2026-09-17 - Historical Commission

0:02Call to order. Good evening and welcome

0:04to the Thursday, September 17th, 2026

0:07meeting of the City of Worcester

0:08Historical Commission. My name is

0:10Erikica Helmarkski and I will chair

0:12tonight's meeting. Before we begin, I

0:15have a few brief announcements

0:16concerning how our meeting will proceed

0:18this evening. Tonight's meeting is in a

0:20hybrid format, which means that

0:21attendees may participate in person here

0:23at 25 me Street or remotely. You may log

0:27in via computer by going to

0:28wistermass.zoomv.com/j1604873519

0:36and entering access code 160-487-3519

0:40in the Zoom application or by calling in

0:42at 1669-254-5252

0:46and entering access code 160-4873519.

0:51To manage remote participation during

0:53our hybrid meetings and to prevent

0:55disruptions, all participants are

0:56automatically blocked from unmuting

0:58themselves, turning on their video, and

1:00sending chat messages. For remote

1:02participants who would like to comment

1:04on an item on our agenda, we ask that

1:06you use the raise hand feature in Zoom

1:07during the discussion of that item. If

1:10you are joined by phone, you can raise

1:12your hand by pressing star9. Staff will

1:14then call on members of the public one

1:16at a time and give them permission to

1:17unmute themselves. You will then be able

1:19to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

1:22This is a public meeting which means

1:24that it is being recorded and that

1:26minutes will be taken and published at a

1:27later date. To help with this process,

1:30we ask that all speakers participating

1:32in person use a microphone and to please

1:34clearly identify yourselves each time

1:35you speak. The first time you speak,

1:37please state your city or town of

1:39residence for the record. To help

1:41maintain an orderly meeting, please

1:43address all comments and questions

1:45through the chair rather than directly

1:46to any of the other speakers or

1:48applicants. If you are here for an item

1:51that will be postponed or continued,

1:53please note that no additional notice

1:54will be sent to you before the next

1:56meeting. You're encouraged to call the

1:58planning department the day prior to our

1:59next meeting to confirm if the item will

2:01be heard or postponed that night. Once

2:03an item is called, there will be a brief

2:05presentation followed by any additional

2:07comments or clarifications from members

2:09of the city staff. then an opportunity

2:11for anyone from the public to speak on

2:13that item before we proceed to board

2:15discussion and action. Please also note

2:17that all approval votes votes will be by

2:19roll call which will be administered

2:21when the time comes. I will now take

2:23roll call of commissioners and city

2:25staff present this evening. Commissioner

2:27Bernett

2:28>> here.

2:30>> Commissioner Gutierrez Leavod

2:32>> here.

2:32>> Commissioner Forester

2:34>> here.

2:34>> Commissioner Baker

2:35>> here.

2:37>> Commissioner Andre

2:38>> here. Commissioner Santos Ribo

2:40>> here.

2:40>> Chair Helarski

2:42>> here. City staff Michelle Johnstone

2:44>> here.

2:44>> And Amelia Clark

2:46>> here. Great.

2:48>> Our first item of new business this

2:50evening is 6 Massachusetts Avenue. If

2:52the applicants are here, please come

2:54forward.

2:59>> Good evening, commissioners and uh

3:02staff. Uh, and thank you very much for

3:04accommodating uh my schedule, which

3:07requires me to be somewhere else shortly

3:09after this meeting. Uh, I'm George

3:11Tetler. Uh, and this is my wife, Sheila.

3:14We are the owners of six six

3:16Massachusetts Avenue. Uh, at the risk of

3:19aging ourselves, I will tell you that

3:21we've owned the home for slightly more

3:24than 30 years. Uh, Sheila is no stranger

3:27to uh, this commission. In fact, she was

3:30a member of this commission for several

3:32years at the turn of

3:36>> 90s

3:36>> in the late 90s and [laughter] early

3:382000s and actually sat the chair uh of

3:42this commission. So, we are uh we are uh

3:47very uh we're very uh mindful of the

3:53historic nature of our house. Obviously,

3:56it's one of the most historic homes in

3:58the city that's still a private

3:59residence and uh the neighborhood that

4:02we live in and uh and we believe

4:05strongly in preservation of historic

4:08structures and historic neighborhoods.

4:10Uh so, um with that, uh I'll tell you a

4:15little about why we are here today. Um

4:18our front steps um and the picture,

4:23there you go. uh on the top or on the

4:26bottom shows the condition of the front

4:28steps before we undertook to uh repair

4:32them. Uh and you can see the wide uh

4:36crack uh that is at the top step before

4:39the landing step. And uh that is uh a

4:44result of uh the uh weakness weak

4:48weakening of the foundation underneath

4:50it that supported those steps. And uh so

4:54we engaged a contractor that does a fair

4:58amount of historic work in the uh in the

5:00city, coal contracting,

5:03and they gave us a proposal and

5:05ultimately we decided it was time to

5:08repair those steps before they became

5:10dangerous and uh and frankly uh I

5:14suppose we could have deferred the

5:16repair of those steps. might have lasted

5:18as long as we continue to own the home,

5:20but uh that wouldn't be the right thing

5:22to do for maintaining and the condition

5:26of the property and for the future

5:28owners of our home. So, uh we undertook

5:32to repair the steps. Uh our contractor

5:36determined that no building permit was

5:38required and so we thought that it was

5:41simply a repair that would not require

5:44us to appear before the commission.

5:47uh the building inspector agreed with

5:49the contractor's analysis and there was

5:51no building permit required, but uh

5:55somebody uh informed the commission that

5:57we had this work underway and so

5:59Michelle reached out to us and asked

6:02that we file uh a request for a

6:05certificate of non-applicability for the

6:07work that we've done. Um so uh that's

6:11why we're here today. Um you know, we've

6:14cared for this home. We love this home.

6:17We care. We've cared a lot for it. Uh I

6:19think the neighborhood appreciates it.

6:21And of course, our neighbors are also

6:24mindful of the historic character of the

6:26neighborhood and many of the homes. And

6:28so they uh likewise uh are engaged in uh

6:34continuing to keep their homes in in

6:36solid condition. So, uh, when we heard,

6:40uh, that we needed to go through this

6:42process, Michelle contacted us, I

6:46promptly filed the application that's

6:47before you, uh, with Michelle's help.

6:50And, uh, that's why we are here today.

6:53And I'm hopeful that you will agree that

6:56the work that we did uh actually

6:59improves the condition of the home was a

7:01repair. And again uh we did not disturb

7:05any of the uh elements uh that were

7:08there. All of the materials remain in

7:10place. We were careful. The contractor

7:12was exceedingly careful not to uh not to

7:16break any of them or do anything that

7:18would cause the the appearance of the

7:22front steps to uh look different than it

7:25that it than it has for many many years

7:28in our home. Uh with that uh

7:33I I'm done with my remarks and I'll ask

7:36my wife if she has anything to add. No,

7:38>> I'm good. [laughter]

7:41So,

7:42>> I don't think we necessarily have an

7:44issue with the work that was done. My

7:46biggest concern is why in one of our

7:48oldest historic districts did a building

7:51was it decided that a building permit

7:53was not needed?

7:55So in historic districts, I mean it

8:00it is potentially true that a building

8:02permit is not needed, but anytime any

8:05work is done. So there's a lot of things

8:08that don't need building permits that

8:09have to go before you. So for example,

8:11if somebody puts up a 6 foot or lower

8:13fence, that doesn't require a building

8:15permit, but it's still required to go

8:16before the commission. So, it isn't an

8:18issue that the building inspector said

8:20that there's no building permit needed

8:22because that's their discretion. It

8:25could be very true that there is no

8:26building permit required, but you still

8:28have to go to the historical commission

8:29for a certificate of non-applicability

8:32if nothing's being changed. And then if

8:34if something is being changed, then you

8:35need a certificate of appropriateness.

8:37>> Yeah. So, I'm just wondering why that

8:39wasn't flagged on the on the building

8:41inspector's end in knowing that it's in

8:44a historic.

8:45>> Did a build Did you reach out to a

8:46building inspector before you started

8:48the work or No.

8:50>> Well, I think our contractor had an

8:52informal conversation, but I'm not sure

8:54that they really spotted this.

8:56>> It could it could be that Dave said

8:58something to the back of I'm doing this

9:00work and didn't really specify where it

9:02was at. So they it could have not been

9:04flagged in the building inspector's mind

9:05of like oh that's a that's a local

9:07historic district.

9:08>> I I don't know the character of that

9:09conversation but but it was uh you know

9:13the commencement of the work without a

9:16certificate of non-applicability was

9:18certainly an innocent

9:20>> uh matter and uh it turned out that uh

9:23ultimately the building permit we in a

9:26formal way the building inspector came

9:28[clears throat] looked at the project

9:30and said no building permits required.

9:32I'm just glad that the informal

9:34conversation didn't lead to different

9:36work being done because I'm glad that it

9:39ended up the way that it did. Um

9:41>> well, you would never see that from us.

9:43Uh because we believe strongly in

9:45maintaining the character of our the

9:47historic character of our property.

9:49>> I I think it looks great and clearly um

9:51the repair was needed. Um does any other

9:55any other comments from the commission

9:56on this project at all?

9:59>> No.

9:59>> No.

10:00>> Okay. Okay. So, can I have a motion for

10:02a certificate of non-applicability? Then

10:04>> I'll make a motion for a certificate of

10:06non-applicability.

10:08The commission finds that the

10:09retroactive changes at 6 Massachusetts

10:11Avenue consisting of repairing and

10:14resetting the front stairs are not under

10:18the jurisdiction of the commission and

10:20therefore approves a certificate of

10:22non-applicability.

10:24>> Second. And on that motion, Commissioner

10:26Bernett,

10:27>> yes.

10:28>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod, yes.

10:30Commissioner Andre,

10:31>> yes.

10:31>> Commissioner Baker,

10:32>> yes.

10:33>> Commissioner Forester,

10:34>> yes.

10:34>> Commissioner Santos Rebo,

10:36>> yes.

10:36>> And Chair Harkski,

10:37>> yes.

10:39>> Thank you.

10:40>> Appreciate your time and uh thank you

10:42for the accommodation.

10:43>> Yeah.

10:45>> Okay.

10:46>> So, now we are moving on to old business

10:49which is one Westminster.

10:53Are the applicants present

10:55[clears throat] or online?

10:57So, Brian, if you want to just speak up

11:00and introduce yourself.

11:02Uh,

11:02>> I'm trying to unmute. It's not working.

11:04>> You are unmuted.

11:06>> Oh, okay. [clears throat] Sorry.

11:08>> It's [laughter] okay.

11:10>> Uh, yes, I'm here. Uh, Brian Major. I'm

11:12the owner of One Westminster Street.

11:15[snorts]

11:18>> Okay. So, last time we were here, we

11:20discussed um you wanting to basically

11:24re-roof the garage. There was a couple

11:26different scenarios that we had

11:28presented to you. Um we have seen the

11:32estimates that you have provided. Um has

11:35the rest of the commission looked at

11:36these estimates and have any questions

11:40um pertaining to any of those? I was um

11:44particularly interested in the one with

11:47the um the slate remaining on the front

11:51facade of the garage and replacing the

11:54rear with the asphalt. Um

11:59did you kind of want to explain

12:03these? I mean where where your where

12:06your head is going with these?

12:07Obviously, we can see the price

12:08difference with with um what you've

12:11provided us. Um and last time we were

12:13here, you did seem like you were leaning

12:16towards agreeing to keep the front and

12:20and change out the back. Is that still

12:22where you're

12:24kind of feeling like you're willing to

12:26compromise on that? Well, in

12:28conversation with um the uh contractors,

12:33uh we we looked at uh different

12:34scenarios of removing all the slate,

12:38harvesting the uh best pieces and

12:41replacing the pieces that were no longer

12:44serviceable.

12:45Uh we also looked at um

12:50using uh imitation slate. Um, one of the

12:54suggestions was to um asphalt the back

12:58the back uh uh side and the side

13:02adjacent to the home and have this the

13:05two sides that are visible um uh cloud

13:09with uh slate. Um the contractors

13:13weren't um that warm to the condition of

13:17splitting the roof. They seem to think

13:19that the integrity of it and the weight

13:21would would be off. it would throw the

13:23roof off. Um,

13:27>> we have people that do that scenario

13:29with entire houses. Um, and it works out

13:33pretty well. I I mean, I'm not really

13:37sure how that would affect um, you know,

13:40the the stability of of the roof on a a

13:43small garage. Um, the commissioners have

13:46any questions about the estimates or

13:50>> I have a question about the altitude

13:52roofing estimate. Is that just for

13:54repair?

14:02>> So, through the chair, um, I believe is

14:05the is it the one that I have up on the

14:07screen right now that you're wondering

14:08about? That appears to me to be just for

14:11repair.

14:12>> Okay. Um, so it's repair of the decking,

14:15repair of the slate tiles, and then um

14:19insertion of any missing slates where

14:21it's needed. So repair came up to

14:25$11,250.

14:28This estimate um which is for all new

14:32slate or all new shingles seems pretty

14:35high. So, um, $32,85

14:39for a new slate roof or $18,97 for

14:42shingle. And then the first estimate

14:44that you see is $4,800 for just new

14:49asphalt shingle and then $7,300 for half

14:52natural slate, half shingles, asphalt

14:55shingles.

14:56>> I guess my only question is how do you

14:58feel about the repairing of

15:02the roof?

15:08I'm sorry. Are you addressing the

15:10council or um myself?

15:11>> Uh you

15:13>> Oh. Um well,

15:17there looking around the neighborhood. I

15:19don't see many buildings that are

15:21historically accurate any longer. They

15:23have been uh transmogrified in some way

15:26or another. You the roof, the facing, uh

15:29the siding. Um,

15:32so the the presence of having

15:35um slate on the on this small garage

15:38roof that's tucked away in the corner

15:40adjacent to a a home that has a new um

15:44asphalt roof. My my inclination would be

15:48to go with the same shingles that are on

15:51the asphalt uh on the on the main home

15:53so that they match so it looks good

15:55together. I think that if we put um

15:58shingles uh the uh slate shingles back

16:00on the roof, it's not going to match the

16:02house. It's going to be off uh for the

16:06neighborhood. Um, so my my intention

16:10would be to

16:14have the work done um in a in a

16:16professional way that it's not going to

16:18uh

16:21well I'm not bankrupt me but uh re

16:23really uh put a uh financial strain on

16:27the pro project.

16:31Some of these numbers as you see are are

16:33quite high for a very small garage roof.

16:43the the people the contractors that gave

16:46you estimates for repairing the roof,

16:49did they give you an idea of um the

16:52condition of the slate tiles as far as

16:55needing new pieces and reusing what you

16:58have?

16:59>> Yes. Um we addressed that. Um

17:03>> and uh I actually prompted a lot of

17:07conversation on that. So, so what what

17:10do we have to use new tiles? Can we use

17:12tiles? Um are do they all come in one

17:14standard size? So, we we worked through

17:17all these questions and um

17:23they were

17:26of the they were supporting mostly to

17:30reh harvest the uh or to uh reclaim the

17:33shingles as you suggested. But when a

17:36problem that they said that the roof is

17:38so is so old, the nails are old.

17:42They don't they're not sure if they're

17:44going to be able to get the shingles up

17:46without

17:48further breaking them. So that was a

17:50question that they had. And if they're

17:51and if they're carefully trying to

17:53remove them and they're breaking them,

17:54then we're using less shingles from the

17:57roof and more shingles from their stock.

18:02And this is a company that deals in

18:04slate roofs.

18:06>> Yes.

18:08>> And did they give you an idea of the

18:11lifespan of the shingles that are there?

18:16>> Um,

18:19I believe they said 30 year,

18:24but I'm going from recall.

18:35just kind of want to get a feel for how

18:37everyone is feeling about this.

18:42I I I personally would would like to see

18:46at least the front be kept. Um, and you

18:51know, and chiming back to the comment

18:54you said how it would stand out against

18:56the rest of the neighborhood. I would

18:58argue that the rest of the neighborhood

18:59is standing out against your home

19:00because you still do have some of the

19:03original architectural features and if

19:05everybody, you know, behaved in that

19:07manner, we would have nothing left in

19:08this city. Um, so those little gems that

19:11pop up around street corners, um, are

19:14really important and that is exactly why

19:17this commission exists. So that

19:20reasoning,

19:21you know, I know it seems like the

19:23easier uh thing to do for now. Um but

19:27you know, the legacy of the neighborhood

19:29then is lost if everyone was to to act

19:31in that manner. Um

19:34that's my personal feelings on it. I

19:36feel like also the the house is so tall

19:39it's very hard to see. the garage is

19:42very short and you can kind of see the

19:44whole roof, you know what I mean, from

19:46>> walking by where the, you know, the top

19:49of a three decker is kind of hard to

19:50see, especially if you're on a hill.

19:52>> And I mean, a garage doesn't necessarily

19:53need to match a house. It is a separate

19:55entity in itself anyway. Um, so it

19:58doesn't need to match.

20:00>> Correct.

20:01>> Well, the house is was built in 1924. Do

20:04we think the garage roof is from that

20:07time?

20:09>> I believe so. Yes.

20:10>> Yeah.

20:11>> So, I mean, you you probably could get

20:13another 50 years out of the slate.

20:18>> Maybe the problem is though is that if

20:21it hasn't been taken care of, the nails

20:22probably are pretty far gone at this

20:24point.

20:25>> And I mean, we we do also need to I know

20:28that it's quite possible that the the

20:30the wood under there is rotten and

20:32needing to be repaired. I mean, with any

20:35roof job, you know, you can't just

20:37shingle over whether it's asphalt

20:40shingles or slate if the if the wood is

20:42compromised. Um, so I mean this is a

20:45really this is a really tough one. So

20:47I'm that's why I'm trying to get a feel

20:49for how everyone's feeling about it.

20:51>> I've got a I got a question. Are you

20:54saying that the the uh slate roof uh

20:59worker you've you've uh

21:02you you're talking with is

21:06stating him or herself that

21:10of all the slates individual slates on

21:13that roof you don't have enough

21:16to salvage for that for the front?

21:22Well, we don't know because we haven't

21:24removed them yet. The process, the sl

21:26the slate will have to be completely

21:28removed from the uh wood decking because

21:31that will all have to be repaired from

21:33the from the hips to the face. So, once

21:36we get the slates off, then we would

21:38know what we have that's suitable for uh

21:42for reuse.

21:43>> So, that is something that's doable.

21:45>> Yeah.

21:46And you since you don't know what the

21:48condition of the substrate is uh

21:52underneath,

21:53>> that's going to have to happen anyway.

21:54You're going to have to take it all off.

21:56>> Yeah.

21:57>> So, it will

21:58>> take it all off and you just create two

22:00piles.

22:01>> Keep and the ones that are too far gone.

22:04I can't imagine that there wouldn't be

22:06enough

22:08reusable slate for at least that front

22:11part, notwithstanding the other three.

22:16And you may find out that you have

22:17enough for the front part and the front

22:20to the and to the and the the roof to

22:23the side of it.

22:25So I I'll only speak for myself, but

22:28that would be my um

22:32my brothers that uh you salvage as much

22:34as you can for that front at least at

22:37the very least. And we have we have uh

22:40ruled on that uh in other instances. And

22:44if you got leftover enough for that side

22:47to the right of the garage door, use

22:50that. And then just

22:53use whatever that would that would be

22:56much more would be more economically

22:57feasible for you for the other two sides

23:00where you really you can't see them from

23:02the s from the from the street.

23:07And I know we discussed that as as a

23:10possibility when they first came. Um but

23:13[snorts] it's just seeming like they but

23:15they're not really in that direction of

23:17wanting to do that at all. It's either

23:18all or nothing.

23:23They their big concern every everyone

23:25that every company that I had review

23:26this their big concern was I don't know

23:29if we can get those slates off um in a

23:31serviceable manner because of the age of

23:34the building and the fact that

23:37the the corners um uh pieces are

23:41missing. It's it's an old roof and it

23:44hasn't it hasn't been repaired well.

23:46Each year that I that I live here, I try

23:48to do something, a major project to

23:50improve the property. And I had planned

23:53on doing the face of the garage this

23:55year, but when my neighbor told me about

23:57the hole in the roof, that prompted me

24:00to change plans.

24:03>> I mean, we've had slate roofs come to us

24:06from the 1890s. I mean, far older than

24:09this roof that, you know, slate has been

24:11salvageable, but and this is such a

24:14small building. I I would hate to to

24:17agree to a full replacement when in

24:20fact, you know, it's taken off and there

24:22are enough to salvage it. That's that's

24:25my fear. And we're only really

24:28interested in the front

24:31>> and the side.

24:35>> So if they're taken off carefully

24:39with the intention of preserving as much

24:42as they can,

24:44I still can't understand why you

24:47wouldn't have enough, at least for that

24:49front.

24:50So, I'm looking at the roofing companies

24:53and I'm just wondering, it doesn't seem

24:56like they specialize

24:58in slate roofs.

25:03How many slate roofs have either of

25:05these companies done? Like rough

25:08estimate, like is is it something common

25:10for them or is it kind of a one-off here

25:12and there? So,

25:13>> no, it's it's it's common to them as far

25:15as I know. I mean in discussion with

25:18them that you know uh vetting their

25:21ability like oh we do slight roofs all

25:22the time.

25:23>> Yes.

25:23>> Crocker was was a big one but they come

25:27with a huge price tag which would be

25:30ridiculous.

25:32>> Um

25:33I'll just cut in and I'll say Altitude

25:35Roofing which is one of the companies

25:37does do a lot of slate. So they're

25:39working on some of the CPA projects in

25:41the city specifically on the slate

25:42roofs. looking at LCT.

25:50>> Did the altitude

25:52um roofing

25:55give you a price estimate for half and

26:00did you did they

26:03feel like they could do the half because

26:05I think the current estimate is is to

26:07replace fully.

26:09>> Correct.

26:10>> Uh they did not uh bid on half. He he

26:13wasn't that sure that he could remove

26:16those slates in in a usable fashion.

26:31>> I I guess I'm looking for a little

26:32clarity on the the pricing difference

26:34here. I've gotten it all turned around.

26:37Um uh and it looks like a bunch of

26:39different uh estimates based on half

26:43half a job or you know depending on how

26:46what roof is put on. Um appreciate

26:50something clearer so they can understand

26:52what the actual savings is. I I I see

26:55that large figure there but then there's

26:57a couple other estimates that were given

27:01>> um handwritten. Yeah. Yeah.

27:02>> So, so the handwritten ones on the first

27:05page, the 4,800 is for a full

27:09replacement. And they're all different

27:11companies, so obviously the prices are

27:12going to be different based on what

27:14company. But for this first page, the

27:16$4,800 is for a full asphalt shingle

27:20job. They're going to take everything

27:21off and put asphalts on.

27:22>> Yep. The second number, the 7,300, is

27:26what they're expecting for ripping the

27:29whole thing off, putting slate back on

27:32half the roof, so on two elevations,

27:35>> and then asphalt on the other two.

27:37>> Yep. This second page is for a full

27:42slate roof by an obviously more

27:44expensive company because they're saying

27:47they're going to charge $32,000

27:49for a full slate roof and $18,000 for an

27:52asphalt roof.

27:54>> Okay.

27:54>> Which is more than four times as much as

27:57the first guy.

27:58>> That's more than I paid for my whole

27:59house. [laughter]

28:01>> Right.

28:02>> Yeah.

28:03>> Now, this third page is for repair, for

28:05a full like comprehensive repair. And

28:08that's where we get the $11,000.

28:10>> Thank you.

28:10>> Yeah.

28:11>> Thank you.

28:12>> I mean, I think the $7,300 is

28:16reasonable. Um, in between, I mean,

28:19obviously, you know, the $5,000 one is

28:23is is cheaper, but for that extra bit of

28:27money, you're also saving some of the

28:30architectural,

28:32you know, history of of your property. I

28:36personally think that that's worth it.

28:38Um

28:40I would be comfortable voting on that

28:43because that is what we discussed in

28:45length last time they were here and it

28:47seemed like it was something that was

28:48agreed upon, but we just wanted more

28:50numbers to know how big of a difference

28:52in between the two there were. Um now I

28:56mean it it maybe the price could even go

28:59down if they take off all the slate and

29:01they say there's enough to do three

29:03sides. I don't know. I mean, like you

29:05said, no one knows until it all comes

29:08off.

29:09>> Um,

29:11but I would feel comfortable with with

29:13that scenario voting on that. Is that

29:16something that you're willing to

29:17compromise on?

29:23Um

29:32I I

29:33I guess if I I if I have to I mean it's

29:36we have to do that, you know. Um it's

29:38it's not my fresh choice. I have to I

29:41have to say I'm in the middle of a a

29:43rehab on the second floor which is

29:44taking a lot longer than what I had

29:46anticipated. So, um,

29:52yeah,

29:53>> I have to say I'd prefer doing the

29:54repair, but I'm willing to compromise

29:56and do the half and half, but

30:00>> I'd prefer a repair to be [laughter]

30:01honest.

30:01>> Yeah, I would, too.

30:02>> But I get that. That's

30:03>> that $11,000 number even insane for

30:06[clears throat] just a garage roof,

30:07which I I can't really

30:10>> make sense of that. But, um, you know, I

30:13I think that if if they go into the job

30:16knowing that the purpose is to salvage

30:18the slate,

30:20um, and they try to do it as carefully

30:21as possible and they lay it out, again,

30:23if there's enough to cover, you know,

30:26just the two sides, wonderful. Three

30:29sides, even better. Um, especially if

30:32it's going to, you know, save you money

30:34in the long run. Um, but I think losing

30:39the slate completely, especially for

30:41what, a 1925, it's it's really not even

30:44the oldest slate roof that we've seen by

30:47any means. Um, I think that it's

30:48definitely worth it and I think it will

30:50complement uh your property even more,

30:53especially if you plan on doing, you

30:55know, further work to the garage. Um, I

30:58think you you'd be really happy with it.

31:00That's my opinion personally.

31:05So is that to move forward with a

31:10>> So Brian, is that something you are

31:12willing to do? Because So you have two

31:14options. They can vote on that because

31:16it seems like that's where they're

31:18leaning towards being comfortable with

31:20or they can vote on your proposal and it

31:23could get denied and then you have a

31:25year where you can't do any work on the

31:26garage on the garage roof. Um what what

31:30really

31:32other than patching and and such, right?

31:34I mean that's suitable,

31:36>> right? Yeah. So so they can vote they

31:40can vote on the full asphalt job. It can

31:42get denied the one-year um delay will be

31:45upheld or you can get started now um

31:48based on the proposal, the $7,300

31:51proposal that has also been submitted.

31:57Are you with us during that

32:01>> at the end of that year? I I understand

32:03that the there's a like a a delay before

32:05it can get going. But what happens at

32:07the end of that year? Do we go through

32:08this again?

32:09>> Nope. So with the demolition delay, the

32:12there's a 12 month delay period in which

32:14you if it gets denied, you cannot do

32:17anything. So that exists for a number of

32:20reasons. So, for example, if something

32:22is done retroactively

32:24during that one year, you can get fined

32:26every single day until it gets fixed.

32:29Um, or if it's if if the proposal is

32:34egregious enough. So, like for example,

32:36if you were proposing demolishing

32:37something, um, you know, the city could

32:41take additional action to preempt that

32:43from happening, period. Um,

32:47I don't think that's going to happen for

32:49a roof. Um, but I mean it could, you

32:52know, if it if it was a really special

32:53roof, I guess, but probably not for this

32:54garage roof. Um, but so there's a

32:5612-month delay where you are expected to

33:01um find alternatives for what it is

33:03you're doing. Um, and the city can weigh

33:05its options on any additional action to

33:08take. And then at the end of the 12

33:09months, you will have a 12 month period

33:12to act on what you requested. So you if

33:16if if if you go 12 months out for the

33:18delay, you'll have an additional 12

33:20months to do the work. If you don't do

33:22the work within the following 12 months

33:24after the delay, then the process starts

33:26over again and you have to come back. If

33:29it gets denied, you wait another 12

33:30months and it goes on until you do the

33:34work in the 12 months following the

33:35delay.

33:36>> I see. Thank you.

33:39Um

33:41the part that the unknowns are are the

33:43part that really um

33:47make me a little nervous. Um if he's if

33:50he's not able to harvest enough slate

33:53from the roof to do two sides,

33:56then I'm I'm buying a lot more slate.

33:58Would you be amendable to if he's not

34:01able to harvest from uh enough slate for

34:04two then he does the the French side and

34:07we can

34:09I don't know um what was your

34:11suggestion? Shingle shingle that side as

34:12well. So I I I just don't know what he's

34:15going to find. And he's he did neither.

34:20Well, I would say have him be as careful

34:25as possible and the commission can

34:28probably craft a motion that ensures

34:32that at least the front um but

34:34preferably the side. But I want to be

34:37out there after that harvesting gets

34:38done and even during it if if possible

34:41so we can see how it's being done so

34:43we're making sure that as much care as

34:45possible is being taken when they're

34:48taking it off because then of course

34:50there's the worry of I mean I'm sure

34:53this roofing company is wonderful but

34:56you know they they could be not wanting

34:59to do the full two sides and they could

35:02not be being as careful as possible

35:03>> being a little bit rougher than need be.

35:05Yeah.

35:06>> Yeah.

35:06>> Oh, I see. I see.

35:07>> Yes.

35:10>> So, I mean, yeah, they could pro they

35:12could probably craft a motion and I'll

35:14leave that up to

35:15>> with um like administrative review

35:18>> with administrative review like I would

35:21want them to call me like halfway

35:23through the salvage or halfway through

35:25stripping the roof to say this is where

35:27we're at. Like this is how we're doing

35:29on slate. you know, 50% of it good or

35:3320% of it's good so that we can make

35:35that decision and I can go out there and

35:37actually observe what they're doing.

35:40>> Okay.

35:41>> Okay.

35:42>> Okay. So, we could make an amendment to

35:44allow just the front after Michelle goes

35:47out there and reviews the situation of

35:49the site.

35:53>> Okay,

35:56>> that sounds like we can work with that.

35:59Okay, good. Um, so we need to open up

36:01for public comment before any

36:02>> So, I'm going to open up for public

36:03comment.

36:07>> Is there anybody online now?

36:09>> Can I have a motion to close public

36:11comment?

36:11>> I'll make a motion to close public

36:12comment.

36:13>> Second.

36:14>> And on the motion to close public

36:15comment, Commissioner Bernett?

36:17>> Yes.

36:17>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod,

36:19>> yes.

36:19>> Commissioner Andre,

36:20>> yes.

36:20>> Commissioner Baker,

36:21>> yes.

36:22>> Commissioner Forester,

36:23>> yes.

36:23>> Commissioner Santoso,

36:25>> yes.

36:25>> Chair Harkski,

36:26>> yes. And now, can I please have a motion

36:29for a building demo delay waiver for one

36:31Westminster Street?

36:32>> Okay, I'll make a motion for waiver of

36:35the 12 month building demolition delay.

36:39The commission finds that the partially

36:41retroactive changes at one I'm sorry

36:44part that the changes at one westminster

36:47street consisting of replacing the

36:51garage roof salvaging enough slate for

36:56the front side of the garage at a

37:00minimum

37:02and the remaining sides to have asphalt

37:08also. subject to the review of the city

37:10of Worcester during the during this

37:13process.

37:15Anything to add?

37:16>> So, so I would make an amendment that

37:19the motion is to

37:22replace

37:25at

37:27at a maximum three sides of the roof.

37:30>> Okay?

37:31>> Preferably two. So at at at at at a

37:35minimum um retaining the Westminster

37:40facing slope of the roof, preferably the

37:44right hand slope of the roof. If the

37:47right hand sl slope of the roof cannot

37:49be replaced with salvage slate, um it

37:54can be replaced with asphalt shingle but

37:56only after administrative review.

37:59the remaining sides of the roof can be

38:01um sheathed in asphalt. It's it's

38:04confusing. So I I would just say that's

38:06that's my amendment

38:07>> and just say so moved.

38:09>> Sure.

38:09>> Yeah. [laughter]

38:11So much.

38:12>> So the the the spirit the spirit of the

38:14mot the spirit of the motion is that you

38:17would like to see the front and right

38:19side slopes of the roof be retained.

38:22There is a chance that the right side

38:24slope we don't have enough slave slate

38:27for but that decision can only be made

38:30after administrative review. Is that

38:31correct?

38:32>> Yeah.

38:32>> Yes.

38:32>> Okay. Do we have a second on that?

38:34>> Second.

38:35>> On that motion, Commissioner Bernap.

38:36>> Yes.

38:37>> Commissioner Gutierro Leavod.

38:38>> Yes.

38:39>> Commissioner Andre.

38:39>> Yes.

38:40>> Commissioner Baker.

38:41>> Yes.

38:41>> Commissioner Forester?

38:42>> Yes.

38:43>> Commissioner Santos Rivbo?

38:44>> Yes.

38:44>> Chair Holarski?

38:46>> Yes.

38:46>> Okay, you're all set, Brian.

38:48>> That's all set. Thank you for

38:49compromising with us.

38:52Thank you for working with me with this.

38:53One last question.

38:55>> Yes.

38:56>> So, am I allowed to award the contract

38:58at this point?

39:00>> So, you'll get a written decision within

39:0214 days. I I know we're getting towards

39:06no building season, so I'll try try my

39:08best to get that done by the middle of

39:10next week.

39:12>> Okay. And um but as far as notifications

39:16go, so they can start buying supplies

39:18and everything they'll need.

39:20>> Yep.

39:20>> I can Yes, you you ha you have the

39:22verbal on it. It's just you can't

39:23actually pull a permit until you have

39:25the written decision in hand, which

39:27will, like I said, will be probably the

39:28middle of next week.

39:29>> Okay. Thank you.

39:31>> You're welcome.

39:31>> Thank you.

39:32>> Thank you.

39:34>> Item number three, 244 Pleasant Street

39:37is uh going to be continued. So, could I

39:40please have a motion to continue to our

39:42October 1st meeting? I'll make a motion

39:44to continue this matter at 244 Pleasant

39:47Street to October 1st, 2026 with an

39:51extended constructive deadline of

39:53October 16th, 2026.

39:57>> Second.

39:58>> And on that motion, Commissioner

39:59Bernett,

40:00>> yes.

40:00>> Commissioner Gutierrez Loi,

40:01>> yes.

40:01>> Commissioner Andre,

40:02>> yes.

40:03>> Commissioner Baker,

40:03>> yes.

40:04>> Commissioner Forester,

40:05>> yes.

40:05>> Commissioner Stoivo, Chair Helerski,

40:08>> yes.

40:09>> And now item number four, 8 Lucian

40:12Street. If the applicants are present,

40:14please come forward or if you're online.

40:18>> Hello. Uh can you guys hear me? Well,

40:20>> yes.

40:21>> Awesome. Yes.

40:22>> So, please just introduce yourself and

40:25tell us a little bit about your project.

40:28>> Hi. Uh yeah. So, my name is Peter. Um

40:31so, recently we qualify for mass save to

40:35do the insulation

40:37uh and venting. So um that process was

40:41like I I think it took more than a years

40:43already. So then like now when we know

40:45that um Marcel is finally doing the

40:49insulation it we are very happy because

40:52we do have um couple of kids at home. Um

40:56so having the insulation in the house

40:58would help during winter. Um so that's

41:02pretty much

41:03>> [clears throat]

41:03>> um it. um

41:07uh the company I I don't know the name

41:09of it, but then they say that I need to

41:11have some type of like a building permit

41:14in order for them to um start doing the

41:17work.

41:19>> Yeah. And I mean looking over this

41:21project, um I don't have any issues with

41:24it because of the way insulation is done

41:26now. We know that the the vents are

41:28necessary. Um are the vents going to be

41:32painted to match the exterior? Do we

41:34know that?

41:36>> I I have no idea at all. But then um I

41:39can definitely check with them. Um I do

41:41agree with you. Uh we should have some

41:44type of like color that match with the

41:48existing color that the building have.

41:50>> Yeah. Just so it blends in a little bit

41:52more. I mean, we understand they're

41:53necessary, but if you can get them to

41:55blend in, that would be preferred. Um

41:59does the commission have any other

42:01comments or questions about this

42:02project?

42:04If the vents cannot be painted, would be

42:07be happy with like a a black or a darker

42:10color like that. Um,

42:12>> and I have a white too if possible, just

42:14because of the window color.

42:16>> Yeah, with the if it has to be white,

42:19it'll match the trim of the house, which

42:21is fine, but if it is white and it's a

42:23paintable surface, then obviously if you

42:25can match the color, that'd be

42:26preferred. But we're not going to get

42:28too picky about that. Um,

42:30>> okay. We're just saying if it's

42:32possible, it' be a nice little extra

42:34touch. For sure, we can. Yeah.

42:37>> Um, so with no other questions from the

42:39commission, I'm going to open up for

42:40public comment.

42:43>> No public comment. Okay. Can I have a

42:44motion to close public comment?

42:46>> I'll make a motion to close public

42:47comment.

42:48>> Second.

42:49>> And on that motion, Commissioner Bernat.

42:51>> Yes.

42:51>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod.

42:53>> Yes.

42:53>> Commissioner Andre, yes.

42:54>> Commissioner Baker,

42:55>> yes.

42:55>> Commissioner Forester,

42:56>> yes.

42:57>> Commissioner Santos Divo,

42:58>> yes.

42:58>> Chair Harkski,

43:00>> yes. Yes. And now, can I please have a

43:01motion for a building demolition delay

43:03waiver for 8 Lucian Street?

43:05>> Yes. U make a motion for a waiver of the

43:0812-month building demolition delay. The

43:11commission finds that the proposed

43:13demolition at 8 Lucian Street consisting

43:16of installing

43:18installation and venting

43:20and if possible painted to match the

43:23existing siding or white to match the

43:27window trim would not be detrimental to

43:30the historical or architectural

43:31resources of the city of Worcester.

43:33>> Second.

43:35>> And on that motion, Commissioner

43:36Bernett,

43:36>> yes.

43:37>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod,

43:38>> yes.

43:38>> Commissioner Andre,

43:39>> yes. Yes.

43:40>> Commissioner Baker.

43:40>> Yes.

43:41>> Commissioner Forester.

43:42>> Yes.

43:42>> Commissioner Santos Divo.

43:44>> Yes.

43:44>> Chair Harkski.

43:45>> Yes. So, you are all set.

43:48>> Uh, do you know when can I start

43:50contacting the um the company again?

43:53>> Same as the last probably middle of next

43:56week.

43:57>> Okay.

43:58>> Okay.

43:58>> Okay. Thank you very much.

43:59>> Thank you. Can I leave?

44:01>> Yes. [laughter]

44:02>> Thank you. Yeah. Thanks. Byebye.

44:04>> Okay.

44:05>> Okay. Item number five, we have 172

44:08Shrewsbury Street.

44:10>> Good evening. For the record, Mark

44:12Borenson. I'm an attorney at the law

44:13firm of Prince Bell here in Worcester

44:15representing the property owner,

44:16Excellent Investments Corp. Michelle, do

44:18we have Raphael on line?

44:22We do.

44:25>> Okay, super. We have Raphael.

44:27>> Let me let me unmute him.

44:29>> We don't need I don't I just want to

44:30make sure he's there in case there's any

44:32questions specific to him. So we have

44:33the architect uh designer for the

44:35project. Um so uh this is a renovation

44:39project and um an addition project. So

44:43this

44:44>> I'm muted.

44:47>> Hey Raphael. [laughter]

44:48>> Raphael Hernandez on line. Sorry.

44:52>> That's okay.

44:53>> Appreciate you.

44:54So, uh, and I don't know if I'm

44:56pronouncing this correctly, but it's the

44:58Jwitt Kamage Auto and Wagon Works

45:00Building, which is really long name, but

45:02a cool name for this existing, uh,

45:04historic building next to East Park. Um,

45:07so in connection with this project,

45:08before we get into the actual

45:09architecturals and the renovations, um,

45:12this project has received zoning

45:14approval and planning board approval,

45:16uh, to add, uh, 44 units. So, it's

45:20currently most recently a commercial

45:22building. Maybe Raphael could just mute

45:24himself or you can mute him. Yeah. Uh

45:28and so the existing building itself is

45:29is approximately uh 21,329

45:32square feet. And so the the owner and

45:35the applicant is seeking to add a

45:37twostory addition to that rear portion

45:40of the of the building. You can see

45:41there's a one-story addition in the

45:43rear. Um so the proposal is to add two

45:46stories to add approximately 6,842

45:49ft. Um so that will allow for the

45:52proposed 44 units. Uh the um the you can

45:57see here the the elevations the facade

46:00proposed would be a different uh colored

46:03stucco uh that would differentiate from

46:06the historic building but still uh work

46:08well with with the existing uh historic

46:10design. Uh in terms of the front of the

46:12building, which is the most visible

46:14portion of the site, uh we're not

46:16proposing any um changes to the layout

46:19of the windows or doors. Those were all

46:21staying. Um that was a comment

46:23specifically from the planning office um

46:25to preserve the uh westerly door. Uh

46:29previously we had proposed to remove

46:31that door because we don't want folks

46:32entering from that particular door. So

46:34in lie of removing the door, we're going

46:36to add a nonoperational door there. So

46:39that preserves the layout of the front

46:41facade of the building. I'm sure

46:43Michelle also had some some feedback on

46:45that and that's probably that probably

46:46guided the discussion with the planning

46:48staff. Uh we appreciate that as always.

46:50So it's good to get that feedback early

46:52on. So um beyond that, uh we're adding

46:55new windows to the side of the building

46:57and the rear the rear of the building.

46:59You'll see here kind of in the top

47:01right, we're adding a new uh door uh and

47:05some new windows um to the building.

47:07Those are existing windows that will

47:09remain. There will be some uh repointing

47:12and washing of the brick to the extent

47:13needed, but otherwise we we're seeking

47:16to maintain as much of the um the

47:18building in its existing condition as

47:20possible. So, um as I noted before,

47:23Raphael Hernandez is on to answer any

47:25questions that you have regarding the

47:26design. Um and I'm happy to answer any

47:29questions that I can to the extent that

47:31um you know, I'm able. So,

47:34>> I personally think it's a great project.

47:37I think, like you said, getting those

47:39those little tidbits of information out

47:41in the open in the beginning helps with

47:43the design process. I love that the

47:45front facade is staying the same layout.

47:47That's the most visible. The rear of the

47:49building isn't original anyhow, right?

47:52The extent the

47:53>> excuse me, what what was that?

47:54>> The the rear um addition to the building

47:57isn't original. It's been

47:59>> No, it's not it's not it's not original.

48:01And I just wanted to clarify that the

48:02addition is only going on top of that

48:05and it's not widening. Correct. It's

48:06everything's staying completely the same

48:08on the side.

48:09>> Y

48:09>> yeah, I think that is perfect. Um I

48:12think it it mixes well with the the

48:14neighborhood. I think that by

48:17differentiating the color between the

48:18new addition and the old building still

48:21it marries the two together, which we'd

48:23like to see. Um

48:26I don't have any other questions or

48:27comments on it. Does anybody else from

48:28the commission have any comments or

48:30questions about the design?

48:32>> So, we just want to make certain you're

48:33going to be replacing that front door

48:35with a non

48:36>> operable door. Correct.

48:38>> Okay. And the windows

48:42>> I I think the windows

48:43>> the windows in the back. Some of those

48:45you'll be you'll be

48:47>> that's my understanding. Some of them

48:48will be replaced.

48:50>> They'll be not boarded up, but they're

48:52going to become part of the the new

48:54addition. So, you will be re removing

48:59some of those.

49:00>> Um, I don't know if we're removing

49:02windows.

49:03>> You probably are. Yeah. Where it attach

49:05where it attaches to the new so they'll

49:08be because that the addition will be

49:09attached to the back.

49:11>> That's that was also my other question

49:12is is it is it going to flow through?

49:14>> Oh, I see what you're saying. Right

49:14there in the rear. Yeah. There will be

49:17You're correct. Thank you for

49:18clarifying. Yeah. So, the the rear

49:20portion where there will be two

49:21additional stories. Certainly, there

49:22won't be windows.

49:24Um but beyond that um uh no other

49:28portions of the historic building that

49:30will continue to be visible post

49:32construction of the addition um are

49:34intended to be altered.

49:36>> Okay.

49:37>> Do you have a plan to use the windows

49:39you removed to replace any ones in the

49:42rest of the historic parts of the

49:43building that need to be replaced or to

49:44salvage them in some way?

49:46>> None of the windows are historic.

49:48>> Okay, great. the openings are, but the

49:50windows themselves are all um 20th

49:52century replacements.

49:55>> Are the um are the the the sills there?

50:00What what are is it like granite slab?

50:03I'm trying to see what that

50:04>> it looks like granite. It looks like

50:06granite sills.

50:07>> Um and maybe I mean it it I suppose in

50:10some reality it could be like cast

50:12stone, like concrete, but I don't I

50:13don't think so. I'm pretty sure it's

50:14granite.

50:17So

50:19that's all proposed to stay. So

50:21everything that you see is proposed to

50:23stay. I also um Anna, I know you asked

50:26about this door here. This door is not

50:28historic. So they are putting a

50:30non-operable door in, but they're not

50:32removing any historic fabric there. The

50:35real

50:36um the real demolition here is the

50:40construction of the addition because it

50:42necessitates removing part of the

50:44building to accommodate it. And then um

50:48doors and windows are in there because I

50:50suppose they could be pre-1976. So

50:53that's considered historic fabric. But

50:54>> so on the rear of the building, are

50:56those granite slabs on the windows there

50:58as well? And if they are, I know that

51:01those windows are going to be

51:03essentially removed um to make opening.

51:06But there I can't tell if they're

51:09>> they are there are still.

51:10>> Would there be plans to keep those for

51:12something? I would hate to see those get

51:15>> just tossed.

51:18>> Would you be amendable to a salvage plan

51:20for the granite in your decision?

51:23>> I don't know what that entails, but

51:25>> it just means that when the demo crews

51:27are going in that they're cutting out

51:28the granite rather than getting rid of

51:30it. And they like, you know, maybe put

51:31them in the basement or something in

51:33case you want to use them for

51:34landscaping or some sort. I

51:35>> That's that's that's pretty common.

51:37>> Yeah. I mean, why throw out good

51:38granite?

51:39>> Exactly. and it's still part of the

51:40original building and could be

51:42repurposed. And then my other question

51:43about the windows in the front, are the

51:46windows on like the store level

51:48remaining with the same grid pattern or

51:52are they all trying to be uniformed or

51:55are they going to be

51:56>> good question? They are exactly the

51:58same.

51:59>> The same. Okay.

51:59>> Yeah, we went over this ad nauseium

52:02already, Mark. But remember,

52:05>> it's all bleeding together. [laughter]

52:06Yeah. Yeah. I know. Trust me, I I feel

52:08the same way sometimes.

52:09>> No, not you. Not No, not you.

52:11>> No, no, I know that, but I'm saying in

52:12regard to other thing, I'm like, "Wait a

52:14minute. Did we already talk about this?

52:15I can't remember."

52:16>> Yeah. No, it's it's coming back to me

52:17now.

52:18>> Okay.

52:18>> I I recall multiple iterations sending

52:21it to Michelle for her review and then

52:23us updating. So, I think what you're

52:25seeing is uh

52:27>> the the final product.

52:29>> They are nine over nine on the right.

52:31See, look, because we we went over this

52:33a bunch. So this this is 9 over9.

52:38>> This is 9 to that effect, too.

52:40>> Yeah, they are they are exactly the same

52:42because they weren't originally proposed

52:43to be

52:44>> because in some of the illustrations I'm

52:46seeing the new windows on the upper part

52:48of the building look like they're black

52:50trim and then the lower part looks like

52:52it's white trim where it's, you know, so

52:55I'm just trying to see are they all

52:56going to match

52:57>> the the bottom. No, it's it's staying

52:59exactly how it is unless

53:02they're right. They're right. Those are

53:04black.

53:04>> They are currently white. So that the

53:06those windows and I mean Raphael, you

53:08can correct me if I'm wrong, but I

53:10believe those windows are literally just

53:11staying there. I don't think that you're

53:12even putting new ones in.

53:16>> I know.

53:19>> I don't think Raphael's with us yet.

53:21>> Yes, correct. The window will stay as is

53:25as much as possible.

53:27>> Yeah. Okay.

53:29So it will look literally the the

53:32building will not the the front of the

53:34building will not change at all.

53:36>> No, I was talking about the sides.

53:38>> I think it's just how it's supposed to

53:40be like artistic element.

53:42>> Okay. I just wanted to

53:45>> it's like a shadow, right?

53:47>> Yeah.

53:47>> Yeah. Cuz even now, so like it's gray

53:50trim in the archway now. Down here it's

53:53white. Everything should be staying

53:56exactly how it is. pretty.

53:57>> Um, and even here it's shown white on

54:00the first story, which is what it is.

54:02Um, currently

54:03>> so pretty.

54:05>> Such a pretty building.

54:06>> I love this building so much.

54:08>> Do we have any

54:09>> It was an uphill battle with some of the

54:11boards. There was a lot of opposition in

54:12the neighborhood to this project given

54:15that uh there's unfortunately throughout

54:18all of Shbury Street not much off street

54:20parking available.

54:21>> So that was the big concern. But um it's

54:23yeah, I mean it's it's great to see

54:25additional density in Shrewsbury Street,

54:28too. Um so close to the park, close to

54:30Union Station. It's right where we want

54:32housing. So yeah, we're really excited

54:34about the project.

54:37>> I think it's going to look great.

54:40>> Um do we have any other comments? If

54:42not, I'm going to open it up for public

54:43comment.

54:45There's none.

54:48>> I don't see anybody online.

54:50>> Okay. Can I have a motion to close

54:51public comment? I'll make a motion to

54:53close public comment.

54:54>> Second.

54:55>> And on that motion, Commissioner

54:56Bernett,

54:57>> yes.

54:57>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod,

54:59>> yes.

54:59>> Commissioner Andre,

55:00>> yes.

55:00>> Commissioner Baker,

55:01>> yes.

55:01>> Commissioner Forester,

55:02>> yes.

55:03>> Commissioner Santos Rivbo,

55:04>> yes.

55:05>> And Chair Holarski,

55:06>> yes. And now, can I please have a motion

55:08for a building demolition delay waiver?

55:10>> Sure. I will make a motion for waiver of

55:13the 12-month building demolition delay.

55:16The commission finds that the demolition

55:17at 172 Shrewsbury Street consisting of

55:21constructing an addition, replacing

55:23doors, removing some windows, and

55:26salvaging the granite sills at the back

55:28of the building would not be detrimental

55:31to the historical or architectural

55:33resources of the city of Worcester.

55:35>> Second.

55:36>> And on that motion, Commissioner

55:37Bernett,

55:38>> yes.

55:38>> Commissioner Gutierrez,

55:40>> yes.

55:40>> Commissioner Andre,

55:41>> yes.

55:41>> Commissioner Baker,

55:42>> yes.

55:43>> Commissioner Forester,

55:44>> yes. Commissioner Santos Dustivo.

55:45>> Yes.

55:46>> And Cherki.

55:47>> Yes.

55:47>> Thank you.

55:48>> Thank you.

55:51>> So now we are moving on to 705 Main

55:55Street. If the applicants are present,

55:57please come forward.

56:00>> Michelle, I just make one clarification.

56:02Is it 705 or 703 to 7-Eleven?

56:06So the it's it's both because so the 705

56:11Main Street as far as I understand is

56:12the actual storefront that has something

56:14proposed 703 to 7-Eleven which is the

56:17whole building which has a bunch of

56:18retroactive stuff that never got

56:19permitted.

56:20>> So should I just put change it to 705?

56:23>> No. So so you're you're most likely

56:28going to take two votes if I had to

56:30guess. one on the retroactive storefront

56:32stuff which is 703 to 7-Eleven and then

56:35705

56:37is the storefront that has something

56:39proposed.

56:40>> Okay, got it. Thank you.

56:42>> Yeah.

56:42>> All right, we'll cross that bridge when

56:44we get there.

56:46[snorts]

56:46>> Okay, could you please uh introduce

56:48yourselves?

56:50>> My name is Jay Galant. I'm architect

56:52working on the project.

56:54>> My name is Saw Sabar. I'm the owner of

56:56the building.

56:58And could you please explain to us the

57:01work that has already been done?

57:07>> We haven't done anything in the store

57:09yet. We starting the previous uh tenant.

57:12He doesn't have the lease. He used to

57:14sell up used appliances, fridge and

57:18stoves. So he don't want to spend any

57:20money to fix the store. So I didn't give

57:22him the lease. So when he leave, he took

57:25all his stuff out. It's been there for

57:28like 20 25 years.

57:30>> So through the chair, are you the owner

57:31of the building or of that one

57:33storefront?

57:33>> I'm the owner of the building.

57:35>> Okay. So there are changes across the

57:38building to a lot of storefronts.

57:40>> So you can see on the left here,

57:44this door has been replaced. This wall

57:46has been taken out. It's not a recessed

57:48entry anymore. It's a lot closer to the

57:51street here. This has been boarded over.

57:55This recessed entry here is gone on this

57:58side. This recessed entry is right up

58:01here. So, this storefront has changed.

58:04This storefront has been changed. So,

58:07all the storefronts have been changed

58:08without a building permit or approval of

58:10this commission.

58:12>> Mhm.

58:14>> The restaurant guy, he pulled the permit

58:16when he do his work. So, I I really

58:19doesn't know anything. That's my first

58:22building.

58:24When he want to do the work, he did pull

58:26the permit to that that are right now.

58:27>> But so you have four you have four

58:29storefronts and they've all been changed

58:32without permission of this body. So So

58:34what you can't you can't do work until

58:37you come to this commission.

58:38>> I didn't.

58:38>> And there's also no building permits

58:40that were pulled because I did do some

58:42research when Jay um pulled the permit

58:46to do this work.

58:51So there there's a history of this this

58:54whole building having

58:58um work like Michelle stated uh done

59:01without coming before the commission. So

59:04we've kind of been you know robbed of

59:06that opportunity to work with you to

59:10come up with a a compromise which you

59:12know we we do compromise. We understand,

59:15you know, modern times require modern

59:18changes sometimes, but when so much has

59:21been done to really take away

59:25the historic integrity of the entire

59:27building, it's it's really difficult for

59:29us to

59:32really judge uh what to do because

59:36all the the recessed entryways is what

59:40makes these buildings historic. and

59:42everything's just been kind of brought

59:43up front um with a lot of

59:49when when is the picture the the top

59:51picture from

59:53>> do we know

59:54>> I believe it's from 2019

59:56>> it says September 2019 on it right there

59:59I can't even see

59:59>> you if you zoom in on

1:00:01>> it was on Google right so 2018 2019

1:00:04something like that something about

1:00:05right

1:00:06>> I can go on Google quickly hold on

1:00:08>> how long have you owned the building for

1:00:10>> uh 10 years.

1:00:132016, I think.

1:00:14>> So, all of this work has been done since

1:00:17you've been the owner of the building.

1:00:20>> Uh, the barber shop and the restaurant.

1:00:22Yes.

1:00:24>> But, but you own the whole

1:00:27>> Yes, you. Okay.

1:00:29>> Upstairs, I just recently done work and

1:00:31I did have the permit and uh they passed

1:00:34already couple of months ago.

1:00:38I think the issue is here is that

1:00:41anytime a building permit on a historic

1:00:44building is pulled, we get flagged which

1:00:47you automatically come before us. We

1:00:49have a discussion and we come to a

1:00:52compromise to do this and there's been a

1:00:57lot of work done on several addresses of

1:01:00this building where [clears throat] not

1:01:01one permit has been recorded. Correct.

1:01:05>> That's correct. Yeah. And that is just

1:01:08it's not good. It's not good at all. Um

1:01:13are there any comments from the

1:01:15commission? I'm sure there are. Um on

1:01:18this I mean

1:01:20>> when was it painted? Like it looks like

1:01:22all the stone out front including like

1:01:24the Charlton sign and everything looks

1:01:26like that was all kind of painted over

1:01:28>> the bottom one. Yes, we did it. It was a

1:01:31burgundy color before. We did a great

1:01:34just to match with it.

1:01:35>> It looks like the stone though. Like the

1:01:37where it says Charlton, it looks like Is

1:01:38that painted as well? It looks like it

1:01:40is.

1:01:40>> It's painted.

1:01:41>> Yeah.

1:01:41>> Yes.

1:01:42>> Do you know what kind of paint was used?

1:01:45Like is it just latex paint or is it

1:01:47masonry paint or

1:01:49>> I I have no idea.

1:01:51>> Okay.

1:01:51>> Because that's another issue too with

1:01:53with these buildings is even something

1:01:56painting like over stone, natural stone

1:02:00and brick. I mean, that's not something

1:02:02that's easily removable. That is

1:02:04>> that's gonna that's going to destroy the

1:02:06issues. Yeah. It's going to destroy it.

1:02:08>> And and and that's the other thing is if

1:02:10you were to come before us and be like,

1:02:11"Hey, we're thinking about painting it."

1:02:13And you know, even if we were to agree

1:02:15with that, which I don't think we would

1:02:16have, but even if we were, we could have

1:02:18steered you in a direction of the proper

1:02:20materials to use, the proper things to

1:02:22do, because once you go and do something

1:02:24like this, it's kind of irreversible.

1:02:26and it and it damages a building that's

1:02:28been a part of our landscape for

1:02:31a very long time, longer than any of us

1:02:34have been here. Um, so it's really just

1:02:37a shameful thing to see, especially

1:02:39repeated on an entire building over and

1:02:41over and over again. And it just seems

1:02:44to be a pattern and I think the the

1:02:46pattern needs to stop. Um, there needs

1:02:49to be some sort of um I mean there's

1:02:51nothing that we can really do about the

1:02:54the the paint at this point. I mean, we

1:02:56could, but

1:02:58>> Yeah. I mean, the thing with paint is no

1:03:00demolition's taking place. So,

1:03:02>> yeah.

1:03:03>> But just to be completely honest with

1:03:05you, that that is going to destroy that

1:03:07if if you used a latex paint. I mean,

1:03:09with a really delicate um

1:03:13stonework like that and especially where

1:03:15it's carved, if you use a latex paint,

1:03:17the second water gets behind that, it's

1:03:19just going to stay trapped there. it's

1:03:21not going to be able to get out and it's

1:03:22slowly just going to erode whatever

1:03:24materials underneath. So, I would really

1:03:28encourage you to find out what kind of

1:03:30paint was used,

1:03:31>> okay?

1:03:32>> Because it's not going to be good. It's

1:03:33going to be more expensive for you in

1:03:34the long run.

1:03:36>> Quick fixes end up not being that in the

1:03:39down like down the road. And I mean, I

1:03:42know we're here right now for obviously,

1:03:44you know, the the retroactive approval

1:03:47of a of a door being installed, but then

1:03:49when we look at the whole building and

1:03:51realize that so much has been done

1:03:53without ever coming before us,

1:03:56it's not okay. It's not okay at all. Um,

1:04:00I personally

1:04:03um I mean,

1:04:05how is everyone feeling about the door?

1:04:06>> Uh um not great. Also, looks like the

1:04:10windows have those all been replaced.

1:04:13>> Yeah. So, that that probably if I had

1:04:15I'd have to go back and look. I' it

1:04:17probably would have been

1:04:17administratively approved because those

1:04:19windows are vinyl already um that were

1:04:22in the second story.

1:04:24>> So, they're not they weren't original.

1:04:26So, if I look at something and I figure

1:04:28that's probably newer than 50 years old,

1:04:30I generally administratively approve it.

1:04:32>> Gotcha.

1:04:33>> Yeah.

1:04:35So the door that we're looking at

1:04:37precisely is

1:04:41>> that one and that's 705.

1:04:44>> This is number five. Yeah.

1:04:45>> So what is behind this boarded up? Is is

1:04:48the recessed entryway still there?

1:04:52>> No.

1:04:52>> We are saying no and the gentleman back

1:04:54there is saying yes. [laughter]

1:04:57>> That's not going to help because at at

1:04:58the end of the day they're probably

1:05:00going to make you keep it with the

1:05:02recessed entry. So,

1:05:04>> I mean, if it's

1:05:05>> we do want to we do want to recess it

1:05:07because we have to because the door is

1:05:09going to swing out and it can't swing

1:05:11into the sidewalk, right? But but um the

1:05:13actual construction of the recessed

1:05:16entry that you saw in the picture, I

1:05:18it's not there. It's just it's just an

1:05:21empty space.

1:05:22>> So, the interior wall that used to be

1:05:24the exterior recessed is gone.

1:05:28>> It is. So, I owned a I owned a bakery

1:05:32that had the recessed entrance, and it

1:05:35was fantastic. Not only is it charming

1:05:38and historic, but it helps you when you

1:05:40have people coming in during inclement

1:05:42weather. Like, right now, you have a

1:05:44you're proposing to have a door where

1:05:46the wind's just going to blast through.

1:05:47I

1:05:47>> mean, there's a reason things were built

1:05:49like that. Um,

1:05:52>> am I right? There's

1:05:54>> Yeah.

1:05:55>> And and that's across the board. In all

1:05:57of those businesses, the interior where

1:06:01the exterior used to be is just wiped

1:06:02out. Was that to allow for more in

1:06:04interior space? Um,

1:06:09>> probably. It was before I was involved.

1:06:11But

1:06:12>> you're like, don't look at me.

1:06:14>> Yeah, he he's did it the right way. It

1:06:16it's just so

1:06:18disheartening to see this because it's

1:06:21like the character has just been

1:06:22completely stripped to these flatfacing

1:06:25facades that have no depth and then a

1:06:29paint just put over it. It's it's just

1:06:30it it looks corny. I mean, I'm sorry,

1:06:34but it does there's nothing there's

1:06:36nothing charming about it. It just looks

1:06:38really cheap and corny

1:06:42when it was such a gorgeous building

1:06:44just there. I mean, what a gift to have

1:06:47a to own a building like this and then

1:06:49to deface it is just shameful. But I

1:06:52mean, we're here now and personally, I

1:06:55feel like there needs to be a fine put

1:06:57in place um as like a a a metaphorical

1:07:01slap on the wrist for, you know, we're

1:07:03watching you. Don't do this again

1:07:05because it's not going to go well. Um

1:07:08especially because it's a repeated

1:07:10pattern and not a first offense. Um,

1:07:15how's the commission feeling about that?

1:07:17I

1:07:17>> I'd like to know what the intention is.

1:07:20I mean, we're talking about this one

1:07:21door, but I'd like to know the intention

1:07:22of

1:07:23>> So, so we're talking about two different

1:07:24things. So, so we have three storefronts

1:07:26that have been changed. We have one

1:07:28that's proposed to be changed. There's

1:07:30no door in there yet. So, you certainly

1:07:32you you could determine how to vote on

1:07:34the proposal in front of you that has

1:07:36not been done for that one storefront.

1:07:39That's something you can vote on. the

1:07:41other stuff. You know, if you want to do

1:07:43something punitive, you can. Um,

1:07:45otherwise

1:07:46>> Okay.

1:07:47>> I don't Yeah.

1:07:48>> Is this Can we pull back out again? I

1:07:50just want to see where this this is. Is

1:07:52this the middle bill? Is this the middle

1:07:55of the building?

1:07:56>> Multi.

1:07:56>> Well, there are four. So, it's the

1:07:58second one from the left.

1:07:59>> Yeah.

1:08:00>> Okay. And what is the right side of the

1:08:02bill? That's where the barber shops and

1:08:04everything are.

1:08:05>> Okay.

1:08:07I mean, honestly, I want to say

1:08:08construct the depth again as like a I

1:08:12mean, you've already got to you've

1:08:13already you've already gotten away with

1:08:16doing this work without proper

1:08:17permission and protocol. Um,

1:08:21I want to see it I want to see it

1:08:23rebuilt.

1:08:26>> Michelle, the floor plans in our PDF on

1:08:30page

1:08:32five, are those accurate and and Some of

1:08:36them look a little recessed. How

1:08:37different is that to what they would

1:08:38have been before?

1:08:40>> Is that accurate or not? I'm trying to

1:08:42figure out where where the front of the

1:08:45building.

1:08:45>> Oh, is

1:08:47>> Thank you.

1:08:48>> That's where the doors I can't really

1:08:50>> Where's the front? Because

1:08:51>> basement first floor. Okay. All right.

1:08:53>> There there is no recess anymore. So

1:08:55that those can't be accurate.

1:08:57>> Retail.

1:08:59I mean, I don't know if this is a

1:09:01far-fetched thing to say, but could we

1:09:03do a site visit to see the inside of

1:09:06these stores to see exactly what it

1:09:08looks like behind these new doors? I'm

1:09:10just curious at this point.

1:09:12>> I mean, I could take you to the outside.

1:09:14We can't go in.

1:09:15>> Okay.

1:09:16>> I might We might be able to go into

1:09:17number five.

1:09:18>> I mean, I don't know what's being worked

1:09:19on right now. [laughter]

1:09:21>> Let's go to the Spanish grill.

1:09:22>> Yeah. I I'm just curious. But

1:09:25>> I have I have photos of the inside of

1:09:27that space. I just don't have them on my

1:09:28phone here, but

1:09:29>> Okay.

1:09:30>> We could submit photos if you want.

1:09:32>> Do you want to continue to think because

1:09:34I mean it sounds like they're want you

1:09:35to rebuild the recess. So, that's

1:09:37something that you're going to have to

1:09:39probably work on anyway. Um,

1:09:42and that would give them a chance to

1:09:44actually get out there and get eyes on

1:09:46it.

1:09:49>> Yeah, I'm going to have eyes on this a

1:09:51lot. Now, when when was that interior

1:09:53wall taken down for the proposed door?

1:09:56the door that we're talking about

1:09:58tonight. When was that interior

1:10:00dismantled?

1:10:01>> I I don't know. And I don't

1:10:03>> I previous uh tenant when he was moving

1:10:06out, he got heavy equipment in there.

1:10:09He's trying to move and and it's broke.

1:10:11So I have to board it out.

1:10:13>> How did he get it in?

1:10:15>> He's been there 20 25 years. He has

1:10:18fridge and stoves. It fill up all I I

1:10:22clean a lot in this building and all the

1:10:24money I make last 10 years to be honest.

1:10:27Uh I spend it on it and I only thing I

1:10:31didn't know I upstairs I do pull the

1:10:33permit. Anything I do I didn't know if I

1:10:36have to do it in the bottom because I

1:10:38have a tenant. So they say they pulled

1:10:40the permit. It's my first building and I

1:10:43I didn't I really apologize.

1:10:45>> Well, it's just like a landlord of an

1:10:47apartment building. I mean, you still

1:10:48own the building. So, any work that's

1:10:50done to it, you're responsible for. And

1:10:54and your tenants, you know, hence

1:10:56security deposit, all those things, if

1:10:58they cause damage, that's something

1:11:00that's written into a contract with you

1:11:02that it's your building, your property,

1:11:04they can't be making those types of

1:11:06changes without running it by you as the

1:11:09owner. Um, I mean, that's just

1:11:14>> Can I ask a clarifying question?

1:11:16Are you saying that when this person

1:11:18recently moved out, whenever they moved

1:11:20out, that they damaged the the inset

1:11:24>> thing with the

1:11:26>> Is there anything remaining?

1:11:27>> Damage with that.

1:11:29>> There there might be some remnants of

1:11:30it. That's what I was starting to say.

1:11:32Um,

1:11:34>> that's why the photos might be helpful

1:11:35because I think I have some photos of

1:11:37that area.

1:11:39>> Okay, that's that's good. It' be a lot

1:11:41easier than trying to

1:11:43>> rebuild it from scratch and trying to

1:11:45guess what was there.

1:11:47>> Yeah.

1:11:48>> I'm I'm not sure where our

1:11:50>> jurisdiction ends and begins here.

1:11:53>> Well, it's it's tough because what we're

1:11:55calling interior isn't really interior.

1:11:58It was exterior. It's just it's become

1:12:00interior now because of an unpermitted

1:12:03thing. So your jurisdiction would end at

1:12:07where the previous

1:12:09inset was. So it used to be a recessed

1:12:13entry. So that used to be exterior. So I

1:12:16would say your jurisdiction goes as far

1:12:18as the recess did.

1:12:20>> Yeah. I and I guess the second u my

1:12:24feeling on this is I'd rather see the

1:12:26building put back to the way it was uh

1:12:28than necessarily

1:12:31um uh I'm not against the fines or any

1:12:33kind of punitive but if we're looking at

1:12:35it as this particular doorway and we're

1:12:39just addressing it this way I would say

1:12:41that we're looking for a recessed door.

1:12:43Right.

1:12:44>> Yeah. Because it's two different votes.

1:12:45So one would be to rebuild and then the

1:12:47other vote could be

1:12:49>> punitive. Yeah.

1:12:50>> Right. And then for the other for the

1:12:52other doorways though, I I you know,

1:12:56I would like to see the same thing

1:12:57happen somehow. Um

1:12:59>> Yeah.

1:13:00>> So, I mean, obviously this all happened

1:13:02since you've owned it, like you've

1:13:04gotten rid of all of the recesses

1:13:06without getting a building permit. So,

1:13:09>> what do we think about you all making a

1:13:12concerted effort to get out to the

1:13:14building?

1:13:14>> Absolutely.

1:13:15>> In the next two weeks, you can get eyes

1:13:16on it. You can get a feel for how deep

1:13:19the recesses are.

1:13:20>> The floor would be able to give us.

1:13:23>> Yeah.

1:13:24>> Yeah. Of where

1:13:26>> was there any type of mosaic

1:13:29flooring in the recessed entryway for

1:13:33number 705?

1:13:34>> It's a different material. I don't

1:13:36remember if it was mosaic, but it's

1:13:38>> but a different material than the

1:13:39interior. So, you can tell where the the

1:13:41footprint was.

1:13:44>> Okay. I I think this needs to be

1:13:47continued for sure because

1:13:48[clears throat] I would like to go out

1:13:49and see it.

1:13:51>> Um I don't think they want us to make a

1:13:52vote on it right now.

1:13:54>> It's probably not going to go very well.

1:13:56>> Yeah.

1:13:56>> Either either way, but it will it might

1:13:58go a little bit better if they're able

1:14:00to get out there and look at it. It it

1:14:02can't hurt.

1:14:03>> We support small businesses. We don't

1:14:05want to to cause any But again, this is

1:14:08all things that could have been avoided

1:14:10if you just followed the right

1:14:13procedures. It's like we're this

1:14:14commission is strictly for preserving

1:14:18>> like historical architecture in our city

1:14:21>> and it's gone.

1:14:23>> There needs to be change. Anything I can

1:14:26if you can have him do some drawing, I

1:14:29can do that.

1:14:30>> We love that.

1:14:31>> Yeah, I can.

1:14:32>> So, you're willing to reopen

1:14:34>> like whatever

1:14:35>> four recessed entryways.

1:14:37>> Yeah, whatever is is reasonable. I can

1:14:39do if it's

1:14:41>> you [laughter] may you may not want you

1:14:42may not want to do all four

1:14:46maybe there's a way to work with the so

1:14:48so what we want to do or what the so the

1:14:51tenant in the Spanish grill restaurant

1:14:53wants to expand into that space that's

1:14:55what the project is so maybe there can

1:14:57be some sort of way

1:15:00>> just like we did with the last thing if

1:15:01it's an inoperable door but it still

1:15:04keeps the the appearance of the old even

1:15:07if they're expanding and they need that

1:15:09space.

1:15:10Trust me, I mean, I'm sure we've all

1:15:12been to Boston and New York. I mean,

1:15:15people make these old buildings work all

1:15:18across the world, all across our

1:15:20country. There is a way to do it. you

1:15:23you just might need to think outside the

1:15:24box a little bit, but you don't have to

1:15:27sacrifice

1:15:29beautiful architecture to have a I feel

1:15:32that that would make a business more

1:15:35successful by being more visually

1:15:37appealing than just slapping stuff all

1:15:39over the windows and making everything

1:15:41come up front. I mean, that's just my

1:15:44opinion.

1:15:45>> It's more inviting. I don't quite

1:15:46understand what the point was of of

1:15:48getting rid of all the recessed entries,

1:15:50>> but to get an extra 10 square feet, that

1:15:53doesn't make any sense.

1:15:55>> Well, and you're you're investing in

1:15:57your building.

1:15:58>> Yes.

1:15:58>> You know, this is all for to invest in

1:16:00your building. This is your livelihood,

1:16:02and

1:16:03I'd be more in favor of of

1:16:07>> not, you know, having you incur these

1:16:10fines if you would put the money into

1:16:12the building.

1:16:12>> That's what I'm saying. I agree. I would

1:16:14rather have the money go back into the

1:16:17building than you than you pay a fine. I

1:16:19mean, we would all love to see that.

1:16:20>> Just I just need to do the the front,

1:16:22right? And the bottoms,

1:16:25>> not up there.

1:16:26>> No, they're only concerned about the

1:16:28storefronts.

1:16:29>> Yeah, I think

1:16:30>> right.

1:16:30>> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Storefronts are, you

1:16:32know, becoming a lost a lost staple and

1:16:36and they're just so even if they're

1:16:38repurposed to not even being a

1:16:40storefront anymore, they're just they

1:16:42just really add to buildings. Yeah, I

1:16:44can have the same contractors.

1:16:46>> So Jay, why don't you plan on coming up

1:16:48with redoing the whole front of the

1:16:51building to what they're saying then?

1:16:53>> Yeah, that's good. I really apologize. I

1:16:56I honestly doesn't know. I didn't do

1:16:58anything illegally that personally I did

1:17:00it. There's a tenant there and they say

1:17:03they they do pull the

1:17:04>> but just know as a landlord and the

1:17:06owner, it's your responsibility.

1:17:08>> Now I know. So, with your tenants, if

1:17:10you need to draw up new contracts that

1:17:12state that they can't do any work,

1:17:15>> do that to protect yourself because this

1:17:17is your building and your investment and

1:17:19you're the you're the person that has to

1:17:21to come and face us. I mean, I

1:17:23appreciate that you're taking this as

1:17:25>> great as you are. And I mean, I don't

1:17:26know how you're going to be in the

1:17:27parking lot, but I mean,

1:17:28>> all right. So, so I don't I just since

1:17:30we're all here together, what what's the

1:17:33fine structure like just so he can be

1:17:35involved?

1:17:35>> It could be pretty intense. It could be

1:17:38$300 a day for every day. And if we're

1:17:41talking years, that's a lot of money.

1:17:43>> It's up to Is there a certain time?

1:17:44>> I mean, we go into near map and we could

1:17:46probably go back.

1:17:48>> I mean, it would be it's demo delay, so

1:17:51you you're only allowed to be fined for

1:17:52one year. So, that's $109,000.

1:17:55>> I'd rather see $109,000 go into

1:17:57>> might be comparable to the cost of doing

1:17:59this.

1:17:59>> That's what I'm saying. And and again,

1:18:01it would add value to your building,

1:18:03value to your investment

1:18:04>> or more. And with the, you know, the new

1:18:07funding structure that we have in the

1:18:09city for preservation of these

1:18:10buildings, you're going to see a lot of

1:18:12other buildings

1:18:12>> CPA CPA is an option, too. Especially, I

1:18:16mean, if if you want there there is

1:18:18community preservation act funding

1:18:19available to help you pay for it, too.

1:18:22So, it might not be something that you

1:18:23do right now, but you could apply for

1:18:27grant monies. I mean, this is positioned

1:18:29in a place in Worcester where

1:18:33we we need more resourcing of of

1:18:35buildings. Like, it's something that you

1:18:37might have a shot at. So, do Jay, have

1:18:40you gone for a CPA yet at all?

1:18:42>> Uh,

1:18:42>> have you?

1:18:44>> Yes.

1:18:44>> I mean, we would love to see those

1:18:46resources go to something like this

1:18:48because you're going to see more and

1:18:49more buildings just like this in

1:18:50Worcester utilize that funding to bring

1:18:53it back.

1:18:54>> And we would love to see that happen

1:18:56here. I mean, we're not We we want the

1:18:58money to go into the building

1:19:00>> and it helps you get businesses that are

1:19:02going to be stable and and long-standing

1:19:04when you have a nice space for them to

1:19:06be,

1:19:06>> right?

1:19:09>> So, how is this um

1:19:12why don't we just only vote on

1:19:16Why don't we only vote on number five?

1:19:20Or do you or do you want time to go by

1:19:22the building?

1:19:23>> I would like to go and look.

1:19:24>> Okay. just just to be fair on both ends

1:19:27of us actually visually being able to

1:19:30see everything

1:19:32>> and do some forensics stuff too with on

1:19:35in 705 to see what's there.

1:19:37>> Yeah,

1:19:38>> there might be some remnants that would

1:19:39make it a little bit less expensive to

1:19:41replicate that one. The others are

1:19:43>> We're all about reusing anything that

1:19:45you have left to to what what's left

1:19:48there. And I mean, again,

1:19:49>> I would love to see the floor, too, cuz

1:19:50I really it probably is some type of

1:19:52>> But I will stress to you, you might need

1:19:53to draw up some new contracts for your

1:19:55tenants because they're coming in there

1:19:57and destroying your property without you

1:19:59know that that needs to stop like for

1:20:03your own protection.

1:20:05>> Um because they get to just do what

1:20:07they're doing and then you're the one

1:20:08that has to sit in front of us and and

1:20:10do this. So,

1:20:12>> okay. So, also obviously you have to

1:20:15look at the fin the financing of this

1:20:17whole thing. So, like we we you need

1:20:18some time anyway and you can think about

1:20:20CPA and everything else. So,

1:20:25does October 1st work for you to come

1:20:26back or do you want more time?

1:20:32>> October 1st, October 15th. [laughter]

1:20:34Maybe

1:20:35>> I don't know. I mean, I think we can put

1:20:36something together. It's more just um

1:20:40would be we be prepared then to commit

1:20:44to whatever is going to be required at

1:20:47that time. I guess we can get the

1:20:49contractors involved and

1:20:51>> well even if it's approved you don't

1:20:52necessarily have to start the work right

1:20:54then

1:20:54>> they could give you a cure date so they

1:20:57could give you like 12 months to give

1:20:58you an opportunity to go to CPA and

1:21:00stuff if

1:21:00>> well that's my other question with CPA

1:21:02can they start work and be paid

1:21:04retroactively

1:21:06>> is that a

1:21:07>> so they ha they have to be paid

1:21:08retroactively so okay

1:21:10>> so CP reimbursement grant yeah

1:21:13>> so we would probably want to proceed

1:21:15with fitting out the space that's

1:21:18currently vacant.

1:21:20That's what the building permit

1:21:21application was for in the first place.

1:21:23The other stuff to be later.

1:21:25>> So, so how's this then? They're not

1:21:27going, it seems to me that they're not

1:21:29going to approve you getting rid of the

1:21:31recess and number five. So, why don't

1:21:33today we just focus on number five so

1:21:35you can get started on that. If you

1:21:38want, they could vote on saying, "No,

1:21:41we're not allowing you to get rid of the

1:21:44recess.

1:21:46You have to put it back. You have to put

1:21:48that one door in number five back how it

1:21:50was. So that way at least you can move

1:21:52forward on that one permit

1:21:54>> and then

1:21:55>> so that way you can fit out the space

1:21:56and then you can we can continue the

1:21:58remainder of it.

1:22:00>> Okay.

1:22:01>> Okay.

1:22:02>> All right.

1:22:04>> Does that make sense?

1:22:06>> Yes.

1:22:08>> Okay.

1:22:08>> Okay. So

1:22:11my recommendation then would be to um

1:22:15say that you're

1:22:17what kind of door are you going to put

1:22:18in there? It's going to be the same door

1:22:20just further back.

1:22:21>> So what we want to try to do is

1:22:25keep the aluminum storefront concept.

1:22:29>> Okay.

1:22:29>> For those two units and try to make it

1:22:31harmonious.

1:22:34>> Yeah. I mean I'm not opposed to that

1:22:35style of door. When do you when do you

1:22:38want to when do you want to start work?

1:22:40Because if if it can wait until after

1:22:42October 1st, it's going to be easier for

1:22:44them to actually look at something

1:22:45that's revised.

1:22:46>> Yeah.

1:22:46>> Based on what we're talking about,

1:22:50>> we're working on some other

1:22:53>> uh facets of the design which probably

1:22:55will take till then anyway.

1:22:57>> And we can get you approved for interior

1:22:59work anyway.

1:23:01>> Okay.

1:23:02>> Are you ready or no?

1:23:04>> No. There there's some fire alarm stuff

1:23:06that's being updated.

1:23:07>> So, the permit's

1:23:10not approved yet from other departments.

1:23:13>> Okay. So, why don't we continue

1:23:16discussion of this until October 1st and

1:23:17then for the remainder of the building,

1:23:19you might have to continue further, but

1:23:21at least the most important thing is

1:23:22they want to be able to start on the fit

1:23:24out of number five.

1:23:25>> Agreed. Yeah, that's totally fine.

1:23:28>> Okay. So, um, because we're continuing

1:23:31it, should I open up for public comment

1:23:33or just

1:23:33>> I'll leave that up to your discretion.

1:23:35You don't have to.

1:23:36>> Okay. Yeah, we'll we'll wait until we

1:23:38actually have a plan in front of us to

1:23:40to go forward with that. So,

1:23:42>> can I now have a motion for a building

1:23:45demo delay waiver or are we just doing

1:23:49>> continuing a motion for a continuing?

1:23:52I'll make a motion to continue this

1:23:53matter to the October 1st, 2026 meeting

1:23:57with an extended constructive deadline

1:23:59of October 16th, 2026.

1:24:03>> Second.

1:24:04>> And on that motion, Commissioner

1:24:05Bernett,

1:24:06>> yes.

1:24:06>> Commissioner Gutierrez Vod,

1:24:07>> yes.

1:24:08>> Commissioner Andre,

1:24:09>> yes.

1:24:09>> Commissioner um Baker,

1:24:12>> yes.

1:24:12>> Commissioner Forester,

1:24:13>> yes.

1:24:14>> Commissioner Santos Ribo,

1:24:15>> yes.

1:24:15>> And Cher Harkski,

1:24:17>> yes.

1:24:18>> We'll see you on October. Thank you for

1:24:19being so willing to work with us.

1:24:22>> I really apologize whatever mistake I

1:24:24did. I hope I never do that again.

1:24:27>> No, I we hope so. But we're really

1:24:29really thankful of your willingness to

1:24:31to write a wrong. So, thank you so much.

1:24:33I apologize and thank you for keeping

1:24:35that card. And in the meantime, Jay, why

1:24:39don't you look at the paint because I I

1:24:41am concerned about that.

1:24:42>> Okay.

1:24:43>> Okay.

1:24:44>> He's like, I I got so much more work

1:24:46[laughter] than what I came in here.

1:24:48Thank you.

1:24:51>> Okay, moving on to 114 Austin Street.

1:24:56Are the applicants

1:24:58>> So, let me go ahead and unmute the team

1:25:00as well. So, Josh and Jesse have unmuted

1:25:04you. Alex and Gabriel, are they both

1:25:06here for 114 as well?

1:25:10>> Um, can folks hear me?

1:25:12>> Yes.

1:25:12>> Yes. Alex and Gabriel.

1:25:14>> Al Alex and Gabriel, are they here for

1:25:16114 or no?

1:25:18>> Jesse, do you know if Alex?

1:25:20>> No, I do not. I do not know.

1:25:22>> Yeah, I'm here.

1:25:23>> Are you here for 114 Austin Street?

1:25:27>> Yes, I'm Alex.

1:25:29>> And I think

1:25:32>> Yes. Thank you, Alex.

1:25:34>> What? Comment.

1:25:37>> Alex, is is Gabriel

1:25:40with Beyond? Gabriel has his hand

1:25:44raised. Hold on.

1:25:47Okay, Gabriel, I've asked you to unmute.

1:25:50>> Hey, how you doing?

1:25:52>> Are you here for 114 Austin?

1:25:54>> Yes.

1:25:55>> Okay. All right. Gang's all here.

1:25:58>> Hi, Josh.

1:25:59>> Could you please introduce yourselves to

1:26:01us and then explain the project?

1:26:05>> Um, sure. And I think this this may have

1:26:08happened last time, Michelle. Uh, I'm

1:26:10not able to show my face.

1:26:13>> Oh, let me

1:26:13>> I'm fine with and perhaps the

1:26:15commissioners are fine with, but

1:26:17>> I am trying to turn my video on.

1:26:20>> Yeah, that that is not that's done on

1:26:23purpose. Hold on. Let me not you on

1:26:25purpose, but but everybody on purpose.

1:26:27[laughter]

1:26:27>> Just give give me a second.

1:26:30Oh,

1:26:38>> Josh, you should be able to start video

1:26:39now.

1:26:41>> Okay. Uh, let me see here.

1:26:45>> Great. Uh, can folks see me?

1:26:46>> Yes.

1:26:47>> Yes.

1:26:48>> Um, so just for the record, my name is

1:26:50Joshua Lee Smith. I'm an attorney with a

1:26:53law firm of Bowage and Dwey. here uh

1:26:55this evening representing the applicant

1:26:57which is 114 Austin Street LLC. Uh there

1:27:01are other representatives of the

1:27:04applicant who are also uh online. I

1:27:07believe everyone's online. I don't think

1:27:08anyone's there in person and I do

1:27:10apologize for not being able to be there

1:27:12in person. Um normally I would uh be

1:27:16there in person. So, uh, tonight we are

1:27:18seeking we've submitted an application,

1:27:21uh, requesting approval of a certificate

1:27:23of appropriateness for I think a a

1:27:26number of the commissioners I believe

1:27:29um, were commissioners at the time going

1:27:32back to 2024 in connection with this

1:27:34project. They may be familiar with this

1:27:36project um, having been commissioners or

1:27:38may be familiar with it regardless. But

1:27:41this project came before the commission

1:27:44uh back in uh October of 2024.

1:27:47This involves the uh construction of a

1:27:51groundup 5 unit uh townhouse style

1:27:55building. And when we came when we came

1:27:58before the uh commission back in 2024,

1:28:00the project scope was uh slightly

1:28:04different. And I'm just giving this

1:28:05history uh to put everything in context.

1:28:08Um the ultimately the the project was

1:28:12approved, the layout and the project,

1:28:14the exterior design, the architecture as

1:28:17well as uh the retention and maintenance

1:28:21of the then existing carriage house were

1:28:24all approved uh by both the zoning

1:28:26board, the planning board as well as

1:28:28this commission. And so fast forwarding

1:28:31um fortunately a unfortunately after the

1:28:34uh 2024 approval the carriage house

1:28:38burned down. Um the the previous other

1:28:41structure had already been raised but

1:28:43the carriage house unfortunately was

1:28:45destroyed by a fire. Um subsequent to

1:28:48that the applicant at the time which I

1:28:51do want to make clear is completely

1:28:54unaffiliated with the current applicant.

1:28:56Um so Polar Views LLC was the previous

1:29:00owner and applicant and so I just want

1:29:02to make that clear. Um so after the fire

1:29:05occurred the uh Polar Views came back u

1:29:09with a slightly revised design including

1:29:13the um reconstruction of the carriage

1:29:17house. and Jesse uh Hilenberg who is the

1:29:20architect of record and his team did a

1:29:22really good job in terms of um

1:29:24recreating uh the uh design character of

1:29:27that carriage house and and the project

1:29:30was approved again again there were some

1:29:32slight changes mostly with respect to

1:29:34the parking layout but the overall

1:29:36project was approved after the fire and

1:29:41so fast forwarding to today um as some

1:29:45may know it's it is public information.

1:29:48Uh Polar Views is no longer the owner of

1:29:51the property. Uh my client 114 Austin

1:29:53Street LLC, which is an affiliate of

1:29:55Beyond Construction, is the owner of the

1:29:58property and the current applicant. and

1:30:00they are seeking approval of the same

1:30:02exact project that was approved uh

1:30:06subsequent to the fire which I I believe

1:30:07that was in 2025 when the when the last

1:30:11um iteration of the project was approved

1:30:13which included the um the uh design of

1:30:16the replica uh carriage house. So uh

1:30:21time had passed such that um we need to

1:30:24come back to uh receive this certificate

1:30:27of appropriateness. And in addition to

1:30:29that uh we also have um some mechanicals

1:30:32as well as electrical meters meterings

1:30:35um in terms of the locations that have

1:30:37been uh further established uh that are

1:30:39also supplemental to the last um COA

1:30:43that was approved.

1:30:45>> So that's why we're here

1:30:46>> through the chair. Um Josh, just to be

1:30:48clear, um COAs do not expire. So you're

1:30:52not coming for approval of of of the

1:30:54building. The only thing that you're

1:30:56here for today is for vents and heat

1:31:00pumps and um electrical meters. That's

1:31:03it.

1:31:04>> Thank Thank you for that clarification,

1:31:05Michelle. And we did, as you can see

1:31:07from the screen here, uh we did provide

1:31:09some uh typicals of what's anticipated,

1:31:13contemplated with respect to those

1:31:15additional elements that Michelle just

1:31:17spoke uh described.

1:31:21Happy to answer any questions. Thank

1:31:23you.

1:31:25Based on the plans, the location of the

1:31:28meters and the based on the plans, the

1:31:31location of the heaters, the electrical

1:31:34meters, and the heat pumps, will that be

1:31:36on the side between the rebuilt carriage

1:31:39house in the building?

1:31:43>> Yes.

1:31:44>> So, so the heat pumps and the electrical

1:31:46meters will be on, if you're looking at

1:31:49it from Quincy Street, on the right side

1:31:51of the rebuilt carriage house. And the

1:31:53new vents will be facing the parking

1:31:56lot, so on the on the rear side.

1:32:00>> Thank you.

1:32:01>> I think it's a great design.

1:32:04I think it is going to be a really

1:32:06wonderful addition to not just the

1:32:09neighborhood, but the district as a

1:32:10whole, obviously. Um, and we know that

1:32:13we need these uh mechanicals to be in

1:32:16place for it to function properly. So, I

1:32:20personally don't have any issue um with

1:32:23any of this. Um the building is going to

1:32:26be white, correct? So, I'm assuming all

1:32:28of these vents are going to remain white

1:32:30to match the building.

1:32:32>> That's correct.

1:32:34>> Okay. Does any do any other

1:32:37commissioners have any questions or

1:32:38comments about the proposed work on the

1:32:43application?

1:32:46Is the carriage house joined to that

1:32:48building

1:32:50>> because the

1:32:51>> Yeah.

1:32:55>> Okay.

1:32:56>> joined.

1:32:57>> Yeah.

1:32:58>> Yeah.

1:33:02>> So, if there's no other comments, I'm

1:33:05going to open it up for public comment.

1:33:10>> No public comment. All right. Can I have

1:33:12a motion to close public comment? I'll

1:33:14make a motion to close public comment.

1:33:16>> Second.

1:33:16>> And on the motion to close public

1:33:18comment, Commissioner Bernett,

1:33:19>> yes.

1:33:20>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod,

1:33:21>> yes.

1:33:22>> Commissioner Andre,

1:33:22>> yes.

1:33:23>> Commissioner Baker,

1:33:24>> yes.

1:33:24>> Commissioner Forester,

1:33:25>> yes.

1:33:25>> Commissioner Santos Rebo,

1:33:27>> yes.

1:33:27>> And Cher Hernki,

1:33:29>> yes. And now, can I please have a motion

1:33:31for a certificate of appropriateness?

1:33:34>> I'll make a motion for a certificate of

1:33:36of appropriateness.

1:33:38The commission finds that the changes at

1:33:40114 Austin Street consisting of changes

1:33:44to MEP scope, i.e. the heat pump,

1:33:48electric meter, and exhaust vents are

1:33:51appropriate for the Crown Hill Local

1:33:53Historic District.

1:33:55>> Second.

1:33:56>> And on that motion, Commissioner

1:33:57Bernett,

1:33:58>> yes.

1:33:58>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod,

1:34:00>> yes. Commissioner Andre, yes.

1:34:01>> Commissioner Baker, yes.

1:34:02>> Commissioner Forester, yes.

1:34:04>> Commissioner Santos Tro,

1:34:05>> yes. Chair Alerski.

1:34:06>> Yes.

1:34:08>> So that's all set.

1:34:09>> All set.

1:34:10>> Thank you to the commission and to

1:34:12Michelle. We're very excited to actually

1:34:15get this project moving forward.

1:34:17>> Us too. Thank you.

1:34:19>> Thank you.

1:34:19>> Night.

1:34:22>> Okay. So now we are moving on to other

1:34:25business. We have a request for

1:34:27determination of local historical

1:34:30significance for the burn coat street

1:34:32walls and associated heartscaping.

1:34:36>> So through you madam chair um I there

1:34:40Dan and Mike were you ever here when

1:34:42we've done determinations for local

1:34:44historical significance before?

1:34:46>> No I don't think so.

1:34:47>> I don't think so either. Jeff, have you

1:34:49been? You have been I believe

1:34:51>> St. Bane one. Yeah. So So most of you

1:34:54have. Some of you have not. So, in the

1:34:56city of Worcester, we have um CPA

1:34:59funding, which is a search charge that

1:35:00goes on everybody's real estate taxes,

1:35:03and that money goes to a number of

1:35:05different types of projects. So, it goes

1:35:06to historic preservation projects. It

1:35:08also goes to open space and recreation,

1:35:11um conservation, affordable housing.

1:35:15So, when somebody wants to use CPA

1:35:18funding, a building either a building or

1:35:21a re a resource, I should say. Okay. So,

1:35:23it could be a structure, it could be um

1:35:25an object, it could be a building. It

1:35:28needs to be either listed on the

1:35:30National Register of Historic Places,

1:35:32the State Register of Historic Places,

1:35:34and if it's not, then this commission

1:35:36needs to do needs to determine whether

1:35:38or not it's locally historically

1:35:40significant. So, we've chosen to use the

1:35:43same criteria for that's used for

1:35:46listing to the National Register of

1:35:47Historic Places for you to make those

1:35:49determinations.

1:35:51So if

1:35:54somebody comes before you with a

1:35:57resource that's highly altered, the

1:35:59commission has chosen to find something

1:36:01not to be histo locally historically

1:36:03significant before. Um but if something

1:36:06is has high integrity and it is

1:36:10significant under one of the four

1:36:11criteria for listing then it's found

1:36:14significant and that makes a

1:36:17object um

1:36:20building structure vessel etc eligible

1:36:23to go for CPA funding. If you find

1:36:26something to be locally historically

1:36:27significant it does not automatically

1:36:29mean that they get money. It means that

1:36:31the first hurdle is jumped and saying

1:36:33this is significant. So it qualifies for

1:36:35CPA funding. So what's before you

1:36:37tonight is um a

1:36:39>> quick question then. Go ahead. What

1:36:41happens if we approve it then

1:36:45>> if something happens to that later on

1:36:48separate from what the process was? Is

1:36:50it now considered?

1:36:51>> It's protected.

1:36:52>> Is it protected based on that vote or

1:36:54no?

1:36:58There's only been one thing so far the

1:37:01word that that's been the case and that

1:37:03was um St. Cobain that which

1:37:09we'd have to get a law opinion on

1:37:11whether or not like I think the idea

1:37:13would be like you're finding it to be

1:37:15locally historically significant. So,

1:37:17>> right,

1:37:18>> but the other thing is is if it actually

1:37:20gets funded, it has protections anyway.

1:37:23So, so, so if you find something to be

1:37:25locally historically significant and

1:37:27then it doesn't get funded, potentially

1:37:29it remains unprotected.

1:37:32If it gets funded, then there is a a

1:37:36clawback clause on any money. So, like

1:37:38if they do something they're not

1:37:39supposed to or if they sell the

1:37:40building, the city can claw back the

1:37:42investment. And if it's over a certain

1:37:45amount of money, so like if we put over

1:37:47$250,000 into a building, they get a

1:37:5030-year preservation restriction. And if

1:37:52we put over $500,000 into a building,

1:37:54they get a permanent preservation

1:37:55restriction. So it can never it it

1:37:57becomes permanently protected by virtue

1:38:00of how much money we put into it.

1:38:02>> Thank you.

1:38:02>> Yeah. So what's before you this evening

1:38:05is um are I should say a series of walls

1:38:10and um pieces of hardscaping along

1:38:12Burncoat Street. So the walls go from

1:38:19>> What's up? My phone just talked on its

1:38:21own. [laughter]

1:38:22Just freaked me out.

1:38:24>> So, the walls stretch from Devon Street

1:38:27um to 227 Burn Code Street. So, the what

1:38:31we have up on the screen right now, we

1:38:33have a 1913 plan, a 1938 aerial, and

1:38:37then a 1952 aerial of the walls and

1:38:40pillars along Burnat Street. So they go

1:38:42basically from Devon's Road to

1:38:44Thorndikeke Road and um they are part of

1:38:49the planned neighborhood that was

1:38:51originally known as Maplewood. So the

1:38:53Maplewood subdivision. So if we zoom in

1:38:55on this 1913 plan, we can see that they

1:38:59were planned [snorts] right from the

1:39:00beginning and they've been taken care of

1:39:03um ever since. So they're even clearer

1:39:07here in this 1952 Ariel. Yeah,

1:39:11>> they're a really um visible and

1:39:15well-known um part of that stretch of

1:39:18Burncoat Street. I'm sure a lot of you

1:39:20have seen them in your travels around

1:39:21the city. Um but they are kind of

1:39:24falling apart at this point. So they're

1:39:26cast stone, so they're made out of

1:39:28concrete. Um they feature walls between

1:39:33each of the streets and then um like low

1:39:37molded knee walls and pillars at each of

1:39:41the entrances to the subdivision.

1:39:44So what you have on the screen this

1:39:46evening, you have a little bit um about

1:39:48existing conditions. Just for some

1:39:50background, Preservation Worcester

1:39:52submitted this um on behalf of I believe

1:39:56the city. So there was some confusion

1:39:58over whether or not this was in the

1:40:00public rightway or not. Private

1:40:02residents over time have been taking

1:40:04care of these. So if you look at some of

1:40:07the photos, you can see that some

1:40:09residents have planted um flowers um and

1:40:13have been using them basically as

1:40:16private property for a while. Um I

1:40:18believe I do believe that they are in

1:40:20the right of way though. So preservation

1:40:22Worester has submitted this application.

1:40:25They've proided some um information on

1:40:29the existing conditions of them, a

1:40:32little bit about the history, and then

1:40:34um the architectural integrity being

1:40:37that it's not great right now. It's

1:40:39there's a lot of spalling cracking,

1:40:41general deterioration just from water,

1:40:44you know, over the past 100 plus years.

1:40:47[snorts] Um and then what their

1:40:50assessment of historical significance

1:40:52is. I will say that I disagree with

1:40:54their um assessment of historical

1:40:58significance. Right [snorts] now they

1:41:00only find the

1:41:02resource

1:41:04to be significant under criterion C and

1:41:07I think it's also probably significant

1:41:09under criterion A. So that's something

1:41:12to consider when you are um taking your

1:41:14vote. So criterion A is is this resource

1:41:17associated with the events that have

1:41:19made with events that have made a

1:41:20significant contribution to the broad

1:41:22patterns of our history. This is a

1:41:23planned neighborhood that was

1:41:26significant in the early 20th century as

1:41:29the outgrowth from the center of um

1:41:31Worcester as the as street cars and um

1:41:35the automobile bea came into um

1:41:38widespread use. So I I do think that

1:41:40it's significant um as a piece of a

1:41:43planned neighborhood. um which only

1:41:46could have been possible at that you

1:41:47know time and place um in in our

1:41:49history. So that is my opinion on it. I

1:41:52do agree with their assessment of

1:41:54criterion C and um also B and D not

1:41:58being um of significance.

1:42:06>> I believe that we should support this. I

1:42:08mean does anybody not agree with that?

1:42:11Are there any other similar uh

1:42:15structures in the city other than this

1:42:16one

1:42:17>> right off of Pleasant Straight?

1:42:18>> There are there are. Yeah. So, so that's

1:42:20the Chamberlain Parkway. There there's

1:42:23one or two others that I can think of

1:42:25and they're all in pretty severe decay.

1:42:28So, Chamberlain Parkway is the same.

1:42:30Chamberlain Parkway is actually

1:42:31interesting because it was when that

1:42:35neighborhood was like advertised as a

1:42:37subdivision. There's actually pictures.

1:42:39Have you seen the America? Yeah,

1:42:41>> benches that are built into the actual

1:42:43structures.

1:42:45>> And that's interesting, too, because

1:42:47that has become like extra private even

1:42:49though it's probably in the in the

1:42:51rightway. Like people have built fences

1:42:52around like their section of of the

1:42:54fences, but there those are also cast

1:42:58concrete um

1:43:01hardscaping elements like like that. And

1:43:03I would imagine that we'll probably see

1:43:05a similar request for that in the

1:43:07future.

1:43:08>> Yeah.

1:43:08>> Yeah. This is just a catalyst really for

1:43:11>> Yeah. You know,

1:43:11>> but the Chamberlain Parkway one is

1:43:13pretty cool because when it was some of

1:43:16it's missing now, but like there even

1:43:18used to be like an island in the middle

1:43:21of I think where Lennox is and there was

1:43:23like hitching posts built in for

1:43:25horsesh.

1:43:26>> Mhm.

1:43:26>> And I believe there's one actually

1:43:28there's a neighborhood up off of

1:43:30Hamilton Street in between Hamilton and

1:43:34Lake View. Yeah,

1:43:35>> there's a neighborhood there that has

1:43:37the same kind of

1:43:38>> So, there's actually quite a few that

1:43:40have these planned neighborhoods um you

1:43:43know, structures like the visual these

1:43:45were like the visual cues of a planned

1:43:47neighborhood.

1:43:49>> Yeah, but I wouldn't but what I wouldn't

1:43:51say is I wouldn't say that they're so

1:43:52common as

1:43:53>> Yeah, they're not common.

1:43:54>> I I can I can think of probably like two

1:43:56or three others that are as intact as

1:43:59this one, but again, they are all

1:44:02>> Yeah. Yeah.

1:44:02>> deteriorating,

1:44:03>> but they are something seen throughout

1:44:06the city. It was it was a a common thing

1:44:09at that time for planned neighborhoods

1:44:12to to do this kind of hardcaping as like

1:44:14a visual cue of that. Um,

1:44:17>> quick question. Does the city of

1:44:19Worcester own that own these?

1:44:22>> We think so.

1:44:24>> Yes. So, I know there was a lot there

1:44:25was more extensive research on a

1:44:27Chamberlain Parkway. I do believe that

1:44:28these are in the rightway though. I do

1:44:30believe that the city owns these,

1:44:32>> but like she said, some private

1:44:34residences choose to dress them up a

1:44:36little bit more. And I mean,

1:44:37>> we're not going to say no to that

1:44:39unless, you know, they're doing

1:44:40something detrimental,

1:44:41>> I think.

1:44:42>> Yeah. Also, you're not determining

1:44:44whether or not they get the money.

1:44:45You're just determining whether or not

1:44:47they're significant.

1:44:48>> Significant, right?

1:44:49>> Which I believe that they are.

1:44:51>> I Yeah, I agree that they're

1:44:52significant. I also agree that it should

1:44:54be also under um a

1:44:56>> a as well. Absolutely.

1:44:58>> Let's see. which I believe we is in our

1:45:00purview to say

1:45:01>> yes. Yeah, it is.

1:45:03>> So when we make a motion to

1:45:06support the determination, would we say

1:45:08that it's under A and C the criterion?

1:45:12>> Okay.

1:45:12>> Okay. So then in that case I'm going to

1:45:15request a motion for determination

1:45:18of the local historical significance for

1:45:20the Burn code street walls and

1:45:21associated hardc.

1:45:25[laughter]

1:45:27>> Okay. Uh, I'll make a motion for the

1:45:29determination of a local historical

1:45:31significance. The commission finds that

1:45:34the burn coach street walls and

1:45:36associated hardscape

1:45:38hardscaping rather are locally

1:45:40historically significant in the areas of

1:45:44a broad patterns of our history and c

1:45:49architecture for the purpose of

1:45:51application for community preservation

1:45:54act funding. Second.

1:45:56>> And on that motion, Commissioner

1:45:58Bernett,

1:45:58>> yes.

1:45:59>> Commissioner Gutierrez,

1:46:00>> yes.

1:46:00>> Commissioner Andre,

1:46:01>> yes.

1:46:02>> Commissioner Baker,

1:46:03>> Commissioner Forester,

1:46:04>> yes.

1:46:04>> Commissioner Santos Robo,

1:46:06>> yes.

1:46:06>> And Chair Harkski,

1:46:07>> yes.

1:46:09>> I think that's great. Uh, we have no

1:46:12policies and procedures and we also have

1:46:15no minutes to approve this evening.

1:46:19Correct.

1:46:19>> That's correct. Um and we do we did get

1:46:22a letter from so so so WBDC was um

1:46:27supposed to come and speak to you this

1:46:29evening. Um they did not. They provided

1:46:32a letter instead. Um but I will say so

1:46:36they if you'll recall last time they

1:46:38were here they were planning to put out

1:46:41a request for proposals. They got

1:46:43absolutely no bites on that over the

1:46:46summer. So they are at this point

1:46:48preparing to go back out with that RFP

1:46:51and we'll try again and then they will

1:46:54they are planned to come back once that

1:46:56closes.

1:46:57>> Okay.

1:46:57>> So everything that they have to share is

1:47:00is in the letter. I will also say that I

1:47:02was provided the location of the salvage

1:47:05materials.

1:47:05>> Oh, great.

1:47:06>> So I know where they are.

1:47:07>> Okay. Good.

1:47:08>> Yeah.

1:47:08>> Now, how long is that period that they

1:47:10usually put that out for?

1:47:12>> I'm pretty sure last time they went out

1:47:14for either four or six weeks. Okay.

1:47:16>> I think it was tough because it was like

1:47:19during like the height of vacation time.

1:47:20So

1:47:21>> it might might be better luck this time

1:47:24and I can share that with all of you and

1:47:26you can share it with your networks as

1:47:27well.

1:47:27>> Okay.

1:47:29>> All right. So um going to make make a

1:47:31motion to adjurnn. All in favor say I.

1:47:34>> I meeting a journ.