Good morning. Hi, I'm Frank Msina and I'd like to welcome you to the October 21st, 2025 meeting of the Chattam Historical Commission. Before we formally start, there is a number of uh notices that I have to read.
This meeting has been is being recorded and will be available shortly hereafter for scheduled and on demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device. If anyone else is recording the meeting, please notify the chairman. Seeing none, pursuant to Governor
Healey's March 28, 2025 signing of chapter 2 of the acts of 2025 extending certain COVID 19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general law 3020
until June 30th, 2027. This meeting of the Chattam Historical Comm Commission is being conducted in person and via remote participation. Every effort will be made to ensure the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the
order. A reminder that people who would like to listen to the meeting while it's in progress may do so by calling the telephone number 5089454410 conference ID 361 232371 hashtag or join the meeting online via
Microsoft teams through the link on the posted agenda. While this is a live broadcast and simalcast on Chattam TV Exfinity channel 1072, despite our best efforts, we may not be able to provide real time access. Okay. Thank you very
much. The first item of business is roll call. Okay. Vice Chair Bob Leer here. >> Clerk Nancy Bar here. >> Stephanie Hamilton here. >> Robert Stevens is absent. Janet Tennyson
>> here. >> Robert Wilson >> here >> and alternate Sandy Porter >> here. >> Uh Sandy will act as a full-time member listening to and being participating in voting in place of Robert Stevens who's
uh absent for today. Uh just a quick note while I say that we are short one member of the uh historical commission an alternate position and anyone out there here and would like to join our commission. I think the only requirement is that you uh be a resident of Chadam
and have a little bit of common sense. That's about it. Anyway, okay. Um what I'm going to do is uh normally we'd go right into hearings, but oh that's the minute. I'm sorry about that.
>> I'd like to move that we accept the historical commission minutes from October 8th, 2025. >> Second, >> I guess jumping ahead. Okay, before we do that, comments. Any comments on the minutes for or against? Or
>> I I you know, at the beginning of the meeting, I was going to give Annie a grade, but this is A++. Uh, she did a great job and I told her she'd become a screenwriter in Hollywood because she made us look very good.
So, okay, we'll do a uh roll call on the minutes of the motion and second that we just had. Whoops. Sorry about that. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Robert Sandy, >> yes.
>> And the chair votes yes. Okay. Uh very simply uh we would normally go to hearings but I want to just switch up new business. I have a new business item which I added very simply. Uh uh I wanted to to talk about discussions of
meeting protocol recognized when being heard and part two discussion of the rules and regs. There's been a lot of conversations relative to both of those issues. Uh I would like to put the part two part of that discussion of the rules and reggg in the hearing process. There
have been some suggestions from members of the board offline and public relative to the to hearing process. We can discuss that at at another meeting not now. I think it would require more discussion. We have a full agenda. But I do want to reiterate the issue of
meeting protocol. you know, you'll be recognized to speak when the chair recognizes you by name and not before. I would appreciate if you don't if you do that and help me along. Okay. Uh got the minutes out of the way.
We proceed to the formal part of the meeting which is the hearings. We have uh one, two, three, four. I guess we have four hearings. First one is application 2536 uh to be heard in accordance with
chapter 158 of the demolition delay bylaw. Uh the address is 23 Uncle Levy's Lane and um the applicant step forward, please. I'm going to have you introduce yourself and give us a quick overview of what
you're planning to do. I will note before you begin uh Whoops. Did I get that out of or order? No, I didn't. Excuse me. My package is out of order. Some of us got a chance to to find
Uncle uh Levy's Lane, a beautiful part of South Chadam. Uh and uh you know, I would encourage I know everybody can't make the site visits at the appointed time, but I hope everybody gets a chance at least to drive past these these
properties. uh you know the drawings are fine and you know but actually physically there and and looking at it you get a sense of our our primary objective which is determine is this house historically significant. U to
that end uh there is no form B on this property. It is not located in national register and it was a no when we did the survey of all towns uh of all properties in the town. But having said that, because you did such a nice job in this
application, why don't you what I'm what I'm getting at is traditionally if we vote very quickly that it's not historically significant, then you could move on to zoning, but I think it'd be appropriate if you give a couple of minutes of what it is you're doing and what you're planning to do.
No, >> absolutely. >> Introduce yourself formally. >> Nice to meet some of you yesterday. Uh my name is Jeff Klein. Uh my wife and I have owned this property since 2017. Uh, and we have a growing family. So, we want to grow in Cell Chadam and not go
anywhere else. So, essentially, we're going to remove this singlestory structure, uh, expand the footprint out to the front and build up to the second floor. Um, you know, I don't think there's anything historical about the house. Um
but you know we're very excited to do the project and you know to have our family grow up come to this wonderful place. >> All right. Why don't you just just even though not necessary why don't you just do you have your plans what you're planning to do?
>> Uh just yeah >> what's on the screen here? Um essentially so again this structure is going to be removed. There's a bit of uh an exterior laundry room that we're also going to
remove uh for the setback lines. And then the second story will have a east to west gable on the second floor. And then we'll raise the roof on the front right here uh to accommodate uh
zoning. We couldn't >> Okay. >> the way we wanted to. So that's the plan there. >> All right. Okay. Uh so at this particular point there are no um no correspondents.
>> Unknown participant is now exiting. >> So really the first question. >> Yes. So really relative to that was discussion of relative whether it's historically significant. Uh so we will take that vote. But there's a member of the public who wanted to say something.
>> Yes. No. >> Did you want to say something relative to the application? You said no. Okay, fine. Thank you very much. All right. So, at this particular point, I guess we need a little discussion relative to historical significance. Does anybody
want to take a m shot at discussion or at least what you think? I personally don't think it is, but uh what's the story, Robert? >> Yes. I didn't have a chance to to meet you and to you gave a nice tour of the
property and it is a beautiful part of South Chadam and and a very comfortable looking place but I do not think it has significant historical value and so I would move not to find it historically significant.
>> Thank you. Sandy would you did you have Stephanie? I'm sorry. Go ahead. >> I don't think it has historical significance. >> Okay. Yes. Yes, Sandy. >> I don't find it historically significant, but I have a question.
>> Yeah, sure. >> I'm I'm looking at the south the proposed south elevation. What is What is the tall What is that? >> Um, that has since changed a little bit, but it is it is a fireplace.
>> Okay. So, the roof deck has a drip down and then we were going to put an outdoor fireplace on the uh on the papers down low. >> Thank you. >> Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak a relative historical significance? >> Um, it's a lovely cottage and I can
understand why you want to enlarge it and I think it's only historical significance is its age. So, I would have no problem approving this. >> Yeah, Nance. Um, I agree and I would note that its age is itself is barely
over our uh threshold of 75 years since it was built in 1950. Um, I don't believe it has historical significance. Appreciate your presentation. >> Well, thank you guys very much. >> All right, Robert. >> No, I agree with all that. No, no problem with historical significance.
>> Want to make a motion, sir? >> Sure. I move that Chattam Historical Commission find that's the property located at I've lost it already. 23 >> 23 Uncle >> 23 23 Uncle Levi's road is it lev or
Levvis's >> okay >> um is historically significant because it in whole or in part 75 years old or more and commission wait a minute I'm reading from the long
page thank my colors mixed up I'll start over again I move the chatam historical commission finds that the building located at 23 um Okivvis Lane is not historically significant because it does not meet any of the definitional criteria in section
158-2 A, B, or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Okay. Thank you very much. Any other discussion, members of the public? Okay, very quickly. Bob,
>> yes. Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Sandy Porter, >> yes. >> Chair votes, yes. Good luck with zoning. >> All right. Thank you very much. >> Okay.
Uh, next application is uh 2537. Uh, again to be heard under chapter 158, demolition delay bylaw, 180 Warf Road. Uh I believe we have our friend Chris Cannon here is going to introduce
himself. But before he does, uh this is uh there is no form B on this property. Um it's not in the National Register District and it was a no. U there are a couple of letters which we'll read in a
bit. So uh why don't you uh give us an introduction formally and a little bit of words. >> Good morning. I'm uh Chris Cannon um architect for the project. Um I have uh Russ Hearnden and Tim Smith here. Tim
will be doing the building uh assuming that everything moves forward swimmingly. Um what we're looking to do is um take off the roof of a portion of the building which was built in 1956. the the portion that we're looking to
tear off the roof of and um add a second floor. The house was built in three or four different sections. the front piece um which you see on the uh the left side uh it's one-story cottage um it was
added to uh in the back um and then again off of the right side um which you know that's the the part that has the the shingle and the uh the hatched area up top um that's the portion of the
building that's 1956. So, we're just looking to tear off the uh uh the roof and add the second floor. So, nothing terribly complicated there. Everything that's hatched in your uh
existing is what we'll be removing. >> Okay. uh in some ways a significant change to this property, but I don't think it's potentially maybe meets the criteria of historical significance.
>> Yeah, there's a form A on the uh neighborhood. >> Yes. >> But uh no form B. Um >> yeah. So, >> well, that was that's one of the areas that we uh quite honestly we were going to look into again because we did the
form A's and and not the form B. But when we did the survey, the particular house was listed as a no, which meant the the preservation consultant did not think it was uh it was worthy of a form
B and uh because of the cottage. But uh well, okay, enough of me. Uh, anybody else wish to pine in on restore stan? Yes, Stephanie. >> I just have a >> Oh, you want to do just the historical?
>> Okay. >> Well, focus on that, but of course we could do both. Yeah. >> Well, I was just going to ask, is that addition going to be higher than the regular roof? >> Yes. >> Thank you. >> Yeah. Yes, Robert.
>> Yes, I visited the property and uh got a nice tour. Thank you very much. And um you know, I live in that area and there's a a whole row of houses that are that are very uh very interesting looking and have some historic value,
some of them. And I think this does have some historic appeal. Uh and uh I think it it it would qualify if they took another look at it to be historically significant. I don't know who's lived there, if anyone important has lived
there. >> Yeah. So, you you generally feel it think it could be historically significant. >> Yeah. >> It's a really charming I don't know if you have this one on the on the screen. Yeah, there we go. It's got a >> Well, I have to I guess I have to agree
with you from a streetscape point of view. There is a certain amount of >> nice pickup fence and >> Yeah. sets nicely on the property. >> All right. >> It's a compliment. >> Sandy, do you want to point or some comments or anything on it? How you
feel? >> Well, I I agree with RP that it probably has some historical significance, but um No. Other than that, no. >> Okay.
Yes, Janet. >> I It looks like the um original, like you said, it was built in sections. It seems like the original section, what I could find was built in 1947, so that I'm not sure. Uh it just barely
>> kind of qualifies for historic, but I don't It's charming, but I don't see historical significance. Thank you very much, Nancy. >> Um, I feel a bit torn. I um I respect
what my colleagues have said, although I um it is within 75 over 75 years old, but barely. And um architecturally it is a nice lowcale property and its surroundings, but I
don't see huge amounts of architectural significance. um from what I've looked at so far. Um so I'm I'm a little bit torn about it. >> Yeah, I I tend to agree with you, Bob. Any comments?
>> I I agree with what's been said. I um I'm torn, but I looking at the criteria that we're struggling with, we should apply under chapter 158. I I don't think there are any historical persons or events associated with it. Chris, is that right?
>> Not to my knowledge. >> All right. The next one is possesses architectural value or significance in terms of period style, method of construction or associated with a prominent architect or builder. Um I don't it's a nice little cottage if that
but that's not enough to qualify as a special facet of it that would make on its own make it historically significant. So I'm reaching the same conclusion. It's close but I don't think it qualifies. >> Yeah. Well, we seem to be torn a little bit and I I guess I have to agree with
the comments and uh well said and but you know a little bit off the the track Chris I'll be honest with you from my perspective not the question your design capabilities you know if if we were to to say this was historically significant and I have a sense that we're not and I
look at like u six if you could come up with six or uh RG6 and and I look at the scale of you know that
addition and boy it really overwhelms it. So but again I understand what you're trying to do and the space you're trying to calculate but I mean just a comment it's I don't think it's humane. Yes Janet you want to say something? >> Yes. Well um I agree with what you're saying. However look at what's across
the street. >> Yeah. Well that's true. >> The McCarthy's Well, I I agree with you. It's across the street, but what happened across the street is we separated >> and they're supporting and they're supporting. >> I understand what happened across the street is we separated the historic
house. >> And so, in other words, we didn't do anything to the historic house. And but I'm just commenting if this was historic, but but again, we have mixed mixed feelings on it. So, I I'm not going to preempt it, but why don't we just read the app, read the information,
s uh uh Nancy, the letters that we have on it. Okay, we have uh four letters uh most of them from a Butters. The first um is dated October 8th from Jeffrey and Lori Campbell who are a Butters at 18 Old
Warf. Oh, sorry. There are butters of 18 Old Warf Road. They live at 700 Old Harbor Road. Um, having seen the proposed plans, we have no objections to the changes. We support the renovation and any other planned alterations.
The next one is from Marilyn and Bob Zoka from October 15th and they currently own 30 Old Warf Road and 90 Old Warf Road. We are writing in support of the proposed renovations at 18 Old Warf Road by Russ and Jennifer H.
Hearnden. We had an opportunity to discuss the proposed plans and to see the proposed drawings at their house over this past weekend with Russ. He also walked us through the premises to show us the location of the renovations. We feel that these renovations will be in keeping with the architecture of the
neighborhood and will allow them to have the extra space that they are hoping for in their house. Again, we strongly support this renovation. The third letter is dated October 15th from Kate Walsh and Eric Garpstead.
Dear Miss Basset, my name is Kate Walsh. My husband, Eric Garpstad, and I live next door to Russ and Jennifer Hearnden. We are writing to offer our strong support for the renovation project on 18 Old Warf Road. From the outset, we've been impressed by the care and attention they have demonstrated as they carefully
restored their home. The addition they propose is the last step in making Old Warf Road their permanent home. We live on 714 Old Harbor Road. So naturally, we were concerned about construction in our backyard. Russ took the time to explain
what they have planned, shared blueprint, prints, and elevations with us, and was very interested in and open to our feedback. The renderings we reviewed are completely consistent with our home's character, and more important, the dimensions and characteristics of their home. on Old
Warf. We know your commission has many factors to consider and balance when reviewing renovation plans. We thought it was important to let you know before your hearing that we appreciate your efforts and we believe that the Hearnden's proposed renovation is consistent with the character of our very special neighborhood of North
Chattam. My final letter is dated October 16th from Meg McCarthy McCarthy at 19 Old Warf Road. I want to let you and the historic committee know that we are in strong support for the work that Russ and Jennifer Hearnden want to do at 18
Old Warf. We are their neighbors across the street at 19 Old Warf. We have reviewed their plans and look forward to the changes they plan to make. The changes are in keeping with the neighborhood. They have taken beautiful care of their home and we know they will continue to do so.
>> All right. Thank you very much. Any member of the public wish to speak for against the application? Seeing none. I think we've kind of have a consensus reluctantly but a consensus uh relative to the historical significance. So Bob, if you could. Sure. I move Chattam Historical
Commission find that the building located at 18 Old Warf Road is not historically significant because it not does not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2 A, B, or C of the bylaw. Therefore, the commission does not impose demolition delay.
>> I'll second. >> Thank you very much. Any other discussion? Okay. Uh, we'll take a vote. Uh, Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes.
>> Robert Wilson, >> yes. I'm convinced by the others. >> And Sandy Porter, >> yes. >> And the chair votes yes. So, good luck, >> Chris. Thank you for the plans. Those were the best plans I've seen. >> Thank you.
I had one question off the you know not part of the proceeding I saw the is the east end chimney disappearing >> no >> it's still there because the drawing doesn't >> Yeah it just doesn't show >> okay thanks >> but yes it's not disappearing >> perfect I like chimney
>> thank you >> okay um the next application is 2538 again to be heard in chapter 158 the demolition blay bylaw. Uh this is a full demolition of 222
Barliff Avenue. Uh this application has been before us before and uh as noted in the uh overview form which you have there is a form B on the property um although not listed in the National
Register and this commission in 2013 found the home to be historically significant and authorized the changes that did not diminish the historical significance and did not impose a demolition delay. Okay. But the applicant is uh back again and this is
an application for full demolition. So uh why don't we introduce yourself and begin the process of uh introducing the application. >> Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Bill Lichfield, members of the board. With me today is Ben Morgan, who I think
may be known to you from prior visits. Ben is a builder here in Chadam who has been involved with this house for a number of years and proposes to replace it with a I think attractive and appropriate Greek revival. As the chair
indicated, there is a form B and I rather suspect that you have it in front of you. It notes that uh it is a form called a four square uh essentially because it is a square
house or at least the footprint is. Form B uh states that the house has no particular ornamentation expressing an architectural style and also notes that a modern one-story edition wraps around the house. it
apparently or it may have had a porch uh which was enclosed in 1975 and there were subsequent additions. Uh I I thought a little bit about form B and I'm familiar with this house because I've known it since the late 1960s.
Uh was owned for a long time by a fellow named Luther Edwards. He probably built it. He probably built the house next door. He did not ever live there. He lived down in the old village. He owned a lot of real estate in Chadam. And I thought a little bit more having
read the for being form B that it it speaks to the house nearby at 212 being similar to it. But I also went back and thought about and read a volume with which you're familiar uh from 2007
published by the commission which talked about uh a sense of place and identified a lot of the architectural styles that we have. Uh Miss Bar may be familiar with that volume. I understand that uh
this house is not a cape. It's not a Queen Anne. It's not a Federal. It's not uh a Victorian Queen Anne or Italian 8 and certainly not a Greek revival as Ben hopes to build. It is a foursquare. Nothing wrong with
that, but I don't know that it is terribly indicative of the sense of place that most of us have for the town of Chadam. Uh but uh I should also point out by the way that the current owners bought it in 1986 and they were involved in the
changes that were made in 2013. Listening to Stellar's comments about 18 Old Warf Road. I recognize that the house was in 2013 found to be historic, but we know it's not a national historic district or a
state one. We know that uh it it is not uh a classic architectural style. In thinking about the definitions in 158, it's not associated with a particular person in Chadam's history. I don't know
that any of you knew Fred Fosdick who was a driver for Acme Laundry. He lived there for a long time. But Acme Laundry itself is gone. uh its historical importance is somewhat doubtful. Uh recognizing however that
you must have found it under a under 158 a so-called sea finding that it was part or associated with some architectural style. But I would suggest to you that a number of things have happened since that 2013 finding
primarily a flood. Uh there was significant water damage to the house. We do not have an engineers report, but I would be happy to provide the commission with a 52page document from the insurance adjuster. Uh insurance
adjusters are not known for being overly liberal and they note that there's $375,000 worth of interior damage to the house. Mrs. Cinen Plan, the owner since 1986, died several years ago. Mr. Cuten Plawn
is actually older than I am uh and is not in a position to in not in a position to visit the house. Uh given what has happened to the house, Ben has been involved with the family for a number of years and the family has
agreed to sell to Ben essentially the lot. uh and he is proposing to build something that I think that you can find to reflect a sense of place of the town of Chattam. I recognize that that's not
strictly within your purview, >> but we provided those plans to you so that you would have an idea of what is involved. So, we understand that the commission has already found the house to be historic. That's what's proposed there.
Top left is a fairly classic uh Greek revival front uh gable to the street with a wing off to the side with dormers which is what we are proposing to replace what is there now
thinking about alternatives to demolition we have and unfortunately starting with the premise that I'm not sure the house is spectacularly ly or even especially significant
given the interior damage that it has had. Uh and again, I'll be happy to file this with the commission and the costs of renovation. Spending300 or $400,000 to renovate the house would not yield anything that would be
worth that sum. Very frankly, yours is not an economic decision. Yours is an architectural decision more than or an historic decision. But thinking about alternatives to demolition, there are no historic materials that anyone would
want. We would certainly accept a a brief period of time and we have to go to the zoning board of appeals because the lot is not conforming. Ben would certainly be quite willing to have anyone take anything were there
anything worth salvaging. The fact of the matter is that there is not. So, I recognize that because the building has been found to be historic 12 years ago, I think that determination might be
subject to question, but it's nonetheless on the record. I would note that the uh statute empowers you, but by no means requires you to impose a demolition delay.
That is the essence of our reason for being here this morning. Ben is has a contract to buy the property from the Coupin Plawn family with which he has been involved for a number of years. The Cooten Plawn family is not going to be able to use this house. Uh it's entirely
possible that if Ben if a significant demolition delay goes is imposed that Ben will not go forward. The house will sit there. I don't know what will happen to it. uh but it would not be a good situation for the neighborhood or for the town of Chattam and we would ask that you uh not impose a demolition
delay. Certainly be happy to answer any questions. It would be useful, Mr. Chairman, to be for me to present this to Christina. >> Sure. Okay. Uh, I just I asked Christina a question relative to uh the owner and and I can
just explain to the commission what we're dealing with here in terms of the applicant and what what is his what is his position as the >> applicant is Bill Lichfield and and Ben Morgan is the agreed vendee to the property. >> What does that mean?
>> That he is under contract to buy the property. >> So we've dealt with this I believe it was at 305 Main Street. we had an agreed vendee and we were able to move forward under those circumstances. >> So, we're not dealing with the owner per se. As Mr. Lichfield indicated, if he if
we don't make a decision, then he's not he decides not to buy the Well, that's that's the question. That's not that's not our thing, but we're doing it. No, the reason I'm asking the question administratively is that we know we passed the bylaw relative to ensure that
that we were dealing with the owner of the property, >> but this is another way a little bit of circumventing that. Not necessarily maybe the wrong word circumventing it, but it's a process in which the the uh real estate and enters are using. >> Yes. I think where before we were
running into real estate agents putting it on on our docket and and then hoping to sell it with that determination, now I think this is a step further. Ben has has paperwork and he is the >> I just want to understand that because new members of the commission,
>> you got a question relative to that issue. Robert, >> just a question for Christine. I didn't hear that term. What was it? Something >> agreed vendee. >> Agreed. What? >> Vendee. >> Vendee. Mhm. >> I knew I reason I I brought up the subject with Christina is I know they're
new members of the commission. I'm not a real estate attorney and far from it. And I just wanted the public because you know we made a big deal about having dealing with the owner. Okay. >> If I could, Mr. Chairman, the owner uh is represented by his son, an attorney. >> I'm sorry.
>> If I could, Mr. Chairman, to to clarify, the owner is represented by his son, Steven Cenlon, who was an attorney. I have been in fairly constant contact with Mr. Cuten Plant. He does not appear to be watching, but we have full authority to act. However, I would
simply also point out that as you know, due to a relatively recent change in the bylaw, findings go with the applicant. Don't run with the land. >> Say that again, sir. >> Findings go with the applicant and don't run with the land. >> That's correct. Yeah. And that's the
reason we did that. >> I I I absolutely understand. as you said for newer members. I was trying to clarify. >> Exactly. You know, it's a it's a it's not probably not a new term. It's just one that we just may not familiar with and I wanted to clarify that. Okay. So, we're dealing with here a situation
where the applicant is asking us to overturn a previous decision of the historical commission and determine that a particular property is not historically significant. That's a tough one. We've never done that in the past
in my my years. Um, so I'm not sure how we deal with this. Yes, Nancy. >> Um, just to clarify, he's not asking us necessarily to to overturn the significance. I think he's what he said earlier was recognizing that it has been
declared significant. He's asking us not to impose a delay. So I think say that >> they're they're asking us whether or not we say it's significant, not to impose a delay because of the mitigating factors. I'm just >> Well, I guess the way we do that is we say a house is historically significant
>> and then we don't impose a delay. >> Let me just finish. We say a house is not historically significant, but we say the changes proposed will not affect the historical significance, but the changes proposing
eliminate the historical significance. That's the problem I have with how we proceed. Other words, we're going to have a if we agree with Mr. Mr. Lichfield in his and his presentation that the property is is historically significant, but the changes he's
proposing do not materially affect the historical significance of the property. Guess what? There is no more property. It's been demolished. >> So, you're saying we have to find it not historically significant in order to not impose a delay. >> That's that's my reading. I don't know, Mr. Leer. How do you feel? >> Um, I I agree with that. Although, I
guess Mr. Litfield touched on this that doesn't compel us to have a demolition delay. It just says we can impose one if we wish under that under that. >> That's correct, Mr. Leair. The language in chapter 158 is very specific that the authority and the word is is empowered.
There is no requirement for the imposition of a demolition delay. And as Miss Bar and other members said, we think that there are significant mitigating factors here which warrant the uh the non-imposition of a of a demolition delay.
>> Understood. But I still it it does as the chair was saying it it seems to be um inconsistent to say >> consistent it consistent >> it has significant factors but um we're going to demolish it and there but we're
not hurting the significant factors. I mean it's >> well I I agree with you >> but the law is not always consistent. I think we can agree on that. >> I mean I did relative to Mr. Litzfield's comment about a four square. Well, yes, I was part of the sense of place too that we we wrote and yeah, we were we
were we were capturing a part of Chadam and you we didn't capture the new part of Chadam in that book. We captured the old part of Chadam and and the old what the old village the old town was and uh since then you know there are a lot of
houses in Chattam which are uh which are newer than 171 1800 which have historically significance i.e. uh the four square i.e. the one we dealt with at the last meeting which was a u what's
it called a uh that cottage on on u on uh in the old village it was a Sears Robuck home uh >> old craftsman house >> craftsman house craftsman house that certainly wasn't 17 1800 but guess what it's in the old village it's a
contributing structure to the old village and it is a contributing structure within a national registered district so the definition of a property as you were attempting to make. Well, this is not really that historic. That's true, but you know, the mass historic
uses a recognition of 50 years or more to recognize whether our property is eligible for a national registered listing. So, it's >> and certainly if this were in a national register district, I would understand the point. As we all know, of course, it is not. >> No, we never applied for it. Yeah. Uh
Janet, I think you had your hand raised. We didn't we run into this situation once before and we did. >> I don't think so. >> We didn't. I thought we did. Okay. >> I'd have to dig it out. Which one? Anyway, >> I I believe there was something um down the Little Beach area.
>> Little beach area. >> There was something down the little beach area that you deem historically significant >> and we're letting them tear it down. Correct. You're right. You're right. And Little Beach. >> Yeah. Well, that was >> two houses. >> Yeah.
Okay. Uh I don't know anybody else want to have any discussion you know that's the issue here and uh I think Bob you you've opined I don't know and start Robert you have anything you want to add to this discussion >> I did not visit the property but I'm listening carefully to all this
discussion and uh I'm going to defer to the group and primarily a good talk with Robert Leer. Okay, Sandy, >> I did not make the site visit myself. However, I am familiar with the house.
Um, and despite its age, having gone through that significant damage from the flood, I would have to say that I have no problem with the idea of taking it down.
>> Thank you, Stephanie. Like Sandy, I agree um with the damage that's been done. >> No, >> I don't have >> Did I hear something? >> No, I have kidding like me. >> I have no problem. >> Could be water dripping, Miss Hamilton.
>> Yes, Janet. I guess you want to >> I think it's the historical significancees has already been damaged by what they did that addition that they put in the front. Um and so and the damage the
internal storm damage and dem it's basically demolition um by neglect. I think >> yes. >> Um I think what was very powerful to me were the pictures that I saw yesterday while on the site visit that showed the
mold throughout the interior walls of the house. Um I would encourage applicants when they have Oh, okay. We have those photos. I I feel like there is some miticating circumstances. I I feel like a foursquare house can be and
is historically significant in our town. We have lots of other architecture that was not highlighted in the book that is significant. It is I do think that the changes that have been made including in 2013 when I wasn't on the board but whatever have impacted the historical
significance of the house. um some of the changes that have been made in the last decades. Um and I believe that this is a mitigating factor and I however we however we have to do it based on the regulation
I do not believe that I would impose a demolition delay on this. >> Okay. >> If I could respond briefly. >> We seem to have >> I'm sorry. Yes. >> If I might respond briefly just to clarify. We are not asking that you reverse your finding in 2013. Right. >> We are merely asking that you do not
impose a demolition delay for some of the reasons which board members have expressed. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh >> I guess I'm the last one. >> Having sat through the >> I'm still here. >> Say again. >> I'm still here. >> Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were going
to say again. I'm You want Go ahead. Yeah. Sorry. >> Um >> I just was going to agree with my colleagues, I guess, in terms of what's what's happening here, but I just wanted to comment on M one of Mr. Lichfield's comments when he went through a litany of all the architectural types in town.
Um, I don't think a house has to be of a type that has a label on it in order to qualify. And that's what makes Cadam a special place. Actually, not a line of queen ans or gables and everything like that. So, >> thank you very much. Uh, yeah. Sorry,
Bob. I didn't realize you had more to say, but I I guess I you know I'm I guess conflicted is a word. Robert, did you want to add something? Just please partake. Write write love notes rather
than talking. Thank you very much. Anyway, uh I I've got a a serious problem because I was part of the u the application when we determined it was historically significant in 2013. And I was looking at the drawings you
submitted and I appreciated. I'm looking at the signature on the accepted and at first had problem reading it. Then I realized it was my dear friend Bob Oliver who was chairman at the time. And I think it was about then when he said to me, Frank, I can't be chairman forever. You better think about it. And
I'm sorry I said yes. But having said that, uh, I think about my Bob and I think about Don Aman and the other members of the commission were on at that time when we made this the decision. So, it's hard for me to all of a sudden say, and I know, you know, your
your the legalistic comment is that we're not we're not going to say it's not historically significant, but and the the reference to the houses in the in the uh >> little beach >> that down by the water and uh you know,
that was that was a different situation from my point of view. That wasn't a that wasn't neglect. And some reason, and even Nancy referred to it, you know, one of the things we're thinking about is some kind of legislation for demolition by neglect. Yes, there was water damage, but yes, you could be
repaired. It could be saved. It ain't 1700. So, you might say, why should we save it? But that's that's partly what we would we would do. And and you know, a demolition delay is not a no. We don't say you can't demolish it. We just say, could you wait some time and think about
it? That's the purpose of a demolition delay. You know, this is not a zoning board where we say yes or no. We delay. And u you know, I'm inclined not to support uh allowing this demolition to proceed. But having said that, Robert, can you give us a motion unless anybody
else wants to speak? >> Yes. Jenna, >> what what do you think? Bob Leer, >> I'm sorry. >> I want to know what Bob Leer thinks. Well, I'm thinking about how to word this in the sense of we're we're not reversing our finding that was
historically significant. Um, and how how we do that, I guess I I don't it's sort of like which which form to read not historically significant or not historically significant. So, um, you'd have to make up a new version of
the, uh, motion, which I'm trying to go through in my head, but not cohesively. >> If I might, Mr. Chairman, respond to Mr. Leer. >> Yes. Um, I think that, and I'm just doing this off the top of my head, but I think that the board, if it's so
inclined, could determine that notwithstanding the 2013 finding that the structure is historically significant, that there have been mitigating circumstances which do not warrant the imposition of a
demolition delay. for more eloquent words which the chair might come up with but language to that effect might >> that's that's the problem Mr. Litfield where I think some of us are having problems been on this commission for a bit having problems in all of a sudden
reversing a decision from my point of view is that the the the you know the way the way you phrase why you have to do it I don't believe they're strong enough to overrule the imposition of a demolition delay. But just hold on hold
on we're never going to get done here. Well, we we've had cases in the past where that house that was clearly historical and significant through the passage of time uh has been overwhelmed or covered up, if you will, by the
changes that the owners made. And you couldn't see the historical significance it. And it's different than the um Stage Harbor Road one where there's still vestigages that were there. There's nothing very little left of this one. partly because I think from if I
understand Mr. Lichfield what the owners did after 2013 uh with the front of it and some other changes that what we approved as historically significant was became no longer historically significant. Add flood to that then that's where we are
but so I I'm comfortable with just saying it's not historically significant despite the prior >> prior findings. >> Okay. Why don't you make that motion? We're gonna can have a continued D. We need to move it along. Okay. >> Why don't you make a motion and we see
we are >> Robert wants >> Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead, Robert. I just had the one comment that if >> Nancy, >> if hypothetically >> Sorry, Janet, did you have something to say? >> Did you have something to say, Janet? >> No, I'm saying. >> Okay, I I got them. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Um I'm sorry to slow down the proceedings. Just a few seconds. Um, but should hypothetically we do impose a demotion delay, there should be a reason you want to send them back to think about something. What is it that we want
them to think about? >> Well, it's a good question. Directing that at me. >> Yeah. Or the group >> question. The question is, yeah. All right. Save the house and put an addition on it >> by by doing what though? >> By doing by saving. But we don't know yet. We we don't do the design. We don't
tell them what to do because they're not proposing a design. What they're proposing is demolition. That's the problem. They're not proposing a change. They're proposing a demolition >> somehow. Save it. >> Yeah. >> If if I could >> the question the question just hold on.
The question would be what are we asking to do? Asking them to reconsider the demolition. >> That's what we're do. If we wanted to do that, I'm not saying we are, but that's the process of what we do. I'm going to let Bob proceed so we can try and bring some closure. Go ahead.
>> Uh I move that the Chadam Historical Commission um reaffirm its finding that the house was historically significant. However, the commission also notes that there were structural changes made by
the prior owners to the building that we found historically significant which impact on that finding. And also there is a mitigating factor of substantial water damage which makes trying to fix up the inside and uh reclaim some
material impossible to do. So I would say that the commission at this point finds the house is not historically significant does not meet any of the definitional criteria in section 158-2 AB or C of the bylaw and does not impose a demolition delay.
>> Did you ever think of becoming a lawyer? >> Second. >> Okay, we have a second. >> Yep. >> All right. Good. >> Second. >> Thank you very much. Did you catch that, Annie? >> Yes. >> Good. All right. >> Wow. >> She's good. She's good. She's our She's always great. Okay, we have a motion. We have a second. I think that kind of says
what the majority of the members think they want to say. So, uh, we can bring this to closure. And, uh, >> if there's no other discussion and the members of the public or the commission. >> Yeah. >> All right. Nobody's answered. Say something. Bob,
>> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Stephanie, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. >> Robert Wilson, >> yes. >> Sandy Porter, >> yes. And the chair I have to abstain. It's hard for me to overrule my good friend
Don Aman. And >> no, >> thank you very much. >> So the chair it passes. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. All right. Who we holding back there? >> 48 Salt Marsh. Oh, look who's here. All right.
uh 2539 uh be heard in accordance with chapter 158. This is an intent to partially demolish make changes to uh property at 48 Salt Marsh Road filed by Mr. Joe
Chickleion uh a gentleman who this commission or some members of this commission are very familiar with and um so let's quickly couple of comments before I allow you to introduce yourself Joe. Uh
this is a an application which there's no form B on the property. Uh which there should be. >> Uh there is. >> Oh, sorry about that. I read backwards. We It's not listed in what I was saying. It's not in the National Register. Thank
you very much, ladies. And uh so very quite kindly a very historic property when you really read the form B. Um and some modest changes are being proposed. But why don't you introduce yourself, Joe, and formally, and we'll uh give us an overview of what you're planning to
do. >> Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Joe Jackaloney. I'm here representing the homeowners, Rich and Suzanne Connelly, who I believe are joining us remotely today. Um, we're here to
discuss our proposal to renovate the home at 48 Salt Marsh Way, the Isaiah Nickerson House. The house was originally built around 1780 as a traditional Cape style home with no dormers.
Has a south-facing front door centered, a three-sided fireplace, typical for this period. According to the form B documentation, a north wing was added around 1850 as a singlestory addition.
Then in about 1910, dormers were added to the original cape. That was the first major change to the roof line. By 1981, the property went through significant reconstruction and expansion. At that time, a full second
floor with dormers was added on the north wing to make a large master suite. The interior was reconfigured with a second stairwell, newer kitchen, and a new foundation was installed. Because of all those changes, very
little of the original 1780 structure remains today. The fireplaces, vertical structural posts on the first floor perimeter walls, and some framing members are really the only original features still intact.
Our proposal is to remove the second floor master suite and dormers that were added in 1981. Resize and simplify the dormers on the original Cape so they're smaller and more in keeping with the traditional
proportions. Remove the asphalt shingle roof and install traditional cedar roof. Preserve and expose the original fireplaces and support posts as part of the finished design. Overall, this project actually reduces the home square footage
and removes the roof massing that doesn't fit the historic form. The goal is to make the house exterior look more authentic. Given how much building has already been altered over time, we feel this proposal doesn't take away from its history. It enhances it by restoring balance,
proportion, and authenticity. Thank you very much. >> Oh, thank you very much. uh the beautiful piece of property for those of us who had an opportunity to find our way uh to get to it and and uh I think
the change is as you say relatively modest considering the the age of the house and what you're trying to do but um well why don't we just quickly go around the room unless somebody has some questions that are >> I do >> yes go ahead Seth >> I'm looking at this paper where you talk
about what's going to be done now when you say Remove existing asphalt shingles. That means all the shingles. >> That's correct. >> And then the siding and trim. All the siding and trim will be removed. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you very much. Anybody else have any question or else we'll go around the
room? Yes, Nancy. I just wanted to know is there any historical um meaning 1850 1909 1780 materials that are being removed or were they all >> they're more been changed over the
years. Um there'll be some floor joists that we're going to reuse that will be exposed. We're not taking it out of the home. Is that the Salt Works floor joist that are new to the >> Yeah, that's what it mentions in the um forb. >> I'm I'm not sure to be honest with you.
Like, >> so you're taking floor joist out, but you're going to be reusing them in >> Right. So, if there's some, let's say, um under the second floor addition that we're removing, there may be some in
that ceiling that we'd repurpose. >> Okay. So, um, we're trying to show off as much of the original structure as we can. >> Yeah. And I appreciate that. I was just trying to make sure that I understood, you know, what may be removed that is historic so that, you know, I I
appreciate the goal to bring it closer to the historic house that was there. And, um, but I just wanted to, you know, clarify the materials that were being removed. Unfortunately, they re well that when they redid the foundation,
they tore up most of the original floorboards. So, if you go into the basement, it's all newly framed in some sections um under the original structure. >> Okay. >> And when they did that, they tore up the
old floorboards back then. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you. Um, you know, it is interesting uh from my perspective. Uh, this is obviously a historic home that given its history and all that kind of stuff and then I think
the changes quite honestly you're trying to make a good in terms of restoring it, you know, back to what it particular because obviously some of the changes were a bit a bit much and I think it does retain a lot of the original uh structure. You know, our authority is
the exterior, not the interior. We'd like to encourage, as Nancy said, as much of the saving the original historic material, but I think the form and function of this particular house with these changes, you know, we're going to be uh will be be relatively good. I did have one question about the garage,
which this application includes, to demolish the garage. We we would like to demolish the garage. I believe um there was a building permit 1979 that was taken out for that garage. Is the is the is your current application to demolish
the garage? >> The garage was built in 1979. So it >> but it is demolish the garage. And my guess my question is do do you know what you're putting back there if anything in the >> So I think that's where the new septic system is going to go. So the overall
program is to use this as a guest house. >> Um >> so no garage per se. >> There will be a new garage in a different location. >> Okay. But the architect hasn't. That's I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you, Joe. Yes, Nancy. >> They're building a whole new house.
>> I'm sorry. >> They're building a whole new house on the bluff behind this, >> right? >> Exactly. Yes. Yeah. >> Okay. Uh any other questions or comment? If not, we're going to I think have a consensus of uh of where we're going on this. Uh Bob, how about you? Anything more?
>> No, I can do a motion if you want. >> Okay, great. >> This one's easy. >> Hold on one second, Sandy. I have a I have a quick question. What is an Alaskan red shingle? >> Red cedar shingle.
>> I think that might be a typo. So should have been like a Alaskan yellow cedar or a red cedar. >> It's an Alaskan red cedar. I'm going >> Yeah. So she >> I saw that >> the architect mixed two words up. >> I have to tell you, I love the windows
that you're proposing. The two over. >> Very nice. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Anything else? We're going to proceed if there's no other comments. Good. >> Okay. I move that Chattam Historical Commission find that the building located at 48 Salt Marsh Way is historically significant because it is
in whole or in part 75 years old or more. and commission also finds it's associated with one or more historical persons in the town and it possesses architectural value or significance in terms of period style and method of
construction. >> I have a second. >> Second. >> Okay. Any other comments from the board? Uh members of the public, thank you. We could proceed. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. Janet,
>> yes. >> Robert, >> yes. >> Sandy Niche Ves, >> thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Have a great day. You >> didn't vote. >> Oh, you did. >> I'm sorry. Part two. >> What? >> I'm sorry, Christina. >> Second part of the motion. >> Oh, second. Didn't I my mind I thought
he was including it like we used to do it. >> No, I didn't. >> We could do part two now. Commission also finds that the proposed work dated >> September 23rd will not materially diminish the historic significance of the building
and therefore the commission does not impose a demolition delay. >> Second. >> Okay. Any other discussion? >> Roll call. Bob, >> yes. >> Nancy, >> yes. >> Steph, >> yes. >> Janet, >> yes. Robert, >> yes.
>> Sandy and the chair vote chess. >> Yes. >> Thank you very much. >> Thank you very much. Have a great day. >> Good to see you. >> Good to see you. >> Oh boy. >> All right. Uh just quickly, we got a couple of
important things to talk about, but not overwhelming ourselves here at this particular point. Doing good guys. Good timing. Uh, as I said on the new business, which I jumped ahead, we'll discuss the rules and rag hearing process at our next meeting.
And, um, if that's okay with you folks. All right. And Christina has that. Uh, quite honestly, uh, let me jump ahead. Uh, well, maybe not. Just go quickly. Uh the issue of the Pemrose housing development,
it's proceeding with both applications, the uh 1550 Main Street and Zero Meeting House Road. Um I'm not sure where it's going, but uh they are for those of the members of the commission who were concerned about density. It was a
discussion from the ZBA asking the applicant to reduce the density down to uh and that was based upon the applicant's uh letter when they were proposing that they needed 60 units to be economically
feasible. Well, guess what? They got 90 units. So, so I don't know what's going to happen on that except for those of us who were concerned about the density. That's just an issue. Uh the next item we have is the um and I
think next week I'm next time. Do we have any applications next time? How many? >> We have four for the November 4th, but we only have one for the November 18th. >> Okay. So the next meeting is on uh >> November 4th.
>> The 4th. And then we have four on November and one on the 18th. Okay. I'm going to push ahead those things which require discussion that we have we only not here for hours. So we'll on again November 18th we'll continue with discussion on the rules and regs. We'll also continue
discussion on the possible decision of historical significance. Bob, I'm going to need your help on that. >> All right. Uh in terms of Oh, magic the third. Write them down. Good news. I guess you all got it. And um uh for the
members of the public, this historical commission myself received a letter from Mass Historic finally on October 3rd, 2025. And let me just tell you what this is. Let me read parts of it. It just is worthy. The staff of Mass Historical
Commission reviewed the William and Anne Nick Nicholson homestead on the Monamik homelands national register termination of eligibility in Chattam Massachusetts by the public archeological led. Thank you for your patience during this time
that a careful review and consideration and information was taken under by several it did take a long time for something which we would be sure you know putting something on the national register takes years but this particular part was supposed to happen in months but it didn't cutting to the chase they
feel the the application by PIL was well written and I think the important thing if you read it there are four criteria in order to get listed on the national regist A, B, C, and D. And if you read the details of the letter, they found that
in all four cases that we did that we the uh archaeological lab did meet the application uh requirements and they allow us now to proceed for the nomination of a national register
application. It's going to take at least two years or more, possibly hopefully 18 months to get that to happen. But we must remember the eligibility list uh uh when it when it is listed as eligible
that effectively protects it. Okay. The next step it protects it within the Cape Cod Commission having jurisdiction as an eligible national registered property. Uh the next step would be the actual listing and and a plaque and all that good stuff. So, u again I want to thank
PL Holly Herbster and more importantly thank the U Nichlson Family Association because they're the ones who did the dig and Craig Cardier you know they're the ones that worked hard to do the actual work and of course the uh the conservation foundation land who owns
the property permission to proceed. So I think it's quite an accomplish if it happens we get another national register property in the town of Chadam. Yes, Nancy. >> I I never asked this, but is is this just the archaeological site and not the homestead? Is the homestead already listed or is it all one site that is
going forward? >> The This is >> the homestead and the archaeological site. >> You mean the homestead? The >> the house >> mean the Nichson family association. >> The Yes. >> No, no, this is nothing that this is the this is a site the archeological dig which found the original
>> the homestead site. So it this is not the buildings of the Okay. I just wanted to clarif because I had never clarified that. Is that listed or just no one because they've all been moved. It's probably not qualified. Okay. >> They never applied. Um and it's interesting if they were to apply. I
can't think of the name of that house. It's a Nichson house. Cal Nixon. >> Is it >> Caleb Nixon? >> It it would be probably difficult because it has been moved, but yeah, they never they never applied for that. Um okay. Okay. Well, that's I think it's
happening. And one thing I just want to add about that the next phase here, the Nickersonen Family Association has agreed to fund the next phase. So, the process for the actual submitting the application is proceeding under the uh contract with the Nicholson Family
Association. We the historical commission will continue to be involved because we're the principal who has to make the application but they will be paying Holly Herbster the cost to prepare the actual application and we will submit it. So it's all good stuff
happening on that. Uh just quickly u anything you want to report on the forbes uh next item down is it just proceeding? We have a contract. We have a contract and it's proceeding. I think in the next couple of weeks we'll be
>> talking to him further and going. >> Okay. So, we do want to What I'm talking about here, guys, is that the the fourth item down, which is the update of the form A's and form B's and putting Eric under contract. if he in fact is under contract, why don't we also add him to
that November 16th meeting to ask him >> to zoom in and we can discuss with him what you know what he's attacking as far as updating formbs. I know Nancy, you had a couple of properties that you thought we should update the form B's. They were wrong and corrected. This will
be an opportunity for all of us to to think about which form B's and A's we want to work on. Yes, ma'am. So the the contract is to create new form B's. >> I know. >> Okay. >> But still we you know it would be it'd be good to scope the problem. You know
this is not the final one. I mean if he gives us more recommendations we may say all right we need to do something more. Okay. I just don't I don't want them to leave it. Demolition by neglect. I don't know about you but I'm talked out. You have the staff report. I think she did a
very good job. And the only question is uh what we what do we do about it? And one more time I'd like to put that on the agenda for that meeting. And so if you guys could really take a hard look at that and really the question is okay now what do we do? Uh what do we really
want to pursue this or have we we done everything that we can possibly do? >> Uh right. >> Yes sir. >> Just make a comment on that. Most of the areas comment on that. most of the areas that she lists or the the other towns
that she includes >> um good explanation of it, but I'm curious or I I would like to know how it worked or if it's actually really happening before we try to make a push as to well let's adopt the marble head model or something which
>> yeah are they really doing it. >> Um so I don't know that we're ready to >> Well well okay that's that's that's that's a perfect question. In other words that's a good question. We could we could go back to her and say, >> "Well, call call these guys again and see." >> Right. Exactly. That's a good question.
>> What happened? >> Yeah. More importantly, I think I would like to have her here and give her time so we could we could have a conversation with her. I mean, I know quite candidly staff has been reluctant for us to proceed on this like because this is this is this is a tough one. This is not
an easy one. Yes, Stephanie. >> I just have a question. We had a one property today that had been damaged. Was that by neglect? >> Which property we talking about? >> It was 222.
>> Yeah. >> Oh, I I brought that up, but nobody seemed to bite on it. >> No, we were talking about it. We were >> Yeah. But >> communicating about it. It What I'm asking though, do other people feel it was neglect or do you feel it was circumstances? Well, you know, I that's
a very good point and it's probably unfair with the applicant not been here. You know, if there's a water leak and you I had a house that had a major water leak and guess what? You know, 3 weeks after it is, we took care of it. If you leave a water leak for more than a month
or two and obviously this thing was left for a long time and i.e. that's the demither that's a neglect. >> Can we do anything about it? No, I don't know. I doubt it. But at least we can acknowledge and I think hopefully I got in the record. I said this he the
applicant brought it up. You know, he said some he used the term neglect and I I didn't want to jump on it because I don't want to seem like I was beating them up, but that certainly was an issue. >> This home was neglected. We don't have authority in that area.
That's what we're trying to do. >> That's the purpose of the demolition by neglect thing. Hey, hey guys, you you didn't do it. Okay, let's not go. I'm pontificating. All right, guys. Uh, I think that's it. The last one on there is the boat house and things are moving
along. We don't have any administrative approvals. >> No. >> Okay. Is anybody dying to jump in and add something to the agenda or speak? Yes, Robert. >> At this 25 words or less, has anyone driven by 137 or 173 Shore Road? Have they got the four walls up?
>> 162. Yes. Yeah, I visited a couple of times. The uh the shell is there. They're putting it back, you know, unfortunately. There's a lot that's brand new. >> So, they're complying with what we >> Yeah. But they're complying, you know, and um I don't know. I haven't heard
whether they paid the fine. >> The fine. They're working on the fine. >> Working on it. Okay. So, anyway, >> they're not going back in though. >> Thank you. Very good. No, it it'll you know, I'm sure the residents of uh Stage Harbor uh Shore Road are going to be pleased with when when it's done. It's
not going to be done for a while. what he's going to do is put the frame up and then cover it and that's about it. You know, it'll it'll take time. There was a minor change on that. We did we approve that >> we um they the I just saw it yesterday.
The architect um they want to put a window in the in the found the new foundation. >> They want there's a minor change that they've asked for is on the foundation on the side of the house. They want to put a small window in and it's doesn't detract from anything. So, all right.
Anything else? Motion to uh adjourn. >> I make a motion that we adjourn this meeting. >> Okay. >> Second. >> Second. >> Any other comments? >> Bob? >> Yes. >> Nancy? >> Yes. >> Steph? >> Yes. >> Janet? >> Yes.
>> Robert? >> Yes. >> Sandy and the chair vote yes. Thank you very much. Nice.