##VIDEO ID:ixwGz9RTl8Q## e e e e e e e e e [Music] [Music] [Music] good morning hi I'm Frank massina and this is the August 13 2024 meeting of the chadam historical commission before we start we have some announcements that need to be made uh please note this meeting is being recorded and we be available shortly Hereafter for scheduled and On Demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify the chairman seeing none pursuant to Governor Healey's March 29 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law General law 3820 until March 21st March 31st 2025 this meeting of the chatam historical commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the procedure meetings as provided for in the order reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 508 94511 excuse me 945 4410 conference ID 824 203 924 hashtag or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this meeting is a live broadcast and simal cast on chadam TV despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for Real Time access we will post the record of the meeting on the town's website as soon as possible thank you very much uh first order of business is a roll call uh Vice chair Bob Len here Steve broling game clerk here Nancy here was that somebody else in the room uh Stephanie Hamilton here Sandy Porter here Janet Tennyson is absent and recovering well from her surgery uh Robert Stevens is Stevens is absent and not calling in and we have an open position of alternate second alternate uh the chair is here so we have a quorum and we were Pro will proceed uh Miss bar was moved uh was reappointed by the select board to the full position now and is a full member as soon as she gets one in so we don't have any significant business I think which is going to hold us up but we do have uh five uh actually working members uh full members of the commission here today so we shouldn't have no problem okay we have a a rather light agenda because some things got rescheduled but let's get right to the minutes which is the next item on the agenda you have a minutes of July 23rd 2024 I have a correction yes the second page under new business it should be Mr Dre made a per it says Mr draw or Draw I can't read it made a preliminary assessment of each property yes oh it's it's it's Dre d e y right yeah yeah the second time I okay yeah sorry about that is that it okay Andy thank you for capturing a a somewhat long and confusing on my part discussion on what our priorities are uh not a comment on them and we can talk about it later but uh I have yet to uh have a discussion with Katie Miss Donovan relative to proceeding on the next steps on the Form B okay but we'll talk about that later all right so we have no other comments have a motion for accept the minutes as modified sub moved thank you second please second thank you very much uh Bob yes Steve yes Nancy yes Stephanie yes Sandy yes and the chair votes yes thank you very much okay okay uh as far as the agenda is concerned like to note that the first application which would have been a hefty one uh and 75 hallway Street which you didn't receive in your packet because the applicant asked for a uh an adjournment or continuance to our next meeting on September 3rd apparently the architect is out of out of the country and we're we we should facilitate that I don't see any reason but in addition for the uh members of the commission uh well they they don't have the application do they they do not okay what I'd like to suggest is that we provide that to them so they can look at it because I also then provided in the package uh Sarah CV's comment on the application we're not going to discuss it now other than the fact that you have her comments but I think it's important that they have the application so they know what Sarah's commenting on prior they will get it the prior week of the meeting yeah okay so uh all right if anybody has any dire need to see it before the meeting on September 3rd just get in touch with uh Christina and I'm sure she'll find a way Frank copy or send it to electronic Frank Frank will we be doing a site inspection yeah okay the site visit will be the Friday before because of the holiday okay thanks okay all right so uh I need a motion Mr Vice chair for continuance of the of the 75 hallway Street I move we continue 75 hallway Street to September 3D at the applicant's request I second second second thank you very much okay uh no other comments Bob yes Steve yes Nancy yes Steph Yes Sandy yes and the chair vote Yes okay so having said that we're down to um something close to my heart 784 Orleans Road which is to be heard both in chapter 158 as well as u in relation to the cape card commission Act as this is part of the national register district and in fact a contributing structure in the National register district and the application is for a structure on the property and I'll let Mr uh Ken introduce himself and talk about what what what is you're proposing good morning Ted Keon Coast resource director with chadam um glad I noticed that I was not necessarily fourth on your agenda after they were postponed I thought I was going to be bit longer down the way here no matter um the three lattice towers as uh you folks are well aware are contributing features to the Marone uh National registered District the seaword most if you will directly adjacent to the town landing uh has been a concern of a number of people over the years because it is quite close to the Coastal Bank um it is an eroding Coastal Bank it's not an excessively a rapid rate of erosion but nonetheless it has receded over the past several years to the point where we're concerned about the structural Integrity of the foundations for the tower um we had been uh developing plans for renovations for the entire Landing uh at Riders Cove which would be bulkheads ramp replacement and a number of other features as part of that assessment we had initially uh considered trying to provide some Coastal Bank erosion protection either with a rock revetment um because technically in the regulatory world we probably could propose that to protect a structure such as the tower um it would not be my preference um so we also had considered considered some quter more some more modest approaches but nonetheless still addressing the erosion as opposed to the position if you will of the tower um we're fortunate that a resident um I believe he's a resident Brewster but um you I'm sure know him well Bob Nickerson um is actually a an engineer and a specialist in Lattis towers and structural integrity and frankly the relocation of such structures he approached us once he was aware of this uh issue and concern and said you can protect it in place if you wish but have you considered moving it and at that point or time in history we had not because we just thought that would be a big deal and he says no it's actually a very small deal it's very simple to pick up a tower of that nature and relocate it so we kind of change gears in our thinking um again I think you know I know you know we have uh CPA funding to address the uh Towers in general for their insitu sit structural Integrity uh Terry wh and I believe is on then he can uh expand on some of that but as far as this specific Tower um it became very clear to us that relocating it in a modest manner keeping it some somewhat consistent with the original triangular configuration of the original um placement would be a preferred way to go much less environmental uh concerns about hardening the the shoreline frankly the cost of that was not small so it turned out that the uh relocation was definitely the preferred alternative we have been to the site we had a site visit yesterday uh Terry whan who's been husbanding the overall lattice Tower uh work as I indicated he and I kind of looked at where we thought an appropriate place would be it's about 40 ft in Board of where the current Tower sits it's a good location relative to the um topography at that site there will be some tree removals required in order to get it there but nonetheless it seems like a much more modest approach um we're here before you folks because we know the jurisdiction you have for work of this nature so we're just looking for your thoughts and presumably approval to proceed uh further in this manner so thank you uh I just want to comment on your application for some reason whoever did the application was not aware of the age of the towers but the towers were built in 1921 which is you can find listed in the uh application with the approval of the when it was listed on the national register of historic places so certainly applicable under chapter 158 it's 103 years old and more importantly we're hearing it under two applications under chapter 158 but more importantly under the Cape Cod Commission as this is a contributing structure in the National registered district and I want to comment and I don't know if you did the application or not but your comment that well the current structure no longer provides functional Communications and use it's primary ornamental in nature that really cut me to the quick I mean it's a significantly hor historic structure and uh I guess some people can consider it ornamental the birds do I guess but uh those of us who involved with the malcone consider it more than ornamental anyway I just thought I'd get a couple of DS duy noted but having said that not my words but duly noted having said that what the commission needs to uh determine very significantly uh whether or not we feel this is something because a re a relocation is tat out to a demolition uh except we can determine that the uh the change is is not considered a substantial alteration in terms terms of reducing the historical significance as a contributing structure in the National register District so that's that's the jurisdiction that we're we're going to be talking about a chapter 158 and secondly is in fact this change constitute a substantial alteration to the National register District having said that um questions from members of the commission yes Steve is there any comprehensive plan obviously the the Shor line and it's its future was up to speculation I suppose um but is there any any long-term uh review anticipation of the future for this I'm I'm concerned that the um eventually and we we have a a long time parking issue down there is there any reason the proposed location could be uh a number of feet to the north um away from the parking area to uh create some additional parking where it's being proposed would not I mean we have some long-term concerns frankly short-term concerns about parking um we are also in the process of looking at the trailer parking area where we want to deepen those parking spaces a modest six or eight feet because the trailers are getting sticking out into the roadway MH where we're proposing to place this Tower would have no bearing on that there is also the possibility for exactly the same reason of slightly deepening the single car spaces where this Tower currently is and where it will be once it's been relocated once again where it's being proposed would not impact the ability to do that the parking area that you may be referring to that had been proposed a few years ago where we had a much more extensive parking proposal on the upper area um as much as I support that I have afraid I think that ship has sailed unfortunately for those that like to have more parking at that facility but at this point I don't think there's any appetite Never Say Never but regardless where the towers relocated potentially presumably again would have no bearing on a future um proposal for parking in that upper area it they just don't overlap so I I wouldn't be concerned about that how about the lower area well again the lower areas we we're proposing to do a very modest you know indent if that's the right word into the banking would not impact where it's being located I think you know was I would sorry again I would think that I mean the parking situ ation has been a difficulty for a lot of people um if you took these things independently let's do the tower it's why not do the tower um and then later say let's U let's add some parking down there it would seem to me there would be a great deal more clout um you know for you if you were to incorporate those two together with parking in the area of the tower look you know considering the fact that there's an erosion issue and a danger of losing the tower not imminent as you say but um if I were a voter I am a voter I'd be more inclined to support the additional parking if it was going to help um if if moving to Tower was going to help save it just just a thought I but I have no objection to the relocation of the tower but I hate to see an opportunity to address the parking concern just just be postponed well Steve you know we're relocating or at least in my view we're not going to refer this to the cape card Commission because the tower has potentially a problem in terms of being lost if we were going to say we're going to relocate the tower for more damn parking spaces I would refer it to the Cape Cod Commission and I'm sure the Cape Cod Commission would make a unilateral and tell you no that's not a reason to relocate or demolish a contributing structure because you want a parking space absolutely not so uh I think I'm just saying putting them together I'm not asking to do finish my point the point is to relocate it because of more parking is is not consistent with historic preservation okay you would not re relocate a contributing structure to create a parking lot A and B that as Ted alluded to that's a park right now okay and we're probably going to get some push back because we're encouraging the park has it actually been completely dedicated well there at least two or three town meeting votes which said this is a park okay so not not a parking lot uh so I think we need to be careful here on how in my opinion how we proceed with that and and just maybe I wasn't clear um I understand your point tied together because they're same similar areas and so forth and we are proceeding independently with a project which will require coming back here relative to the larger deeper spaces for the trailer parking the single car spaces which are to the right of the vid of the image um we are going to be looking at bumping them in because they really are when you get a pickup truck you know sitting there with a full-size bed it's in the roadway and it's an issue nonetheless we're not going to add spaces it just make the occurrent spaces more efficient and where we place the tower would have no bearing on where we want to go with the modest deepening of those spaces so it's not in parking it's just making those spaces more efficient and so the relocation of the tower to the proposed relocation spot uh will still permit you to yes modestly extend the depth of the single correct correct the single parking okay good yeah okay anybody else yes step um I'm just wondering about the old platform is that going to remain we are going to be presumably flush cut in uh the tower from the concrete you know Foundation leaving the foundations in place to memorialize that site location if you will um making sure there's no sharp edges for you know safety but no we are not going to disturb the current site as far as the foundation we will have to put a new and frankly more extensive foundation for current wind load calculations and so forth but the existing site will be memorialized in in place thank you yes how much is it going to cost the net net you got $98,000 $997,000 that's been sitting around since 2018 to maintain these towers and they none of them have been maintained there are three of them can we focus on historical preservation this is historical preservation Frank what what's historical about it the cost is not an issue for this board to consider please let's focus on I still want to know what it's going to cost I'm going to have to beg the Terry to weigh in on he's been working with the engineer for the preservation which is actually probably going to happen prior to us moving the tower timing wise it seems like the preservation component is more appropriate to pursue hopefully this fall and we have everything I've believe sufficient funds to do both the preservation as well well as the relocation but there are three towers so this is all for all three all three okay Terry are you there what's your question what's it going to cost what is it going to cost to move that Tower what's come on I cost is not an issue what let's let's focus on what we're here for okay the cost issue is not an issue as far as this application concerned it becomes an issue to me if it if all the money goes for the relocation of one Tower when the money was set aside by the CPC we're not the CPC but the point is to his to maintain these historical Towers this is not our gerain the restoration of the towers is something the CPC is addressing not us when you get a chance shoot me an email to say the restoration is part of the task that they have to do yes and and we have sufficient funds I've been assured that you know there is sufficient funds to do all three Tower Restorations and relocation the relocation is actually turning into the most the cheapest you know alternative of of what we're doing it's actually apparently very simple to pick it up and put it down okay thank you want to Spokes yes Nancy um we had asked at the site inspection about the OS Nest that's on top of it and um you had indicated that it was an option to remove it and to build something else somewhere else or to leave it in um I just wanted to express my opinion about that which is that I think a win-win for historical and natural resources is something the commission should strive for or when wins for any of our applications and I did not get a sense that the nest on top is significantly impacting the historical Integrity of the structure so I wanted to just express my support for leaving that platform that they are nesting on in place and not going and and not disturbing that any more than it has to be my opinion and duly noted I mean as I indicated on the site visit you know open to whichever I mean it's been a recurrent nesting area as we've experienced throughout Town um the Ospreys like to go where they like to go regardless of us sometimes trying to screw them away they still come back so even if we try to put deterrence up there they may still want to go back there but we would not do that unless we had an alternative close by sight so for that same group of birds would they choose the new site over the old site does our opinion as the historical commission have a a influence on whether or not you do that sure so I would like us to consider that then I I'm going to speak out of somewhat off the cuff here okay I don't think it matters to us I mean if you felt that there was an overriding need to remove it because of its potential impact to the structure we would try to pursue that with the caveat we'd want an alternative site nearby okay if you don't really care I mean we could still put an alternative site nearby and see if they like that more or have another one show up so thank you I would advocate for leaving it there Bob any comments uh not on that but I'm the Conservation Commission is that's within their jurisdiction to deal with the Ospreys I think Ted well knows and and to highlight that also so depending on the timing we would be you know cognizant of the timing of it when the birds may or may not be coming back when we would want to relocate it not that we couldn't potentially do it during that period but we would definitely be very cognizant of that speaking of other boards that have jurisdiction in addition to conservation and the birds etc etc uh you have to go to zoning relative to height it hasn't been confirmed is my understanding that is likely we have to go to Zoning for certain things that I'm not quite sure of yet um we have to confirm the location that we're proposing is not within a certain setback area from both the roadway as well as the the Coastal Bank I believe we can meet that without you know too much difficulty um if we do have to relocate it even further for the zoning it would build still be very much in that general area thank you assuming the board is going going to assume this is not a okay assuming the the board is not going to U uh is going to allow us to proceed and not refer it to the Cap Cod Commission uh you know please make sure I'm aware of when it if and when it goes the zoning and you know to usually with the historical commission likes to pipe in if we approve something to let you know yes we approve why we approve it so uh we can do that one second Steve is a member of the out there Terry Terry wh has his hand raised yes Terry could you introduce yourself yeah good morning uh Terry whan um projects and operations administrator uh just just to add on the historic preservation aspect of U the related to the Osprey so we I did bounce this the um desirability undesirability from a historic preservation standpoint but uh he he did not foresee any U negative impacts for for long-term preservation or or restoration after the work is completed so just wanted to add that as well so like Ted said uh you know depending on um or as the vice chair mentioned if something comes out of the permitting process but from a historical preservation standpoint uh the the preservation professionals did not see any um negative impact of the ospr staying in the long term just basically saying that's a local decision right well well I got you Terry relative to the issue what I believe is it's in here uh in a narrative I read that you're going to and unfortunately my magnifying glass couldn't read the drawing we have to change our application to say that if an applicant submits something and it's unreadable even though it's typed we should make it get a larger copy anyway Terry if I read the the proposed Tower lattice relocation there are no here relative to how you're doing it and I assume that means that you're going to be doing restoration before you move it yeah well what's what where we are now with with the permitting and uh Ted didn't dive in into it um in but long story short um so you know it's kind of six one way H six one way half dozen the other on uh restoration and moving uh but but right now it looks like we're on a track to doing the restoration so what what pointed out the the example of the tower um that's an example of what what would be in the bid documents for each Tower so essentially um you might have seen some of the earlier information you know we we had flown the towers with drones basically all the deficiencies have been identified mapped um again that's an example of the tower to be moved of of all the various notes of um uh specific items and also there's some general condition items for each Tower so that's really going to be in the bid package for the restoration a um for the actual repairs so that's uh Again part of that that snippet was just shown for that Tower uh but effectively um the um all the repairs and restoration items have been uh noted uh in in great detail and then there'll be corresponding specifications that are going to be bid uh and again now with we do have a follow-up meeting with the um uh Structural Engineers and the preservation specialist tomorrow um you know with the outcome of this meeting but uh from a construction or implementation sequence um most likely we're going to be going ahead with the the restoration efforts in in place um and with going after going through the permitting process would uh execute the move and and as as Ted mentioned what what's been very interesting in this process and uh working very closely with Bob Nickerson on various aspects of of tower moving and his expertise the um you know know the actual movement is um via crane is is is quite um I going say simple but it's it's pretty pretty easy and we we've been out there with a crane operator that aspect of it itself would be under under $10,000 to just provided the landing location is is all set uh it's basically um um you know a one-day operation uh to actually just um if you're looking at still at the the graphic you know uh um in the parking area there the crane would essentially be in that vicinity uh pick it up and move it um to the to the new the new foundation and and again it's primly because these structures are are pretty light um under under 10,000 um pounds um after kind of let's call it forensic engineering of um um since we didn't have any plans of the um uh the existing structures but um but that's really what what would happen in the sequence and you know the the the other two towers would be restored um okay you know all as all as one project so but it what it like from sequencing perspective now we'll just we'll get the restoration completed uh and then do the move after in that uh we need we've got some decent track of Permitting and we don't want to hold up the restoration any further okay great well you know the the purpose of the question relative to the restoration f before they're moving it comes when we deal with homes which were going to be lifting and all of a sudden you know if it's not done properly all of a sudden the historic home collapses so we wouldn't want the tower to be lifted and fall apart you know while it's being lifted so we were aware of that fact and we we were aware of that fact and we're going to you know if we didn't do the full restoration we were going to provide some additional bracing and replacement of anything that needed to be replaced or beefed up if you will prior to the move so we were aware of that concern also and that goes to Sand's point about the restoration not understanding the cost thank you very much Steve you had another issue you wanted to bring up well it's not so much another issue I I think the presentation and the discussion has been fine we've talked anywhere from from ospre to parking to what kind of restoration and it's it when and whatever but I fully report um sy's comments about about cost I think the more we know about a situation the better decision we can make and if we make it out of context um and cost being part of that context and what else is going on and and other money that's been proposed for this purpose I think it's it's very important that we have an opportunity to consider those things and and I I appreciate I appreciate the speech you're making but you have a point yes I do much I think it's part of our okay obligations as as a as a commission um that we need to to talk about all of the aspects that may have relevance to the situation and I just want to say that I support position I appreciate that but I will repeat again and for my good friend Sandy we have no Authority as it relates to cost we let me finish the point sir and we shouldn't be making a decision for historic preservation on course that's not our Authority okay enough said we're going to move on now thank you very much I think you've spoken enough Mr Mr Vice clerk okay I think we got your point okay unless you have something substantial to add apparently apparently not in the cheer's eyes I have nothing to offer good thank you very much okay if there's no other member of the public who would like to speak for against the application all right Bob I think we can get a motion well let me just say one thing with regard to what the the Cape Cod Commission uh guidance says in two spots one from 1992 and one from 2003 is relocation of historic building should be considered a substantial alteration if the building has not been previously moved which it hasn't and if the move will change the building's relationship to other elements of the property and I think Ted has addressed that it's still going to be the essential triangular shape so it does not fall within the Cape Cod Commission guidelines for referral oh very good on that note um I will move with regard to the capod commission that the historical commission confirms that the uh structure located at 7 84 Orleans Road is a contributing instruction of National Historic register District a second please second thank you any other discussion okay Bob yes Steve yes Nancy yes Steph Yes Sandy yes and the chair votes yes okay part number two of the Cape Cod Commission I move the chadam historical commission finds the materials presented this date showing that the proposed alterations do not not constitute a substantial alteration to a contributing structure located in the National Historic register district and therefore referal to the Cape Cod Commission for review is not necessary I'll second that okay any other comments Bob yes Steve yes Nancy yes Steph Yes Sandy yes sorry and chair vote Yes so we got not chap 158 chapter 158 I move the chadam historical commission finds that the structure located at 784 Orleans Road is historically significant because it is a whole and apart 75 years old or more and is listed on the national register of historic places second please second thank you very much any other comments Bob yes Steve yes Nancy yes Steph Yes Sandy yes ch vess number two on chapter 158 this chadam historical commission finds the proposed work to be done dated July 24th 2024 will not materially diminish the historic significance of the structure and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay second please second thank you very much Steph uh okay no other comments Bob yes Steve yes Nancy yes Steph yes Sandy yes CH votes thank you very much thank you appreciate it U you why don't you stick around a second we're going to be talking around something uh on the agenda under old business which is an area which you might shed some light okay thank you very much all right uh the we have just a couple of quick bit items I want to note in terms of old business uh from our previous discussion relative to the update new form BS and new form A's and updating the previous ones uh I've been in touch with Eric Dre our preservation consultant ask him for a more definitive proposal and coordinate that with uh our executive uh director Katie Donovan to hopefully find some funding and to proceed with that so that's an area that I'm working on with with uh Christina's cooperation and we'll hopefully get that moving along sometime probably next year given how things move I was in contact again with palal Holly herbster from um uh on the national register eligibility request for the Anon William Nicholson homestad and she's still on track for results of that report in October which would be great and then we hopefully would then submit it to mass historic and get a determination on that uh the third item on here which something we've been carrying for a long time is our is our boat house uh our boat house chadam boat house uh the US Coast card boat house and it's adaptive for use as an upweller there's been a lot of activity on that uh if you folks have been watching the select wood meetings uh in fact the last one uh I believe the town was in looking at reviewing of the actual course to see if there was a way to to further hone in on a better number but subsequent to that if I understand it and maybe Ted you can help me here because I wasn't attending the whole meeting U the select board made a decision at the request of the uh Bob Davis and the shellfish to have a special town meeting is that what's going on correct um following the uh failure of passage of the 2/3 uh annual town meeting there obviously was for those that supported the project a lot of concern of you know the next steps and and what could or should be done um as you may recall during um upcoming to the town meeting as well as at town meeting some of the issues were the packaging of multi-water front projects into a single package some people thought it was absolutely the best way to approach others thought looking at individual projects um was a better approach uh the shellfish advisory committee um well the South Coastal Harbor plan committee uh took a position that they agreed that looking at the project separately was a good idea and then the shelfish advisory committee likewise felt let's look at it separately and in addition recommended to the select board about pursuing a special town meeting so based on that request from the shelfish advisory committee the board held a meeting um just recently and voted a split decision frankly a 3 to2 uh not necessarily the the negative decisions I don't believe were necessarily in opposition of the project they were more concerned about the process of have holding a special but nonetheless um there is now a special town meeting scheduled for September 16th I think yeah I heard the 16th is it that I believe it's a 16 that's a firm date I believe yes as far as I'm aware that is the firm date um all right well it will be at least at this point I believe a single uh topic special for the revote of the um a bond issue still requires a two-thirds vote um with a an ask at this point of 4 million doll for completion of uh the renovations to well to provide to prepare the site meaning the peers and floats that were part of the original site plan and then presumably the return and repurposing of the boat house as the shellfish upweller um so all right well thank you very much if from the historical commission's point of view one of the reasons we I continue carried on the old businesses you know a couple of years ago when it first started uh we had a attempted to get the boat house listed as it on the national register and deter and get ask Mass historic to determine its eligibility there was a question of whether or not we should or should not submit that form we updated our records the so-called Mass historical commission Form B but we hesitated and submit it to mass historic relative to the fact that everything was in Trans in not Transit well that's a good word it was not in transit you know it's up and down whether or not it was coming back or not so we were kind of hoping at least I personally at least as chair and hopefully the rest of the commission you know that when it did come back we would then have a very good reason to submit it to mass historic to determine in fact it is in fact eligible for National registered listing which is similar to the other boat houses the one on menture and the one on on ucket which also have that jurisdiction and you know and I always I kid around a lot you we give away a lot of our historic stuff and would like to not give this one away so anyway well thank you very much I appreciate that brief update sure and now just to expand on that that was also my understanding that you know if it were deemed appropriate the timing was important because you don't want to go that route of a still sitting in Quincy in a parking lot right you want to wait till it's actually here in chadam and and it's a in essence a done deal it's here so that was really I think one of the holdups of of not pursuing it when an early the chadam US Coast Guard rather than the in transit or the or the in right or the Quincy us Ved all right well thank you very much Ted sure any other comments or questions on that issue no okay uh Rel to the so-called Chairman's report I guess anything we new on the demolition delays same old H uh brid street is the one that bother me the must 322 Bridge Street there been no action on that property as far as you know come soon nothing yet yeah that that is a really historic piece of property I think it's 17 something that 322 Bridge Street and and luckily the they withdraw their plans to demolish it so hopefully we can get that thing saved in some way uh the only other item or two items uh I'm going to jump ahead to Mono theater uh I'm aware that that the pending legal action on that for the zoning element of whether or not they're going to proceed with the restoration of the Washington tailor house and and then the mono theater uh the uh the summary not the summary uh the final presentation to the court is actually scheduled for Monday the 19th and from what the word I got back is hopefully there'll be some decision within 30 days on what's happening with the zoning and the decision on the zoning is then the developer makes his decision how he's going to proceed to develop that property and hopefully at some particular Point include the restoration of the Washington tailor housee as well as the theater property uh so things things are kind of open up in the air with that one uh last but not least in in your application and this is for information only really should not have any real discussion because it's inappropriate for us to discuss it other than the fact that the hbdc is making us aware that there's an application to demolish 1612 16 20 Main Street uh the uh I guess it's one of the Harding houses uh so the only comment I would make is I intend to have a conversation with the hbdc on the purpose of their form which requires the the uh the chairman of the historical commission to acknowledge that there is something going on and you know they want my initials but what does it mean and so I I think we all can agree what does it mean have any idea just that you were made aware that a historic structure is coming down but it is not in your jurisdiction but you are aware it's just a courtesy it's a courtesy I believe so okay I'm aware that they're going to demolish a building thank you very much okay anybody have anything else they'd like to add or delete from the meeting I have a question are we no longer doing demolition by neglect no no that's not true so that should be under the issues unhold you weren't here to list meting yes I'm sorry uh we met the new uh the new uh Town planner I'm sorry Town planner I mean not the new principal planner is that her name or town planner she's the town planner okay new title the new town planner Christine ogrady I got it right son of a gun she's she's on she's on board she's you know still you know trying to figure out what's going on and um in conversations with her and with Katie uh it's one of the priorities when she gets set and she's dealing with some zoning things so she's trying to dust off the the file and find out what she's done what we've done in the past and then we'll proceed I believe the the bottom line of how we felt we should proceed uh with the now I forgot her name the previous the planner Ryan christenberry right Brian we we we felt that the way to proceed and I guess looking at Nancy because new Bo new one person on board we we generally agreed that that was the funniest we generally agreed that uh what we were going to do was not generate a new bylaw that it that would be difficult that what the best way to proceed would to take the chapter 158 and put information or changes to chapter 158 would be a better way to proceed and we we can't we tended to agree uh that that would be the way to proceed except we have to do the work so you know the pre previous planner knew what she was going to do she she looked at many other communities in the state to see what they're doing and then provide some feedback to us on how we we could proceed and we begin the process you know the last two changes we made to the bylaw it took us almost two years to do it you know it takes time because you have to go to all the boards and all the commissions but we wanted to least start the process yeah I think that's valuable and also just to your point to maybe keep it on the list of issues on hold so it is something we just keep it's just not listed I think that's yeah I guess we took it off hold because it's no longer on hold working it oh okay okay awesome and so I guess what we'll do you know just just a good point we'll we'll put it on uh the Chairman's report old business I guess and course this way we'll have it there that we'll we'll ask for report sounds good and uh thank you very much for pointing it out and Christina will do that and and I'll also touch base with uh Christine to see uh what's happening and how she wants to proceed okay anything else all right let's call it a day or call it a morning motion to adjourn please so moved second please second thank you Bob yes Steve yes Nancy yes Steph Yes Sandy yes and the chair votes yes thanks much see you guys on the third get e e