like to call the meeting of the Newbury Historical Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. on Wednesday, June 17th. Everyone, please rise for the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the
republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I'd >> like to welcome everybody here tonight. I'd like to introduce the members of the board. Starting out with myself, Channing Howard, chairman,
uh, Rich Morren, >> Rebecca Pullet, >> Eva Jackman, Janice Forest, >> Hawkister. >> Okay. Uh, tonight's meeting is a public hearing in reference to the application
for a demolition uh, permit for 25 High Road. uh by the town of Newbury. Uh they are the owner of the building of of record. A uh application through
permit link has been filed with the building commissioner's office and has been submitted to the historical commission following the correct timetable. The historic commission is now in the
process of going through the different steps of the town uh bylaws demolition delay system. Uh basically uh when a old structure in this town pre1830
is uh somebody wants to tear it down or heavily renovate the building. Uh the process goes starts with a permit in the building commissioner's office and then he forwards it over to the historical
commission for review. Uh we it's a two-step review. Once the demolition delay process is started, we start out a general uh label
of the property, making sure that it actually applies to the property, which is called the s significant structure criteria. Is it a certain date? Is it historically associated with uh a significant person
like a president? Uh is it in uh any type of historical district? Is it uh covered by any uh previous preservation restrictions
uh already put on the property uh that automatically puts the structure for demolition in consideration by the historical commission. uh that gives it the significant title of
saying it twice, a significant structure that allows us to further examine the property um and then go forward. The second step is determining whether it
will be held for a 9-month delay if it is considered prefer preferably preserved which means that the historical commission believes that it is an important part of our community
uh like the uh Newbury Town Hall Graange Hall if it is an important part of our community and it should be we should take our time in considering ing what the options are, what can be done with
the building. uh what can what uh the applicant is willing to meet us in the middle of the road and come to an agreement that the structure can maybe be revitalized uh re reconditioned modified
or another thing that I'm bringing up tonight is uh uh is replaced with an identical faximile in 2026 where we have the problem is engineer ing and building code with
antique structures is becoming a boxing arena between the building inspector, the state of Massachusetts, and the owners of old structures. A structure like this is not up to code at all. some of the parts of the code,
especially things like the insulation code that Massachusetts has, which is extremely demanding, uh, handicap access and other provisions uh, possibly brought on by the planning board, may actually mean that re taking
the structure and duplicating it instead of trying to fix an existing structure, but keep the structure identical, replace with same. It allows uh the foundation would be
much heavier. Uh instead of a stone and cement slurry foundation, it would come back with the correct foundation, a dry basement, correct drainage, correct elevations. Um and it would allow both sides to um
have a structure that's usable. And as far as the construction industry looks at this building, it's uh everybody shies away from working on an antique building because it's time consuming. It doesn't match any code book and uh it's
much faster to build another building and make it exactly the same. If you travel in other parts of Massachusetts or other parts of the country out in western Mass up in the uh up in the like in the Birkshars and stuff, they have
tough uh historical districts with um things like CVS and Burger King and McDonald's have to build something in this district. Well, they now can build a McDonald's to look like Sturbridge Village. And they've got it all in their
plans. They do it all over the country. They can do this at it's like, oh, we're going to build something in in Harvard, Mass. They won't let it has to be the CDS has to have wooden shingles on the outside of it. They can do it and they can do it faster than we can modify any
existing structure and try to make it fit. So tonight when we're talking about this structure, we're not only talking about it whether it can be renovated or whether the structure can be duplicated
with acceptable building materials. Now when I say acceptable building materials, I don't mean I don't mean Hardy board and I don't mean the PVC trim. We have to come we we have to meet somewhere in the middle over that. We're we're not going to have vinyl siding
when we can't have plastic wood on the outside. But the impossibility now also is is new growth wood is impossible to work with. And putting new new growth wood on the outside of a structure that we want to last is an absolute waste of time.
So that being said, there's a lot to to think about with this building. But back to um the process itself tonight. The hearing is about uh hearing from you, the residents of the town,
what you want to tell the historical commission uh about the structure, about what your thoughts of why it should be saved and also why it shouldn't be saved. Um discussion points. We're going
to try to stay right on topic. Um, after the historical commission leaves this meeting in 14 days, we'll have another meeting and we will review the information we gain tonight and um we will vote on uh whether there will be a
9-month delay put on the permit that was applied for this permit. um will uh it if we vote to hold the building as preferably preserved, the permit will go back to the building commissioner's
office marked preferably preserved. He will record the date and there will be no construction work done on the building for exactly 9 months. Um the the building itself, the existing Newbury Town Hall located 25 high road
holds historic value as a cornerstone as the town's his it civic identity following uh the fire of 1927. The fire cleared the fire that cleared the site of the Newbury Graange Hall for its 1929
construction. uh its potential value derived from its origins and noteworthy fraternal lodge uh as well as its long-standing role and seat in local historical government parts starting in 1937.
The civic transformation in 1937 the current building was originally constructed constructed as a replacement for the Newbury Graange Hall which burned in 1927. The town purchased the building from the Graange uh to consolidate municipal operations and and
to replace the former town hall on Middle Road. >> I don't remember the Middle Road Town Hall. Fred says yes. Um the other the National Historical
Register. The building is is a contributing structure within the Newbury Historic District which was added to the National Historic Register of Places in 1976. The district encompasses the town's Upper Green
Historic Center representing over 350 years of history. the architectural preservation in 19 uh architectural preservation. In February of 2026, the town initiated the formal inquiry in the
Newbury Historical Commission's official determinant whether there is a historical significance um of the nearly 100-year-old municipal building at 25 High Road. Um I'm finishing up here. the the the former Graange Hall uh the Graange legacy. The
building represents an era when our arch agricultural fraternal organizations were social and political hearts to a rural Massachusetts community. And the Newberries were famous for what? Agriculture?
Apples and >> apples and onions. So, this is actually four pages long. Uh, we were going to try to copy it for tonight, but we didn't get get it ready in time. I think we're going to try to Can we Do you think we can get this up
onto the website? >> Do it. I'm sure. >> Yeah. So, um, this is the history of the Graange Hall and uh, other pertaining information about the architecture and the town bylaw in a summary of four
pages. and our website wizard over here. Going to see how fast we can get it up on the website so everybody can stay informed. Um, so that all being said, um, this is the mass historical macros
card for the structure. It is, uh, it listed is constructed in 1904. That is, as I just read, incorrect. Um but that is the history card d maintained by mass historical.
Um this is the original brain shaw two stories. Um as I believe we have a picture on on our website also. So um am I missing anything at this point?
>> N. So, um I want to at this point we want to open it up to the audience uh for uh to address the board with reasons that you would like to see the building
uh preserved you or you would like to see the building uh the icon stay in the historic district. uh or and we'll also hear arguments that the building can be removed without the
uh town uh without losing any hysterical value to the town. Um as you address the board uh could you please say your name so we know who you are for our clerk and um we'll try to
keep it uh direct and on subject. Um, I don't know what other than do other than show hands. Would somebody like to address the board with questions or requests or information? >> Yes, please. Dana,
>> thank you. Thanks for having us. I appreciate it. Um, Dana Packer, 227 Middle Road. Um, I'm going to reiterate a little bit of what you've already talked about, but I'm going to go into it a little a
little deeper as I go along. This might take about 10 minutes, and I appreciate everybody's uh time and patience with me. Uh, the preferably preserved you talked about, and um there's one, two, three, four, there's
five items or so, which which puts the building either in it or out of that category. Um, one is what's interesting that I found out was the assessor's records if it was constructed probably in 1820 uh is the date that's the magic date on
whether it would automatically be preferably preserved or not. Um, you mentioned about being listed on the National Register of Historic Places. That's a category that that it falls into. And then uh 1.9D says it's
identified by the commission as having association with one or more historic persons or events. You talked about that or the broad uh architectural, culture, political, economic, agricultural, and social history of the town of the Commonwealth, which in my opinion it
meets that category also. So, there's a couple of categories why it should be preferable preserved, but that's for you all to decide. Um, the old town hall at 25 high road is, and this is kind of me talking now, is
more than just a building. It's a tangible connection to Newbury civic history and community identity. For generations, it served as the center of local government and public life, occupying a prominent place on the upper green in the heart of Newbury's historic
district. While the current structure dates from 1927, which is what you said, which is correct, its significant lies not only in its age, but in its role as a landmark that has witnessed nearly a century of town meetings, civic decisions, community gatherings, and
public service. Buildings such as the old town hall provide continuity between past and present, helping residents understand and appreciate the history that shaped our town. Historic preservation is not solely about saving the oldest structures. It's about
preserving places that contribute to the character, heritage, and sense of place that makes newly unique. The old town hall remains an important visual and historical anchor within the historic district and contributes to the
traditional appearance of the upper green. Once demolished, this irreplaceable community asset can never be recreated. Further generations deserve the opportunity to experience and appreciate and appreciate the important piece of
New Bree's history. Uh before any consideration of demolition, every reasonable effort should, and this kind of comes out of the bylaw, should be made to explore preservation, restoration, adaptive reuse, or relocation options that would allow the
building to continue serving the community. Historic preservation is not simply about saving the oldest buildings. If if that were the standard, many important landmarks across Massachusetts would
have been lost long ago. Preservation is about recognizing buildings that tell the story of a community. The old town hall tells the story of Newbury's civic development throughout the 20th century and serves as a physical reminder of
generations of residents who came before us. Demolition is irreversible. Once the building is gone, it is gone forever. Future generations will not have the opportunity to appreciate its role in our town's history or benefit from the
creative reuse opportunities that may exist today. Preservation does not necessarily mean freezing a building in time. Across Massachusetts, communities have successfully adapted historic municipal buildings for new purposes
while retaining their historic character in public value. I urge you to support the preservation and to ensure all alternatives to demolition are thoroughly explored before any irrevocable action is taken.
The town government is the application for this request. Under the bylaws int under the bylaw's intention, can the new government use this bylaw to demolish the building without a special town meeting
and I wrote to myself that's a very good question and the answer depends upon two separate issues. One is whether the demolition delayed bylaw applies to the town as an applicant and two whether demolition of a town owned building
requires a town meeting or authorization independent of the bylaw. The demolition delayed by law itself is generally a regulatory review process, not an authorization to demolish. Even if the town applies for and receives a
demolition permit after complying with the bylaw, that does not necessarily answer whether the town has the legal authority to dispose of or demolish a municipal asset without further action. Remember, without further action. Okay?
So I don't I'm not trying to make anything here up or anything. Under Massachusetts municipal law, demolition of a municipal building often becomes tied to prior town meeting votes authorization authorizing a replacement
pro project. That has happened already and it's been turned down by vote. Appropriations of funds, those have been requested and have also been turned down by vote. Uh disposition of municipal
property, specific language in prior warrant articles. Specific lang language meaning the actual demolition of that building. All right. That has never been on any warrant that I know of at least in the past decade.
uh in the town charter or bylaws governing municipal municipal pro checks, sorry. Um if the purpose of the demolition delay bylaw is to ensure public consideration of alternatives before
historic buildings are lost, should a townowned historic building be afforded any less scrutiny than a privatelyowned building? And where specifically have the voters of Newbury authorized the demolition of the old town hall? I'm
getting near the end. Um, what a town meeting might still control even if the bylaw process allows review. Town meeting authority is still to be required depending upon what is actually going to be done to the building. A town
approval is needed if demolition is tied to a capital project appropriation, meaning a new building, a bond authorization, a specific warrant article that includes demolition as a part of the project
scope or a disposition disposition of municipal property depending upon structure in prior votes. Um, I would just imagine that if we're going to move forward with what I think the project may be, uh, it will
certainly come under the ne necessity of having a special meeting for this demolition. Um, if a demolition is not explicitly included in any prior authorization, there is a reasonable governance question about whether voters have ever
approved the removal of that asset. Uh, think of it this way. Demolition delay bylaw equals permission to proceed through a preservation review process, which is what you folks are in the middle of right now.
Town meeting equals the authority to commit the town to a major capital decisions or property disposition. In many cases, they are related, but not the same gate. The town is initiating demolition
related review. No warrant article has yet been presented specifically addressing demolition. The old town hall is a historic CI civic building in a central district. It creates a legitimate public policy
question. Is the town attempting to move forward on a permanent irreversible action without explicit voter acknowledgment of that specific outcome? And I understand this is outside of your scope, okay? So I I get that, right? And
I'm appreciate you listening to me. That is not automatically illegal under the bylaw, but it's exactly the kind of issue the bylaw is designed to surface for public scrutiny. So that's why we're
here. Um, since demolition of the old town hall has not been brought before the town meeting as a standalone warrant article, I would ask whether the town believes voters have ever explicitly authorized the permanent removal of this historic municipal building. If not, I
believe this hearing is the appropriate moment to ensure that decision is not made without full public understanding of its consequences. Um, I'm looking at chapter 65 right now, which I know you guys are very familiar with that. We talked about preferably
preserved uh and and what the requirements of that. Uh, 65-2 talks about intent and purpose by preserving and protecting significant structures, streetscapes, and neighborhoods. This bylaw promotes the public welfare by
making the town a more attractive and desirable place in which to live and work. The intent of the bylaw is to permanently prevent demoli is is not to permanently prevent demolition, but rather to provide an opportunity develop to develop preservation, rehabilitation,
restoration, or relocation solutions for structures threatened with demolition through a 9-month delay in issuing a demolition permit. The bylaw is intended to encourage owners and towns people to seek out persons who might be willing to
purchase, preserve, rehabilitate, restore, or relocate such structures rather than demolish them, thus limiting the detrimental effect of demolition on the historic architectural resources of
the town. And you folks would know better than me. That's an interesting paragraph what I just wrote because I don't know, you know, willing to purchase is interesting because does that mean the town has a requirement to
try and sell it before it gets the most? I don't I don't know that answer. But all those other things are also included in there. To achieve these purposes, the historical commission is authorized to advise the building commissioner with the respect to the issuance of permits
for demolition of significant structures and were appropriate and consistent with the intent and purpose of this bylaw. Um, just a couple of procedural things that I that I read that were interesting. And uh you said you've got
the completed application, but a brief a brief description of the proposed reuse, reconstruction, or replacement. I did go to your last meeting, or maybe not probably wasn't your last meeting, but the one back in May when that portion of
the application in your opinion was not significantly filled out or had enough detail in it. And I don't know what it says now, but I do remember that being a subject. And then uh the the uh owner must provide a photograph of or
photographs of the structure which we all know that that that's everybody's got a picture of it upon determination by the commission that the structure is significant. The commission self so notify the building commission. Well, you know what you have to do. No demolition permit may be
issued at this time if the commission does not notify the building commissioner within 15 days. Blah blah blah. uh they talk about how to do that, how to send it. Uh I thought this was this is an interesting paragraph also in its responsibilities of the owner under
this bylaw. Once a significant structure is determined to be preferably preserved, the owner shall be responsible for properly securing the structure if vacant to the satisfaction of the building commissioner and for taking common preventive measures, turning water off if the structure will
remain unheated to prevent damage to said structure. Subsequent damage of the structure at any time during the 9-month demolition delay period which could have been avoided by common prevented or basic security measured shall be considered a demolition. It's in itself
in violation of this bylaw. A lot of people don't know that. I think it's >> called demolition by neglect. >> Demolition by neglect. Thank you, sir. Uh let's see. Um and and there there is some the there's
there's some penalties you have to that you have to pay. They're written in here. And um this is interesting I think for you folks. I consider you the administration being the uh you can actually the commission is authorized to adopt a schedule of reasonable fees to
cover the costs associated with the administration of this bylaw. So I don't know if you've sent them a bill yet or not but I think you're entitled to it. Uh and then the commission may proactively develop a list of sign and this is this is a interesting topic too.
the commission may proactively develop a list of significant structures that will be subject to this bylaw uh for future reference, you know, and I I don't know if if if we have that developed or not. And that's all I have to say and I just
want to show um Mr. chanting. This is a picture of you and myself uh at the dunk tank during our dur during our uh new new town day about 3 years ago. So uh if
if anybody was questioning whether it's social or whatever, it certainly is. So thank you. >> Okay, who's next to speak? Hi, Fred. >> Look, Fred, you're up. We'll get Fred out of the way. >> All right. Fred Thor, 26 Marsh Avenue.
>> I tried to get my wife to come tonight, and of course, she used to be a member of this board, but she told me they're going to do what they're going to do, and hearing your presentation, it sounds like she's right. But I'm but I'm going to go forward with some with a little
bit of qu some questions. Actually, uh, behind me we have Tracy and I have no idea who the other person is. We got no presentation from anybody other than you. I'd like to know this building has been empty for I don't know how long.
How long we have we been here? Uh, and they've done nothing with it and now all of a sudden it's up. Why are they before us now? >> And what do they propose? Do they propose to reuse it? And if so, what for?
>> Did I could I get that from them? >> Would you like to answer anything? >> I want to make sure that everybody else has exhausted their opportunity to speak before I respond. >> I think you should go before myself. >> All right, Fred's sitting down. She's got somebody else coming to the front.
>> I I I have some questions. >> All right, the lady be hunting. All right, you're already on the go. >> You're on the go. >> Okay. I'm Elaine Burn. I'm a member of the board of health, former member of of the planning board conservation
commission. I've been probably not familiar to everyone here, but I have been familiar uh person in town for over 40 years and I'm very tired of coming over here to the Biffield town hall for a long time
and I'm sorry that's the way I feel. I am sorry for I I'm really aggravated at paying rent. I want to be in the town hall and I am familiar with the town hall being at the common. That's where
on the upper green and I think that's where it belongs. Now, if it's in a new building or an old building, I really don't care. Maybe it should be centrally located, but it doesn't belong here in a rented building. I'm sorry. That's the
way I feel. And I don't know. Um, a lot of people complained about it was too much money, it was not enough money, it was too big, too small. I really don't care. The building doesn't belong here.
This is rented space. Our money should be in our building. This is wrong. So I don't know what this is all about. That building is has gone beyond its
useful lifespan. We all know that. So I don't know what the purpose of this is. We don't have a a good information. I only know about this because it was a little blurb in the no newspaper. I work
so I don't know what's going on here and I hope that's the reason I came here tonight because I want to find out. So if you give me some information maybe I can make a decision and back you need to
know what what is going on because I do not want to come here anymore. I don't like it here. I don't think it's a logical place for the town to be and I feel like I'm throwing my money away coming here. So that's all I got to say about it.
>> Thank you very much. >> Well, I hope to hear about it. >> I don't you should have >> Good evening everybody. My name is Lester Matthews 11 Main Street. I have read through chapter 65 myself and I have to agree with many of the things that Dana has present given me a
presentation on this evening. I have a couple of quick questions. First of all, I'd like to tell you that um both my husband and I took a a very nice long tour through the old town hall and found that it wasn't visually dis in disrepair
as much as it had been talked about. It was very clean. It was very It smelled like somebody's living room. Um, yes, there have to be some upgraded upgrades done and it has been changed over to how the police department needed to use it
for their own their own kind of work. Now, the conversation on to rebuild or to re- renovate and to rebuild as a a uh a
replica of the existing building. Is there has there any I know that we've had plans drawn up to put a new building on that corner if it were to come down, but have we had any plans come up to how the renovation would go and how would
would how long it would actually take? And I know a renovation can take quite a while, but what is the is there any idea what there might be a dollar difference of in doing so to preserve the historical value of it as people drive
through the town and see what the town has to offer as far as history is concerned because it seems as if that is one of the things here in the town of Newber that we're very most proud of. Um,
the other thing is does the town have a plan that if it is de demolished or is that what that nine months is for is to try to put a plan together on what they would do with that property. And the other thing is if this was would this be
something that the people actually would want or do we really need to go to a special town meeting in order to get that answer? I thank you for your time. >> Okay. To review the process tonight is is we
are the the board will be voting on whether or not to put a 9month hold on anything happening with this building. So this board is like a referee. We are going to call how it's how it needs to be done and there's going to be a
timeout from two weeks from now for nine months after we uh we have to vote on it. But presumably there will be a timeout for nine months to address the board of selectmen and address the different boards. Maybe there should
there's going to be a building committee formed. I I don't know. But um this gives this time so nobody's under the gun so it could be done correctly um and a correct review process uh can
be done. Uh anybody else up to speed please? Yes sir. Thank you. >> Good evening. My name is Marshall Jessperson. I live at 169 Elm Street in Biffield and I have gone through one of the
preservation projects in the town. Uh I'm also familiar with the town hall intimately and all of the things that have changed in the town hall over a long period of time.
And the question to my mind is always, do we have an original building? Do we have a bastard here? I know a lot of the things that are in the town hall have been changed, not necessarily with all of the proper authorizations
and those changes have given us the building that is there right now. Looking forward for what is best for the town. And we did this with my project as
well. We looked at what is going to look good, serve well, but not necessarily be the same old boards that we had the first time around. It's a part of the growth of this town.
It to address those needs and looking at the building itself, the I don't think the structure is so important as the type of building and what the functions
are it's going to serve for the town of Newberg. And I I agree kind of obvious over there, but but we have codes and needs that we would have to satisfy and
to reach in accord with everyone to get to the most effective both uh aesthetic and operational needs of the town. I think is a very important and worthwhile
effort for this board and for the administration of the town. Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Got another gentleman coming up. >> Dale Williams from 12 Scotland Heights Drive. Uh >> could you repeat your name? I'm sorry. >> Dale Williams.
>> Thank you. I believe several people have asked the question, uh, why are we here? What are we trying to do? We don't know what the town is up to. Uh, what's the plan? Well, the town has presented two or
three plans in the last 8 years to replace that building, upgrade that building, combine it with a fire station, police station. So there have been several attempts which have all come before town meeting and they have failed.
Uh and it's for anybody's guess why they failed. It would have been a wise choice to take any of those options based on what we're looking at now. the building. I'm more concerned with what people are going to value about this town and its
substructures a 100red years from now and 200 years from now because this building has been condemned by more than one board. The foundation is unusable. the money and it's already been
demonstrated to the building committee uh that to invest in this building as it stands now to bring it up to state code is a gigantic waste of money just to preserve a building as it
appears now on that location. So, my suggestion is I'm in favor of the 9-month demolition delay, but I think we need to accept what this town has voted for and against over the last 10, 20 years, and look at that and
say, well, what will serve the town best as it relates to this property, this building, and the utilitarian use of it going forward for the next generations. So, I'm in favor of this demolition delay. Uh, I don't think that building
is worth saving in any sense of the word based on uh what we've heard over the years from the people that work there and the size of the lot, all of that. So, I'm in favor of uh the 9-month delay at pursuing other options.
>> Thank you. >> Yes, sir. >> I'm Scott Bowen, Six Green Street. I lived on the green for 34 years now and um kind of used to looking over at the uh town hall and um honestly it was it
was interesting when the bank came around for a renovation. So when you had mentioned um a replica it kind of piqued my interest. Uh certainly we have been in a lot of town meetings uh and discussed the town halls uh in all their
forms and um kind of shot it all down. Something needs to happen to that to that building. Um I'm not so much in agreement that it's it's a waste of time to preserve that building. Um whatever is going to happen is going to cost some
money. We've seen uh the school across the street get turned into some beautiful housing and and other examples of buildings that people thought were a waste of time turned around. Right. The the green itself has kind of a historic value of everything that's on there. The
bank took into consideration the existing house that was on the green and fashioned the bank to look pretty much exactly like the a little little overstyled but like the house that was there. So, it really didn't change the character of the green that much. So, I'm in favor of certainly delaying the
demolition uh and uh and potentially uh looking into the rena of the existing building or to build a new one that looks just like it. >> Thanks. >> Thank you. I will say something that I didn't say already is the upper upper green
historic district I'll maybe oversimplifying it is a federal historic district. We never we actually started writing the process to make a
state of Massachusetts historic district like we just did on the lower green. We started this process what was it 30 20 30 years ago when they remember the paperwork we we saw when they it's been
discussed previously of a historic district on the upper green which now that we have gone through the process of doing a historic district state historic district on the lower green
we are carefully planning to propose to the dwellers on the upper green uh to see what their interest would be to possibly preserve the upper green in a state of
Massachusetts approved historic district uh which is much stronger than a federal historic district. If this upper green had been put into a state historical district, um, at this
point, we there would be a there would be a a dome over that building saying you can't touch it. You can't. Um, but as as is right now. So, uh, I wanted to throw that in there. U, who else would
like to speak? Yes, sir. Okay, Ted Russell, 10 Orchard Street. Um, I hear a couple of different questions being discussed here. One is the one that's before the board here, which is, shall there be a 9-month uh delay in demolition, and I had no
opinion on that. I I'm fine with that. I think it's wise to take that time. But the other question that seems to be an undercurrent fear is should the um the current should the town hall in its current form renovated be a town hall to
replace this boy suit that I also don't like coming to. I really don't like paying rent which we've done for 10 years to the tune of $2 million dollars so far. Um but the question of whether the building renovated is a w is wise e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e
e e e e e e e e e e e e economically has been clearly shown to be not the best uh option as Mr. Williams pointed out. >> Correct. >> Uh we I I've been to all the town meetings. I've I watch routinely watch the select board meetings. I'm I think I'm up to speed on
on the on the facts as they've been presented by qualified people during all of those episodes of proposals that were voted down unfortunately by the voters. But the question of whether the town hall should be renovated and used, you
know, the the high street location should be renovated and used as a town hall has been clearly shown to be not a viable option. And if if we go through it again, it's going going to again be be shown to be not a viable option. So if there's if there's another use for that building, great. But we need a new
town hall is is the bottom line. And I hope I I live to see that because I'm ashamed to be to live I I love living in Newbury. I've lived here for 39 years. I have ancestors who were first settlers here. My wife has ancestors who were
first settlers here. I love this town, but I'm ashamed to be the only town out of 351 in the Commonwealth that pays rent for a town hall. So, that's my thought. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Fred's got his hand up.
>> Yep. I'd like another statement. I did not say that I was in favor of the delay, but I am. >> Okay. >> So, you can put that down. uh and you you made a a big point about uh all the requirements that they got to go through
for the state and the new construction, but you have to realize what they're building buildings out of today. Glue and and wood chips is not going to stand up. >> We live in a throwaway age. Cars are
throwaway, appliances are throwaway, furniture is throwaway, and the whole house is a throwaway today. What they're building today will not stand more than 50 years. So, it's it's just my point is that's made out of real material, not
not glue and wood chips. >> It is made out of uh true true sawmill lumber and it'll probably last another hundred years. But >> that it's back to is can modern technology utilities and then the big elephant in
the room is the foundation. >> It's so >> that's my point. >> Yes. >> Yes. So but that's like I said we are the we are the referees here. This is a starting point I hope to get this discussion out on the table with the
selectmen and um we will be giving hopefully giving a 9-month delay uh for uh time to discuss this and set a set of goals and see if things can be met.
historical commission will be there as an advisor to talk about um what a building needs to what the ex it's really down to the exterior. It's really down to what faces the upper if you put a stake in the middle of the upper
green. It's what's seen by the upper green. When uh when visitors come here to see the original training ground, they visit the schoolhouse. They visit our monuments. They tour our world famous cemeteries. People are coming from all over the world to see this now.
The traffic on the schoolhouse is up tremendously. Lots of people. Uh Essex County is a goto in international travel now. And we need to make sure the part of this building that faces the upper
green uh similar to most towns tell you like his ipsswitch. It's the three sides that face face the street that have to be preserved as historically correct and accurate. So if the building's to be
replaced, it needs to be replaced with a faximile of what was there, including the sign and the chimney. Um so uh but tonight's hearing is about the delay and hopefully the delay will
spark a discussion that will bring truth and accuracy forward and a future for this building. Is there any more discussion uh about uh the delay process or preservation or
non-preservation on this tonight? If there's no one else, Mr. Chair, up there one last >> Carolyn Casey, 64 Street, Bfield. Um, yes to the 9-month delay. Um, and I'm
not averse to your last statement about uh rebuilding but keeping the exterior of it looking exactly the way it looks. I'm not averse to that. I never really thought about it, but I think that's not a bad idea. Um, I I hate the idea uh of
what Newbury has done to itself. Woodbridge School, Biffield School gone, million-dollar homes now. Um, and just to tear something down and leave an empty lot. We don't have any plans. We're just tearing it down because it fell apart. The reason it fell apart was it was never maintained when people were
working there or after the fact. It was never maintained. Um, so yes to the building. >> Thank you. Yes, sir. >> This is town council addressing us. >> Yeah. My name is Pervagi. I'm, as you
said, representing the select board. Um, I'm going to go against my legal instincts and keep this very brief. >> Can you repeat that? >> Of course. Um so the primary questions are as I understand it number one you know procedurally I think the the the
commission's I think Mr. Chairman you've explained it uh very clearly. I think the the bylaw itself is is is a model of clarity. I think it's it reads exactly how it should. I think it tracks exactly the steps that are required. And as you
said, we're here tonight on whether or not to approve the 9-month delay uh for demolition. And if you don't, then it's it can it can be demolished. I don't know if that's um what anybody wants, but that's um you know, the vote would
be to uh to put it in a holding pattern for 9 months while the town and its various departments, including the commission, uh discuss the best way forward to cure the issues with what frankly everybody understands to be a sick
building. Um the air quality inside is is is is uh substandard. It's a it's what they call a sick building. the foundation as you pointed out correctly is not uh is not uh not sound. So the the primary question as I
understand the speakers here is what's the town's plan and the town's plan is simply not it's not to sell it. Um there's some discussion about whether um you know there's a town meeting required in order for the demolition permit to
issue. That's a separate question because as as I understand it, the town's not looking to divest any interest in in the title, whether by lease or by sale. It just simply wants to cure whatever defect is on that structure on that lot at the moment. And
if there's a town meeting required for the appropriations to get that done, that's a separate question. So really, um, as you said, all we're here to do tonight is determine, do we put a hold on this? let the town figure out what we
want to do with it and how we want to do it. Um, there is clearly an intent to use it for municipal purposes. We're not looking to, as I understand, the town's not looking to divest any title or any interest in title in it, but again, that's going to be part of the
exploration. So, >> so you brought it up. So, what is is town meeting required to demolish this structure? I would think only to the extent that a separate appropriation is required to
execute that. So if you if you're if it's part of a larger project that requires an appropriation of funds for that purpose, I would think you might need to have a town meeting. Again, it depends upon where the funds are coming from and what the nature of the project. >> I understand the funds, but we're
talking about the legality of it. >> Is it required? It's the it's one of the town the the the town's people. This is one of their structures. >> Is it required? >> I don't believe so. Just the pure act of demolition. I do not believe so.
>> Okay. >> Yes. >> I'm listening to whatever. But L >> say your name and your address. >> Yeah. L. Should I get up here? >> Should stand up. Yes. >> I'm bring over.
>> This is weird. I'm talking to them. Uh, so so what I I'm listening to him already talk and and I hear a lot of people don't think you need to save the building, but therefore making it preferably preserved, which is all we all we're going to do, right? We we
already know that it's a significant structure because it's in a historic district automatic. The next step in that process is it should we preserve it or should we not preserve it? If we decide to preserve it, then then we can stop the demolition for nine months. It
doesn't stop the demolition. It just stops it for nine months. So, what I'm hearing from the people that don't really care if the building is torn down, they would like to see a plan before it's torn down. That's what I'm hearing. >> So, okay, that's just because I'm going
to have to vote at some point in time here. So, but that's what I'm kind of hearing. So >> the the consensus seems to be make it perfectly preserved so that we can delay the demolition. That's kind of what I'm here. >> Makes sense. >> Okay. And and the criteria for perfectly
preserved is there's there's at least two. Preservation is in the public interest. That's pretty broad. And the other one is demolition. the demolition would detrimentally detrimentally affect the town's character uh or historic
streetscape. That's another one. So, it's that's a a visual a visual thing that Shannon was talking about. >> So, clearly it is. >> Yeah, that's I just only comment I had that. So, I'm I'm hearing a consensus on the preferably preserved in order to
delay. That's it. And then and oh, we and we're not charged with what are you going to do with it later? All we just have to know whether we're going to delay the the demolition or not. That's all. That's all. That's the only power we have as a historic commission.
>> Okay. Does anybody else have any other comments from any other board members? >> Uh Lauren, is it going to are you going to do another meeting in 14 days or is this are you taking a vote? >> The vote will not be tonight. So uh uh
in 14 days or less there will be a public notice that says the historical commission will it'll be our our meet a regular meeting and we will vote at that point uh on the uh pro on the preferably preserved and the results will be immediately sent over to the building
commissioner's office. >> So does anyone else have any business before the board tonight? I will entertain a motion to adjurnn. Please >> I move that we adjourn. >> Second. >> Second.
>> All in favor? I >> being is ajourned.