[music] [music] [music] Heat. Heat. >> [music] >> Heat. Heat. [music] [music] Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and this is the July
14th, 2026 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Before we start formally, there are some announcements. Please note this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet
device. If anyone else is recording this meeting or using AI note takingaking, please notify the chairman. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of acts of 2025
extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain posision provisions of the open meeting law 3020 until June 20 June 30th, 2027. Excuse [clears throat] me.
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. Reminder for for people who would like to listen to the meeting while in
progress may do so by calling the phone number 508-9454410 conference ID73643 099 hashtag or join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simcast on Chattam TV Exfinity
channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. [clears throat] First order of business is roll call. Bob Leer, vice chair, >> here. >> Nancy Bar, clerk, >> here. >> Stephanie Hamilton,
>> yes. Robert Stevens absent. Janet Tennyson >> here. >> Robert Wilson >> here. >> Peter Donovan alternate >> here. >> And I'd like to welcome uh Mora Cook who's our new alternate just sworn in
and the chair is here. So we have we have a full uh full complement of members uh in the sense that Peter Donovan will be acting as the alternate and a voting member replacing uh Robert
Stevenson who's who's away. Um okay uh we have the minutes of July June 16th 2026. I would just comment these are the last minutes. Unfortunately,
we've lost Annie Hayes and uh we're gonna miss her, >> but I'm sure Christina is going to do a phenomenal job. >> I'm not [laughter] doing a great job. >> Oh, sneaky. Yes. >> Page four, the fifth paragraph.
Location on the hill means that it would lost prominence. It would lose. It should be Did you get that? >> Anything else? >> Um, I just wondered if in parag same
page one, two, three, four, five, uh, six, seven, eight. Um, was the straw vote to see if we'd be willing to consider the structure moving? I guess I'm asking you, Frank, that I I'm not sure that was real clear, but if that's what >> which paragraph again?
>> It's the third up from the bottom. Starts with Mr. from Msina. >> We can rewatch and see. >> You you don't think it was in in relation to this the move? >> I don't know if he asked us would we you consider moving the structure. I think
he asked us a different question, but I Okay, maybe I was maybe I wasn't clear. >> Okay, I'll we'll check into that. >> Okay, it's kind of awkward. I really don't remember what the the situation was. >> Uh >> willing to consider moving moving this
structure. I assume the structure we're talking about was the >> historic structure. >> Well, I think >> did Annie leave? >> Yeah. And at that time the and I it's correct. I I think it's correct. At that time the consensus was we wanted the
structure to stay where it was. >> That's right. >> And everybody voted no. you know, no, they wanted they wanted the structure to stay where it was. Okay. And then I think I then asked the applicant if they would consider options other, you know, changes, but okay, I think that makes
sense and they can always go to the video. Yeah, I assume we keep them forever. All right. So, we I think we have corrections. Can I get a motion for acceptance of the minutes as corrected? >> So, move we accept the minutes. >> We get a second on that.
>> Second. Thank you very much. Okay, no other comments. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yep. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Okay. And the chair votes yes. Thank you
very much. The rest of the meeting should be this efficient. Okay. Uh moving ahead, we have um potentially quite a long uh agenda. Uh I think
there's seven different uh applications or continuences. Uh so we hope to get things moving uh as quickly as we can and also we may decide to take a break or a brief uh German uh to give people a
chance to stretch their legs. Having said that, one of the things we should think about, you know, just quickly before we start, you know, we only have one meeting in the summer and this is why this is what happens. So, it's something to think about in the future whether we want to have multiple
meetings, you know, as we usually do. So, we don't have a meeting which is potentially long like this. And I, you know, it's a summer, but yet we're all here, you know, uh, except Robert. So, uh, well, it's something that we should think about in the future because it just avoids this because there are legal
obligations once they receive an application. You know, you have to move. You can't just just keep it out forever. Yes. >> I have a hard stop at 12:45. >> 12:45. >> I'll keep that right there. 12:45, Nancy. All right, let's go. All right.
The first application is uh 260113 is continued from June 16th. 2026 45 school street to be heard in we've this is a continuation of a application which we heard uh of a moving and historic
structure in the national registered district from one part of the property to the other. We do have uh and we're going to let Mr. uh Riley Mr. Riley, excuse me, Mr. Lichfield speak in a minute.
It's not that bad. Come on. you know you guys after a while Riley Litzfield you know u but I do want to comment you you had received this morning and something which came in uh I requested when we received the revised
application or the revised the change as proposed by the applicant on uh on school treat uh and we received different drawings and I had and I think at the meeting I had suggested maybe reduce the impact of the new home Maybe
even though we don't have any authority relative to that design, but we were so concerned about the streetscape and maybe to lessen the impact uh an alternate design specifically within the garage and they have done that. I I sent those that
[snorts] those changes to uh Elizabeth Kellum who's replacing Sarah Corgf. Sarah actually got involved too and they looked at it and actually came down and took a light look at the street and uh I'll just read this. Let's read that into the record. Why don't you read that
right now because I think it's important. >> This is the note from Elizabeth. >> Yes. Okay. >> Uh [clears throat] this is an email from Elizabeth Kellum of the Cape Cod Commission dated Monday, July 13, 2026. Thank you for sending the revised plans.
After reviewing the new material and based on my observations during the site visit, my original comments are still applicable with one small addition and have been included in full below. It is up to the historical commission to determine whether the
relocation is of substantial alteration. This will depend on whether the historical commission believes the relocation will preserve the building's historically significant or character-defining features and whether or not it will change important relationships to the surrounding
district. Given the project project proposes relocation rather than fully or partially demolishing it and because the building is not individually listed on the National Register and does not have recorded significance with its current location on the lot, the historical
commission could find that relocation is a preferable option to ensure pres preservation. Continuing in determining whether it's a substantial alteration or not, the historical commission should seek confirmation from the applicant in regard to the particulars of the
relocation that the building will remain intact and historical details preserved. Clarification regarding those details could be addressed by the applicant in the revised application through narrative or on the site plan to provide further confirmation of character
defining feature retention. If the commission does not have enough information to determine that the building will be fully preserved, the relocation may be considered a sus a substantial alteration, in which case it
would be referred to us. End quote. >> Okay. In addition to that, we did receive a revised form B. Did that did we distribute that? No. Well, anyway, just for information, there was a m some minor changes to the form be by Eric Dre
uh just to keep it to keep things, you know, copacetic and and correct. Okay, having said that, I Mr. Lichfield. >> Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the commission. Bill Lichfield here in behalf of the applicants, M. Dr. Mrs. Held, and [snorts] with me is Bill
Masciello, the architect. We appreciate uh Miss Bars having read the updated comments from the Cape Cod Commission. We share uh or we we endorse uh the suggestions that we provide you with asurances and details that the building
will be fully preserved. Uh that the details of it will be preserved when it's been relocated. We also appreciate you having uh asked our friend Eric Dre to take a further look and update the form B. Although as the chair said, there was nothing I think notable in
that regard. There's sort of an open question as to whether chapter 158 uh includes relocation within the definition of demolition. But without waving any rights in that regard, we acknowledge that the Cape Cod Commission
uh suggests that it can have impact and we acknowledge that. However, I would also remind you that under your regulations and under chapter 158, relocation is suggested as an alternative to demolition. And as Miss
Callum noted in her uh updated comments, it may well be [snorts] that relocation uh of the building is by all means a preferable alternative to demolition, something which Dr. and Mrs. Heldrith don't want to do.
In the prior Cape Cod Commission request, [snorts] they asked for details on the move and you asked for uh some modifications to the plan. So with that, if I could turn it over to Bill Miello to talk both about the move and the revisions.
>> Thank you. >> Yeah. Hi. Hello everybody. Uh thank you for the opportunity to present today. Um so some of the comments that we had from the last meeting were particularly in regards to you know what's what's the property going to look like when the house is relocated. Um there was a lot
of commentary about you know we were trying to cut down the the beginning of the site entrance to the site introduce a long stone walls improve some of the some of the grading uh for maintenance purposes and for sight lines. However um yeah you know it seemed that people were very concerned about the streetscape and
that was u the first and foremost item uh you know how is it going to appear? So, with going back and taking a look at it and and taking everybody's comments into consideration, there was a few things that we looked at. First item was the garage. The
garage being on that upper level. Well, we already I'm going to just go back. We understand that the held already explained they want one level living. They want to be on that property. So, they would like to, you know, pursue that and continue with it. Um there was a comment about the garage. The garage
being a dominant structure kind of in the foreground. We've removed that. We've taken the garage, put it around where the existing autoc court is now on that property and put it a onecar drive under garage. So it it's got a you can see that little image that's on the right hand corner. It's got a little
carriage style door. Um it's got some gable details. It's a it's a very um understated facade for that elevation of the house. so it's not overpowering the property. Um, and then the upper part of the property is a is a onele house with
a it's one one and a half stories actually. So there's a bedroom primary bedroom on the first floor, kitchen, living space, and then on the second floor are uh a couple of additional bedrooms and an office. Um, but all of that is within the maximum footprint that's allowed, you know, for that size
property. Um, they do want to maintain the ability to drive directly off School Street to have a drop off at the front door. They want the front door facing school street, not the reverse. Um, which is one of the reasons why, you know, first of all, the house that is
currently there, relocating it onto the other property, um, gives them an opportunity to utilize this beautiful piece of land and also change the characteristic of the existing house by relocating it and putting the front door facing school street, which is something
that they really felt very passionately about, rather than demolishing the house because that was the other opportunity. we just take the property, take it down, but they're obviously investing quite a quite a sum of money to to have it relocated. So, the uh other issue is the
the process of the relocation. There was a lot of concern about, oh, how is this going to be relocated? Is it going to be damaged? Are we going to reconstruct? You know, the the process of relocating houses apparently has been going on for quite some time in Chadam from what I understand. Um, so the there's a very
careful way to do this. You know, it's a 75-year-old home. It's got very solid bones. It's a it's a it's a really really wonderfully uh built structure. Um so they're absorbing the extra cost to have this relocated. The key benefits of this are preserves the local
character by keeping the house without tearing it down. Um it's going to maintain the unique craftsman style and colonial uh revival architecture. Um and it's because it's such a solid house, it's ideal for relocating to to another
location. Um, and the other part is, you know, being environ environmentally responsible. It's not going to end up in a dumpster and in a landfill. So, I mean, I think that's a pretty strong attribute of of preservation. Um, instead of taking it and eliminating it from the history of Chadam, it is the
intent is that it will be preserved. So, moving a house of this size, even on a gradual slope, um, it's it requires obviously a lot of engineering. Um, and and there will be more engineer involved. I'm not saying every detail is worked out here, but there is a process
for this. Uh the the existing foundation has to be opened up. We have to put structural steel below the primary supports of the house, elevate it and gradually move it across with a hydraulic lifting and jack system on independent wheel suspension vehicles
and gradually bring it down the hill and bring it to that location. It will be relocated on a brand new foundation at the same elevation relationship from the first floor to the grade that it's at now. However, the house will be rotated 180°.
Um, and the the other idea is that so that it's maintaining being maintained as a part of the fabric of the district, the facade of the relocated house would be in line with the property that's to the left of it. Um, so I hope that makes I hope that
makes sense. I hope I answered some questions about the transportation of the of this house from one property to another. And there's more details in the what Bill had handed to you as well. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Thank you, Bill. uh and recognizing that you have a lengthy hearing today and
that you may have questions, I just wanted to make [snorts] couple of observations about what is involved in terms of preserving this house. Uh long before we had
chapter 158, we had an historical commission. Some of you may recall uh when Claire Basley was the long-term chair of the commission. Um, and in the 1970s there was a uh and it's in your
your files uh there was a sitdown uh discussion we'll call it for lack of anything else among a lot of what I'll call the old-timers in the neighborhood. And one of them who lived literally
around the corner from this house on Halllet Lane was a fellow named George Lake. and your files reflect a quote, a lengthy quote from George as part of that session that the historical commission held [snorts]
devoted to the old village. And George said houses were moved around quite a bit, you know, in those olden days. And one place down there at Eastward Point was owned by Willie Gold and Dan Harding. They got into a fight and one of them wouldn't sell the other his half. So they took a tape measure and
measured it and took a saw and saw it right in two. Then old Dan Harding, he was quite clever. So he took some dories and lashed them together, put his half in those dories and floated up to the mill pond. And I'll be damned if that college isn't right there. Cottage isn't there right now. So that's some
precedent for moving houses. But George went on to say they used to bring houses over from Nantucket. A great many of the houses down here in the village have been moved from other places. One of the biggest industries in Chadam, moving
houses. My mother bought her house in 1917 while it was moved from a road that was down where the beach is now. Goes on and on and on about how moving houses even in the old village is a part of Chadam's history. There's recently a
story in the paper about uh two Bacelli paintings being relocated at the Euzi Gallery. It was controversial, but they were preserved. Factually, they were improved. What we are proposing to do is
consistent with the history of the old village. We've revised the house to reflect some of the concerns that you have, but I think that relocating the Crosby House to the lower level of this property is something, as I said last
time, which I think should be commended rather than be subjected to what would at least arguably be a punitive punitive delay. Be happy to answer any questions. >> All right. Uh, address me with the questions, please, before we so we don't
get No, let me recognize you when before you >> I didn't say anything. >> No, I know that you raised your hand and I'm saying I'm mentioned other members of the board. U Okay. Uh, I just want to put this thing in perspective before we get into the questions. Uh
we we we went back to uh Christine I mean to uh the Cape Cod Commission uh again to look for clarification because we we do have this issue and understanding of you know
what what really is the issue you know what what are we what are we concerned about we're concerned about preserving the house we're concerned about the street space and what is the authority and that's why I went back to uh to uh the Cape Cod Commission and and kind of press them to give me more information
and to give us more information so we understand the the boundaries and I and I appreciate uh uh Elizabeth's comments relative to what we can or cannot do. And I just say for the future it's something you know one an attorney once
said that we're not nothing but a bunch of well-meaning volunteers and that's very true. Okay, very few of us have a deep background in historic preservation. So it's something to think about and having our own some historical commissions have preservation consultants you know actually working
for them so to get some guidance and so I just want to acknowledge public acknowledge the appreciation of the Cape Cod Commission and whether or not we refer it to them is not necessarily the issue is the fact that they're there to provide a resource and information and I think she did lay out very well some
options and I just just wanted to make that comment. I'm sorry. Uh Steph, go ahead. >> One thing I don't know if you realize >> Stephanie, >> I don't know if you realize that we lost the house this year. So, we're being very conservative. We had an old house
that was going to be moved and we lost it >> there. There. If I could, Mr. Chairman, respond the the uh given what's involved here, I think you can be reasonably well assured that Dr.
Mrs. Held and Bill Masiello are not going to pick this up on a trampoline and bounce it down the hill. It is a valuable house which they have spent the last 15 years caring about and preserving. So I do understand what you're saying.
Again, uh we almost lost or partially lost a house at three main street corner of Silverleaf Avenue when it was blown down during construction. a house which interestingly was moved within the old
village. It was originally on the other side of Main Street. >> One one comment if I could on that subject. U Stephanie during the site visit we didn't really get into discussion here but during the site visit I had asked you what are you going to do? You going to go into the street
and you commented that you planned to go behind it and with a rail system. Is that true? >> That is true. That is true. >> You just give Yes, that is true. It's it's it's not going to enter the street and be dropped down. It'll go down the side of the pro the back side of the property down the gradual slope and it's
going to have to be done very carefully, but it will be done. And they'll use cribbing to level it up, but there'll still be, you know, a steel frame. >> So, you're not going to bring a a are you going to going to bring a truck and lift it? And also, but what the rail is the is the house going to sit on the
rails and then be pulled? >> That's how that's that's that's one idea of how to do it. And there are multiple ways of handling this. So until we actually finally engineer what how we're going to do that, this is what we're suggesting now when we get into a little bit further, we may change that to
something that would be okay more appropriate. >> Okay. And if and when I'm not sure what's going to happen here, but I just want to Christina what we should do make sure within the determination whatever it is if the house has moved that we don't tell the building department how
to do things but we can acknowledge to the building department that we're concerned with the move and the applicant had indicated that he would potentially use a rail system which is obviously much safer than taking it in. >> The exact means and methods still need to be determined. >> The means and method. Yeah. Just just an
acknowledgement. Okay. You know, the process very simply, we approve what you got here. If we approve it, it's turned over to the building department and they look at our drawings and our notes to see and 99% they do agree with us. Sometimes they don't, you know, we don't have final authority. It's the building
department. There there will be other permits necessary board of health for septic and building department moving for things like that, but the intent is as Bill said, keep it on the property, not in the street and obviously preserve it.
>> Okay. All right. Uh Nancy. Yes. >> Can I clarify that aside from moving the structure and having putting it on a new foundation, are there any other changes being made, windows, doorways, roof, facade of the historic house? as we explained the old deck or the deck is
being removed, but that's not historic. >> Okay. So, the there's no other changes. You're not replacing any of the historic materials or >> the intent is to keep it exactly the way it is and relocate it in place as as it is today. >> Okay. Thank you. >> I should clarify the the garage building
is also being moved further, but that's not a part of this structure. [snorts] >> Any other questions? Yes, Mr. Mr. Ler. Um, f first a question about what you handed out this morning, Bill. Is that in intended to be in response to that
the change in the Cape Cod Commission's letter? Here are the details that you you should be asking for or whatever. I just >> Yeah. >> Oh, me. Okay. I wasn't sure which bill. Bill on the left, bill on the right. >> He wrote it. Yes. No, the the idea was
in in response and how you know how it's actually the details of how it's going to be moved. And this is one presentation of how it could be moved. Like I said, those final details, but but the but the existing house is going to be maintained completely the way it is right now. Nothing is going to change about it um at all.
>> Well, for example, you mentioned um heavyduty multi-w wheeled structural dollies. I think makes sense to me, but Frank was talking about rails and you were going to have it on rails. >> That's a different way of handling it. Like I said, the means and methods of how we're going to do this, it's going to be engineered. And until we get to
the point where we're actually going to decide and move it, then we're going to look at the hill, look at the engineering piece of every single point in that house and how it's going to be lifted up and relocated. We can we can appreciate the concern that the commission has about the means and
methods of relocating it. It was a house on Coral Road before we had chapter 158 owned by man named Charles Shepard. >> True. Uh, somebody was going to preserve it, picked it up, and dropped it by accident, quote unquote. That's not
going to happen here. >> Okay. I I apologize. You know, I I just realized you handed this two and a half page document. I I didn't read it. Okay. I don't know if the members of the commission have read it or not. So, you know, Bill, just to make it clear, can you just synopsize what what it is you
gave us? >> Yes. Basically, it's just this the respon. So what it is is just a a I put this together as a a basic discussion of what we're talking about the history of the house. The reply for the Cape Cod Commission is in here and then our reply
to some of their comments in regards to you know they were you know looking at means methods how we're going to preserve the details how we're going to move the house and I think that was the overall question that came from the historical commission last time we met. So the the last two pieces of this, it's
a, you know, argument for relocation and then the relocation process. It's really that's the focus. >> The background section is from form B. It's not language you haven't seen before. We simply wanted you to all have have it in one place. So the section, the first page background, that's no
disrespect, but essentially cut and pasted from form B. >> Exactly. >> Do the members want to spend a couple of minutes just looking at it? You Okay. I'm not going to read it into the record. It's two and a half pages. No, >> I read it. >> You read it. Okay. Sorry. I was >> It doesn't say anything. >> Say again. No.
>> We don't know. >> Okay. Right. >> All right. >> What Mr. Lichfield would may recognize this complaint on my part, but it'd be helpful if it was dated so we know where it fits in the scenario. >> All right. No other any other questions? I'm sorry. >> I didn't
>> There's no date on the dismissive. >> Uh prepared. If you want to annotate your versions, it was sent to me on July 13. >> Well, I'm just Yeah. when you when you get a giant pile of things where this fits in the whole process is >> I think significant certainly in this
case >> well dated today >> right there provided to you today perfectly >> it's a good date >> um one one other question on the um I guess the streetscape if nothing else you provided and this is un doesn't have
a page number or whatever on it this previously >> oh okay >> the outline of the existing house compared with the proposed new house. >> Yes, >> Bob. Let me let Christina bring that up. You want to refer to that? >> Okay.
>> Yeah. Just so the public can see what you're talking about. All right. It'll take a second because there are at least three or four people out there. >> There you go. Thank you. >> Okay. um that that I understand. Now,
just to make this more difficult, you um provided for this hearing a docu uh drawings or renditions >> denoted a over 1.1, which is the I guess the comparable
streetscape with without that red outline. My my question is is does that would if that red outline were put on here, would that be any different in terms of the amount of coverage of the of the building?
>> Well, it's a it's a different view. One of the views is kind of skewed from the the sort of uh looking directly west. That particular view that I submitted to you was from the from the southwest. So looking as if the you're coming of the property. So, it's a slightly different
view, >> but it it it would be absent the garage, I guess, that that much higher and more prominent in the proposed revision that you're providing there. >> I'm sorry, I I didn't understand whether
the red the red outline be more prominent. Yes, the red outline would be more prominent here on this one uh in this view as well. >> Okay. >> Because it's it's it's closer. this that house is set back a little further away. >> All right. Um that's all I have. Thanks
for those clarifications. >> So did was in your current proposal the the new house is set back more than it was in the previous one or less? >> It's it's rotated slightly and it's about the same.
>> Okay, I see what Bob was getting at. >> The uh the new house uh will be completely compliant. It will meet the 25 foot street setback from under the zoning bylaw, the sideline setbacks and things like that. Do >> you not you don't have to go to zoning?
>> I I would never never that's not up to me. >> You're not planning on going zoning. Okay. >> It we it will meet all setbacks. However, >> okay. All right. Uh I think we if there's no other questions, I think it's time for us to fish a cut bait here. um
when we we met the last time and got a consensus and I guess the concern among the members uh if I could articulate it for the public in addition was similar to what is in the Cape Cod Commission certainly there's no question in my mind
you know we always want to preserve houses but we're more about preserving houses in this case in the old village with what the the public uh people nearby you know have made a very strong case about the changes to the streetscape and this property being such
a it's not just the property the house but the uh you know the street the uh how it's set back and uh and how it's set up with you know and that they're going to be significant changes uh so I think at this particular point uh my own
personal feeling uh maybe I should not give it first but I you know I I think the applicant has done a lot to try and to satisfy some of our needs uh or some of our desires and minimizing the changes to the streetscape by getting
rid of that garage. It's it's not two I think the other one was a two-car garage. It's a onecar garage. It's moving to the back. It it kind of softens it softens the impact, but there's no question is impact. The question in my mind and the question before the commission,
we're not we're dealing we're not dealing with the relocation of the house as being a substantial alteration in the sense that yeah, they're going to save it, but is it still a substantial alteration to the National Registered
District and specifically the the uh the old village national register district and that this property is going to change so significantly. you know, now we have a, you know, more hydrangeas, which Chattam needs more hydrangeas. Okay, we got a stone wall. We didn't
have one. You know, things like that. And it's changing. So, uh, is that change in fact a substantial alteration? And that's the question. Uh, and what are we going to do about it? So, are you ready to make decision time? I just again with consensus, you know, we won't vote yet. We'll do a consensus, just
discussion. Robert, >> thank you for the opportunity to comment and I obviously did visit the property and looked over all the revised plans. To me, I agree with Frank that preserving the streetscape is uh the
most critical thing, something that's attractive as you enter the village. And uh it's true that the the the house being up on a hill prominent is if there's some way to redo this project and leave that thing up top and build
something for yourselves down lower, I would prefer that. But I do see several things that you have in this that ameliorate the pain for me. One is there's a hedge there hiding your
new house. If you look at the one of these views, you don't even see your house. I don't Can you show that one? I don't know if you have that one. >> Is that the one that's on? This is the new house there. >> Well, there was a Yeah, there it is. Yeah, the hedge sort of hides.
If anyone doesn't like the new house, you know, there's a hedge hiding it >> uh in some nice uh uh flowers and hydrangeanger. Secondly, uh the uh garage is moved out of uh out of the way. It's not offensive. Uh and you
rework the driveway. I think that's great. Um the historic house itself is not changed and it's moved down and presented to the people entering the village and so they do get to see it. So that's good.
Uh so uh and the house has a it's only one and a half stories. It's not a looming thing that's uh uh trying to be prominent as you enter the village. So with those emilating factors, you know, I can
sort of almost live with allowing it to be moved. But >> yes, >> I I would I would really like to hear the rest of the commission too. Yeah, Steph, >> I think that this is probably the best way to preserve the old house. Uh, if you're going to be building the new
house, I agree. I'd rather have the old house stay up there, but >> Janet, >> well, I can understand the uh need for one story living, you know, when when you age and and um if if it were left up
to me, I would have just assumed that the uh decision were made to leave the historic house where it is and build the new house down below, you know, in the act where it wouldn't be seen. Um, personally, I I I agree with what Robert
has said as far as, you know, the circumstances, but uh, regarding the Cape Cod Commission, it it will change, uh, important relationships to the surrounding district. It's in the historic district. It's the defining in
a defining spot in the historic district. Um there's no way to change that. Um it's going to be it's going to be entirely different. The relationship to the other houses in the neighborhood is going to be changed and the
relocation I believe is a substantial alteration. >> All right, Nancy. >> Um I think we consider this under two things. And under chapter chapter 158, I believe the relocation is something we would support in almost every other
context. Um, and we would and we are um grateful for pres preservation of the historic structure. And as Bill eloquently said, moving is is something that we generally are pushing for and putting delays in place to try to
organize and um uh yeah. So I think under 158 I would say that the moving the house I would not use that. I would not issue a demolition delay on that. under the old
village and the national register. I always feel like I would defer to what the his the Cape Cod Commission is giving us as guidance because we would be sending it to them and my reading of their feedback although she does mention
um the streetscape um and the importance of the relationships and I I agree with all my colleagues on that. She also makes a point to say that there's no recorded significance with its current location and spends most of her guidance time talking about the preservation of
historic details. Um, and so I think if we sent it to the Cape Cod Commission, they would approve it. And I have no desire to put somebody through that process just to put somebody through that process. So my [clears throat] feeling is under both of the statutes
that we operate that the house that this plan would be something that I would support approve. >> Okay. Uh where are uh Bob? Uh I forgot to mention when I was talking to Mr. Lichfield that uh George Lake is not my idea of a good
source of information. He was exceedingly eccentric to say the least. Um, I feel it the way I did at the last hearing. That's one of the reasons I asked to get clarity with this red outline of the house. This was a is a
very prominent house. It's a major factor. It's the only one that looks like that. It's part of one of the few entryways into the old village and moving it down out of the way to a subservient location is, I believe, a substantial alteration and therefore
should be referred to the commission. I don't if I don't think it's our business to predict what the commit that commission would do. If we think something's appropriate, then we should rule that way and let them if they want to do what's wrong, if you will, let them do it.
>> Big time, Bob. The [clears throat] >> um I think uh you know the applicants got in a unique situation here and I think it's great they're able to relocate the house close by and preserve all the details and they did uh listen
to us and make some changes. So uh I would I would support the current plan. >> You would support it? >> Yes. >> More uh new new guy on the block but uh do you have any comments or observation
on what you've heard so far? Well, I just think that that that Gambrell style is such the new format in the town and I just wonder what if everybody wants to put a new Grahamrell in front of their house and how would that change the village over time?
>> Yeah, it see Well, it's a good way to get more cubic square feet in a house. Uh, okay. Well, I appreciate the comment. Uh, [sighs] I guess I'm up. You know, this one really, you know, does bother me. We
seem to have four members of the commission supporting approval, uh, and myself, which makes my vote immaterial, which is great. Maybe I should abstain and keep everybody happy. But um you
know as much as uh I feel this is going to significantly change the the streetscape of the old village uh you know it's the entryway and and very few people are going to be happy about it. Uh and but you know I don't have to live
there. Uh and uh but I think I'll be honest with her. I came into this meeting thinking, well, the easiest thing to do or the best thing to do is to let the Cape Cod Commission decide. Uh because they, you know, they've got more
they could they could ask more of the applicant than we can. You know, they have more authority to do that. And we have verbal asurances and which we hope to get into into writing to asssure the house would be safe. and and and and then I think you know you know Janet hit
the nail on the head just put the new house down at the other side. I mean it's obvious and the reasons given for not wanting to put the new house down there was their view and that just just bothers me. You know the
view what is the view? You know you know it's not like you're you're on the ocean. So, um I I I would unfortunately even with these changes, it still, you know, is a significant change and I would prefer to I would I will vote no,
you know, that it should be it should be uh referred to the Cape Cod Commission because uh I think they have more authority and they can get some of the better assurances that we can uh or maybe encourage the applicant not not to
do it. So, all right. Well, we kind of have a consistent. >> So, are you making a a motion? I'm sorry. Are you There's no motion yet. So, anybody >> There's no motion. I'm saying >> so somebody could move to refer it. You don't have to do it the other way. >> Yeah. >> Then see what we vote. >> I understand. >> Okay.
>> I'm not We're not voting. We're just >> You were saying that you would deny. Anyways, you said I would go against it, but there's no motion to go for or against. Okay. >> Some I just try to I'm asking people to to where where you're going, how you think you're going to vote. not voting but it's a good in my view it's a good
way to get it out because it helps let me finish it helps other members understand and potentially you know it's a deliberation amongst oursel and that's what it is >> yeah but I can I have not guaranteed how I'm going to vote depending on the motion but don't like you've taken okay never mind I haven't given you my vote
yet >> see don't don't don't tell me how to to do it everybody can express themselves the way they want to express themselves all right so you know that's kind of how I'm feeling I'm telling you I've mixed emot questions. I don't know how we're going to vote. I told you both ways. So, that's that's the issue.
>> And I'm telling you, I don't know how I'm going to vote. So, don't have me on some >> I don't I'm just giving a sense of consensus. >> All right. >> Yes, sir. Just to respond very briefly, if I could to some of the comments, I understand the the preference that the
House be left at the top of the hill in a few weeks of involvement in in public affairs and public policy. I have never been one jumping up and down about private property rights. Having said that, Dr. and Mrs. Held actually own
this property and if they would like to have a view of the mill pond, I think that's their right. >> Underscored. >> And and very simply put, as Mr. Masiello said, >> they want to live at the top of the hill down below. So, I understand your
concern. >> Okay. >> The held disagree. >> Well, okay. Look, no, we're gonna end it now to show something really material because >> I just want to say in order for house them to be up top, they have to move the other house, but maybe that's the best thing way to save the house.
>> Understand? Okay. I really appreciate the the the deliberation and the fact that the members are really seriously taking this and it's what we're all about and I I do appreciate it. But we're going to move on. But before we vote, I'd like to get the public comment because there is some people in the
audience who may want to speak or yes, come forward. And I think we might have some any members from the online. >> Hello, Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Uni Burley from Friends of Trees.
Your focus seems to be on the streetscape. Uh, no one has mentioned the historic elm that is right by the driveway as you come in to the left. And it is of utmost important to us that that is not damaged, that it is
preserved. It has a plaque on it that [clears throat] says historic elm planted in the 1800s, designated historic landmark to be honored and preserved for future generations. And that was put up by the
Elm Research Institute from um Harrisville, New Hampshire. And it's the only Dutch elm existing in town from the original plantings years ago that did not um fall prey to the disease. So,
>> well, let me assure you, and I know Mr. Litfield is going to jump in. We did have that discussion in the in the first meeting and that it would be protected, but let I mean, let >> I didn't I didn't hear it today and No, no, that's okay. Well, it's important. Um, >> no, no, and I appreciate that. And we'll get Mr. Lichfield one more time. I'm
sure >> we really do. Friends of trees requests that there be no damage because the limbs go way out towards where the garage is and where the house will be moved. So, we'd appreciate your consideration in making certain that this historic
>> feature a lot remains to be in town. So, thank you very much. >> Well, we did and Mr. Litzfield, could you just expand on that a little bit to give the assurances? >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Dr. Mrs. Aldrath have every intention and are committing to preserving at least that
tree and actually there are several other important trees. U I don't know whether we should at some point consult with Miss Hol as your president or you, but we will certainly do that. >> Notwithstanding the commitment that we've that the Heldrs have made, the
last thing that I want is an I rate Mrs. Burley. >> [laughter] >> You got the nail on the head on that one. >> All right. Um Okay. Uh any member of the public else? Oh, >> hello. Introduce yourself, sir. >> Good morning. I'm Fred Miller. Um I live
at 285 Main Street, the corner of School in Maine. Um there are two homes between me and 45 School Street. I have some observations I'd make before I say what I'm concerned
about. Um, I purchased my 1825 circa home in 1980. I moved here in ' 85. My children graduated from the Chattam High School. I've been a voting resident since 1985. So, I've lived in this
neighborhood a very long time. Not quite as long as Ike Rogers, who owned it before me, who moved in in 1919. As an old village homeowner, I was very supportive of the historic district
and supported its creation, understanding that it would put restrictions on me and others in the neighborhood and those who would purchase the homes once I am deceased. And I did it as others did, anticipating
that when people bought their homes in the historic district, they would understand that there was a commitment to sustaining the homes and the streetscape. I'm not against change. There have been changes made to my home to make it work
for firstf flooror living. And as some of you on this commission will recall, when 305 Maine and 277 Maine were before you, I appeared and made comments. And particularly with 305, the commission with the cooperation of the owner and
the architect and the Cape Cod Commission ended up a terrific solution. >> Yes. >> That maintained that home as part of the entry to the old village. And you may recall that I came and said I supported it just as I did on 277
which just got a preservation award. >> So I'm not against change. And my last observation first was uh before I say what I think about this house is I once had the opportunity to have a long discussion with Norm Abrams. Some of you may remember him from this
old house. And Norm observed to me that we ought to preserve a few homes as museums, but the way to preserve most of our homes is to live in them, adapting them for life in the century in which we live,
but also understanding we are stewards of those homes and if we take it on, it's our responsibility to make sure we pass it on as part of our historical and cultural patrimony. I would also say that Norm was not against change. He had a salt box and he
put a window in the top so there'd be light at the top of the stairs. So, it's not like you can't change old homes. So, what does that mean for me about 45 School Street? I certainly resonate with the owner's desire for first floor living. It took a
lot to adapt to 85 Main Street, so that was possible. But moving and relocating that house concerns me. Like so many others, I regularly walk up Stool Street, often with people new to
the community. We get to the top of the hill and people say, "Why is that house facing the way it's facing? Why is it the back door?" And I'll say, "Well, think about it." And a minute they say, "I bet they had a
view of the ocean when it was built." and now the trees are there. I said, "Yep, I've lost some of my view." And when I agreed and supported the applications for 305 and 277, I lost partial water views.
But I believed it was more important to keep the architecture and the streetscape even for some loss to me. So I don't think it's an accident that Cosby built the home the way he did.
And I think he realized he was trying to fit that house in the series of houses from Main Street to Howlet. And the change I understand, I get what they're trying to do.
It really will change the streetscape. And the issue of the old village historic district was to preserve a streetscape. And if you remember when the power went out one summer a couple years ago, absent the sound of generators, if you
walked in the old village that night and you saw the candle lights and the silence, you had an opportunity to experience the mid 1800s. And on my corner, I regularly meet people trying to figure out which way to
go to the light and see the village. And either way works. But if you walk up School Street, you experience the patrimony of our historic culture, our architecture,
the eccentric people who lived here. So, it would be my wish that they'd find some way to adapt the house as 305 did, as 277 did, and as 285 did. Thank you. >> Thank you very much, sir. Any other
members, public? Anybody online? All right, let's conclude this. Bob, can you uh generate a motion? We can discuss. You're >> I guess I'm back to Miss Bar's question, if you will. It's which which direction? Not question, but which direction to go
with it. >> Why don't you do your personal what do you you know, go ahead, make a motion. Let's let's get let's get a discussion started or else we're going to be here all Well, I'll do an easy one first and let's move the Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at 45
School Street is historically significant because it in whole or in part 75 years old or more and is located within a historic district and it possesses architectural value or significance in terms of period and style. >> I'll second that.
>> Okay. I don't think there's any other need for discussion on that or the members of the public. Bob Yes. >> Nancy. >> Yes. >> Steph. >> Yes. >> Janet. >> Yes. >> Robert Wilson. >> Yes. >> Peter Donovan. >> Yes. >> The chair vote. Yes. Bob, why don't you
do the referral and we'll take it from there. >> The second part. >> Say again. >> Should he should he finish the second part of the first motion? >> Well, that's just we made a historic district. Now the question is demo refer could be it could be let me talk to Bob.
It could be a a c it could be a chapter 158 or the Cape Card commission referral either one Bob. >> Right. Okay. Um Chattam Historical Commission also finds the proposed work to be done dated July 7th I think will materially diminish the
historic significance of the building. Therefore, the commission imposes demolition delay in the amount of uh 17 months. [snorts] >> Second. >> Okay. >> Second. >> All right. This is a we we we can we
have the authority to do both referral to the Cape Cod Commission and impose a demolition delay. If if it's a full 17 months or not, it doesn't have to be 17 months, but you know, it's up to you. Uh so, do we have a second on a motion? So
a discussion here is a discussion my view that whatever we do I think 17 months is is punitive we have used the 17 or 18 months uh you know as a I wouldn't say punitive but when we when
we had an applicant that we really were never going to get anything done so we wanted them to think hard in my view I think 17 months is is too is too uh is too punitive Bob and I would prefer something less six months uh which would be coincide if we refer
it to the Cape Cod Commission the time in which the Cape Cod Commission would properly act. So that's my view. So having said that we'll take a vote if somebody feels 18 17 months is appropriate or not. You're up. Wow.
It's you're voting to impose a demolition delay of 17 months. >> What about >> that's the only choice I have? >> No. Right now, >> you can vote no and then we redo it. >> Right. >> Uh, no. >> No. >> No.
>> Okay. All right. I'm sorry. Uh, uh, uh, [clears throat] excuse me, Janet. >> So, we're If we don't do this, then they don't re they don't have time to rethink anything
and reconsider. This doesn't go to the Cape Cod Commission. >> You can vote. If you vote no, you're not imposing 17 months. You could modify the 17 months. I didn't make a motion. So, we're voting on 17 months.
>> Yes or no? >> Do you feel 17 months is too long? >> You could still We'll still have a vote about the that commission, >> right? >> Excuse me. Can I just speak one? If you all say no to the 17 months, I don't think you can make another motion for
six months. You have to amend the motion on the floor. Why don't you amend the motion for less if you think it or vote yes to 17 months? >> I don't get this. I don't I'm going to wait to vote. You go ahead, Nancy. >> No.
>> Okay. Uh sorry. Uh >> Bob, >> I'm glad to amend to six months if you want that way. >> I would second that a motion. I think it's better, less more appropriate. Okay. Why don't you withdraw the motion,
Bob, please? I'll withdraw the motion for 17 months and change it to six months. >> Okay. All right. So, [snorts] we voting on the amended motion six months on the national >> Bob Robert. >> No, for the reasons I mentioned okay
with >> No, it's you could still I know you're confused, Janet. We could still refer it to the Cape Cod Commission. This is independent of referral to the Cape Cod Commission. Okay. And my comment was >> Why didn't we do that first?
>> Well, we didn't because he made a motion. >> Oh, >> okay. He made the other motion. I can't tell him what motion to make. >> Well, we were looking for guidance on that. But, um, >> Bob, can I suggest because there's confusion, you withdraw the motion and we do the Cape Cod Commission first.
>> Sure. I was just trying to get the historical historical significance. >> Yes. Which you did. We did. So, we're withdrawing the motion. >> I withdraw all the motion and the revised motion. We'll move to the Cape Cod Commission. >> Okay. I think you'll make it more clear for some members who feel that's the way
they want to go. >> So, at this particular point, Robert, make it very clear. >> All right. I move the Cape Chat Historical Commission confirms that the home dwelling located at 45 School Street is contributing structure in the National Historic Register District.
>> Second. >> All right. We're only voting now that it's a contributing structure in the National Register District. >> Right. >> I seconded it. >> Yes. So, we're only voting, Robert, is that this is that this structure is in a
contributing structure to National Register District. That doesn't say we refer it or not, just that it is contributing >> and I think we've considered Yes. >> Yeah. Definitely convenient. >> Yes. >> Yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. Peter.
>> Yes. >> All right. Now, let's go part two relative to Cape Cod Commission and get that out of >> Okay. I move the Chattam Historical Commission find that materials presented this date showing that proposed alterations, additions, and renovations do constitute a substantial alteration
to a contributing structure located in the NHRD and therefore refer referral to the Cape Cod for permission Cape Cod Commission for review is necessary. >> Second. >> Okay. discussion and I'm sorry for the
confusion. Bob chose to go the other way first. This is a referral to the Cape Cod Commission. There's no time on that. Okay. Uh and you feel that this is a substantial alteration. Uh I think we've had enough discussion that some members
feel this is a substantial alteration relative to the streetscape or not or we feel we have a compromise here. So that's the that's the motion and we still if we decide can also go back and impose a demolition delay and that is
done as a a check if you will on the whole process to ensure that something happens with the Cape Cod Commission that even if the Cape Cod Commission's approve it and we still feel that it is not a good solution that we feel we want to delay until the owner does in fact
make the changes we agree he should make. Is that clear enough, Robert? >> Perfectly clear. I'm just uh when I give my vote, I want to just comment as I give my vote. >> Well, can you comment now? >> Well, discussion. I'd rather have discussions now and in a clear
>> going to be frank with you, Frank. I'm sorry about the show that [laughter] >> that it seems like punting a little to another body that's going to do what some people feel is the right thing. And maybe maybe I sort of sympathize with it, >> but it's punting. is and I would like a
commission to have on record how most of us feel and quite a few of us felt it it shouldn't be uh delayed. >> Yeah. >> And I get I hope we get a chance to do that in addition to the >> Okay. So, right now but right now you're voting yes or no to refer it to the commission.
>> I'm I'm Yes. >> Yes. >> No. >> Yes. >> Okay. Hold on one second. Let me Okay. Robert was >> Yes. >> Yes. And Steph. No, Janet. >> Yes,
Nancy. >> I'm not sure. Come back to me, please. >> Say again. >> Can you return to me? I'm not sure yet. >> All right. Bob, >> yes. >> Peter, >> no. >> Okay.
And the chair votes yes. So, we have myself, Bob, and Janet voting yes. Stephanie, yours was a no vote. >> Yes. >> Okay. I apologize. And Nancy and Robert was a yes vote.
>> Mhm. >> And so, at the present time, it's four to two. >> Nancy, >> no. >> No. Okay. All right. Unfortunately, we have a consensus to refer to the Cape Cod Commission, but we can or cannot
impose a demolition delay if we if we feels fit. Bob, I throw it back to you at least to get something on the table one more time. >> Did you refresh my recollection? Did we vote down the six or >> We didn't vote it down. We just never completed the vote. Question is,
>> what I I I raised the issue of maybe we shouldn't be thinking about that. Uh so go ahead we should be thinking about 17 months you know that we should make it less >> right >> but that's my opinion only
>> historical commission also finds the proposed work to be done >> sorry Chadam historical commission also finds that the proposed work to be done dated July 7th 2026 will materially diminish the historic significance of the building. Therefore, the commission
imposes a demolition delay in the amount of 6 months. >> Okay. Was there a second? >> Second. >> May I ask a question? >> Sure. Ken, >> if those six months or whatever go by, um,
because it's been referred to the commission, can they knock it down? >> Can they knock it down? >> Knock our decision? >> No. >> Okay. >> They can't do it during the six months, >> right? Let's put it this way. The Cape Cod Commission Act is that's the
priority. So at this particular time, everything is on hold as far as Cadam is concerned because they have to go to the Cape Cod Commission after the Cape Card Commission. The Cape Cod Commission hopefully can take just one or two months. We're imposing a delay that
further ask the applicant to reconsider it. Okay. Yes. >> So Oh, >> and there's no application to knock it down at all? No. Correct. But they could. >> No, that's what I'm worried about. >> But they could. Yes. >> They could not lock it down, Frank. At
the end of this, >> they put an [clears throat] application. I'm referring to her question. If they put an application to demolish it, yes, they could. >> But she said when it expires after 6 months, could they knock it down? They can't. >> Yes.
>> Good. So, so, um, is there an is there a problem with just referring it to the Cape Cod Commission and leaving it at that? >> In other words, >> you can vote no. Yes, you can vote no. >> No, but I'm asking, >> you don't have to impose a demolition delay.
>> Yeah. I mean, they know, >> wouldn't they wait until they heard back from the Cape Cod Commission? >> No, we have to do it now. >> They have to >> Nancy, let her finish. Nancy, do you got it? Janet,
>> we don't have to do it now, but we can do it now, >> but we can't we cannot you can't do it again. This is the time you have to make the decision. >> This is the hearing. >> This is it. >> This is it. They don't come back to us. >> Okay, got it. >> Yeah. In other words, that I think
that's what you're referring to. Do they come back to us? No, absolutely not. This is it. >> This is the last bite of the apple, if you want to make put it another way. So, in other words, this all can be simultaneously going on. The Cape Cod Commission weighing in and suggesting that they reconsider what they're doing
and the six-month delay that they can reconsider that all can be going on at the same time. >> The same time. >> Okay. So, thank you. I'm voting yes. >> Okay. N >> Bob, >> yes.
>> Peter, >> no. >> Yes. >> Do you want us to vote down here? Of course. >> I'm sorry. I thought you did vote. >> We didn't vote. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I'm sorry. >> No. >> No. >> No. >> Okay. So, we did not pose a demolition
delay. All right. Whatever that means. >> I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen. You I know you're confused, guys. It's not an easy thing. >> No. >> Okay. And I'm trying my best to make it understanding, but I guess we had more confusion. So, we would just referred uh an application to the Cape Cod
Commission. Bob, can you put some language together for me to referral? >> Well, as as you know, the building commissioner makes the referral. So, >> yes, but he is going to be looking for us to make the >> Oh, yes. I will put together some information to include in the referral.
>> I'm sorry, but here we go. All right, we're moving on. >> Thank you. >> Thank you very much, and I appreciate your cooperation. Too long. Okay. Uh, 90 School Street, please come forward.
>> Old Harbor Road. Old Harbor. >> Old Harbor Road. >> Sorry about that. 90 Old Harbor Road. I got School Street on the mine. >> 26015. This is a continuation from the June June 16th meeting.
I appreciate the uh the changes and uh to make this a quick one because in some ways you you did take in and and and most if not all of the changes which were discussed by the
commission and also the uh Mr. Dy, the former owner of the property. And uh but having said that, why don't you just summarize where where you are? >> Great. Um thank you. I have a quick quick context to add to the project. So, uh hello to members of the commission.
Thank you for your time today. Chance to give you more context on the project than we had time for in the last meeting and update you on revisions made since the last meeting. My wife and I purchased the property at 90 Old Harbor Road in 2018. At the time, the house had sat vacant for years, having last served
as a real estate office. We fell in love with its character, and we understood even then that a major renovation would eventually be necessary to carry the house safely into future generations. At the time, we made only minimal changes at first, enough to live in for five or six years before undertaking the larger
work the house would truly need. That timeline caught up with us over the last few years. The foundation wasn't built to the frost line. The house leans nearly 6 in from one side to the other. Nearly every year we've owned it, we faced a major system failure, mechanical, sewage, plumbing, and last
fall, electrical. Then this past February, a pipe burst and cause extensive interior damage, and the house is currently unlivable, and it would be unwise and wasteful of the historic fabric to repair that damage without assessing the underlying structural work. At the same time, we want to be
clear. Preserving the historical character of this house matters deeply to us. We are not proposing to alter the appearance of the historical portion of the home. We intend to preserve the exterior historical nature and streetscape almost fully intact. I
should also mention we are preserving countless interior historical gems that include the Good Morning Staircase, a fireplace complex that runs through multiple rooms, original doors and moldings. new. The new addition will replace a non-historic 1960s edition that is far
less sympathetic [laughter] to the house's character than what we're proposing. And where that addition currently has a rubber roof, our plans now call for cedar roof shingles. Based on your feedback from the last meeting, we took the commission's feedback from the last meeting very seriously. Based
on the four concerns raised at the last meeting, we've revised the dormer type to a dormers on the south elevation. Adjusted window configurations on the addition to better match the historic portions of house. We reposition the location and pitch of the dormers on the
addition to res reduce their visibility from the main elevations. We've also committed to the cedar shingle roof at considerable additional cost in place of the rubber roof the non-historic addition has carried for many years. We believe this revised plan
fully addresses the commission's concerns that were brought up at the last meeting and is consistent with other projects in town. On a personal note, we have four children, including two girls, who leave for college in two years. >> We'd love to have them have the chance
to spend time in this house before then, and we can't use the house at all this year because of the damage, and we can't begin the work it needs without your approval today. We hope you'll support our plan to save this home for the next generation. Our architect Jack Keer, builder Bill Llant,
who has renovated many homes across Chattam, Orleans, and the Cape, are here to answer any further questions or add any more context that you'll need. Thank you. >> Well, thank you very much. I appreciate that. And uh and again as I said in the
beginning I appreciate mostly all pretty much all the changes we discussed and I think you articulated very well in my opinion but um any other questions from the members? >> Nancy questions? >> No. >> No. Bob?
>> No. I'm fine. I'm fine with the changes. >> No, I'm good with the changes. >> Mora, any comments? Good. All right. Well, get get an A+ on this one. You have a question now. >> I have something to read into the record, I believe. >> Uh, okay, fine. Sure. Go and do that.
Appreciate that. >> Uh, we have a letter from Abigail and David Dy. Uh, relative the above reference property. My wife and I have reviewed the revised plans of submitted by the applicant. Our particular interest in this project was prompted by the fact
that 90 Old Harbor Road had been owned by my wife's family for 59 years from 1956 to 2015. The revised plans have addressed all four of the concerns we we had as set forth in our previous letter dated June 15, 2026. Accordingly, we
fully support the applicant's revised addition and renovations. In addition, we congratulate the owners on their desire and willingness to preserve the historical integrity of this beautiful 1775 full cape residence. >> Okay, that was what I was trying to
articulate earlier where David Dy was very pleased in with this house and not you know it was a citizen but still I think he he captured some of the issues and really appreciate this going to be a full-time home for you >> eventually. >> Yeah, that's what happens. I know. I bought a cottage. Now it's not a cottage
anyway, but it changes. Well, okay. I think we can take a couple of quick votes. Move on. >> Bob, >> um I move the Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at 90 Old Harbor Road is historically significant because it is
in whole or part 75 years old or more. And the commission also finds it's associated with one or more personal historical persons or events in the economic and political history of the town and it possesses architectural value significance in terms of period
and style. >> Okay, do we have a second? >> Second. >> Thank you very much. Any discussion? Okay. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. All right. Part
two. Historical Commission also finds proposed work to be done. >> The Shen Historical Commission finds this proposed work to be done dated July
se Jul July 6, 2026 will not materially diminish the historic significance of the building and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Second. >> Thank you. Any other discussion? again just the only discussion. Thank
you very much. I do appreciate it and uh vote. >> It's not always it's not always a situation where we we our comments are taken, you know, and it gets to me more. But thank you very much. Okay. What's >> Don't we vote? >> Yes, you do. I'm going to vote right
now. >> Okay. >> It was discussion. I wish you two ladies would decide that I'm running the meeting and if you don't want if you want to run the meeting, I'll I'll turn it over. Don't look. >> Okay. I'm looking over here. >> We're trying to get you out of here. >> My wife Joan. Okay. [laughter] I got
three wives. All right. >> Uh Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> That was a yes. Robert, >> that was a yes. >> Thank you very much. Didn't hear it. Peter Donovan, >> yes.
>> Jesus, thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Considering the time we spent on that, >> we had a good outcome. All right. I'm not going to take a break. We're going to press on. Nancy has a uh a deadline and I would like to respect that because I also have a deadline too. All right.
So, any other objections? You could take an individual break. >> Nope. >> All right. Here we go. Uh 297 Oops, excuse me. 44 Independence Lane, 26016. >> Come on up. >> You guys are up, Sam.
[clears throat] Mr. Stribert is on the HBDC. So having seeing what we go through, he can have a lot of empathy for the discussions that take place when you have an historic house. >> Absolutely. >> Yeah. >> Um
>> please get yourself. So, my name is uh Sam Stribert. Uh I'm the architect on 44 um Independence uh Lane. Um we've uh just
to make it as short as possible. >> Yes. >> Um a number of the this house was moved to this location in October of 78. foundation was finally added in in
79 and they've been they have added on the north side of the house uh [clears throat] um a primary bedroom and a family family
sitting area those areas we're not touching uh we have uh found a number of uh problems that the owners have experienced and would like
to correct. Uh the most significant one is a central stairway that has is does not meet uh uh Massachusetts code uh egress code for
stairways 2'6 uh width uh 9 and 3/4 inch riser uh and 8 and a/4 inch tread. all are sub conditions
for the Massachusetts state code. Um, so widening a stairway and lengthening a stairway involves structural changes to the framing inside which has already
been since the move. The first floor framing is all new. So uh the first floor of flooring is u been added to
uh so uh that that's the main main thing that's generating in order generating our look at changing the second floor and the first floor. We're lengthening
adding 5 and 1/2 ft to the width of the house uh going towards the rear. All changes are in the rear and of course some go to
the south side. Um, it involves, as I said, adding a a a new wall and a a new roof. The new roof is required because of the headroom that it
provides. So, then this would affect a family bathroom on the second floor. uh adding a shower that doesn't exist today. Uh
they will uh add add more storage space which has been needed. Uh they improve the bathroom on the first floor. The width width of the bathroom is 3 and 1/2 ft. Uh and
we'll be enlarging it to 5T which is sort of a standard. >> Okay. >> Um >> thank you. >> In the back because we are adding five feet 5 and 1/2 ft to the house. We have to move
rebuild the deck that's there and we're going to make it a little bit larger. So, but it's a ground basically a ground level deck and and then there's an egress stair that they added [snorts]
when they added the primary bedrooms and that that stair becomes less obtrusive. So, um that's pretty much the run of the
changes. Uh we tried to well by necessity isolate those ch change work into the middle of the house, middle of the structure of the of the second floor and
the roof. And this provides right now they have no view out to the south southwest uh which is their best view because it is a conservation area that's been
developed there. So, by moving a wall, we were able to put better windows in and clean up the whole look of the back of the house and give them some privacy outdoors.
So, that's pretty much >> all right. Well, thank you very much. >> The the requirements. >> Uh, you know, I think the plans are very explicit and you know, this this is interesting. I mean, this property is only 76 years old and and it just under
the wire or I guess under the wire if it's if it's positive and maybe the fact is 76 is negative because you come under this Cape Cod Commission and it's it's something we we angst a lot about that there's a lot of houses in town which are going to be 76 years old and we're
going to be dealing with these and are they truly historic or not. So the first question here for there is no form B on the property. It was listed as a no. And what what that means is not that we didn't think it was a nice house, but our preservation consultant said, "Well,
I don't really know if it's historic or not." So, that's really the issue that we're going to address, but I appreciate the fact that, you know, you've come to us and done this, which was required, you know, by this current statute. But, so let's very quickly address the issue of whether or not we consider the house
historically significant. If we do, then we'll proceed to part two. But if not, we've done with motion to not impose a delay. So, um, any of the comments about historic significance? Robert,
>> yes, I did visit the house and, uh, I'm really impressed with how old it looks for being 19, >> you know, just barely over 76. So I would say it does appear to be historic to me and and maybe 20 years from now it'll be more appreciated as being old.
>> Right, Steph? >> I don't feel it's old. >> Good, Janet. >> Well, it's historic. >> Sorry. It's historic by definition and it it's um
but uh I don't know that anyone really important lived there um in the historic in the history of Chadam. That's what they look for. Um that's a hard call. >> Okay. >> We've we've passed through.
>> I I don't have anything to add. >> Okay, Bob. >> Well, I agree. I I don't I agree with uh Mr. Wilson that it it does look like a historic house, but I don't think that's enough to do that because it doesn't that's not one of the criteria here. So,
I I'd have to I would find it not historically significant. >> Yeah, >> Peter. >> Uh I would agree with uh Bob. I don't I wouldn't find it historically significant. >> Would not >> would not. >> Mora, >> I agree. >> Okay. And I I guess I agree. So, why
don't we take a motion relative to historic significance? Okay. and and whether or not we impose a delay. >> I move the Chattam Ham Historical Commission finds that the building located at 44 Independence Lane is not historically significant because it does
not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2A, B or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> A second. >> Thank you. Okay, just a discussion. You
know, I just realized in my view it's probably historic from a point of view of good old Bill Appleard lived there and and uh and he was a significant part of Chadam, but not the criteria. So, let's let's take a look. Robert, just to
add my uh my uh judgment as it appears to be historic is item C there, the form and shape and so on is evocative of the past. Item C it qualifies. So, >> all right. So, is that a yes or no? Historic >> as soon as you do the vote, I'll I'll
I'll vote. >> Vote. I think he's doing >> I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you >> doing the vote now. >> Yes. >> Is that someone proposed something? >> Yes. >> We have a motion and now a second. >> Okay. >> We have a motion second. So, we're going to take a vote. >> Okay. You do the normal order. I mean, >> you're going first. >> I'm going first.
>> Just happened to buy. Look at you. And I'm trying to get it moving. >> Okay. I'll be the only one to say uh uh no. >> No. Okay. Uh we'll go backwards. Janet, >> what's the vote? >> Historic significant, yes or no? >> Oh, um,
>> so no. >> Okay, Nancy, >> the motion is that it is not. So, I would say yes to the motion. Correct. >> It's not a If you want, >> thank you for clarifying that. >> Okay, >> we're going to go back.
>> I was looking for clarification on this. Thank you, Nancy. >> The motion. >> What's the motion? >> Bob, can you repeat? It's not historically significant. Is that it? >> Correct. >> Yeah. It's not historic. Yes. >> All right. So, we get confusion. >> Sorry.
>> Nancy votes. Robert, we'll go back so people get that. Do you feel the house is historic significant or not? >> The the motion is that it is not and so I'm saying no. It is >> not. That's correct. All right. Nancy, >> you said yes. >> I didn't say anything.
>> Oh, he didn't. She didn't say anything. >> I know. Nancy, >> yes to the motion. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Thank you. Bob, >> yes. >> And the ch Peter, >> yes. >> And Steph, I got you. And the chair vote.
>> Did I vote? >> I thought you said yes. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Yep. Thank you. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Sorry for the confusion. And thank you very much. I appreciate it. It was nice to visit the house again. >> Yes. Very nice. >> All right. We're going to move, guys.
I'm sorry you're feeling confused. This back we're here all day. Okay. Uh five uh 297 >> uh Shore Road. >> Oh yeah. >> 26017. >> We could probably do this one quickly too. Hopefully.
>> Wait a minute. >> Jesus. >> 297. Okay. >> This is an application for one of the most historic properties in town. uh 297 Shore Road, better known as CBI.
>> And um this property, there is a form B. It is not located in historic district, which is unfortunate, but I leave that for the future chairman to maybe turn that street into an historic district, which it has very easily be. But uh the
property has been for us many times and uh the last one I guess was in 26 when there was almost a similar application but why don't we allow you to go ahead and proceed and give us a quick overview >> and I emphasize the word quick >> that that I can do sir. Uh good
afternoon uh Mr. Msina and board members uh Teddy McCarthy Hart Howardon uh master planners architects and landscape architects. Apologies for those that uh went on the tour yesterday. I apologize that I missed you all. I was delayed coming into town. Um uh application
today is as uh the uh chairman made uh clear is um somewhat consistent with uh a previous application. Uh we are specifically looking at a number of alterations to the main building at at
Chattam Barzin. uh specifically uh removing existing windows and a portion of the existing wall at the south elevation to receive a new door, removing the existing windows and doors at a meeting room to be replaced with new French doors. In both of those instances, those are specific requests
by the hotel for operational needs. Um and we do have elevations to reflect both the uh existing and proposed >> um better. >> In addition and and relatively consistent with the application from 10 years ago, uh we are proposing that all
of the existing railings on the building are removed and replaced with a new railing that we feel more closely align with the original railing. The railing that is on the building now is not original. Um however um slight modifications to that original railing to meet current building code uh which
in our instance is a metal fin uh extension that allows for a cable rail to facilitate the required guardrail height for a commercial building. Um one item that has been added to that aspect of the oceanside um uh elevation for
this particular application is the inclusion of new privacy screens. Uh there are currently existing privacy screens which are uh in in disrepair uh and are really need to be replaced. Uh in replacing them we are uh proposing
them being slightly more robust in their construction so that they will last a bit longer. They do uh project uh slightly further from the building as as they do now but still well within the existing deck. uh and they are slightly taller than the previous but consistent
with the height of the adjacent uh doors. Uh the current privacy screens um are not particularly private. Um finally um we uh also are looking at a series of um replacements and new awnings being proposed for uh multiple elevations of
the building. So there are existing awnings several of which are in disrepair that require replacement. Um and we are also looking at additional awnings being added to the oceanside as well to facilitate some additional shade outside of uh existing guest room
balconies. Um within the uh presentation that we have all shared with you all uh we do have um two uh renderings that we have done taken from existing aerial photographs to communicate the locations of those awnings in addition to u the elevations just because the it's a
challenging building to read in the oblique. Um, and those uh aerial uh renderings are consistent with the proposed uh color uh as well as the detailing um which is indicated uh on the lower right of this drawing uh
denoting the uh the scalloped edge to the awnings themselves. I believe there was a question from the group on the tour yesterday in regards to whether the awnings would be retractable and the answer is yes. The goal is for them to be retractable um uh and um and be able
to uh come in and out given that um one of the reasons that the awnings have struggled is um that they're not retractable and have been damaged in storm events. So >> um happy to answer specific questions. I appreciate my particular PDF is slightly longer than some of the prior applicants
so I can guide you through particular pages as helpful. >> Well, thank you very much. I just comment just for members of the commission, a lot of new members. This application technically really has been before us once before. I guess it was two 2026 uh 2016 >> 2016.
>> And you know, it's interesting. We did previously approve the change to the railings and and the use of the wire. Quite honestly, in my opinion, the the fact that it's on an angle like that is probably even better than before. it, you know, I think it'll disappear in in
sight, but obviously from a safety point of view and I agree the the current design is much closer to the original design even though you are maintaining the the essence of that that lattice work which I think is very good. uh the the awnings, there are awnings on there
and certainly in this day and age with the heat and you know and pure energy, you know, just keeping that shade so it reduces the uh the air conditioning pop pumping away and I can imagine your electric bill. I'm always surprised you guys don't have more solar energy on
that property, but maybe I should keep my mouth shut. >> We we have we have few locations for it to be concealed, unfortunately. >> I know. I know. We put it over We put it over put it over the parking lot. Anyway, that's another story. U and and I guess the other question was the
awning, the railing, and the retractable. Yes. Uh so I think we're we're in pretty good shape for my opinion, but let's see what other questions we have. We'll start at this end. Peter, any com comments or questions? >> Uh I visited the site yesterday and uh I think they're all uh positive uh
improvements. I like the awning color. I think the railings will be will be good, so I'm good with it. >> Good. Mora, do you have any questions or observations from >> Good. All right, Bob. >> I'm all in favor. >> Thank you, Nancy.
>> Um, I would only everything looks good to me. I would just say from the aerial that the awnings cover up a lot of the nice architectural details and the windows that, you know, are so iconic of the building. I I would hope that from ground level they don't co come down
over it the way it looks from the aerial. Yes. Um and glad to hear they're retractable. So, but you know I understand the need for them. I think they're tasteful. I just when I see the building with them out I'm like, "Oh, where's the building?" But um >> understood completely. And yes, the aerials were chosen just to provide as
much of a comprehensive view as possible. But >> will they be less? >> Absolutely. that that the angle from above is obviously extending the the read of that awning from from the aerial. >> Yeah, that's what I figured. So, I have no problem with it. >> You know, that's a very good point. And I often when I drive by or sail by,
>> you know what bothers me is the umbrellas. I doubt whether they had umbrellas in 1914. >> I think they did. >> Yeah. They probably were they probably were parasol. >> They were more attractive. >> That's right. Yeah. Okay. Uh Janet.
>> Yes. I visited the site yesterday and and uh Mr. Singer was there and explained everything and I think I it's going to be vast improved and I have no problem. I would approve. >> Thank you, Steph. >> I agree with what Nancy said. It was bothering me when I first looked at it.
It was so much blue and white. >> Yeah, I I agree with you. It looked like something out of a movie. >> It did. And >> but I I understand now and I I'll be for it. >> Yes. >> That they're not blue. They're kind of a sage green. >> Whatever. >> Yeah, it's very subtle.
>> That's correct. Seaf foam, if you will. Yeah. >> Whatever. >> Like the sea. >> The colorists amongst you. Yes, >> Robert. >> And I agree with all the other comments made. I think all these improvements are great. In addition, the French doors are great too for that utility room. >> Great.
>> Thank you. Okay, Bob. Motion, please. >> Historical significance. I move that the Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at or the main building located at 297 Shore Road is historically significant because it is
in whole or in part 75 years old or more and it's associated with one or more personal historical persons or events in the cultural and economic political history of the Commonwealth and possesses architectural value in terms of period style method of construction
and is associated with historically prominent builders, one of which was my father-in-law. And that's it. Thank you. >> Second. >> Thank you. All right. Any other comments or questions? Public. All right. We'll take a vote. Bob,
>> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Bob, >> yes. >> Pedri, >> yes. >> Chair votes yes. Okay, we got a part two today or did you include that >> delay? General historical commission also The
proposed work to be done dated June 3rd, 2026 will not materally diminish the historic significance of the building. Chattam Historical Commission also finds the proposed work to be done dated June 3rd, 2026 will not materially diminish the historic significance of the
building and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Thank you. We have a second. >> Second. >> Thank you very much. Any other comments, questions? >> All right. Roll call. Bob. >> Yes. [clears throat] Yes. >> Yes. >> Steph. >> Yes. >> Janet.
>> Yes. >> Robert Wilson. >> Yes. >> Peter. >> Yes. >> Chair vote. Yes. Thank you very much. >> Thank you so much. >> Thank you again. >> Okay. We're going to move along here, guys. >> Uh 26
08 547 Shore Road. Again, this is a chapter 158. Hello, Lesley. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you very much. [laughter] I'll try and be as brief as I can. Um Leslie Schneberger here for the
applicants, John and Maryanne Poey, um owners of 547 Shore Road. >> Thank you. Um the application that is in front of you is um improvement I'm sorry um updates um for maintenance to the existing home as well as demolition of
the existing um one and a half story L um on one side um for with replacement of a new one and a half story L edition. Um, a quick point of clarification. We did talk about yesterday I said the age of the home is in jeopardy and I I
actually or in flux. Um, I looked up the um, Cape Cod Commission aerial photographs. Um, and I I can pretty definitively say the home is definitely no earlier than 1939. That's what the field cards or the the form B says is
the latest possible date based on the transfer history. um it doesn't show up in the aerial map of 1938. So um and that definitely holds true with what you see on the interior of the house framing material everything else. >> Don't they show 1919 to 1939?
>> They do. And so that if I what I meant to say is 1939 being the latest possible because it's not showing up on 1938. >> Okay. >> Um Ariel. >> So I as you said I'll submit that in writing to whoever. >> Yeah. I appreciate if you can get that in a form B. Thank you.
>> Sure. Um so uh the the the impetus of the work um one as I said is maintenance is just um replacing existing windows um replacing them in kind with mahogany painted windows um the exact same
configuration mutton profile everything else except that they will be um double pane rather than single pane and so they will no longer have storm shutters um as part of the windows. Um and then the um the addition um the renovation inside
the house and the addition related to it that's replacing the existing is really driven by aging in place. Um the owners have lived in this house for 30 years and um soon it will be um even more of a home for them to be here longer. Um and
um are beginning to see um reasons for mobility and reasons to to look for aging in place. Um, so the existing um garage and um guest bedroom area is actually lower than the existing house. So you come up a bunch of steps and then
you are in that area, you go up a couple more steps, you're in the house on the second floor. The same is true um in that wing, you're on a lower area, a lower section. Then you actually cross through a bedroom which they affectionately refer to as the Lincoln Tunnel because it takes you to the
outskirts of town um as a way to get there. [snorts] Um so this new addition um is slightly larger um by the numbers um which I somewhat had yesterday. [snorts] Um in width it is 2 feet
deeper. In length it is 5 1/2 ft longer. Um, and in height it is, um, 2'9 in taller. Um, it's still 6 feet lower than the main ridge and, um, 2 and 1/2 ft lower than the twotory um, addition on
the other side. [snorts] Um, so what the new addition does is in the the garage is larger and that is housing a ramp. Um, and so the ramp allows obviously access into the home. As you saw when you were there yesterday, there are a lot of steps even to the front door. And so this allows complete access
in um there is a fully accessible bathroom that's being put in on that bottom floor um and a dining room is being converted to a bedroom um related to it. Um and then we looked at um how to make sure hallways are wide enough with turn radiuses and the different
things and um hopefully not to contain life only to the first floor. Uh, so the addition also includes a stair that is wide enough and straight to have um a stair lift put onto it. We did look at some options for an elevator and it
really just added a lot of mass to the house that we did not want to add. So this was the alternative that we went to. Um then when you get to the second floor, it's all one level. You can easily traverse across. Um and we made up for the bedroom that you climb through that you go through is now housed in the addition. Um I think
that's about the explanation of it. I'm sure you'll have questions and I can address those. Well, >> thank you very much. U you know I I was as we said it I thought the addition was big >> but you know the you know in terms of the scale versus what was there but you
know I appreciate them taking care of this house. The foundation good condition >> it is. >> Yeah. >> That's another reason I feel it's a fairly modern house. [laughter] And uh you know thinking about the house across the street. >> Yes. >> Which was a big beautiful house. It was
not cared for and what a mess. And they came before us and they, you know, it just is costing them a fortune, you know, to what they're doing. And the if we don't maintain these old houses, they're all going to be, you know, money
pits. And I I'm glad they're doing it. And this is a classic house, you know, and classic Shore Road, you know, it's a it's a beautiful street with some beautiful big houses. I know a lot of people don't like the word big, but that's what they are, you know, that's what it is. >> But it's the right size. Just to note,
it's May interrupt, it's the right size location for a house of that scale. And actually, we're not any we're not doing the coverage that with that lot can allow. >> Of course. Yeah. All right. So, uh, let's see what the members feel. Any questions? Uh, we'll start at this end.
Mora, any questions or comments? Peter, >> uh, visited the site yesterday and I, you know, I think it's, uh, the scale definitely fits with the existing structure and it accomplishes what the owners are trying to do. So, I'm good with it. >> Bob,
>> I agree. And the, um, I'm all in favor of design for uh, the dis for disabilities access for all. So, this is a great way of uh dealing with that and not having to move the house down the hill or something. [laughter]
Okay. I thought we were done with that one. All right. That one's that one's going to last for a long time. Okay, Nancy. >> Um I don't really have anything. Just appreciate the replacement materials or wood and, you know, not going for plastic. So, thank you,
>> Janet. No, I think the uh proposed design u is an appropriate extension of the uh historic structure and um it will not diminish its historic significance. I'm all for it. >> Thank you. >> Great, Steph. I'm for it.
>> Great. Yeah, I did visit the house and uh I think the want to call out and commend the removal of the storm windows and all new windows and they look really great and uh it really just 11% increase in the footprint. So >> that's correct.
>> It's uh it's going to improve improve the living situation much more than 11%. 50%. >> Very good. Again, thank you very much Leslie for your good work. So uh I agree. So let's get some motions quickly. Uh, I move the Chattam
Historical Commission finds that the building located at 547 Shore Road is historically significant because it is in whole or part 75 years old or more and possesses architectural value or significance in terms of period and style.
>> Is there a second? >> Second. >> Thank you very much. Any other comments or questions? Okay, this is a motion relative to historic significance. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. Janet, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Peter,
>> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. Part two, >> Jim Historical Commission also finds the proposed work to be done dated June 16th, 2026 will not materially diminish the historic significance of the building and therefore the commission
does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Thank you. All right. Any other comments, questions? Bob? >> Yes. >> Nance? >> Yes. >> Steph? Yes. >> Janet. >> Yes. >> Robert Wilson. >> Yes. >> Peter. >> Yes.
>> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. >> Appreciate it. [laughter] >> Come again. >> Yeah. >> Well, yeah. All right. Uh la last but not least, uh Mr. Marsh, come on forward. Uh 261.
>> She's online. >> Oh, wait a second. I got >> the architect. Mhm. >> It's 260119. >> Yeah, the architect. >> She's online. >> Okay. >> She's online, Frank. >> Who's online? >> Susan Leoo. >> Oh, Susan.
>> Hi. >> I thought M. What happened? Do we lose her? >> I'm here. >> She's on the right. >> All right. You can come forward, Mr. Marsh. >> That's okay. I'll let Susan do. Susan do better. >> All right. Well, anyway, uh so again,
this is uh Helm and interesting enough, it's in the other national registered district in town of the three national registered districts >> in the uh South Chattam Village National Reg District. It was listed as a contributing structure in the district.
There's a form B on the property and it's one of these Craftsman bungalows from 1930. But go ahead, we'll steal you. Susan, introduce yourself. >> Yeah. Uh good afternoon. instead of good morning. Now, uh Susan Leoo from Eastward Companies and we are the owners
of uh 479 Forest Beach Road and we are proposing to uh let this house relocate about 25 ft to the northeast on the lot and we will be uh removing the front
porch and the deck and it will become a guest house to a new home in this lot. So, it's going from three bedrooms down to one bedroom. And um we'll be glad to take any questions. I tried to make it as quick as I could for you. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Susan. Uh I think it's important we we clarify what's going on here. One second. Uh what this is interesting enough is very similar to the first application. We have a contributing structure in a
national registered district being relocated onto the property and I guess the question we should be thinking about in my view is relative to streetscape and what that does or does doesn't do if it is in fact consider it referral to the Cape Cod Commission. We have the
authority to do both. I'm looking over here because there was some confusion. We can refer it to the Cape Cod Commission or we could not refer it to the Cape Cod Commission. We can impose a demolition delay or not impose a demolition delay. So very simply, I guess the question really is the
applicant has indicated that they are making no changes to the house. Am I correct, Susan? >> No, >> that's correct. No exterior changes other than to remove those later uh decks. >> Okay. >> Just and yeah, we can relocate. >> And I think you're going to do the roof
reo re-roofing. I don't know anything about re- roof unless John has anything to add to that. >> Yeah, miss, could you come forward, John, and introduce yourself? >> Uh, good afternoon, John Marsh Companies. Uh, we would be looking to
change the roof shingle to match the shingle on the new house. >> Okay. >> Um, still an asphalt shingle. It would just be a darker shingle. >> Right now, it's more of a grayish and it would be a pewtor wood, which is a little bit darker. >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Musa. I just wanted to get that for the record. Okay. All right. >> Yeah. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. All right. We're going to start now relative to any other questions of the applicant. Yes. Sorry. >> I I may have missed something, but why do we want to move this house? >> So, >> yeah, you missed it. The site visit. >> Well, the app tells you. >> Yeah, but I can't.
>> I'm sorry. Why is she question? >> I'm sorry. Who's talking? I can't tell. >> I did. >> Oh, no. No, no. Who is somebody responding to that? >> Um, Susan. >> Susan? >> Yes. Could you speak up a bit? It's kind of hard to hear you, Susan. >> Okay. If you take a look at the site
plan that we submitted, you can see where the house is currently and the proposed new house on the lot. And they sit fairly close to each other. So, as we've said, we would like to save this house uh and just move it back 25 ft
just to create a bit of separation between the two homes. >> All right. It's kind of unclear in the drawing. is a little complex. But Steph, did you get your answer to your question? >> Yeah. Where would the driveway be for this? When I was looking at your plans, >> word is no.
>> No. >> The guest house, >> you'd have both houses going off to the same driveway. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. It would come off of the Do you have the larger site plan that was prepared by Clark Engineering? >> Right.
>> Yeah. It would come right off of uh there would be a new small driveway coming off basically where it is now serving the house. >> Okay. >> And it it would be right there and someone could park their car, get out and walk to in a straight line to the new location.
>> Right. >> Thank you. >> Yeah, it's it's faint. The driveway is faint on the on the plan, but it does show it. >> I'll tell you one thing. I really hate the fact that you're not here and with these the fact that you could come for
you know all of co you know it may be easier for you and you know it's a comment but not easier for us when you're not here to point you know to a map but let's proceed. All right so we got that out of the way. Any other comments or questions of the applicant?
All right I think this is kind of straightforward in some ways. So, why don't we just take a vote and see if we can move on? >> The driveway is not very clear. >> Well, if you'd come to the site visit right off the site, >> I'll explain to you later is a contributing structure.
>> I move the Chattam Historical Commission confirms that the home located at 79 Forest Beach Road is a contributing structure in the National Historic Register District. >> All right, there's a second. >> Second. Thank you. Any other comments? All right. So, we're voting to confirm
if this is a con national register district and it is a historically significant. >> We'll proceed. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Stephanie Hamilton,
>> yes. >> Nancy Bar, >> yes. >> Bob Ler, >> yes. >> Jesus. All right. Part two. I move the Chattam Historical Commission find that the materials presented this date, June 16th, 2026, show that the proposed alterations do not constitute a
substantial alteration to a contributing structure located in the NHRD and therefore a referral to the Cape Cod Commission for review is not necessary. >> Okay, >> second. >> Thank you very much. Any other discussion, questions? >> Do we refer to the Cape Cod commission
or not? >> No. Peter. >> Uh, yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'm sorry. Peter Donovan, that was Yes. Robert Wilson, >> what was a what was a what was a U
>> I'm sorry. >> What was the >> That's confusing because you restated his motion. >> Yeah. Yeah. Let's hear restated the motion. How'd you Maybe I got it. What did you say, Bob? >> Let's hear the question. >> You said referral or not referral? >> Referral is not necessary. >> Not necessary.
>> Okay. Yes. All right, Peter. >> We'll do it again. >> Yes. >> All right. Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Stephanie Hamilton, >> yes. >> Nancy Bar, >> yes. >> Bob Lera, >> yes. >> Chair V. Yes. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much. >> Have a good day. >> One second. Got to do the 15 demolition. >> You're not done yet. >> Hold on. Won't take long. >> One more. [laughter] Okay. I move the Chattam Historical Commission finds that the building located at 79 Force Beach Road is historically significant because
it is in whole or part 75 years old or more and is located with it within a historic district. >> Second. >> Okay, we'll start at the end. Peter, >> yes. >> Okay. Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson,
>> yes. >> Stephanie Hamilton, >> yes. >> Nancy Bar, >> yes. >> Bob Ler, >> yes. Chair votes yes. Did we get them? >> Oh, the referral. >> Chadam Historical Commission also finds a proposed work to be done dated June 16th, 2026 will not materially diminish
the historic significance of the building and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Okay, we got any other discussion? >> Peter, >> yes. >> Bob Wilson, >> yes. Particularly the new foundation is fantastic.
>> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. Stephanie Hamilton, >> yes. >> Nancy Bar, >> yes. >> Bob Ler, >> yes. >> Frank Msina, thank you very much. >> Thank you very much, everyone. >> Nice to see you. >> Uh, we did it, guys. We got 15 minutes and we're going to make it happen. Uh,
new business quickly. Uh, I want to just a If you look at your my new business for your agenda, I wanted to have a discussion just quickly and possibly get a consensus. You know, just as we had a complex application in school street,
complex in the sense of is it substantial alteration, not a substantial alteration, what are the what are the implications? What is our authority? And, you know, sometimes it's good to have help. And we did seek out, you know, help from u the
Cape Cod Commission and and they were they were pretty good and I think it helped us. And I don't know, you know, if the if the applicant is feeling good about it and I don't know about the citizens feeling good about it, we did what we and I do, you know, appreciate the fact that people actually really
thought about it and and you do, you know, we don't do things lightly and u even though some people think we do. Uh but I think every now and then it'd be good to get some help from a professional, you know, like the Cape Cod Commission. And and uh I got on a
commission 22 years ago. We talked about hiring a preservation consultant and we never did and money is often put aside and and I know there are funds that we could do it. So I just want to get a consensus from they that we feel that at some point at some point on a particular
application we'd say wait a second is this historically significant or not you know somebody else's view besides ourselves we're not preservationist okay I love the expression well-meaning volunteers god bless that are here and I think it's even though originally was
set as a uh as a way to diminish us but that's who we are and and I we try so I just does everybody generally feel that we could just ask get to get some help when we do need it. Uh Nance, >> yes, absolutely. >> Okay,
Janet, >> sure. Steph, >> I hate to see a new person hired. >> Say again. >> I hate to see us the town hiring a new person. >> Well, we're not talking a permanent uh thing. We're talking about bringing somebody in to consult. >> Okay. >> You know, an hour or two.
>> And I would say, >> what does this mean or not? you know, you know, like we had a situation. Is it 1919 or 1890? You know, sometimes we need to know that. And NY's I look to my preservationist here to the side. >> She's pretty good about, you know, going
back and do it on a computer. And I don't do that. Okay. But if you pay somebody, they, you know, they take a look at it. Robert, you agree? >> Well, I don't really because u I' I've been here long enough. I mean, we've only been here xyz months, but um we've
had I've probably seen maybe uh 200 maybe 150 uh applications and we've agreed whether historic or not on maybe 147 of them >> pretty well agreed maybe three. We've had some four to three just those three.
But we have Nancy on board. Yeah. >> And I think we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Maybe sometime in the future if you really have >> Oh, yeah. Well, that's what we're talking about. We're talking about in the future. We're not talking permanent at all. >> I don't think we need uh to to reserve funds for the future. >> Yeah. N
>> I I just want to say that I appreciate I I am um I can do lots of great historic research. Um I am not an architectural preservation specialist at all. I would have loved to have heard Eric Dre's
opinion about the work that was being done at 45 School Street and whether in his opinion the move outweighed the preservation and vice versa. I from someone who has practiced as a preservationist in all aspects. I'm
happy to do historical research but I really am not an expert when it comes to the architecture. though >> I don't know the difference between a Gambrell and you know you know there's a lot >> I don't even think it's about historical significance I think it's about does this application you know you know
impact the historical significance if it's got it that >> yeah we've discussed this many times in my experience on the conservation commission is that has it has the authority by statute to require the applicant to pay for an independent
dependent consultants which was used sometimes in my uh tenure there and in addition the conservation commission has an agent who is well trained in those those topics and that that that's where in those two aspects we're kind of
>> missing the ability to if somebody comes in from Mr. Donovan's farm and says this is the way it's got to be done. Somebody can say no no it doesn't have to be done that way. Right. So >> okay Peter >> yeah I think it's helpful on uh some of especially the more complex
>> projects to have you know an extra set of eyes on it. So I agree with that. >> New guya what's your opinion? I think it would uh help the process in some cases but also make the people who are oh sorry also help people who are filing application to feel more confident in
the outcome. >> Exactly. Thank you very much. Okay, that that's it. I just wanted to get a general discussion. Okay, guys. The next item is reorganization of the board. This is probably the last time you're going to hear from me. Um I feel
you know the issue of succession is important. Uh I was appointed 22 years ago, too long. And uh my term is up I think next year. I'm not sure. But having said that uh before my term is up
and I'm not saying whether I will or will not continue. Uh I think it's it's time for a change. U and you know during the 22 years you talked about 157 applications in your couple of years. >> Yeah. Thousands. I don't know the
number. Okay. And somebody say, well, you know that address, you know, my mind goes nuts, you know, over over all the applications. But when I first started, Nancy Y was the chairman. Don Aman was the vice chair. Okay. And Bob Oliver
joined us later on. Nancy was that was Nancy was the clerk. And you're the clerk. Look at 22 years. You still haven't gotten anything. You're still the clerk. Anyway, uh so you know, and I think about we had one application maybe
a month. We we we were in a trailer. Okay, talk about respect. >> And I think what between Nancy and Don and Bob Oliver, myself, I think we've elevated the commission. And I mean that, you know, I had a fight to I had a
fight to make this get this room. They said, "No, you you know, you go in." I said, "No, we're going to go here." I, you know, and there's been a lot of fights. Okay. Um, I've been around Don and Nancy. The first thing they did were the formbb's. The commissions itself
used to we used to do the forbes ourselves. >> Goodness, what the heck do we know about it? Okay. I remember the first time Nancy handed me a packet and said, "Here, you're in charge of all of these." Not Nancy Nancy, your And I said, "Whoa, wait a second. What did I get into?" So, things have changed. uh
we've we've professionalized the formbbees, you know, hired consultants and um and one of the other things that happened early on was the fact that Celica giving a farewell speech. The other thing that happened was the uh archeological survey that Don Aman was
key to that which is important and now here we are 22 years later about to potentially get the uh Nichlson family foundation archeological digs listed on the National Register of Historic Sites. I mean, it's not Gettysburg, but it'll be on this an historic site. I think
that's important. And we've done all that work. We've done it all together. Maronei was just coming on board. And the the historical commission did a lot to help make that happen. Uh uh the windmill, which we restored later on, I guess 2007, 2008. We were very harmed
with that. That was a very positive. Look about the negatives. We tried so hard, Steph. Stage Harbor Road. >> Yeah. a you know and we got turned down and it was typical of just not having their citizens and you know there was a
comment here about the old village and the old village people sounds like a a ban right the old village people they're complaining a little bit about the inability that that people can make changes to the streetscape well guess what it's a national registered district
is not an historic district it could very easily be made an historic district the people in that in the old village do not have to agree the the people an historic district is created by the town. So if the O
village, if the people in the O village decide they want to create an historic district where you cannot change the streetscape, they should just go to the select board, ask them to select board to form a committee, could be the the historical commission, and put a warrant
at the town meeting because the town meeting decides that it becomes an historic district. Thank you. I'm getting I'm getting the I got on two sides. People telling me what to do. You guys are driving me nuts. The other thing I guess of a very uh a very
positive accomplishment from my point of view was the South Chattam Village National Register District and and you know and and I just this just things I've been involved in for my 22 years. Having said that, I would propose a mo
reorganization to the board. Bob Leer is chair, Nancy Bar as vice chair, and Janet Tennyson as administer as the clerk. Uh, that's a motion I'd like to make if somebody was interested. >> I will second that. >> Thank you. Any other comments or
discussion? >> Said enough. >> Excellent. Excellent. Agreed. >> Okay. All right. Let's vote. I lost my cheat sheet. Robert Wilson, >> yes.
>> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Janet Tennyson, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. Yes. >> Yes. >> Yes. >> And I abstain. [laughter] >> All right. Well, thank you. That's I
really appreciate it. And uh we're we're kind of done, guys. And we made it with five minutes to spare. >> Thank you, Frank, for your service. >> Well, it's been my absolute pleasure. Hey, before we go, one thing before we adjourn. There's a The windmill is in trouble.
>> Serious trouble. >> What? We don't have a full-time windmill attendant. It's a job that pays 1625. So, in your spare time, Robert, if you want to be a windmill attendant at the Godfrey windmill, you can apply to parks and wreck. But, we do need somebody.
>> Is there a uniform? >> Say again. >> Is there a uniform? >> I'm sorry. >> A uniform. >> Uniform. >> I'll I'll get it for you. But, uh, just if you know anybody who's might be interested in in in in becoming, it's like being a lifeguard. to get paid by parks and recck to greet people, say
hello. Anyway, I look for a motion to adjurnn. I so move. >> Second. >> Second. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Janet Dennison, >> yes. >> Nancy Stephanie, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Bob,
>> yes. >> Peter, >> yes. >> Thank you very much. We are