, let me go quickly to Mr. Barker to run you through the the
slides. >> Um good morning everyone. Um so what we're looking at here is the front elevation or the east elevation that faces Main Street. Uh which there are no proposed modifications or changes to the street facing elevation. >> Do me a favor. just get a little bit
closer to the microphone. >> Sorry, Frank. Um, and if you go to the next page, you will begin to see as we go around. >> Frank, if you didn't hear him, he just said that no changes to the front facade. >> I heard that. >> Okay. >> As you go around to the side elevation,
you can see that we are removing the carport on the top left corner uh and replacing it with an addition of uh two-story living spaces. Those two stories are in the lower level and the main first floor living space uh to
expand the functional use of the structure towards the rear of the property. Um the addition moves slightly closer to the existing structure than the existing carport. So, we're pulling away from the rear property line um and consolidating
things together in what is, for those who were there yesterday, a fairly inconspicuous place that's kind of set down low in the backyard, uh blocked from the street view by the existing house and by some landscaping and
natural grades. Um if you go to the next slide, please. Um here you see the rear elevation of the structure where in the top um drawing and the images you see the existing
carport that is scheduled to be removed and the uh new two-story edition that takes its place which is as you can see in the lower image significantly lower and of subservient to the main historic portion of the house.
Um and then next uh this completes kind of as you wrap around to the fourth side. This is the north elevation. Um where again you see the the side of the new addition to the rear. Um this side does face uh the side
street. So there is a little bit more kind of articulation of architectural elements. We've added shutters um to the the new addition portion. You can see we've matched the so the the original historic structure
has the 6 over6 double hung windows in the previously approved and constructed addition towards the back. Uh the window configuration has been altered to show a delineation between what is historic and what is more modern. Um, so we've
carried those newer two over two uh window configurations into the new addition of further demonstrating the separation between the historic structure and the proposed edition. I think that so I think that's John's presentation, Mr. Chim. And as usual,
PSD has tried to give you an idea of what's coming out in the dark blue on each slide and what is proposed on the light blue so that you could see that um as as John went through uh the slides. So um we would hope that um this would
not be something that you think uh uh needs a delay or nor to be referred to the Cape Cod Commission. um we don't think it's a significant change of the historic uh portion of the building that's out there uh from the commission standpoint and uh frankly we think it it
may well be an improvement over what is there now. I will tell you Mr. Jim, and although it may not be necessarily within your purview, I do want to put it on the record. I was approached just before the hearing uh by Nancy Whan, who's an abutter, and her concern,
although she'll probably say it herself, but I wanted to make sure she she knew I would mention it as well, is with uh where are people going to park when this is done? Uh the the job itself, because there is no parking on this property for uh construction vehicles or otherwise.
We understand the challenge. PSD is putting together an off-site location where so stuff can be delivered and then and there'll be a parking uh spot for that. We have to go to zoning too. Zoning generally looks at that closely and the zoning decision would have a
condition and we'll have the protocol when we go to zoning as to what that off-site location is and we'll share it with the the whales as well. Is is Nancy and John thinking of just renting out their driveway? >> I said, "Are Nancy and John thinking of
renting out their driveway?" >> No. No. I don't think that's it at all. No. No. [laughter] They want to make sure there's no one in their driveway, Mr. >> All right. Thank you very much. And and you're absolutely right. Un fortunately, I say fortunately because that's a tough one to deal with. That's not our
jurisdiction, but we do appreciate the comments and we'll get to that. Well, let me just begin the process here. Um, again, uh, as indicated, this is a contributing structure in the national registered district and and I don't think there's any argument to re
relative to its historical significance. But one of the first things we need to do basically is just reaffirm the historical significance and we can move that on. Nancy, so if you can give me that one. Reaffirming its historical significance in the National Register District as a contributing structure.
So, not ours, but this one. >> Yes. Thank you. I'm sorry. You don't want me to do it under chapter 158 at this point? >> Uh, well, you can do that both, but you're reaffirming it historical significance. >> All right. >> Contributing structure. >> Okay. So, I'll do both.
>> Okay. So, the first motion is in relation to the uh National Register District. I move that the Adam Historical Commission confirms that the home located at 158 Main Street, 151 Main Street, excuse me, is a
contributing structure in the National Historic Register District. >> Second. >> Okay. Anybody have any comments? Any member of the public wish to speak before that motion? Seeing none, I think there was no question about it being historically significant. So, just a
quick roll call. We'll get move that on. Nancy, >> yes. Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. Okay. There's a two-step process that we go we do we first thing we reaffirm something is
historically significant. If we affirm that it's not historically significant, then it's different ball game. So, but again, this is a contributing structure in the National Registered District. And uh and you're right. I remember when we approved the uh carport. Uh and I never
know why we did that, but we did it. And but I remember that. And it's interesting the note there about the 25% just for members of the public. Technically, at this particular point, we're probably over the 25%. And some people argue, well, it's more than 25%. It's an automatic referral to
the Cape Cod Commission. Technically, that's true. But the Cape Cod Commission as well as us try to resolve these things local. And the issue for us and to review this is are the changes that are being proposed
do they impact the historical significance of the building of this the National Register the contributing structure. Does it diminish it as a listing on the National Register? So that's really what we're going to be be talking about. Now, uh, personally, I think you did a pretty good job and it's
to the back of the building and not not seen and I don't have a problem with it, but let's walk around. Yes. >> Just quickly, do we do the 158 as well? >> Yeah, we can do them both same time, but why don't we just deal with the issue of the the significance of the building first? >> Okay.
>> Well, any comments relative to the application? >> I have no comments right now. I think it's uh it doesn't diminish the the u the changes that are proposed do not diminish the appeal of the building historically. >> Okay. >> In my view,
>> Robert, >> uh I don't think the changes uh diminish the building. I am concerned about the parking. >> Well, there may be an opening on zoning if [laughter] Steph, >> I have one question. Did you say the garage is going to get me moved closer
to the house? The [clears throat] carport gets eliminated entirely. >> Yeah. >> The new addition is slightly closer as you can see. >> Did you put the site plan up? Uh Christ. >> So the there's currently separation between the carport and the main
structure. >> Um a pathway that runs through here. Now that we're >> zoom in on that any >> we're just a hair tighter closer to uh the existing structure further from the rear set. You got it, Steph. >> Yes. >> Good. Janet, you any comments?
>> Uh, >> no. I don't think it will diminish the historical significance of the of the uh Andrew Harding, former Andrew Harding store. I think it'll be an improvement. I don't know how that carport ever got approved. It's a hodge podge mess in the back.
>> Vance, >> um, can I just confirm if you could go back to the, um, the side with the P with the outdoor kitchen. Um, it has there's a a little outdoor kitchen that you're keeping that with the >> Koopa. Correct. >> So,
>> so it's it's I know it's sketched to show it's in front of the new addition. It will be on >> Yes. currently the carport the roof line continues and connects to this pavilion that houses an outdoor barbecue grill.
The new plan will be to cut and separate the existing pavilion, demolish the carport and the connector, uh build the new addition, but leave just the pavilion with the barbecue grill in place and just repair and
feather in the new shingles. >> Okay. Um I also um I agree that I don't believe these changes will impact the contributing or historical significance. Um, I would just note that what saves this, I think, because it is quite a
large mass being added to a small main historic structure is is the way that the grade changes and that it's set down and that you do not it does not overwhelm it from the street view um because of the way the landscape goes. So, >> um I think that's just something to be
aware of. So, if somebody else doesn't come and say, "Well, it's the same size." You know, it depends. But I think in terms of this project, I don't have a problem with it. >> Good. All right. We seem to have a consensus and I assume we can probably deal both with the 158 at the same time.
Um, from the members of the public what we're deciding here potentially, it thinks there's a consensus that the changes don't impact the historical significance of the building and therefore probably not impose a demolition delay or refer it to the Cape Cod Commission. Uh, ask the public. Does
any member of the public wish to speak or anything to add to the application? One way or the other, pro or con? >> Come on up, N. >> I have the only house on Lighthouse Lane. Um, and it's it's so what I look
at this, I have no problem with what they're planning on doing. As I said before, my only concern is I do not want the trucks. Lighthouse Lane is a one one lane and then it comes down to a culde-sac which
the but it's not open. I mean this is this is where my house is and I'm the only one there. So I don't have any problem with what they're planning on doing. >> Great. Uh does does this are you required to go to zoning? >> We are. Yes. >> Okay. So, you will have an opportunity
at zoning to uh >> Okay, then that's all I need to say. >> But I I just wanted to make sure for the record that we'll we'll come up with a protocol before zoning and we'll run it by Mrs. Whan before that hearing. >> All right. So, we need to get a couple of applications. Why don't we deal with
the um >> Yep. Okay. So, um, continuing with the National Register, at this point, I move that the Cadam Historical Commission finds that the materials presented on today's date showing the proposed alterations and renovations and addition
do not constitute a substantial alteration to a contributing structure located in the National Historic Register District and therefore a referral to the Cape Cod Commission for review is not necessary. >> Okay. >> Second.
>> Second. Any comments procon? Any member of the public wish to speak? Okay, quick roll call. Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes.
>> And the chair vote yes. Okay. Part two. >> Okay. This is under chapter 158 of the TAM Chattam general bylaws. I move that the Chattam Historical Commission finds the building and located the house located at 151 Main Street is
historically significant because it is in whole or in part 75 years old or more. It is located within a national register historic district. It is um also associated with one or more historical persons and possesses
architectural value and significance. And sorry, I'm gonna I'm gonna continue on and make it a full motion. >> She can make it one. >> Therefore, the Chattam Historical Commission also finds that the proposed work to be done dated 924 2025
will not material materially diminish the historical significance of the structure and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Any comments from the commission? Second. >> Thank you. Any member of the public?
Thank you. Quick roll call. Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair votes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Okay.
The next application is 60 Pond View Avenue. And you know, with all due respect to this applicant, can you read this?
I can't. I mean, you know, >> I and you maybe you got better eyes than I do. I know you got better ears than I do. >> View them. I could read it. Yes. >> Well, you know, it's kind of like we should set a standard of of, you know, not necessarily uh Well, anyway, it's
very difficult to read it. >> Say again, >> I was just letting the public know that we do have a fillable PDF online, too. And if they didn't want to handwrite >> Okay. All right. Okay. Well, this is a U
property 6 60 Pond View Avenue. There is no form B on the property, which means we did not uh pro provide uh information to Mass Historic on the historic elements of the property. It is not in the National Registered District. And
when our preservation consultant looked at the property, he indicated as no, which meant a particular time we were not necessarily going to uh to provide a information to mass historic. Uh that's a process we go through
when we look at each application. But having said that, even though the applicant is proposing rather significant change to a property there, so why don't you just give us introduce yourself and tell us a little bit about what you're planning to do. Sir, >> how you doing? My name is Joseph
Stafford, uh Lewis Bay Builders. I'm representing Phil and Jill Wolf at uh 60 Pawn View. What we're proposing to do um >> Excuse me. Is that Mr. Wolf with you? >> Yes. >> Okay. Just introduce yourself. Yeah. I'm Phil Wolf, the owner of the property.
>> Thank [clears throat] you very much. Yes, I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> So, um, what we're proposing to do is on the front elevation, obviously, as shown on the plan, [snorts] um, we're going to do a dormer, um, to expand that second floor footprint a little bit. Um, then
[clears throat] we're proposing a left side gambrell edition, um, with some with a rear deck edition as well. Um, and that's really really it. You know, we're using white cedar shingles, Azac white uh exterior trim. We're keeping
the windows the same style that is already there on the um existing structure. Um and this design was inspired by a house that was uh recently designed and built uh three houses down
from this. Um, you know, the existing house right now in our opinion isn't, you know, wicked historic looking for the neighborhood. So, what we're trying to do here is implement some classic Cape Cod uh architecture and look to
this house to try to, you know, make it fit the neighborhood a little bit more. Um, and we think it complements, you know, the surrounding houses for for what we're proposing to do. Um, you know, that's that's really it. Right
now, the the roof is a is a old style single tab uh roof shingle. So, we're going to add a nice architectural uh three tab um asphalt roof to the to the addition in the entire house. We think
that'll look a lot better than what's there right now. Um, and we think it just will, you know, make the house look a little bit nicer. >> Okay. The most important question is, are you going to need a pump to connect to the sewer or are you going to be able to go out the front?
>> Um, [clears throat] I I'm just half kidding, but I noticed that when I drove down the sewer, I got friends of mine live on that street and he's looking forward to a pump. Anyway, >> it's right on the uh on the cusp. So, the that's an unknown, >> but uh we're hoping >> Yeah,
>> that's uh just going to make it. >> Well, the first order of business, quite honestly, is for us to just to to stop a second and think about the structure itself. Do we consider thisruct structure historically significant? What is there? Okay, we have information from
our consultant and his opinion, but at this particular point, what we're going to do is kind of talk amongst oursel very quickly. Do we feel this structure the way it is existing is historically significant? And if we determine it is,
then we get into part two. If we determine no, it's really not historically significant, then technically, you know, you can proceed with your with your with your process. So, uh, I don't know. This is a interesting one. I don't know if it's
really is that worthy of the designation historically significant, but why do we go around, Nancy? >> Um, I was at the site and um, walked around it and um, it's two years uh, beyond our 75-year cutoff. It's 77 years
old and I do not see anything about it that makes it historically significant architecturally and I do not know of any um historically significant people who are associated with it. So my opinion is that it's not >> other than Mr. Wolf. Yes, Janet.
>> No, I agree with that. I was there for the site visit as well and I think uh it's not historically significant and it'll look much more like a Cape Cod house with this proposed construction. >> Okay, Steph,
>> I don't feel it's historically significant. >> Robert, uh I don't believe it's historically significant. I was at the visit yesterday. I would just encourage the applicant, the builder, the architect, everyone to to really u this
is your one-time shot to change this house. So to get lazy, not that you would get lazy, but what I'm saying is I think uh this is the time where you could look into those finer points that would really bring it into the neighborhood and into the Cape Cod
feeling. So, I just encourage you to get your best camera and go out on 6A and look at a lot of these houses as it look like this. Something might just jump out at you to make it so the next go round it might truly be historic and it'll be worth more.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you, Robert. >> Yes, I visited the site. U Thank you for the tour and for the public. Uh just wanted to show the house in case the you probably could put that on the screen but it's a nice landscaping fairly plain
building and I don't see any historical significance. I will point out that uh I think Mr. Wolf uh took the design uh from a house similar down the street a few a few blocks. So I mean a few few
numbers down the street. And so that would be making the house in keeping with others on the street and uh but not historically significant. >> Okay. All right. We seem to have a consensus. Any member of the public wish to speak on that subject? >> Come forward.
>> Brian Phillips, 374 Orleans Road. Um I just drove past there this morning. I actually grew up uh on the Filth Farm property right there. So, it's a neighborhood I grew up in. [clears throat] Um although the house may not be historically significant in the sense that, you know, famous people live there or whatever. I do think it's
important to try and keep with the neighborhood. I know there's a new house built down there. I want to drive I didn't get down there that far, but I'm guessing it's like a giant, you know, house or whatever. Um so, I think maybe to try and keep some of the massing down because it is a beautiful little quaint uh neighborhood. If you look, the houses
are all very small and quaint. And I think, you know, it's [clears throat] important to keep some of the massing down in order to, you know, fit in and not go with the house that was just built and is probably giant even though I haven't seen it yet. Thank you. >> I I actually tend to agree with you even though I don't feel the house is
historically significant. You know, this is going to be a pretty big structure by the time you're done, but that's up to zoning. Do you go have to go to zoning? >> Um, no. So right now we're we're barely barely barely adding over 1,000 square
feet. It's 1,04 square feet. Um based on the existing footprint of the house, you know, I'd maybe argue and say that it's not as big of an addition as I've seen built before that we've been involved in before. Um you know, I' I'd really think
that it's actually going to bring uh positivity positivity to the neighborhood. Um, you know, I think it's going to increase the value of the surrounding homes. It's going to allow Mr. and Mrs. Wolf to uh spend more time down here um comfortably, you know, and
enjoy their investment. Um, I don't think we're doing some crazy large monstrosity of an addition. Um, and I tend to agree with the past speaker. I I don't agree with doing, you know, massive massive oversized additions in
homes um in certain neighborhoods like this, but I think that even with this addition, it'll actually be on the smaller side of homes in this neighborhood. So, I think it's pretty appropriate. Yeah. Scale-wise. >> Yeah. It's kind of outside our purview, but you know, we just the previous speaker,
>> but I agree with that. >> Yeah. I just want to reiterate what he's saying and I think the topography here works in their favor. It looks it may look like a large uh addition, but it's not going to be uh appearance from the street and um it it goes down in the
back just like 151 does on Main Street. So, I don't have a problem with it. >> Thank you. All right. I think we've got a consensus here. Why don't we uh Nancy, >> I move that the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the building located at 60 Pawn View Avenue is not historically significant because it does
not meet any of the definitional criteria in 158-2A, B, or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> I'll second. >> Okay, second. Any other comments?
Okay, just quickly, uh Nancy, >> yes. Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> And the chair vote. So, we will not oppose that motion delay. Good luck. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. >> Thank you very much.
>> You're welcome. All right. Uh the next application is uh 2542 42 uh Hallet Lane. getting a feeling of deja vu. This is going to be heard in accordance with uh chapter 158.
There is a form B on the property and it is in the National Register District. >> Uh do we hear this both? >> This is not a contributing structure in the National Register District. So we
are only hearing it under 158. Thank you. Should have read the whole note. Okay. So, we're going to be hearing this only under chapter uh 158. Although, you know, that always is a fine line when you have a non-contributing structure in a national
registered district, but that's that's neither here nor there at this particular point. So again, there is a form B on the property which means that the the preservation consultant although it wasn't listed as contributing which is kind of interesting and why they
didn't do that because it really was part of the rest of the structure but can't make a decision. Say again Nancy. >> Yeah. >> I'm saying you can talk to the issue of why it wasn't contributing.
>> It's a separate structure. I'm just saying it's not connected to the structure. It's way behind it. >> Right. Anyway, but having said that, all right. Uh so why don't we Paul, why don't you give us a quick uh rundown of what you're proposing?
>> Paul Maldun here from SV Design representing Lee Williams and Elizabeth English and their property at 67 School Street accessible by uh 42 Hallet Lane. Now the the structure here is an accessory structure. It's a garage low and apartment high. Built sometime
around 1930 or 1935 depending on the document, the form B document. It's listed a couple of different ways. Um, this part of their property is behind the main house and completely landlocked by Audding Properties. The driveway
access from Hallet Lane crosses over a couple of different properties to get in there. It's challenging to see from the public way. >> Does it have an easement for that access? >> I believe it does. >> Yeah. Okay. Interesting. >> It it it does have an easement. Uh it's built over the northern property line.
So, there's an easement of about three feet that projects into the the property north of of uh >> 67 School Street. Um the existing structure here has an asphalt shingle roof. It has uh vinyl siding, six over one double hung windows, and uh garage
doors at the slow lowest level. It has a couple of stairway access points as it is an ADU. Uh, so it it has a a kitchenet inside that second uh level at some point and and the documentation is limited. There was this porch added to it and the porch has some varying
degrees of structure. Uh you can see here in the picture some some angled uh 4x4s and there's a couple of vertical ones too that are are are being held up by the wisteria more than likely. Um, so there's some challenges structurally here both on the deck level
and in the uh the structure of the garage doors. Um, our proposed is to essentially uh create a one-story addition that infills the space below the porch. Um, this is creating the opportunity for a car to actually fit in
this space. Um, uh, we do a waterproof membrane along the deck surface and then create a roof structure over the top. uh separating the detail of that roof structure from the main roof line um so that it it does distinguish itself from the historic structure uh to the
addition um related to the the addition uh the vinyl siding will come off uh cedar shingles will go on there's a formb picture from the original formbb that does show a cedar shingled structure with white trim we're bringing that back um windows will generally be
the six over one and whether or not there there's a singular window We're proposing that's an awning window in the backside or the northern side of the structure. That will be an awning window, a six light. Um we'll be adding uh red cedar shingles to the roof line and replacing a defunct um chimney with
a Koopa structure. Um generally that the structure is in reasonably good shape and our idea is to maintain it and bring it up to a particular standard allowing it to be more utilitarian and more usable for for the owners so that again cars can fit into the structure and uh sort of a big
emphasis on the actual view and sight of this structure. You can kind of see it on your on your pass by from School Street, but you really have to be looking for it. Otherwise, it the greenery that surrounds the structure on the neighboring properties is is 20 25 feet tall and it's very difficult to see from the public way. With that, I'm
happy to take your your comments. >> Okay. Well, it's interesting in some ways you're reducing the mass by taking off that deck and yeah, anyway. Okay. Uh kind of straightforward and um I don't know. Let's go around the room, see if
anybody's got any comments. Start with you, Robert. >> Okay. Thank you. Uh I again I'll show the picture to the public. I probably Oh, you have one there. Yeah, perfect. Uh I would say that [snorts] uh there's no uh I don't view this as historically
significant. Uh there's no streetscape number one. And if I make a scale of historic interest and features of 1 to 10, this would be like a three or something. It's clearly not historic in my view uh because of the lack of features. It's a very plain building. So
that's all I have to say. >> Thank you, Nance. >> Um I I tend to agree. I um any any building associated with a national register district you tend to think of as significant by association. Certainly the main house is historically
significant. Uh but even if this was historically significant, I do not believe the changes would impact that. In fact, they improve it. So, I'm a little agnostic on the significance, but um I don't have any problem with this property. >> Yeah. Great. >> I agree. I agree with my colleagues. I
do not think it's historically significant. >> I just have one question. You talk about it being an ADU. Is that what it's going to be? >> It it always has been. The form B describes it as an apartment and garage, >> right? That's what I was wondering. It's just going to be an apartment for them or it's going to be an ADU.
>> An apartment. No change in use. Thank you, >> Robert. >> I don't have any problem with it. >> Thank you. Well, I I guess I disagree with some of the comments made and that I I do have no problem with the changes.
I think the changes are modest, but the fact that we there is a form B and that it's part of that general national registered district uh and that whole area I I don't I I would at this particular point be hard for me to say
it all of a sudden something built in the 30s is not historically significant in the old village. So uh you know uh I I would I feel it is historically significant but I do feel that the changes proposed you know in no way
impact the historical significance. So anyway difference of opinion. Uh any member of the public wish to speak on the subject? >> You know we still have an opening on the board. You know >> sit right up here. Don't say that, Frank.
>> For the record, Brian Phillips, 374 Leans Road. So, I I'm going to have to agree. Anything built before World War II has got to be historically significant. You know, with all the different um you know, wood and stuff, uh that were used, the materials. Um I guess my comment is, you know, that
again, it's whatever. you know, you're adding a little this, a little of that, but it's, you know, that's like a beautiful little quaint Cape Cod building, and then that looks like something from you'd find in like California. Thank you. >> Okay. Anybody else wish to speak? All right,
Nance, I I I don't know. I wasn't counting heads, but you want to give a motion relative to its historical significance, and we'll take it from there, or you can combine both of them if you'd like. Well, I I think that probably I will start with this and we
should vote on the significance. Okay. And see how people feel. >> Um I move that the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the building located at >> sorry 42 Howlet Lane is historically significant because it is in whole or in
part 75 years old or more. It's located in a national historic register district and it is associated with historical persons through the main house and has architectural value because of
its age. >> Thank you. Second. >> I'll second. >> Thank you. Any other comments? All right. Why don't we just do a roll call if where chips fall where they may. All right. This is historical significance. Uh Nancy.
>> Yes. Stephanie. >> Yes. >> Robert. >> Yes. >> Janet. >> Janet. >> I'm thinking >> you're thinking >> I mean it it really is. >> Would it pass? >> Uh I guess I can say it's historically
significant, but uh I wouldn't oppose anything against it. >> Robert Wilson. No, but I was confu Can I just say that I was confused by the uh what Nancy was saying about the building being excluded from the historic >> No, she it is listed as a
non-contributing structure, but that does not necessarily determine historical significance. >> Right. But it didn't say it was. All right. >> Well, we're into the discussion of what is contributing and not contributing. And that's an issue that is determined. It's a long process. So something is
contributing not >> anyway. I'm just the only no vote but >> Okay. No, I understand the confusion and I I vote yes. Okay. Nance, >> I find I recommend that the Chattam Historical Commission also finds that the proposed work to be done dated
October 6, 2025 will not materially diminish the historical significance of the building and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Okay. All right. We're going to do a quick roll call. Any member of this public wish to speak on that motion?
Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert Stevens, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> the motion was >> this is to impose, not to impose a demo. >> Agree. >> Yes. >> Yes. Okay. And the chair vote. Yes.
Thank you very much, Paul. >> Thank you, sir. >> Was a simple one this time. >> That was really nice. [laughter] >> Thank you. >> I thought we'd at least have four or five meetings. >> Thank [laughter] you. >> All right. Thank you. We got to smile, guys, or else you know we start crying after uh
>> send them away with a smile. >> All right, it's 11:15 and let's see if we can get out here before lunchtime. Okay, the the last application and our agenda is 2543 65
>> Elephant Eleph. >> Yeah, >> Lane. And this is to be heard both under chapter 158 u uh the demolition delay bylaw and under section 12E of the Cape
Cod Commission Act. This is in fact a contributing structure in a national registered district. Just a quick aside, uh, you know, when a when a national registered district is is created, okay, uh, the applicant, in this case, the
historical commission, whoever did it, you know, they will determine through their preservation consultant what they consider to be a contributing to the district or not contributing. uh the individual homeowner can opt to not to make a in other words if they don't want
their property to be considered contributing they can opt out. It doesn't mean it's not historically significant but the owner could opt out as a contributing structure then it goes to mass historic and they will confirm either confirm or deny whether something
should be made a contributing structure. So it's it's an it's an iterative process. It's you know it's not science. Tell me about it's uh historical preservation. Yes. >> Just to add to that. So it's it's a different bar to be in then to be considered a national register listed
property or a national district. It's a different bar than architectural significance from our chapter 158. It it's not it's not totally separate, but it's two different bars. >> Having said all that, did it go to mass? Did this one sure did it get appealed
and all that? And this when when I wasn't part of the old village, nobody here was. Uh when it was when the the National Registered District was created, this was opted out as not a contributing structure, but it is in the National Registered District. Okay, just
sorry to clarify that. I'm sorry, Chris. No worries. Uh Chris Cannon uh for the record uh speaking for Anne Bicardo and family uh today. Um they approached me in March this year and um with the idea
that um they needed to do repairs to the house um the house had been in a flood event some point with uh within the last year and a half. I suspect it was probably uh spring of 24. We had about
four ma major storms that brought the uh elevations of the oceans up. Um I saw flooding in a lot of houses that year. [snorts] And uh this one I took uh I believe four of you went in with me yesterday. I kind of made you go inside.
I showed you the uh the watermarks on the interior of the house. They're between 10 and eight inches uh up. Uh if it flooded once, you can be certain it will flood again.
The FEMA has very specific rules and regulations regarding uh work done in flood plane. If you spend uh 50% of the value of the market value of the house to uh make
repairs, you must comply with FEMA. Now, there are exemptions uh for historic buildings uh variances that can be sought. Uh however they put a lot of risk uh on towns uh on the state on the
federal government uh Cape Cod Commission that um you know would basically could cost towns a lot of money. So it's going to cost a lot of money to to do this now. So what we've done is we've we're
showing you uh today what uh FEMA would require us to do. Now, they would not require me to have a spiral stair, but I am required to have two forms of eress. I can't put them on the sides of the house because I have to have a
three-foot wide passage and on both sides of the house I have two feet of land. So, I had to go uh and they both have to be, by the way, remote from one another. So, I had to go to the west and I had to go to the east and put two
separate stairways and I that's why you see what you see there. Um, I could have put it on pilings to get it to to there where just to back up a little bit, flood zone is elevation 12.
It's an AE flood zone. Um, it's not a coastal flood zone. So, um, it basically is not going to see wave action, but flood zone is elevation 12. We have to be 2 feet above that according to
FEMA. And that's what you're seeing. We're at elevation 14. That's the top of the first floor has to be at that point. There's not room for any error on that. It can't be one inch above it. It can't be one inch below it if we're abiding by FEMA. So again, there are exemptions for
this, but they're very non-specific. And of course, we have a government that's currently shut down. And if you try to find any information on FEMA regarding this, even though there are bulletins that are available, they for some reason have pulled the bullet bulletin uh for historic structures, specifically for
historic structures. Tried to find it. I was able to find a little bit of it um from uh the state of Missouri and it really gives no indication of what we can do that would be by
variance. You know, something less than elevation 14 or even base flood elevation of uh elevation 12. U they hint that maybe you could go to elevation 12, but they don't say you can do that. And all this would
be done by variance. Invariances themselves have very specific criteria as well. You can't take into account the other houses in the neighborhood. You can't take into account what a neighbor might think.
You just have to take into account that lone building. So the fact that you're in a historic district is irrelevant for that variance. Now you would not be granting the variance. A variance presumably be granted by the zoning
board of appeals or whomever. >> You're talking about a variance from the FEMA. >> I'm I'm sorry. >> You're talking about a variance from FEMA. >> It would be a variance and again trying to get the information of where the variance is coming from. >> I I'm not sure it's a zoning board. >> It may not be, but the zoning board
would have to do their own piece. And and so it's there's a lot of information that's very very difficult to to to get to. >> Yeah. uh that would allow you potentially to do something less than elevation 14. >> Yeah.
>> So, um my client was not seeking to elevate her house. Just wasn't. She's owned the house for 16 years and that was not in, you know, in her cards. Uh this is strictly
because of the requirements that have been imposed because of the damage done to the building. So no changes whatsoever to the um interior of the house other than you know kitchen needs to be updated and
whatnot uh as a result of the flooding that uh basically the kitchen cabinets had to be removed. Um so the actual building itself is just being elevated and then the means to get there and we put a deck on which is part of the means
to get there uh on the uh west side. um as a result of needing to get in and out of the house. Um so, you know, again, I enclosed the bottom portion. It is not habitable space. It will have a gravel uh floor.
It is strictly storage, more like a boat house. Um that's how that came about. Again, I could have just simply put it on pilings, but I think this is a better look than pilings, frankly. So, um but that's just my opinion. Um, so and I
treated the materials as something separate so that it would allow the house to show as a historic house. So I think at this point what I'd love to do is to get your input. Uh, there's a lot of unknowns here. Um,
we respect uh what the neighbors have said. We've seen uh their comments. We respect what what has been said by the uh the old village. uh and uh you know I'm happy to answer some of the things um in there as as uh we get into that
discussion. >> Well, thank you very much Chris and I I agree with you. This is um this ain't an easy one. Um quite honestly it's it's the first one for us historical commission at least in the 20ome years I've been associated with
maybe Nancy I don't think we ever had one. We have had homes which we have allowed to be elevated. Not that we're allowed, but that we didn't provide a demolition delay. Uh and they were mostly in the Little Beach area, not in
the National Register District. And and uh we quite honestly most of them we determined they were not historically significant. So it was not a it was kind of an easy decision for us. But in this case, this property is just an enigma in
some ways. And and I I I hear you. You know what you're saying about FEMA, and it unfortunately it's a fact of life. And this is probably not the last one on on the uh the shores of uh of Chadam, Stage
Harbor, Mil Creek, all over the place where where we're going to be dealing with this kind of a situation. But it's a new one for us as it being the national registered district and a contributing structure. I think I mentioned to you briefly um I have reached out to uh the Cape Cod
Commission uh uh Sarah Corgf just recently retired but there are other people who are involved and I'm looking for some clarification you know from their point of view. Technically, this is more than 25%, so slam dunk. We sent
it to the Cape Cod Commission. But as I said earlier in the previous application, that's not the way we operate. You know, the Cape Cod Commission is looking for us to attempt to resolve things locally and not take an applicant, drag them through making lawyers rich by going for nine months
this Cape Cod Commission. So, you know, we what we do is we reach out to the Cape Cod Commission and we have them provide some guidance to us at least what the application is, how we could like you asked for comments. Well, these are comments from professional
preservation consultants as well as professional people who know the law as far as as it relates to the Cape Cod Commission. So, having said that and from yourself and members of the commission, I I have initiated that process. Christina did this morning. We forwarded your application. Hopefully
we'll get back, you know, in about a week or two some comments of what they feel. That's one issue. And I'm talking more administratively now that we get into the actual application. The other issue is how the heck do they does she does the
owner have any access? >> So the access the way >> you know you got to row a boat. That's the [laughter] they don't own any land. >> Yeah. The way the access was written into the deeds was that uh they had access by way of the shoreline in uh that would equal uh the width of the
property. The property being 19 ft wide. So they would have presumably 19 ft of access along the shoreline. However, the shoreline half the time is underwater. Um you know, and it's it's wetlands. So, uh conservation doesn't want you using it. >> Yeah. I mean, um
>> well, first of all, how does how does the owner get into his house, her house? uh they've gone by way of the shoreline traditionally. >> Okay, that's one issue. >> Yeah. >> The other issue is well there's a lot of landlock land there's a lot of landlock
parcels in Chattam >> and it's usually an easement with your neighbor or something like that. In this case, you know, the neighbors are cheek and bow. I mean, everybody's right next to each other. These are all small houses. And the other question is like you you alluded to when and if this ever
gets approved and how it process. >> I can just see the the uh the what do you call the conservation commission allowing you to put a a barge in there to to do the work and that's an again I'm I'm outside my purview.
>> Yeah. and and we've had a lot of these conversations both with the building commissioner and conservation um and the engineer that's involved uh has suggested potential for a catwalk which would be a temporary structure to get there. >> I'm sorry that was curiosity on my part,
you know. >> Yeah, he could potentially uh do that. >> Yeah. >> Um so again, not my thing either. Um >> okay. No, I understand >> trying to figure out the whole thing and how it works. >> Um >> All right. Well, >> that is >> so members of the commission, we've got
a very interesting application here that we have to deal with at least u to to determine uh and then maybe as Chris suggested you know he would like to hear our comments and our comments is relation to it's a national register
building a contributing structure and what we generally go is are the changes significant in such it will diminish its national register significance So why don't we try and we can we can ask whatever you'd like to ask but that's kind of the first question and I
think what Chris is looking for some guidance and we have some members of the public would like to speak and we we'll get through that but I think at this point first let's just think about it or discuss if you have any questions or comments and uh we'll
start here. Nance, you want to start? >> I'm Well, yeah. I I mean, I'm, you know, I'm sorry to be blunt, but I do not see anything about this that retains the historical character of the structure of the grouping of the neighborhood. I I
realize what you're saying about legal requirements in FEMA, but if I'm looking at this as a historical commissioner and the the laws under which we typically make decisions, this would be an absolute no in terms or it has to go to
the commission or no to demol any demolition in my mind because raising that up 14 feet destroys >> nine feet. Sorry. 8 foot8 >> two. Okay. Raising that and by both by
itself and among the buildings that it's with and in the National Register District I personally believe would be a complete no. Um I that's my I I don't see I don't see how from a historical significance kind
of discussion >> destroy it. >> All right Janet go ahead. I agree with everything Nancy said and having been to the site visit yesterday and having to um have about six inches to pick my way through neighbors yards to get to this place
uh which was um looked to me like a fishing shack that is in the marshes now. I I and the plan definitely is detrimental to the historical significance of this little fishing
shack. I I don't I could not approve this. >> Steph, could I could Could I just ask when you use the term plan, could you expound on that? >> Pardon me. >> When you use the term plan, um could you expound on that? What what plan? >> Oh, the size of the uh proposed that
structure that you're planning on building in it. >> The elevations >> the elevations and the size. I didn't even see that much. It's going to go right must be going right to the property lines on either side there. There is no room there. I mean,
literally no room. >> I think Nancy uh Janet, excuse me. I believe if I understood the application, he is he's not changing the footprint. >> So the the >> Well, even if he doesn't change the footprint, it's going to be it's enormous.
>> Yeah. No, no. The height there's no I just wanted to separate the issue of height versus footprint. Yes. >> Well, there's no more room to go anywhere anyway, so >> Yeah. >> Except the water. >> Yeah. Steph, >> um, I'm in a quandry.
I think that they have to do this >> for the law, but it doesn't really hit the historic faction of it. >> Okay, Robin.
>> Yes. I've got a few questions for you. I was on the visit yesterday, >> one of my most interesting visits. Is there an association amongst these little cottages? >> Not that I'm aware of. I mean, Kyle is >> uh
sorry, >> wait a second. >> Sorry about that. >> Everyone, uh there's no association amongst >> Do me a favor. >> Can you introduce yourself? And >> my name is Kyle Gould. I'm at 61 Alifamits. Um there's no association with respect to the cottages that you
walked through yesterday. The other properties are owned by my father, my mother and myself. >> Uh there is a broader old village association in which >> those >> Yeah. nothing formalized under the law. Okay. >> Other than the old village association,
there's no specific. >> Okay. That was just my first question. Um so to me it seems like we're putting the cart way before the horse here. If we can't, if the builders and the [snorts]
people working on this property don't even have deed rights over land, it just seems like uh it it seems I was involved in something in a different state where it was illegal to be landlocked. You could not landlock. In
other words, somebody couldn't buy a piece of property and intentionally landlock somebody. I don't know that anybody did this intentionally, but it is landlocked and only available through the marsh. And um so my opinion is is
that I think this is maybe a first starter drawing. Um but the ability to get this property needs to be resolved first. I don't know whe in Massachusetts whether it's a >> well that's kind of where I excuse me Robert but I agree with you and that's
the reason I did what I did yesterday or over the weekend and that is I reached out to the Cape Cod Commission uh and provide guidance because this is a contributing structure in the National Register District. I mean technically we could just stop and send it to the Cape
Cod Commission and then that's it. We're done. Okay. And it's up to them to make the big decision. and they get paid more money than we do. But I I feel that that's a that's a that's that's not a good way to proceed. We don't do that. We like to work with the
with the applicants to let them know we're not trying to just stop anything. We want to look at it. >> Agree with you, but I would just say one other thing. As part of that, I also had a discussion yesterday with the building commissioner and the director of community development.
How the heck does this, you know, how was this approved? And they're looking into it over that same question that you you just brought up. How does this proceed? What happens when someone has a landlocked piece of property, whether it's landlocked or sealocked? Okay. You
know, who what's the authority? And now hopefully and I just have a conversation. I hopefully the applicant and Chris you're having your lawyer look at it and somebody at our next time we get together somebody can provide some loyally loyalty whatever the word is
some you know some opinion of what it is and I'm sure your lawyers are going to say you have to do it but let's let's discuss it so we can we can proceed. And if I can add to that, um, to your point, um, that all those things do have to be
solved and we're working to solve those and have been since the beginning of this project. But if I raise it one foot just to get out of the water, two foot or to get the first floor out of the water, two foot to get the structure out, >> it requires the same exact problems to
be solved. >> Right. >> Yeah. >> So whether I'm going up to elevation 14 or going up to elevation eight is irrelevant. Okay. Okay. All right. >> Uh, >> sorry. Go ahead. >> I still have my list. Okay. >> Um, no association, no access. Um,
you estimate the valuation is around a million dollars right now. >> No, no. The the town assessor has it at 141,000, I think. And >> but what have they sold in there for? >> I'm sorry. Uh, but units have sold in there or
>> Well, this one was sold for 400,000 roughly in six 16 years ago. >> Excuse me, Robert. It's not the sale price. It's the it's the value of the structure, >> right? Market value of the structure,
which you know, you can go to an to an appraisal uh process and get uh someone to come in and say, "Well, it's it's worth uh a million dollars to build it." But we know it's not. I mean that building itself in the condition that it currently is is uh is probably pretty
close to what the assessor says it is which is about >> Okay. So if you apply the 50% uh number that you mentioned earlier how much money would >> $70,000 >> and you couldn't do much with 70,000 I take it. >> No.
>> Well anyway my my first impression was I it's a it's a nice fishing shack. It isn't uh from from my view, it hasn't been terribly well kept up inside or outside. So, um um if you didn't point
it out, I wouldn't know that it had been in a flood. I mean, you pointed it out, but you wouldn't know otherwise. So, um anyway, I'll just stand with my thoughts here is I think I think the horse we're putting the horse >> where I wanted to go. Let's talk it out. Yeah,
>> Robert. >> Yes. I thank you for the tour yesterday. a very interesting dilemma. Kind of a rock in a hard place situation. But uh just if you look at the bottom picture here, which you could put up if you want, but you can just see it here if
the camera can see me. Uh this if you build the 14 foot high structure with the 8ft lift [clears throat] or whatever it is, it's going to overshadow the the all the other village all the other houses in that little cluster. uh that I
think would be a non-starter for me. It just it's not I agree with Janet. It's just a non-starter to go up that high. Try to figure out a way. Hopefully Frank can get some answers from all these contacts he's had and some of the questions Robert had could be answered,
but try to find a way to build something that's more in keeping with the other houses. That's it's impossible, I know, but that's what I would say. >> Okay. Um I again I just wanted to start the conversation because it's a conversation
and I think you know we generally agree we're not going to make a decision today until we have better information and I think Chris agrees with that. But having said that in the the spirit of getting conversation we do have a number of public comments and letters. So why
don't we deal with that first and get them into the record. And uh Nancy, you want to begin the process? >> Sure. Uh these are these are not short, but um they're well considered. And I'm going to read the three letters that I
have that are from multiple people. Uh the first letter is dated October 29th, 2025 from Winnie Lear. She's the president of the Old Village Association. Dear commissioners, the board of directors of the Old Village Association represents its members who are property
owners in Chadam's Old Village National Register Historic District and many others who care deeply about the Old Village. Our mission is to preserve and protect the historic nature and architectural beauty and integrity of the Old Village area. The director's right to express our concerns regarding
the application for alterations to the cottage at 65 Lane. The cottage is a contributing structure in the old village his historic district in the National Register of Historic Places. And then she gives the the specific
referral and a link. The waterfront cottage at the foot of Alphamitz Lane is one structure in a grouping of former summer cottages and fishing shacks. They create a historic waterfront tublo along the eastern shore of Mil Pond. See the attached photos and I will hold them up
at the end. The scale of changes, height and mass increase and the design elements, eg upper story deck and spiral staircase proposed in this application are such that the historic character and integrity of both the original structure and the surrounding setting would be
destroyed. The features of the cottage and its relationship to other structures along the shoreline that qualify it for inclusion as a contributing struct structure in the national register district would no longer be discernible. We encourage the property owner, the architect, and the commission to work
together to revise the plan in a manner that maintains both the historic appearance of the structure and the character of the shoreline. It is our hope that a collaborative effort will ensure that characteristics of the neighborhood we all value are sustained. The directors of the Old Village
Association request that if changes are not made, this application be sent to the Cape Cod Commission and a demolition delay be imposed. Thank you for your consideration. And these are historic pictures which are up. Okay, great.
Okay, the next letter is dated October 30th and it is from Lee Williams and Elizabeth English at 42 Howlet Lane and 67 School Street. >> No, that's uh >> that's >> Oh, sorry. That's regarding 42 Howlet
Lane. I didn't realize. >> Okay, we'll do apologize. Yeah. Yeah. I thought Okay. that they were they were putting in their opinion on this one. >> Okay. Um this uh second letter then is dated October 31st and it is from the
owners of 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 um 10 properties in the neighborhood which I will refer to in a second. Um the owners of numbers 14, 28, 36, 43, 47, 49, 51,
55, 61, and 63 Lane are in strong opposition to the proposed partial demolition and substantial arter alterations to 65 Lane. Our concerns include, but are not limited to, one,
the architectural proposal, two, the loss of character to the shore and surrounding area, and three, the environmental hazards, sorry, and four, impact and potential damage to the surrounding properties and watercraft. The owner of 65 Lane is proposing to
raise the 557 square foot summer rental property approximately 9 ft in the air and essentially double the square footage of the landlocked cottage. The proposed changes to the property would cause large and troublesome troublesome changes to the historic mil pond
landscape. This stakeholder group believes that the owner and architect of 65 alifimemits could in a reasonable approach make alterations to the plans without constructing a towering 30-foot structure, doubling the square footage of the property and negatively altering
the mill pond landscape. We are concerned with several aspects of the proposed renovations which in our opinion will drastically transform the existing structure in ways that are in congruous with the aesthetic of the surrounding properties on the Mil Pond
and the old village. First, maximizing the height of 65 alphimates to nearly 30 feet tall would be precedent setting and a true detractor of the Mil Pond historic landscape. To put into perspective the height variance, the proposal would make 65 alphamits tall
enough to negatively impact the solar panel panels of a neighbor and the views of others. Second, the proposal includes the addition of two exterior staircases and two decks that are incompatible with the character of the surrounding properties. The first new deck would be
on the ocean side of the reetment wall, further encroaching directly into the marshlands of the mill pond. And the second new deck would loom over the neighboring property's outdoor space. By keeping the lower deck, adding an oceanside deck and a new second floor deck, the owner is proposing an
expansion of the use of the property. The design intends to encroach on the marshlands of the mill pond even further with the proposed spiral staircase extending past the reventment wall. On the other side of the property, 65 alithms is looking to effectively remove
all the green space on the property. What has not been addressed in this proposal is how the project would feasibly occur. 65 alpha is landlocked from any reasonable access with the only foot traffic access being over the marshlands and then still access is
title dependent. Additionally, those who wish to access access the property by way of the marshlands must also scale a 40in concrete reventment wall. Without reasonable access to the property by contractors, the property will need to be lifted over the marshlands and stored
on a barge, potentially impeding the waterways/morings. The potential environmental issues and dangers of this stunt are numerous. 65 alifiments lacks access to basic necessities such as its own septic tank or the ability to transport waste for
disposal by any manner other than over the marshlands. Given the location of the property, how these issues are being addressed early on in the project is important. We want to emphasize that we believe there is a less invasive way to improve 65 alphamates without materially
impacting the mill pond's character, and it starts with a reduction in the project scope, including height and square footage. We cannot be supportive of the plan as proposed, and we would encourage material changes to the proposal to keep the character of the old village intact. We appreciate the
historical commission hearing our concerns. We hope that you impose a demolition delay and encourage the owner to consider revising the project in keeping with our concerns. And that is signed by Shyler CPP 14 alphams. Peter
Emerson 28 alifiments. Susan Gordon 36 alifiments. Jim Dunovan 43 alifiments. Bobo. Rob Volo 47 alifiments. Harold Gould 49 alifiments. Brooke Thomas 51 alifiments. Bill
Lightfoot 55 alifimemits. Kyle Good Gould 61 alifimemits. And Ellen Gould 63 Lane in Chattam. >> Okay. Uh if there are members of the public who would like to further comment at this
particular point, you know, I'd be happy to entertain that. Uh [clears throat] thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. Uh attorney Mike Ford. I rise on behalf of two of the 10 uh folks who signed that letter. Um Ellen Gould and Kyle Gould,
who's here with us today. Ellen could not be here today. And um frankly, the we think the letter says it all, but I I do think that you have to keep in mind um what your uh focus is and your jurisdiction and your
directive. And it would seem to me that um this cries out for both the imposition of a demolition delay and perhaps a referral to the Cape Cod Commission. Although I applaud the commission's um longtime policy of trying to work out things locally. Makes
sense to me and I I think you've already reached out, Mr. Chairman, to the Capecot Commission and um I'd be interested to see um what their response is. It seems to me that the resolution here is in the nature of a balance, a
fair balance between the policy that drives the historic considerations for both the national uh registered district and the local bylaw uh and the safety uh conditions that uh or considerations that are part of FEMA and somewhere we
can find a balance. Um other homes flooded in this area. um no one's running out and trying to put them up 9 ft. There is a way to um keep these properties up uh the way the rest of the folks have in that area um through
continual maintenance and and fixing things up when there is a problem and balancing the uh the necessary um amount of investment uh versus the value of the structure. And there's a way to do that. And there's a way to sit down and work
with your neighbors to do that. and we would encourage uh the applicant to take that path. We think that's probably what we're going to u would find a solution. Um the letter uh from the 10 and I I only represent
two of the 10 um Allen and and Kyle Gould um is a positive letter from the standpoint that um they try to point out that there is a way in their view to get this done. Now, I've heard Chris um suggest that um you need variances for
all of that and the variances are very strict and they can't take into consideration the overall uh neighborhood which of course is the driving force behind the historic district is to keep that flavor and character uh of the waterfront.
um that's looking at FEMA in a vacuum and this calls for looking at it a little broader uh so that the historic considerations um come into play. My clients feel that that can happen, but it can only happen if the applicant
steps back, takes a breath, and says, "Okay, um let's see if there is a way um uh through whatever relief is necessary uh to come up with some changes that are minor um in terms of the elevation and in terms of expanding the the footprint
through a series of decks and patios and and stairways, which is what you have before you. So, um, we'd encourage the applicant to take that, whether that involves pulling the application back, uh, continuing it. Um
we'd suggest that um if that doesn't happen uh then uh we'd encourage the commission obviously to uh take the step we think is the obvious one for you impose a delay and and we work it out during the delay period or try to um and
send it to the commission so that we can get the commission as as your chair has indicated their expertise in trying to help solve this. There are manuals. I have gone online. I have looked at them as to how to balance
u the need u to comply with FEMA standards in terms of raising up in height uh and preserving historic integrity. It I I've been involved in several of them in the Barnstable area uh and in Catuit and we were able to work it out. And so I think there is a
way to do it. It does involve your building commissioner. they're a key player in terms of any variance from the state building code. Um, and it may well involve the zoning board of appeals in terms of the um flood plane bylaw that
exists uh within zoning. Um, but my clients feel that um this neighborhood is worth everybody rolling up their sleeves and making that effort and they stand ready to try to help in that process and we hope that the the applicant does too. What encouraged me
is when Chris started off and said that um his client um uh is not looking to elevate the property. I was very encouraged by that when I heard that and and that's on the public record. Well, if that's the case, we're all on board
and trying to help. Um and the applicants got the same view as we do. And so, uh it sounds ominous. all these variances, all these balancing of of uh the public policies of FEMA versus the historic, but it can happen. And we think in a close neighborhood like this,
we ought to be able to work it out. So, uh we'd encourage the commission to go very slowly here. It sounds as if you're in a posture where maybe this is going to get continued. Um I understand that. My clients understand that. Uh but I I I think you've given a clear signal today
in your comments that if um if it isn't revised or it isn't continued for some period of time or withdrawn that um the commission sees having to put a demolition delay on it and perhaps send it to the commission and we'd encourage that if that's the only way to go. Thank you for the opportunity to address you.
>> Oh, thank you very much. I do appreciate that. And and uh when you mentioned the issue of balance and reminds me of hallway street which is also in the national register district and there was three or four houses along there which are in the flood zone and we dealt with
it and did go up 14 ft but you know there were breakaway foundations and things like that and and and I'm sure it wasn't completely risk-free. >> No it wasn't. and and and you know and by to me and I think from Chris what the
owner is presenting here is a risk-free solution. >> Yeah. >> You know raise it and you know I got no more risk. >> Well the other thing that's encouraging here is you're in you're in the flood zone. Yes. But you're not in the velocity zone. You're not in the V zone. >> No. >> So there is some ability to to work
>> and um I have a lot of respect for uh their representative here. Um Chris is u uh somebody who can uh bring both character I believe um and creativity to this this process. So we're encouraged. They've got the right people and we're willing to work with them to get it
done. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh does any member of the public wish to speak who hasn't spoken before? Okay. >> For the record, Brian Phillips, 37 Orleans Road. Um, I support uh the Gul's
position on this. Kyle and I went to school together. He's a kind and generous uh man. Um, his family [clears throat] and he and his family have been contributing members of this community for a long time and for as long as I can remember throughout Chadam's history. Uh, Kold Park too,
right? So, uh, I think that should be taken into consideration. Thank you. >> Thank you, >> Chris. Uh I guess at this point point you know we're not we're dealing what we're dealing with here and um and I think as uh Mr. Ford indicated, I think
he got a sense of the commission, at least the consensus and how they feel about it reluctantly. And and I think, you know, I prefer that we not do it. And and maybe the way to do this is just get some more information that'll help us and that and I I will pursue with the
Cape Cod Commission and earnestly. And uh I would suggest if you if you agree that we continue um and quite honestly our next meeting that's why I was on the phone. I wasn't
checking my Facebook. I was checking the calendar. >> Okay. Our next meeting is the 18th and we we don't have any hearings on that day. >> One >> one >> and plus we have a lot of discussion items we're going to have. Uh, can I
suggest we use the 18th as a as a filler date, so to speak? Let's but but it's possible we're not going to get the Cape Cod Commission results >> and that's fine. Um, you know, I think >> we'll we'll do it for the 18th and then we'll deal with it incrementally.
>> Yeah, we want this to be a dialogue. Uh, I you asked me uh before the meeting, you know, why would why would I take this project on? Well, quite frankly, which a good question and quite frankly u and I've had this conversation with Kyle Gould and Chris Gold um better me
than some other architect to come on because I know them. I'm going to look out for them the same way I'm going to look out for my client. So, I want to see that happy medium, but I want my client uh first and foremost to have her use of her house. And one thing that I would also, you know,
you know, sort of reluctantly pose as as a uh something for you to think about is that the longer that this is delayed, the more this house goes into decay and it defeats the purpose of preserving, which is the ultimate goal of this board
and my client. We want to preserve this. So, if we can find that place that's risk-free, if that's even possible, >> there is no >> that's >> Can you and the owner take steps to limit that decay? Is the is the is the
is the roof leaking? >> Uh, no. No, the roof is not u the decay is that there's black mold in there and black mold does its damage. >> The longer it's there, the more we have to remove. The more we have to remove, the more expensive it gets. And >> you could clean it out.
>> Yeah. We haven't been given permission to do anything to it from the building commission. >> You could clean it out. You don't need permission to clean your house. >> You demolition, you do. >> Well, if not interiorly, >> you you have to have uh because of the
electrical and the plumbing, you have to have permission from the building inspector. We haven't gotten that. We haven't sought it. >> Yeah. Where's >> Where do they get the electrical? Is it underground? >> I don't know. Uh quite frankly, >> is there electrical in the house? I Yeah, because there there were
appliances. So, uh >> where's the sewer? >> Sewer is actually septic. It's on the property next to it that Ellen Gold owns. >> It sounds like a real >> Yeah, these were the effort two parcels. uh the the Ellen Golds and and this were
sold as one one group and somehow uh back in I want to say 2003 um separated out as as two parcels and uh and I believe that Brian's mother owned one if I'm not mistaken and uh Ellen owned the other. So um
>> you know >> all right we're not going to there's a lot of things to be discussed. So I think at this particular point we're going to >> entertain a motion for to adjourn it until the uh dece uh November >> continue it >> continue to the November 18th meeting.
>> I move with the support of the applicant that we continue this until our November 18th meeting. >> I'll second that. >> Any other comments? >> All right, quick roll call. Nancy,
>> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Chair, yes. Thank you very much, Chris. >> Thank you. >> If you get some additional information that you can share with us before, you know, I'd certainly appreciate it.
>> Yeah. The only thing that I can add that, you know, I' done a lot of research uh on FEMA and historic buildings, what you can get uh at the moment. Uh but the town itself should be adopting a position and presumably that
would be this board and that position has to be consistent throughout when it comes to flood planes and so whatever the result of this may help >> I beg to differ you that we will not establish position relative to a flood
plane we will establish a position only relative to historical integrity and and that's what we do Then it would be the town >> and that is the town. It would be it would be Mr. Briggs. It would be the building department. Yeah. And uh and and I've already had a preliminary
conversation with him. >> And yeah, we it needs to get understood and >> and you know, quite honestly, the town's answer is probably a simple one which doesn't necessarily include historic preservation, >> right? >> It up to FEMA height. Uh and that's
unfortunately or fortunately why we exist because we don't go for the simple answers. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thanks so much. >> All right. Uh we have if you go back to the agenda guys uh there's just one real
new business item that I would like to address. And I think what we did uh on purpose is we we moved everything off to our next meeting. uh which is the 18th and if you look at
the agenda you can see we talk about it November 18th November 18th I would like you to if you could really take a hard look at what we're looking to discuss so we can have a an interesting dialogue on interest of protocol of meeting if you have some other suggestions uh the rules
and regs as it relates to uh administrative approval uh Eric Dre from the uh our preservation consultant will be here to discuss us where we are with the form B's and what the process he's going to use because there were some questions and then the issue uh last but
not least Christine O'Grady the town planner will be here you have her report okay so just look it over I did meet with her briefly yesterday on the question that was asked by uh previous members what's her experience if you read her report she does include
information relative to the experiencing the experiences the other towns have okay and It's positive and negative, but I quite honestly was encouraged by some of the towns. Now, granted, we're talking about Nantucket. We're talking
about, you know, towns that have like the whole the whole town as a national register district, but yet there is there is precedence here on how it's being done. And um so let's we'll talk about that more with Christina. The one thing we have to do uh before we leave
here today is the issue of uh 776 Main Street. Okay. The Monamoy Theater property. Um I was requested um I requested the my attendance at a site visit at 7776
Main Street which is the Monoy Theater. the applicant uh or the owner of the property, Mr. uh Cadam Properties, uh Craig and Victoria Clark, have put an application in for the HBDC to demolish the the the uh the building, the theater
building, uh [sighs] they have asked me for some comments, the uh historical the HBDC. Now, their meeting is tomorrow, and quite honestly, I intend on attempting to to to attend
the meeting, but in the meantime, it shouldn't be Frank Msina's opinion. It should be the opinion of the other members. Um, and let me tell you where we are right now. Uh, there was an article in the in the Chronicle, which I hopefully you read, I know I sent it to
you. Uh, and that's kind of how I felt and and I've already made it known. Let me just give you a little quick background because we have some new members of the commission here. We, the commission has been involved with the Monamoy Theater for a long
time. Uh, before the property was sold, we through the town through Katie Donovan, we hired Eric Dre to upgrade the form B for the property. We upgraded the form B for the
property because it was our intention, the historical commission to attempt to ask Mass Historic to make a determination on the eligibility of the site as a national register uh property.
We had we had taken it, you know, up to the uh the 5yard line. We were ready to do that. Fortunately or unfortunately the property was sold and I think this is going 2019 2020 what happened around
that time was it called co okay uh a lot of things didn't happen so uh we never submitted it to mass historic partly because of everything going on with co but also because the property
changed hands uh Mr. Clark purchased the property. I reached out to him very quickly and I said, "Hey, you know, if you if you uh you're a a commercial uh property here, you're going to run a business there. If you get this listed
on the National Register, you can you can get uh 20% uh tax credits." And he was he was already planning to do that. He told me that he was going to pursue the uh listing of the national register
through the uh mass historic. Apparently at the meeting that we had the site visits he said he had submitted it but that they didn't get a positive answer. I asked the question well do you have
that do you have that in writing? You know and we don't know and I think that subject's going to come up tomorrow. So the question is the applicant has has indicated that as far as he's concerned he was denied the uh the ability to list it on the national register.
>> That's nice. But that doesn't end the whole discussion. You know should the HBDC should we agree that this building should be demolished? Personally I don't think so. I would hope and I'm giving you my opinion and you guys can jump in and shut me up. Uh I think at this
particular point, not unlike what we just went through with this uh this other the other issue, I don't I don't think they should say yes or no, demolish it or not demolish it. I think they should just pause. Put it on pause. We do a demolition delay
when we're not sure. We tell the applicant, you know, we want to delay your demolition and we want you to think about it. And I think that's what I would like to propose, not just Frank Msina, but as the commission, that we all agree. We don't really know what's
going on. We don't know what the applicant wants to do on the property. So rather than agreeing to allow the building to demolish, by the way, you know, there were like three or four other buildings on the property which the applicant uh requested demolition
and the HBDC said no. Fortunately or unfortunately, the applicant appealed it to the select board and apparently the select board didn't sent it back to the HBDC and the and that he was allowed to demolish it. I'm
hoping that doesn't happen in this case. I'm hoping that the HBDC will will slow things down, put a demolition delay, and then find out what can happen with this property. Who knows? Maybe somebody's got a few million bucks and wants to buy the property. We we'll see you know what
we can have. So that's that's kind of where I want I would like to go in if I was writing the letter, but I'd like to write it collectively. So I'd like to kind of get your thoughts. Janet's got >> they haven't uh they've been thinking
about this for about >> Sorry, say it again. >> Have they not been thinking about this for the last four or five years? >> No, >> they haven't. >> No, not not not at this particular point. They they were They would you mean think about putting a theater there? Yes.
But at the particular time the at least in the applicant's point of view want to get that in the HBDC. The applicant has been told finally by zoning that is not going to let him do what he wants to do. And therefore what he's presenting to the HBDC is because I can't do part B.
I'm not going to be able to do part A and I want to take the building down and proceed with a commercial development. N got something to add? >> Well, yeah. I mean, I think part of our letter should um you know, talk about this building is it's more than 1935.
The oldest portion of the theater is likely from around maybe between 1860 and 1880. An ice house that was moved that is probably the lobby of the building. It was used as a toy factory. >> Yeah. >> By um the gills. Um Harold Dunar used it
as a studio for a period of time. This is all before it became a theater in 1935. And then the family that started the theater or sold it um and it became the theater was Mary Winslow. The family owned the Boston Herald. I mean there's so much history associated with this
building. I think it's real travesty if one on board that is dealing with historical significance. Absolutely. >> Lets this be demolished. >> Yeah. And you're you're hitting a nail on the head here because when and at the the site visit he said, "Well, the building is not historic." I said,
"Well, yeah, it's not Queen Anne, but there's a the building is historically significant. >> It's an industrial building that's historic." Yeah. >> And by the way, I dug out some old old letters that I wrote in 2019 in which I made that same case when we were
encouraging the applicant to go for national registered designation when we were going to proceed for national registered designation. You know, the different criteria architecture wasn't the primary one. It was the fact that for 80 years this was
a cultural center of Chattam and it shouldn't be demolished. I think we're on the same wavelength. Uh so I I agree with you. It's not Yeah, we think it's architecturally perfect. It's not. You know, it's an old building. >> There's other criteria for historical significance and this hits those on
many, many levels. >> And I just am looking for a little bit of help here, you know. Yes. Stephanie, you want to say something? >> No. >> No. Robert. >> Uh, I haven't been involved with this, of course. Uh, I haven't I would like to
see it not taken down. >> Yeah. >> But I don't have a history. It sounds like to me that there's a lot of silos that are brushing up against this issue. I don't know if they're all talking to each other, but um, >> absolutely not. [laughter]
>> Anyway, I agree. >> Uh, so I'm gonna just kind of >> sit back and let my learned colleagues jump in here. This is six years of this of major screw up. >> Yeah. >> Just nobody's talking to nobody else. >> Yeah. >> Robert
>> Frank, you have so much background. I'm I'm deferring to your good judgment on this and I think you have the right idea to write a letter that encourages slow down, encourages more thinking on this and not demolish. I did want to ask one thing. >> That's all I want to do. >> I did want to ask one thing just
procedurally. Do they have the final say or do do we get to >> No, we have no no authority here at all. >> So, they're going to meet tomorrow. They going to get the letter before tomorrow? No. >> Well, yes. >> Okay. >> Because I'll get it to meetings. [laughter] The meeting's not till 4:30.
So, by sometime tonight or this afternoon, I'll write it. I'll get it to Christina and then it'll get to them by 4:30. >> Perfect, Frank. I like that. >> All right. >> Yes. >> So, that's what I meant by that they'd had all this time to think about it because >> Sorry, say it again. I said, "That's what I meant when I asked you if they
hadn't had like five or six years to think about it." Because wasn't it their plan for it to be in the National Register? I mean, they wanted this. >> They wanted in the National Register so they could get the tax credits. >> Well, for whatever reason, if it had
been in the National Register, they got they got the historic part of it. They understood they were for that, right? Well, I I would agree up to a point, but I didn't quite honestly very candidly. I don't note their applica. They submitted
it to Mass Historic. We did not. It wasn't my application. My application was this. They redid it focusing more on the architecture. That's But you know, we don't own the prop. You know, we can only request
eligibility. It's up to the owner to to actually he's got the final say. So, we were kind of pushed out of it, so to speak. You know, the owner, this is what I'm going to do. >> Meaning the meaning the person that bought it or the the theater group that owned it?
>> Well, the theater group, unfortunately, that ship sailed years ago. >> So, so you're >> Clark, the one that bought it. Yeah. It seems to me like he got that it was historic. It seems to me like he understood that this was historic and should be saved if he wanted to apply to
the NA for it to be in the National Register. >> We're all on the same page. >> Yeah. I'll only speak because this was a sides visit. It wasn't a public meeting and I'm sure the discussion will happen tomorrow. But his position at this particular point is he was turned down by Mass Historic that it was not historic.
>> Oh, okay. >> That's what I said in the beginning. >> Yeah. See, he said he submitted it and I said, "Well, were you denied?" And he said, "Well, yeah." But I said, "Well, do you have that?" >> I got it. Okay. >> Okay. >> All right, guys. I don't want to belabor it, but I'm going to write a short,
sweet letter, and you know, it's our considered opinion that that the this isn't a very historic property, you know, and we we would like to see this at a minimum that the HBDC delay the
demolition until we have time to figure out what what can be done with this property and blah blah blah blah. >> Okay. Sorry. I know. I bring I bring all the easy ones back to you guys, you know. >> Excuse me. >> Trust me. >> Excuse me, Frank. I put this letter in
the wrong part of NY's package, but we do need to read it into the record for 42let. Sorry. >> Isn't the ship sailed? >> Yes, but it needs to go into the record. >> Okay. [laughter] >> This is a letter dated October 30th regarding 42 Howlet Lane and the 67
School Street garage. They're the same property essentially. It's from Lee Williams and Elizabeth English of 42 Howlet Lane and 67 School Street. They are the owners. We want to begin by thanking the commission for working collaborative collaboratively with us to
approve plans to renovate our home at 67 School Street. We understand that change is difficult for people, but we trust that ultimately the preservation of our bungalow and its garden will not only honor its history, but delight those who pass by it. So again, we thank you for your support. With regard to the
renovation of the garage, a vernacular structure located at the back of the property. Our plan addresses issues of both functionality and safety. It proposes a modest extension or infill of the garage beneath the deck, allowing us to fit a modern car and also support the existing deck, which is currently
supported by three 2x4s. During the May 20th hearing of the Chattam Historical Commission, the chair noted that the commission is not especially concerned about what happens in the back of the property away from the streetscape. Given that our garage is in fact at the back of the property and is obscured by
hedges along all neighboring properties, we hope you will agree that our plan will bring the garages use up to date as both an understandable and reasonable request with thanks for your consideration. >> Okay. Uh I think that's a little bit of housekeeping. If there's nothing else,
thank you very much. The only thing uh preservation awards, when is the meeting? >> November >> November 14th. >> November 14th. And what time is that? >> 10:30. >> 10:30. >> 10:30. Thank you very much. Uh
oh. The only other thing that's happening, just so you know, on on the Nichson, uh Holly Herbs, the archeologic family association and the Chattam uh conservation foundation and having a meeting on the preparation of the
application. I think I reported it but again the Nichson family association has taken over the financial obligation to do the actual application and that's proceeding. We are still being involved as the historical commission but that's good news and that's moving forward and
I mentioned the preservation awards. uh you're okay for that meeting, right? And so we're we now have uh uh two additional members from the HBDC, uh Robert Burns and and Gilmore. So we've got a full HB uh preservation awards,
but still think about it. You know, it's not too late if you think about a particular property in town that you think is worthy of uh just to put it forwards. All right. And Christine can follow up on it. >> All right. >> Anything else? Just to clarify that it's not required for us to attend that,
right? You guys are handling. >> No, this is be Janet and ourselves. >> Would you like to join the committee? Oh, thank you. Watch it when you ask questions. [laughter] >> Okay. I think we need a motion to
adjourn. >> I make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. >> Second. >> All right. Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. Robert Wilson. >> Yes. Chair Vess