2026-10-01 - Historical Commission

00:01October 1st, 2020

00:05meeting of the city of Worcester

00:07Historical Commission.

00:09>> Do we know where that's

00:14>> Yeah.

00:18>> Okay.

00:20>> My name is Erica Helnars. Erica Helarski

00:22and I will chair tonight's meeting.

00:24Before we begin, I have a few brief

00:26announcements concerning how our meeting

00:27will proceed this evening. Tonight's

00:30meeting is a hybrid format which means

00:31that attendees may participate in person

00:33here at 25 me Street or remotely. You

00:36may log in via computer by going to

00:38worcestermass.zoomv.com/j1604873519

00:39zoomgov.com/j1604873519

00:46and entering access code 160-487-3519

00:50in the Zoom application or by calling in

00:52at 1669-254-5252

00:56and entering access code 160-487-3519

01:01to manage remote participation during

01:03our hybrid meetings and to prevent

01:04disruptions. All participants are

01:06automatically blocked from unmuting

01:08themselves, turning on their video, or

01:10sending chat messages. For remote

01:12participants who would like to comment

01:13on an item on our agenda, we ask that

01:15you use the raise hand feature in Zoom

01:17during the discussion of that item. If

01:19you are joined by phone, you can raise

01:21your hand by pressing star9. Staff will

01:23then call on members of the public one

01:25at a time and give them permission to

01:26unmute themselves. You will then be able

01:28to unmute yourself by pressing star six.

01:31This is a public meeting, which means

01:32that it is being recorded and that will

01:34be taken and published at a later date.

01:37To help with this process, we ask that

01:38all speakers participating in person use

01:40a microphone and to please clearly

01:42identify yourselves each time you speak.

01:44The first time you speak, please state

01:46your city or town of residents for the

01:48record. To help maintain an orderly

01:50meeting, please address all comments and

01:52questions through the chair rather than

01:54directly to any of the other speakers or

01:56applicants. If you are here for an item

01:58that will be postponed or continued,

01:59please note that no additional notice

02:01will be sent to you before the next

02:02meeting. You're encouraged to call the

02:04planning department the day prior to our

02:06next meeting to confirm if the item will

02:08be heard or postponed that night. Once

02:10an item is called, there will be a brief

02:12presentation followed by any additional

02:13comments and clarifications from the

02:15members of the city staff. Then an

02:17opportunity for anyone from the public

02:18to speak on that item before we proceed

02:20to board discussion and action. Please

02:23also note that all approval votes will

02:25be by roll call which will be

02:26administered when the time comes. I will

02:28now take roll call of commissioners and

02:30city city staff present this evening.

02:33Commissioner Bernett

02:34>> here.

02:35>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavote

02:37>> here.

02:38>> Commissioner Forester.

02:40Commissioner Baker.

02:42Commissioner Andre

02:43>> here.

02:44>> Commissioner Santos Rivbo

02:46>> here.

02:46>> Chair Helarski here. City staff Michelle

02:50Johnstone

02:50>> here. and Ameilia Clark

02:52>> here.

02:53>> Thank you. And on to old business. Item

02:57number one on our agenda is 705 Main

02:59Street. Can the applicants please come

03:01forward?

03:04>> And if Jay Oh, okay. So, you guys are

03:08Okay, you guys are all together. Never

03:09mind. I was wondering if there was

03:10anybody online. Proceed.

03:15>> Could you just reintroduce yourselves to

03:18us? um and then give us just kind of

03:19like a brief rundown of the project at

03:22hand.

03:23>> Absolutely. So my name is Jay Golant.

03:25I'm the architect for the project. Uh

03:27Muhammad the general contractor and

03:29Sarwire, you remember him from the last

03:31meeting. He's the building owner. Uh so

03:33we've we've um we really appreciate your

03:37feedback the last [snorts] meeting and

03:39we want to make some adjustments to our

03:41proposal as as um as we discussed.

03:46Long story short, what we would like to

03:48do, as shown on the bottom there, is

03:52essentially replace

03:55the

03:57two lefthand storefronts. So, the the

04:00Spanish grill storefront, which was

04:03added

04:04later,

04:06you see it right there on the right

04:08there with the with the yellow sign

04:09around it. and the one that we've been

04:13talking about from the beginning with

04:15two storefronts that more or less match

04:17the barberh shop one with the recessed

04:19entry. Uh we we did some investigating

04:22where the plywood is that that original

04:24or assuming it was original uh recessed

04:27entry is no longer there. It was damaged

04:30as Star Wars said before was damaged by

04:32the last tenant apparently and um

04:35there's nothing there to to salvage. So,

04:38um, we're we're hoping that it's

04:40amendable that we can, uh,

04:43try to interject some, uh, I don't know,

04:46consistency to the building and, um, and

04:49bring the, uh, the barberh shop

04:52the

04:53barberh shop storefront to the rest of

04:56the building and leave the the two on

04:58the right, the barber shop and the uh,

05:00and the convenience store as is.

05:02So, leave the two businesses to the

05:05right of the main entrance the flush

05:07entrance and then the ones to the left

05:11um recreate the recessed entryways.

05:14>> Correct.

05:15>> Right.

05:17>> And we would also uh if you could maybe

05:19the picture Michelle u showing the the

05:23Spanish restaurant there where it's

05:25highlighted. You see there's some uh

05:27there's some stone there, some veneer

05:30stone. There's no other stone in the

05:32building. We'd like to put a a brick

05:35instead in that location or or whatever

05:37you think makes the most sense, but we

05:39need to do something there because of

05:40the grade and the sidewalks higher in

05:43that corner than than the floor level.

05:45>> So, we need to do something.

05:47Unfortunately, we can't we can't bring

05:48it kind of right to the ground as the as

05:51the other storefronts are. [snorts]

05:54>> Okay.

05:58And then regarding the uh regarding the

06:01brick that's been painted,

06:05it's been like that for a long time. Um

06:07there's a you had a photo Michelle of um

06:09the view from Charleton Street.

06:12>> So through the chair, a lot of the brick

06:14has been what has not been for a long

06:17time is right on the facade of the

06:20building. So if we look here, we see all

06:23of that was buff brick. Have you

06:24investigated what kind of paint was used

06:26at all? Do you know if it's latex paint?

06:29Do you know what it is?

06:31>> It is latex paint.

06:33>> Okay.

06:33>> Introduce yourself.

06:34>> It uh Muhammad Bal, the general

06:37contractor there. Uh it is latex paint

06:40and uh it has been there for a long time

06:44ever since I've noticed it. We're trying

06:47to, you know, comply with anything that

06:49uh is possibly, you know, ready we can

06:54do over there.

06:57>> So, latex paint traps water is what the

07:00problem is. So, you have this buff brick

07:02and now you've used a paint that's going

07:04to trap water up against that brick. And

07:07so, that was recently in that was

07:09recently done because we can see right

07:11in this photo on the facade of the

07:13building there is no paint. Mhm. That

07:17place was apparently as uh I've

07:20understood the owner told me that it was

07:22getting all moldy at that time and he

07:26was new and you know when he bought the

07:28property he was new. He he didn't

07:30>> Well, that's going to make it worse.

07:31It's going to trap the water right up

07:33against the beach.

07:33>> What he what he what what probably they

07:35did was uh they pressure washed the

07:38whole place. Couldn't clean up.

07:42They asked uh or somebody just painted

07:44it.

07:45That's going to make the mold worse

07:47though.

07:47>> Uh yes. Uh so that's why we here we you

07:50know to resolve anything that we can do.

07:53Uh we can try removing the paint which

07:56uh

07:57>> you can't sand blast it. So it's going

07:58to be a process

07:59>> thing. Yes.

08:02>> I mean it's up to the commission.

08:05>> We'd have to clean it off basically,

08:06right? Yeah.

08:07>> Mhm.

08:09>> But we're we're speaking of um

08:12just the part that's above the

08:13storefront awnings because

08:15>> Yeah. I mean everything else it has been

08:17there for a long time. I mean

08:19>> the damage is kind of done there. So

08:21it's with the with the other parts which

08:23I think if I I can probably go to a

08:25photo.

08:26>> Yeah. It's like a wider view.

08:28>> As you can see here the masonry has been

08:30painted. I went all the way back to I

08:32think 2011.

08:35But e Wait, where's the rock on that

08:38corner?

08:40>> That was newly installed. The the stone

08:42you mean? So, they're getting rid of

08:44that and they're putting brick in.

08:45>> Okay.

08:45>> Which is what was there before?

08:47>> Before. That's why I was wondering what

08:49why that was put there.

08:50>> So, this is so it's a retroactive

08:52application. So, a lot of stuff has was

08:54done without a building permit.

08:56>> So, what they're saying now is they're

08:58going to revert the two storefronts on

09:00the left to be recessed entries. And

09:03then I mean the damage has kind of been

09:06done with the paint all throughout the

09:08other elevations. It might be best just

09:09to let that wear out and not repaint it.

09:13But for the brand new paint that may not

09:16have caused damage yet, you can

09:18condition that as part of your

09:19>> Well, that's kind of where I'm leaning

09:21in the sense of the awnings kind of

09:24separate the building anyway, right? So

09:26from the awnings above, the historical,

09:31I don't know, integrity is still there

09:33in the building. Then when you hit the

09:34awnings, that's when everything under it

09:37has been kind of altered to modern

09:40times, I guess you could say. Um, I

09:44personally would prefer for the paint to

09:47be removed above the awnings

09:51and from the the entryway. um the brick

09:55below the building, the the businesses,

09:58that doesn't really bother me too much.

10:01Um again, because it's already been

10:02heavily altered between the businesses

10:04throughout the years, but if there's,

10:07you know, we're trying to to marry

10:09history with modern times, and it would

10:12still be nice if we could retain some of

10:16the the historical features. Um I don't

10:18know what that would entail to remove

10:20that strip of gray paint.

10:22>> Could I just ask a quick question? So,

10:24the where the entryway is there where it

10:26says Charlton, that's that's stone

10:29that's not in great shape. I mean, I I

10:32understand that um

10:34making it bringing it back to its

10:37unfinished or mostly unfinished original

10:40self would be ideal. Um

10:43>> it's not good as well, right?

10:44>> Yes. And I think they painted it because

10:47it was cracked and they didn't like the

10:48look of it, which is not a good reason,

10:50but um

10:50>> cracked natural stone looks better than

10:52>> Well, that's what I was going to say.

10:53It's going to it's going to be cracked

10:54if we if we clean it, but you know, at

10:57least it would be visible as stone.

10:59[snorts]

11:00>> So, what about the black? Is that paint

11:05>> as well?

11:06>> No, it's it's a panel.

11:08>> It's a black panel made of what?

11:10>> Are you meaning the panel here where my

11:13cursor is? Look at the screen.

11:15>> No, I'm talking about like behind the

11:17Spanish grill.

11:19That's all new. That's not That's all

11:20new storefront material.

11:22>> Plywood. Yeah,

11:23>> it's metal. I think it's metal. Yeah.

11:25Okay.

11:26>> And once, you know, a new business gets

11:28in there, it'll be outfitted with, you

11:30know, whatever is is going there. Um,

11:34>> but I just think that gray strip above

11:36the awnings and

11:38>> how about we

11:40I don't know if it's uh the right way of

11:43doing it. Uh cover that gray strip over

11:46the sign. Will that uh help?

11:49>> I don't want you to cover it. No. And

11:51[laughter] also

11:52>> I don't want to do much

11:53>> through the through the chair. That's

11:55not the point. It's it's bad for the

11:57brick.

11:57>> I understand.

11:58>> It's not about covering it. It's not

12:00even about aesthetics. It's the fact

12:01that

12:02>> it's going to deteriorate even quicker

12:03with water getting trapped behind it.

12:05Especially if there was previous mold

12:06problems, now you're just,

12:08>> you know, covering it up. Covering up.

12:11And then then if you cover it even more

12:13with something,

12:14>> then you're not going to be able to

12:16visibly see the damage. and then when

12:17someone takes it off down the road, it's

12:19going to be real bad. Um,

12:21>> with with historic brick, if you if you

12:23look at if you look at buildings from

12:25the 18th century, some historic brick

12:27has always been painted and you keep up

12:30with the painting over time and that

12:33creates a waterproof barrier, but

12:36generally people aren't very good at

12:37maintenance. So, you paint, water gets

12:40behind the brick and then it just seeps

12:42into the building. So, that's what the

12:44problem is,

12:45>> right? Okay.

12:46Uh if we have to remove the paint, we

12:49have to remove the paint. We will do it.

12:51>> And that's traversing the entire facade.

12:55>> Well, not the brick below.

12:57>> The the brick below the brick below. I

13:00don't think the one on top and the main

13:01entrance.

13:03It says Charlton there.

13:04>> Wherever that gray paint is

13:06>> Mhm.

13:07>> exists

13:08>> is what we would prefer be removed.

13:11>> Yes.

13:11>> What about the side of the building?

13:14The side of the building has been

13:16painted at least for 15 years. I would

13:18say just let that fail on its own and

13:20just don't repaint it

13:22>> would be my

13:22>> Michelle, could you go back to the

13:23photo? I think it's not maybe the slide

13:26before this. You took you had a a

13:28picture on from Charleton Street.

13:30>> Oh, from

13:30>> maybe maybe the the next one. Uh you had

13:33a new one, I think.

13:41Yeah, this one. So, the the gray

13:45continues around the corner right now.

13:47>> So, we'd have to figure out a place to

13:50>> terminate it. Yeah.

13:52>> Well, you would probably do the same

13:53place as it was before because it used

13:55to be red.

13:56>> It used to be red

13:57>> right at the right up to the corner

14:01>> right there.

14:02>> So, we can leave that gray part there

14:04now or you want us to paint that red too

14:06again?

14:07>> No. No, it's it's it's not about the

14:10color. It's about the harm that it's

14:12going to do to the masonry. You've

14:13inherited something that was done a long

14:15time ago.

14:16>> Yep.

14:16>> Or I mean, it could have been the

14:18current owner, but whatever. It's been

14:20like 15 years at this point where we

14:22have something new. You're in for

14:23retroactive work. It's reasonable of

14:26them to ask you to undo something done

14:27so recently in conjunction with other

14:29things that actually constitute a

14:31demolition.

14:33>> Agree.

14:36I have a question about the recessed

14:38openings on the left side. Um, are they

14:41going to be angled like they were shown

14:43in this photo and they match the ones on

14:46the right?

14:46>> Well, the ones on the right are already

14:49they're flush and they're going to keep

14:50them flush.

14:51>> Oh, they're flush on the right.

14:52>> Yes.

14:53>> So, so the one on the very far right I

14:57look I looked back that has been flush I

15:00think since at least 2007. So, that's

15:02not something that we could have

15:03reviewed. Um, so the argument that they

15:06are making is that they're going to do

15:08half the building with recessed entries

15:10on the on the left side of the Charlton

15:12and keep the other side as is.

15:14>> Okay.

15:16>> Just so there's not three businesses

15:18with recessed and then

15:20>> is there a possibility of uh doing it

15:22without the recessed entry?

15:25>> That was the whole purpose of the

15:27meeting last time.

15:28>> Question. [laughter]

15:29>> No, we don't. That's why we had you come

15:31back this time.

15:32>> Yeah.

15:32>> Yeah. Yes, if it's if it's recessed that

15:35it is recessed,

15:36>> we do it.

15:37>> Um, yeah. So, I mean, I think that's a a

15:40fine compromise is doing, you know, the

15:42left side of the building with the two

15:43recess. Would absolutely love for that

15:46gray paint to come off um above the

15:48awnings and the entryway. Um that stone

15:52coming out and being replaced with brick

15:54and then if you need to, you know,

15:56match, it's not really the brick on the

15:58bottom that it's already painted. I

16:00think the brick on the bottom is not

16:02historic based on images that we've

16:03seen. I think that that was added in

16:05one.

16:05>> So, if that needs to match the rest of

16:08that's fine. We're just worried about

16:09the historic brick

16:11>> above the awnings and and the entryway.

16:15>> Um, is there any other feedback from the

16:17commission about the proposed uh work?

16:20>> Yeah, because if we look here, we can

16:22see this is like a non-historic

16:25that was in here.

16:26>> We're gonna demo this and have all

16:28kinds. The new brick that we install on

16:32the corner is going to go up against the

16:35corner that's painted, which is going to

16:37end.

16:37>> And we said it's new brick. So if you

16:39have to paint that to be uniform, we

16:41don't really care about that because

16:42from the awning down, it's been so

16:44heavily modified over the years. We're

16:46just trying to regain some of its

16:48>> and new brick can take paint.

16:50>> Yeah,

16:51>> it's just not the It's just not the

16:54older brick. And and you know, we're

16:56compromising. We love that the recessed

16:57entries are going back on that side, but

17:00what's happened below the awning is kind

17:01of a lost cause at this point. We're

17:03concerned about what is still visually

17:06historic and and trying to get it back

17:08and save the brick that was recently

17:10painted before it's, you know, too far

17:12gone.

17:13>> So, if you need to match the new brick

17:15on the bottom with the side of the

17:16building, so be it. We don't have an

17:18issue with that.

17:21>> Sure.

17:21>> Any other input? You said you were going

17:24to match or mimic the recess in the

17:27barber shop. I I visited there. What is

17:29the depth of that recess in the barber

17:32shop?

17:33>> It's about Yeah, about about four feet.

17:36>> Half four feet. Yeah, about four feet.

17:38>> And so the others will be the same.

17:41>> It'll be the same.

17:42>> Follow the same footprint.

17:44>> Did I know you were going to look to see

17:45if the flooring there was no

17:48>> no markings or

17:50>> It's just concrete on the ground. I

17:52looked there's there was no tile or

17:54anything.

17:57>> Okay.

17:58>> So, do we agree on those compromises?

18:02>> Yep.

18:02>> Okay. I'm going to open it up for public

18:04comment then.

18:07>> Is there anybody online?

18:09>> If anybody online um would like to

18:11speak, just please use the raise hand

18:13feature in Zoom.

18:16>> Not seeing anybody.

18:17>> Okay. Can I have a motion to close

18:18public comment, please? I shall make a

18:20motion to close public comment.

18:22>> Second.

18:22>> And on that motion, Commissioner

18:24Bernett,

18:24>> yes.

18:25>> Commissioner Andre,

18:25>> yes.

18:26>> Commissioner Gutierz Lavodi,

18:27>> yes.

18:27>> Commissioner Santos Rivo,

18:29>> yes.

18:29>> Chair Holarski,

18:30>> yes. And now, can I please have a motion

18:32for a building demolition delay waiver?

18:36>> I'll sh I shall make a motion for a

18:38waiver of the 12 month building

18:40demolition delay.

18:42The commission finds that the demolition

18:44at 703 to 7-Eleven Main Street con uh

18:48consisting of creating one recessed

18:51entry at 705 and cosmetic changes to

18:54altered storefronts, including the

18:57removal of stone veneer and replacing

18:59with brick. and the removal of the gray

19:03paint above the awnings and surrounding

19:05the main entrance would not be

19:08detrimental to the historical or

19:10architectural resources of the city of

19:12Worcester.

19:13>> Second,

19:14>> is that just one recessed opening?

19:16>> One is already

19:17>> one is already recessed, right,

19:18>> J?

19:20>> It's it's recessed differently though.

19:22>> Okay. So So

19:25add a friendly amendment then. What is

19:27that? 703.

19:29So, seven.

19:30>> So, and they're and they're going to be

19:31four four foot recesses, right?

19:34>> I'm sorry.

19:34>> At an angle to match

19:36>> four foot. Okay. And

19:38>> quickly just we're we're proposing to

19:41remove the storefront at 703 and make it

19:43match the others.

19:45>> Okay.

19:46>> Okay. So, that's three.

19:51>> We'll match whatever it is.

19:52>> So, we will be you will be matching the

19:55depth

19:56>> the four foot. It'll be a four a 4ft

19:58angled depth. 4 foot angle depth of 70

20:03>> three

20:03>> three

20:04>> three

20:04>> okay to match that

20:05>> we put a plus or minus 4 feet on there

20:07>> plus 4 okay anything else I need to add

20:114T

20:11>> yeah [laughter]

20:13>> we don't know what it is though so if we

20:15then we'd have multiple different

20:16>> well that could be up for administrative

20:18review right once the construction comes

20:20about

20:20>> we'll look at it together okay

20:21>> this is flush

20:23>> yeah [laughter]

20:23>> as long as my should be flush

20:25>> yeah exactly

20:27>> I mean around four feet

20:29So, did I cover everything?

20:31>> Yes.

20:31>> So, r roughly four feet roughly roughly

20:34>> and I'll review the plan set before you

20:36actually Okay. Yeah. Okay.

20:40>> Done.

20:41>> Second. [laughter]

20:42Okay.

20:44>> So, to include 703 as well.

20:45>> To include 703

20:46>> on that motion. Commissioner Bernett.

20:48>> Yes.

20:49>> Commissioner Gutier Levote.

20:50>> Yes.

20:50>> Commissioner Andre.

20:51>> Yes.

20:51>> Commissioner Santos Rebo.

20:53>> Yes.

20:53>> Chair Narski.

20:54>> Yes.

20:54>> Okie dokie.

20:55>> Thank you. I'm excited to see

20:57>> you. Okay.

20:59>> Okay.

21:00>> And I have a good night. And now on to

21:04item two, 244 Pleasant Street. Can the

21:07applicants please come forward?

21:11If the applicant um for 244 Pleasant

21:15Street could just use the raise hand

21:16feature in Zoom, I will call on you.

21:29Can you introduce yourself, please?

21:34You're unmuted. If you could just

21:36introduce yourself.

21:44I wonder if there's an issue with

21:50Sergey. I've unmuted you. Can can you

21:53can you introduce yourself?

22:01>> Okay, we'll hold this until after the

22:03next item.

22:05>> Okay, so moving on to new business, we

22:07have item three, which is 30 Roxberry

22:10Street.

22:12>> Would the applicant for 30 Roxbury

22:14Street please use the raise hand feature

22:15in Zoom?

22:24Can you introduce? Hi. Okay.

22:27>> My name is Isabelle Lloyd. I am u here

22:30on behalf of Nico um who's the

22:33contractor doing the installation work

22:34for this house.

22:37>> Great. So, can you just give us a quick

22:39rundown of what is taking place? Um for

22:43the exterior, we are doing um insulation

22:46work to the um exterior of the house. Uh

22:49which will consist of us taking down um

22:52the shingles in certain areas of the

22:54home to blow an insulation underneath

22:56it. Um then we'll be putting the

22:58shingles back up. So there shouldn't be

23:00any um from from the street and also

23:03when you get close to the house, you

23:04shouldn't have known we was ever there.

23:06Um sometimes the shingles do break. Um

23:09and and if that case if it does break,

23:12we'll um get a shingle that closely

23:14matches it and paint it to the matching

23:16uh paint color of the current the of the

23:18color of the house itself.

23:21>> Okay, sounds pretty straightforward. Any

23:23comments from the commission about this

23:24project?

23:26>> No. All right. Uh no public comment,

23:29correct?

23:30>> No, it's at your discretion, but it's

23:32not a public hearing, so you don't have

23:33to.

23:34>> All right. Well, then could I please

23:35have a motion for a certificate of

23:37non-applicability?

23:38I shall make a motion for a certificate

23:40of nonapplicability.

23:43The commission finds that the proposed

23:44changes at 30 Rockbury Street consisting

23:47of insulation work in replacing select

23:49cedar shingles as needed is not under

23:52the jurisdiction of the commission and

23:54therefore approves a certificate of

23:56non-applicability.

23:58>> Second.

23:59>> And on that motion, Commissioner

24:00Bernett,

24:01>> yes.

24:01>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod,

24:02>> yes.

24:03>> Commissioner Andre,

24:04>> yes.

24:04>> Commissioner Santos Rivo,

24:05>> yes.

24:06>> Chair Helarski,

24:07>> yes. So that is all set.

24:09>> Thank you.

24:11>> Thank you so much.

24:12>> Thanks.

24:12>> And moving on to item four, we have One

24:15Oak Street.

24:18>> We have Richard Llant has raised his

24:20hand. Let me just unmute him.

24:27>> Hello.

24:28>> Good evening.

24:29>> Hi.

24:30>> Hi. Uh actually my name is Patrick

24:32Celeleski. I'm the assistant manager at

24:34the Wester Club. Um, but I am using my

24:37boss's account, so it says Richard

24:39Llland. My apologies.

24:41>> No, that's okay.

24:42>> Could you just explain to us um the the

24:45proposed work?

24:47>> Um, yes. It's just um

24:51masonry work on uh the chimneys. Um

24:55there's some uh deteriorated mortar um

24:59that needs to be uh repaired and and the

25:03and repointing to go with it. Um the new

25:07mortar will be compatible with the

25:09existing masonry. Uh there's some

25:11damaged bricks um which will be removed

25:14and replaced uh as necessary.

25:18Um there's some deteriorated brownstone

25:21surfaces uh that will be uh repaired.

25:25Um there is a uh a concrete cap on one

25:30of the chimneys

25:32uh that will be repaired

25:35and a uh a concrete wash cap um will

25:39need to be removed and replaced.

25:42Um

25:44so it it should not be anything visible

25:46from the street. It's uh you know just

25:49fixing masonry that needs repairs.

25:52>> Okay. Yeah. I think our main concern was

25:54just making sure that um the mortar was

25:58appropriate for the brick um which

26:01you've already stated that it would be.

26:03Um, I personally don't have any other

26:05further questions because nothing is

26:06really

26:08>> it's just maintenance that's kind of

26:09happening here and and and touchup work

26:11where need be. Um, does anybody else

26:13have any comments about this?

26:14>> I've got I just want to clarify. You're

26:16going to be repairing one chimney cap

26:19and replacing another.

26:24>> Uh, let me just bring it up so that I

26:26can give you the uh exact

26:39So there are cracks in the existing

26:42concrete cap at chimney 1 which will be

26:46uh repaired using

26:48uh appropriate masonry repair material.

26:51>> Mhm.

26:51>> And then chimney 2 there is a damaged

26:54concrete wash cap uh which will be

26:56removed and a replacement cap installed.

26:58>> Got it.

26:59>> Okay. Perfect. Thank you for clarifi

27:01Yes,

27:02>> thank you for clarifying.

27:03>> Replaced the wash cap. Okay.

27:05>> Um, does anybody else on the commission

27:07have any questions about this project?

27:10>> All right. Um, then can I please have a

27:12motion for a certificate of

27:14non-applicability?

27:15>> Yes, I shall make a motion for a

27:17certificate of non-applicability.

27:20The commission finds that the proposed

27:21changes at one Oak Street consisting of

27:24repointing chimneys, replacing damaged

27:28bricks as necessary,

27:30repairing one chimney cap, and replacing

27:34the wash cap of another chimney, are not

27:38under the jurisdiction of the

27:39commission, and therefore approves the a

27:42certificate of non-applicability.

27:45>> Second. And on that motion, Commissioner

27:47Bernett.

27:48>> Yes. Commissioner Gutierrez,

27:50>> yes.

27:50>> Commissioner Andre,

27:51>> yes.

27:52>> Commissioner Santos Rebo,

27:53>> yes.

27:53>> Chair Holarski,

27:55>> yes. And you are all set. Thank you so

27:57much.

27:58>> Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

27:59>> Okay.

28:00>> Right. And now we are moving on to Are

28:03we going to try for item two again? Has

28:05anyone

28:07>> Let me try again. Hold on. Do we have

28:10anyone for 244 Pleasant Street that's

28:12willing to speak? Can somebody raise

28:14their hand? I'll unmute you. All right.

28:17We have Sergey again. Let me try.

28:23>> Hey, can you guys hear me?

28:25>> Yes. Okay, there we go.

28:26>> Okay. I apologize about that. Um, I

28:29actually wanted to be there in person,

28:31but it was a twohour drive for me today,

28:34and I don't think I was going to make it

28:35on time, so

28:36>> that's okay.

28:38>> This would be better. Um, yeah. So, uh,

28:40I'm one of the owners of Divine

28:42Wellness. Um, we're a health and

28:44wellness apothecary. Uh we have a store

28:47in uh South Boston that's been there for

28:50about eight years now and uh we just

28:53just came to the neighborhood and um you

28:56know due to our own sort of uh ignorance

28:58we we weren't aware exactly of um you

29:02know where we were placing the store in

29:04terms of the uh you know the historical

29:07aspects and uh we didn't uh pull permits

29:10for certain aspects of uh kind of our

29:13our buildout. Um we have since uh done

29:17some remediation to um you know bring it

29:20up to uh you know the historical

29:23commission standards by removing the

29:26security grate and also um moving our

29:30sign down um to be in the middle of uh

29:35you know of that space which is where we

29:37would have originally intended it to be.

29:39Obviously, you know, having put the

29:42security grade up first, we needed to

29:43bump it up a little higher, but um yeah,

29:46we've since moved it down. And I believe

29:49the last pending item was um the signage

29:52that we have on our windows. Um from

29:55what I understand, I think that that

29:57there's a rule um that it can't take up

30:01more than 50% of of the window. Is that

30:04correct? Or am I off base there?

30:06>> Is that with the grant standard? is

30:07that?

30:08>> So, no, that is pro that probably has

30:10something to do with an inspectional

30:12services rule. Um, so did you talk to

30:15somebody maybe like the zoning

30:19coordinator? Do you know if you talked

30:20to somebody in the building department

30:21about that?

30:23>> Um, I I don't believe so. I I just think

30:26that there was, you know, a violation

30:28cited against

30:29>> Well, there's a violation there. So,

30:31there's a violation because you

30:33installed it without historical

30:34commission approval. So, that's one, but

30:36I wouldn't be surprised if it is in

30:39violation of the signage ordinance, too.

30:42So, you could have heard some from

30:43somebody else on that. Um,

30:47but the only thing the commission is

30:48looking at is the design.

30:51>> Okay, got it. Um, so yeah, I I believe

30:55what you were referring to is the the

30:58signage clause was was something like 50

31:0050%. you guys are looking at the design

31:03and um you know if you know if it's not

31:07something you guys like I guess we could

31:08we could take it down or we could you

31:11know cut it down a little. Obviously

31:13being kind of a new business in the area

31:15we were trying to you know attract

31:17attract you know walking traffic and um

31:20you know we thought we did it in a

31:22pretty tasteful way but I guess that's

31:24you know my bias. Uh and um you know if

31:29you guys need it altered then um you

31:32know ultimately what we would probably

31:33have to do is is either uh you know

31:37shave down aspects of it or you know

31:39completely remove it and then down the

31:42line put put something different up that

31:44um you know that we would obviously

31:46bring in front of the board to uh for

31:49you guys to you know evaluate and

31:52approve.

31:53>> Yeah. I I think with the um the divine

31:57sign being brought down, it already

31:59looks so much better. Um and you know,

32:04we understand with it being a business

32:07needing to have an open sign. I think

32:09we're okay with the open sign being

32:11there. That's pretty standard. Um, I

32:15personally am okay with the herbal

32:18remedies. Um, you know, the the text

32:22writing, the natural wellness that's in

32:24the black and the white even on the the

32:25bottom as well that shows your website

32:28and your phone number. I think that that

32:31matches the black and white facade well.

32:34Um, I I would like to see the green and

32:37the blue design with the the leaves come

32:40down. I just think it's um

32:44I mean, never mind the ordinance with

32:46the signage percentage, but I just think

32:49it's a little too loud for the building.

32:52Um again, that's that's me personally.

32:56Um

32:57please make any further comments that

33:00you can add to this.

33:06Um,

33:08yeah, I guess, you know, it's it's such

33:10like a subjective thing, right? You

33:12know, we've we've had a lot of people

33:14come by and, you know, express that that

33:17they like it and they they think it

33:18looks good, but, you know, some some

33:20people [snorts] might think it doesn't.

33:22So, I guess it ultimately um depends on

33:26what, you know, the historic commission

33:29as a whole thinks. I we certainly don't

33:31want to do something that people aren't

33:34going to like. Um and we want to kind

33:36of, you know, work with you guys to

33:40um bring it up to a standard that you

33:42guys find acceptable. But, you know,

33:45because it's such a kind of a subjective

33:47thing, I I don't know how um you guys

33:50typically handle situations like this.

33:52Well, I mean, even if you were to come

33:54before us initially as you were supposed

33:56to, we could have agreed upon

34:00something with the same color scheme,

34:02but maybe in a in a smaller fashion, so

34:05it wasn't, you know, kind of

34:07encompassing the whole entrance of of

34:10the building. So that's also another

34:12important factor of you know following

34:16um essentially the rules when it comes

34:18to these things because we we are a

34:21commission that

34:23likes to compromise. We understand, we

34:25we support small businesses, but these

34:28rules are put in place for a reason. And

34:31um again, when you do come up with a new

34:34design in the future, um please come

34:37before us, you know, having learned from

34:39this experience so we can collaborate

34:42and and come up with something that

34:44still lets your business shine and it

34:47shows your brand. But um again, being in

34:50a historic building, there are just

34:53certain things that need to be followed.

34:56Um

34:56>> Sure. And I I think that's you know, a

34:58little bit of our kind of uh

35:02inexperience when we opened our first

35:04store in Boston. Um you know, we you

35:07know, we put a sign up and we did some

35:09some window signage like that and we

35:11never had to pull permits for it, which

35:13now looking back at it, I'm I'm

35:15surprised that we didn't. So, um, you

35:19know, going into this, we, you know,

35:22just inexperience, right, not knowing

35:24that, um, you know, we should be pulling

35:27permits for this this type of stuff.

35:28And, you know, in retro, uh, it seems

35:32so, uh, seems so obvious now. Um, but if

35:36there's, you know, I guess some kind of

35:37compromise where if we could kind of,

35:40um, you know, not take everything off,

35:42but, um, you know, we could talk to the

35:45company that that did the work and see,

35:48you know, if there's something that they

35:49could put over to maybe like dull down

35:52the colors and and take some of it off

35:54so that more more of the actual windows

35:56exposed. and then, you know, perhaps

35:59present that to you guys to um kind of,

36:02you know, dull it down a little bit so

36:04it's not as as loud.

36:05>> Well, even if it was just on a smaller

36:08scale on maybe one of the windows

36:11instead of all of the windows.

36:14>> So, why don't I mean, if that's

36:15something that you want to explore, why

36:17don't we continue then? Are you gonna

36:20are you able to talk to the sign company

36:22within the next two weeks to maybe come

36:25up with a way to dull down the color or

36:29to remove some of it to at least remove

36:32some of the scale?

36:34>> Can I can I just interject a little bit?

36:37Um, so I mean I I had a storefront and I

36:40understand drawing attention,

36:42you know, to your to your store and your

36:44product and it's very important, but

36:47maybe consider that the green and the

36:49blue are very close in tones. So the D

36:53and the V get very washed out. So if

36:55you're trying to bring attention to this

36:57right now, it's it's a little confusing.

37:00Um, and and because of the bright green,

37:03I think that doesn't fit the historical

37:06context that you're trying to convey

37:08with the building. So, you know, maybe

37:11if you considered

37:12>> changing the color of the green and

37:14knocking it down into a slightly darker

37:17tone, it wouldn't be as

37:20>> abrasive when you look at it because to

37:22me it it's just really bright.

37:24>> Pretty bright right now.

37:25>> And the brightness is the D and the V

37:27and the green. like it kind of washes

37:29out together in cont.

37:31>> Sure. And and to be completely honest, I

37:33think the the artwork that we presented

37:36to um the sign company um I don't think

37:40it necessarily came true. Like those

37:42aren't the the exact pan tones that we

37:45that we presented them with, but

37:47whatever, you know, ink they're using

37:48when they're printing, that's kind of

37:50how it came out. And I was, you know, a

37:52little bit surprised myself. Um, so I

37:55can definitely explore that in the next

37:56two weeks and and see what we can do.

37:59Um, you know, if it's, you know, they

38:02hit us with a super expensive quote to

38:04kind of like redo it, we'll probably

38:05just take it off and um, think of

38:08something different.

38:09>> I've got a question about your

38:10motivation behind the decals. Did you

38:13mean to put them up there on the walls

38:16and on the doors for privacy sake or

38:21just to advertise?

38:24>> Yeah, a a little bit of both. Um I think

38:26it kind of you know serves as a a little

38:29a little bit of a privacy barrier. It's

38:31it's done on the inside and the outside.

38:33Um and um you know kind of to to portray

38:37like a like a natural theme, right? you

38:40have, you know, plants. A lot of the the

38:42products that we carry are are

38:44plant-based. Um, but, you know, I didn't

38:49come up with it with the design. Um, we

38:50we had somebody do that and, you know, I

38:53did I did approve it because it looked

38:54good. Um, you know, the way they had

38:57presented it to me, I think the colors

38:59were a little bit darker. Um, and then

39:01this is just just how it came out. So,

39:04>> well, I would think that having some

39:07tall plants, like maybe two to three for

39:10each of the big windows and not any on

39:12the doors, I think that would make it a

39:14much more inviting

39:17>> and natural

39:18>> and and natural

39:20facade,

39:22which would also uh correspond with what

39:25you're trying to do inside.

39:28To me, I mean, it's

39:31>> I like you said, it is it is subjective

39:34to me. I look at that and I live down

39:36the street from this. It's pretty much

39:38an assault

39:40[laughter]

39:40>> because it's so

39:42>> just bright

39:43>> out there.

39:44>> Yeah.

39:44>> And it's it's nothing that would have

39:47been in a an historic district. in the

39:51Crown the Crown Hill historic district

39:54is our first

39:56district, meaning it is the oldest one

39:58in Worcester.

40:00>> Okay?

40:01>> I mean, you wouldn't know that if you

40:02don't live if you weren't born and

40:04raised, grew up here, but it is the very

40:07first

40:08>> planned development in the city of

40:11Worcester around 1840ish.

40:16>> Understood. Yeah. And that's that's not

40:18something that that we knew and it was

40:20not in our lease. Um we're not um you

40:23know we're from Massachusetts but we're

40:25not from the area. Um so you know

40:28apologize for uh you know assaulting

40:32your eyes

40:33>> [laughter]

40:33>> um every day for the last couple of

40:36months and you know we'll you know we'll

40:39take a look at some options and we'll

40:41present them to you guys and um I'm sure

40:43that we could find something that that

40:45you guys like.

40:45>> Yes, definitely. And again, you know, we

40:47support the small businesses. We love to

40:49see the buildings being, you know,

40:51active and being utilized, but this

40:54commission's whole purpose is to just

40:56save, you know, save our architectural

41:00heritage. Um, so that's all we're trying

41:03to do and we appreciate, you know, you

41:05compromising. So I I think what it seems

41:07is that we're going to continue this um

41:10for the meeting in two weeks and for you

41:12to come back with either a new design um

41:16a smaller scale design and if something

41:19cannot you know maybe come back with

41:22both like the cost of

41:24>> I think I think what he's suggesting is

41:26there might be a way to mute the colors

41:28of what's existing and remove part of

41:31it. They're not going I mean this was an

41:33this was expensive.

41:34They're not going to remove it and put a

41:36whole new design up.

41:37>> So, I would say maybe

41:40>> keep an open mind and in two weeks we'll

41:42look at it again.

41:43>> Okay. And then if

41:46they can't mute it or it's insanely

41:48expensive for them, he's agreeing to

41:52>> six plants would cost a lot less than

41:55having that redone or altered at some

41:59point. It all depends on what you want

42:01to do. Uh

42:02>> yeah, I think we're going to

42:04>> not fake real plants, but real plants

42:07would just add to the environment that

42:12you're trying to espouse.

42:16>> Sounds good.

42:17>> Okay. Okay. Thank you guys.

42:19>> See what you can do. But do you think

42:21two weeks is enough time?

42:23>> I think it's enough time to to come up

42:25with um a couple of ideas that I could

42:28run past you guys. um you know uh a

42:31couple of different directions that it

42:33could go. Um

42:34>> okay.

42:34>> And then from there we can pick one and

42:36and do that.

42:37>> All right. So then we're going to be

42:39looking for a motion for a continuence

42:41to October 15th with an extended

42:43constructive grant deadline of October

42:4530th.

42:47I shall make a motion to continue this

42:49matter to the October 16th

42:53>> 15th, sorry, 15th with an extended

42:56construction deadline of October 30th.

43:00>> Second.

43:01>> And on that motion, Commissioner

43:02Bernett,

43:03>> yes.

43:03>> Commissioner um Gutierrez Lavod,

43:05>> yes.

43:05>> Commissioner Andre,

43:06>> yes.

43:07>> Commissioner Santos Rivo,

43:08>> yes.

43:08>> Chair Harkski,

43:09>> yes.

43:11>> Thank you.

43:11>> Thank you.

43:15And now I believe we're picking back up

43:17with item five, one Hancock Street.

43:22>> Hold. Oh, we got two people raising

43:24their hands now. Hold on a second.

43:40Sorry, I just unmuted you. you had your

43:43hand raised again. Did you mean to do

43:44that?

43:45>> Um, I I don't believe so. I think there

43:47were some other items on the on the

43:49agenda, but they didn't pertain to us.

43:52Um, and I apologize. I didn't mean to.

43:54>> That's okay. Have a have a nice night.

43:56>> You as well.

43:59>> Okie dokie. Um, I'm asking First Winter

44:02Holdings LLC to unmute.

44:05CJ, is that you?

44:07>> Yeah.

44:08>> Hi.

44:09>> How's it going? Good evening. Uh, my

44:10name is CJ Gaval. I'm here on behalf of

44:12First Windsor Holdings. Uh if you

44:14remember, we were before you guys

44:16previously for the windows, front door,

44:18and the dormer work. I appreciate the

44:20commission working with us on that.

44:22Tonight, we're asking for approval to

44:23replace the existing wood uh wood

44:26shingle siding. As we got further into

44:28the renovation, we found a lot more

44:30deterioration than what was visible from

44:32the outside. So, if you see if you look

44:34at the photos, um there's significant

44:37rot, a lot of old patch repairs, and

44:40just areas that weren't weatherproofed

44:42ever. And then rather than keep patching

44:46the old siding, we'd like to just strip

44:47everything, fix it correctly, replace

44:50the damaged sheathing as needed,

44:52properly wrap the house, and install the

44:55new siding.

44:57So, if you look at it, there's a lot of

44:58rot and decay everywhere. If you look

45:00at, for example, the third photo, you

45:02can see It's shingles that wood shingles

45:05that are very relatively new. I believe

45:08it was done by the previous homeowner.

45:10Those are not original. Um the product

45:14we selected is a Royal Portsmith 7 in

45:17cedar shingle [clears throat] and

45:19driftwood. We chose it because it keeps

45:21the cedar shingle look and scale of the

45:24house. So we're not trying to change the

45:26character of the property. We just want

45:28to fix the underlying issues and keep

45:30the traditional look of the property.

45:32And then we also want to keep the

45:33existing architectural trim and details.

45:36Um I'm happy to answer any questions and

45:38we're definitely open to working with

45:39the commission on any details. Thank

45:41you.

45:43>> So Michelle, is it correct the um

45:47shingles that are on the home now are

45:49not original?

45:50>> Some of them are. Um, so through the

45:52chair, some of them are original and

45:54some of them are patch repairs that um

45:58were done by a previous owner and

46:01weren't done correctly. So like if you

46:03see like CJ just said in the third

46:05picture there, you can see this, these

46:07are brand new shingles that were

46:09installed incorrectly. Um, these ones

46:12here on the other hand are probably

46:15original. So there's a mix.

46:18Okay. [sighs]

46:21What's the new proposed shingle going to

46:24be made out of?

46:25>> It's a polymer.

46:26>> It's a Yeah, go ahead, Michelle.

46:27>> No, go ahead, CJ. It's It's Well, it

46:30says right here. So, it's it's it's

46:32polymer. So, it's um a composite.

46:34Correct.

46:35>> Yeah, it's like a vinyl composite.

46:37Exactly.

46:39>> So, the look of it is exact if you're

46:41standing on the street, it looks exactly

46:43the same. It's just obviously different

46:44color. It's just a matter of it's a

46:46different material.

46:48>> But it's fine. It's It's vinyl. Yeah.

46:51>> Yeah.

46:52>> So, the same look and scale of the cedar

46:55shingles just gives us a more durable

46:56exterior with an extra less maintenance,

46:58especially given we're in New England.

47:00And then, like I said, just considering

47:03what's happened now. Honestly, probably

47:0860 70% of the shingles right now were

47:12replacements that are not original. You

47:14can, like you said, you can tell which

47:16ones are original. And then the problem

47:17is they just pretty much nailed it on

47:20rather than fixing the underlying issue.

47:22So there's just no weathertight barrier

47:25on the property. So the water just keeps

47:27going inside and it's just a matter of

47:29trying to fix it once and for all.

47:32>> Have you thought of doing like a cement

47:34fiber cement shake or shingle?

47:38>> I did, but just I I've worked with this

47:42product in the past and it's it's been

47:45good to me. And then like I said too, it

47:47just it'll look from the street view

47:50identical. It's just a matter of when

47:52you feel it obviously be a little bit

47:53different.

47:57>> I feel like I don't the front I feel

48:00like isn't going to look the same. It

48:02has like a very I don't know story book

48:04character [laughter]

48:06>> kind of feel. I don't I don't think I

48:08don't know.

48:09>> So if you remember the front is going to

48:11be a little bit different too from the

48:13last meeting. So those black shutters

48:16are going to be removed and then there's

48:17going to be that architectural trim work

48:19that's going to get added around the

48:21dormer. So just so I last time when I

48:24spoke to Michelle I explained I said I'm

48:25going to hold off on that until the

48:27siding is finished and everything

48:30whatever the case may be and then the

48:32trim work will be lost. So, it's going

48:34to look a little bit different than what

48:37you see right now either way, but it's

48:39going to be a little bit different than,

48:40for example, it has that like not say

48:42like rusticy, but a little bit more of

48:45like like you said, has a little bit

48:47more character because it's older.

48:50>> So,

48:51I I don't have an issue with the sides

48:56or the rear being replaced with the new

48:59material. But to your point, Vanessa, I

49:03I do think in the front, I mean, we know

49:06you already have the vinyl windows in

49:07there. We already know that there's been

49:08a lot of upgrades, but that that top

49:11part really does give

49:14character where some of it has kind of

49:16been stripped away. We know that you're

49:18going to take the shutters off and add

49:19other character, but would you be

49:21willing to compromise with um keeping

49:24the front shingles just to maintain that

49:28appearance and and doing the rest of the

49:30building in the new I mean, how does the

49:32commission feel about that?

49:40I mean, I think if you're not willing to

49:41do the cement, fiber cement, I feel like

49:44that's an okay compromise to keep the

49:46front the cedar cuz I really I love the

49:48way difference. Yeah,

49:50>> the um shingles are actually like kind

49:52of

49:52>> Yeah, I like that.

49:53>> Uneven, I guess. [laughter]

49:54>> Exactly. and and the vinyl, like you

49:57said, the cement I there's a couple

49:59houses in my neighborhood that have the

50:01the the cement product shingle, and it

50:04definitely does make a difference with

50:05the vinyl, but we understand um you

50:09know, the severity and the cost

50:10difference of all of that. So, I don't

50:13have an issue with the sides of the

50:14rear, but I really think the front needs

50:16to be maintained, especially because

50:18it's not a whole side of a building.

50:20It's just really that top portion. What

50:23is on the um inside the porch with that

50:25front window? Is that

50:27>> cedar shingles?

50:27>> It is as well.

50:28>> There's cedar shake there too. Exactly.

50:29Yeah. That's just under the window and

50:31then just around the door.

50:34>> So, what percentage do you believe is of

50:36the of the existing shingles that we're

50:39looking at on the screen?

50:41>> So, the original you're talking about?

50:42>> Oh, well, are bad.

50:45>> The bad ones honestly like I have

50:48further pictures too. It was just a

50:49matter of the problem is you have to

50:51remove the shingles to look at the

50:53sheathing underneath it.

50:56>> Be removed anyway. So, we're

50:59You know what we should do? I know it

51:01looks story booking cute. I wonder if

51:03that's just because of the fact that the

51:05other guy didn't do it right.

51:06>> Probably. I I'm [laughter] not saying

51:08it's it's most

51:10>> Yeah, the windows there.

51:12>> Yeah, I'm going to be

51:13>> Cuz if you look up top and then on this

51:15side, they're straight.

51:16>> I know.

51:16>> It's really just over here. So, I mean,

51:18they all have to come off anyway, but I

51:20mean, is there salvageable amounts to

51:22like recreate the front with the

51:24original, or I mean, is it really going

51:26to matter after the fact with the giant

51:29vinyl window and the

51:32>> I don't know,

51:32>> CJ, how much of the um Gambrell section

51:37is salvageable? Do you think

51:39>> the issue is like you said, a lot of the

51:42stuff is like out of square. So, for

51:43example, like all that's got to get

51:46stripped and then even the windows, like

51:50everything's out of square. So, it's

51:52just a matter of we're going to have to

51:53pretty much reinstall them and then put

51:56the new sheathing everywhere that it's

51:57rotted. Honestly,

52:00everything that I've stripped so far is

52:02like like if you look in the pictures,

52:04it's literally like powder. Like, you

52:06have to reframe it, put the zip plywood

52:09on, and put it on. It's just a matter of

52:11I don't want to say how much I could

52:12save cuz also it's a very fragile

52:16material. When you strip it, it's going

52:19to be very difficult to try to save it

52:20again.

52:21>> It's just more a curiosity and how much

52:23money it's going to save you.

52:24>> Well, that's what I'm saying, too. What

52:26What is the cost difference between the

52:28cement and vinyl product of the shake?

52:30Is it a huge difference?

52:32>> It's been in the past, it's been

52:34three-fold. Can Can is that a CJ, you

52:38can't mute yourself.

52:40because I have to unmute you every time.

52:42>> Oh, I'm not I'm just like zooming in. I

52:45was just zooming.

52:46>> You were muted. [laughter]

52:47>> You can't

52:48>> Oh, sorry. I literally Yeah.

52:50>> Uh, so I in my experience, fiber

52:54cement's been approximately three times

52:56more expensive than vinyl. Is that still

52:58true or is it different now?

53:01>> I would say yeah, three, three and a

53:02half times the price.

53:05>> How old is the building again?

53:07>> 1902, I

53:09I think

53:10>> I mean that cedar from 1905

53:13>> 1902

53:14>> 1902 sorry should be in it's in good

53:17shape.

53:18>> Um

53:19>> a lot of it is not from though because

53:20it was replaced by the last owner.

53:22>> Okay.

53:23>> Yeah. The the last owner had sorry to

53:25cut you guys off. The last owner what

53:26happened was he had replaced it and then

53:29he just painted the whole house. So, if

53:31you guys recall the last meeting, I

53:33don't know who it was, but one of the

53:36people on the chair commented, they said

53:38like whoever because it used to be like

53:41in a red color if I'm not mistaken. So,

53:43it's just a matter of I remember someone

53:45brought up a comment about it and then

53:48Michelle said it was just purchased the

53:50property like this. So, the person

53:52patched it and just painted it that way.

53:54It just covers everything. You don't

53:56really you can't tell as much until you

53:58get close up to it. So, if you look at

54:00it from a distance, it all looks good.

54:02But once you start stripping it and

54:04actually looking at it and inspecting

54:06it, all of a sudden you see all the rot

54:09and the decay. And then, like I said, if

54:10you look at the photos, there's

54:12literally like the wood is just turned

54:14into powder.

54:16>> What if new cedar shingles are put on

54:18the front panel, front facade?

54:21>> What? Like new cedar shingles? new cedar

54:23shingles if if there's not enough to

54:25salvage new cedar shingles that

54:28therefore can be painted to match the

54:31>> other sides.

54:32>> Is that something you're amenable to,

54:33CJ?

54:34>> Yeah. So, pretty much all three sides on

54:37the front, strip it, and just put new

54:40cedar shingle to match the um

54:43>> match the rest of the house.

54:44>> Yeah.

54:45>> Yes.

54:46>> Would you guys want it just for the dorm

54:49or the second story or the entire front?

54:52tire front.

54:53>> Okay.

54:54>> Yeah.

54:54>> Yeah, that that sounds reasonable.

54:56That'd be appreciated.

54:57>> I think that's a good compromise. I

54:59mean,

55:01>> okay. Wait a minute.

55:03>> All right. So, I'm going to open it up

55:06for public comment on this.

55:08Is there anybody now?

55:11All right. Can I have a motion to close

55:12public comment then, please?

55:13>> I'll make a motion to close public

55:15comment.

55:17>> Second. On that motion, Commissioner

55:19Bernett.

55:20>> Yes. Commissioner Gutierro Zodi,

55:21>> yes.

55:22>> Commissioner Andre,

55:23>> yes.

55:23>> Commissioner Santos Rustivo,

55:25>> yes.

55:25>> Chair Harkski,

55:26>> yes. And now, can I please have a motion

55:29for a building demolition delay waiver?

55:32>> I'll make a motion for a waiver of the

55:3512 month building demolition delay.

55:38The commission finds that the demolition

55:40at one Hancock Street consisting of

55:42replacing the siding on the side and

55:44rear elevations with vinyl composite

55:47shingles to resemble existing siding and

55:50the replacement or a repair in kind on

55:54the front elevation, the entire front

55:56elevation with cedar shingles would not

55:59be detrimental to the historical or

56:01architectural resources of the city.

56:03Worcester.

56:04>> Second. And on that motion, Commissioner

56:06Bernett.

56:07>> Yes. Commissioner Gutierz,

56:08>> yes.

56:09>> Mr. Andre,

56:10>> yes.

56:10>> Commissioner Santo Santos Rebo,

56:12>> yes.

56:12>> Chair Harkski,

56:13>> yes.

56:15>> Thank you.

56:15>> Thank you.

56:17>> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

56:18>> Okay.

56:20>> Now we're moving on to item six. We have

56:2244 West Street.

56:35Hi. Uh, my name is Sean Mclom.

56:39>> If you could turn that other one.

56:40>> Oh, yeah. That one.

56:41>> Just press the button on the that says

56:43push. Thank you.

56:44>> Uh, my name is Sean Mclo with Sorado

56:46Signs. Um, I'm here to discuss the uh

56:49new signage proposed for uh 44 West

56:52Street. Um, back in April, uh, Bay

56:56State, uh, bank had NES Group Marketing

56:59come, uh, come forward to you, uh,

57:01discussing the sign package. And since

57:04that meeting, the verbiage on some of

57:07the signs and

57:10I think one one building sign was

57:12removed and another um, flag mounted

57:14parking sign was added. Um,

57:18so I don't know if you want me to

57:19explain the differences or how you want

57:20me to go. If you could just point that

57:21out for people that

57:22>> So the [clears throat]

57:24this first one um yeah sign type A um

57:30the change

57:32believe the original sign said be

57:35be more together if I can read that.

57:37It's kind of small. Um the new the new

57:40um proposed design says operation

57:42center. So the the size and everything

57:45is the same. Um just just that one

57:47tagline is changing. They just want to

57:49call it out that it's the operation sign

57:50and not um

57:52>> an actual

57:52>> not a branch

57:53>> branch. Exactly.

57:54>> Yeah. I don't I don't see any issues

57:56with that at all. I mean that's there's

57:58signs that have been there before. It's

58:00the same dimensions. Um

58:03>> does anybody else have any comments on

58:04that?

58:04>> It's the it's the same with the ne it's

58:06there's there's four different signs.

58:08>> So it's it's the same

58:10>> that one.

58:11>> Yeah. So it's the same with the next

58:13one. Correct. It's just a change in the

58:14verbiage.

58:15>> Um so the next one

58:17>> Yeah. because the flag

58:19>> or that was a flag, wasn't it? It was

58:21like a It was like a blade sign going

58:22out before

58:23>> one um

58:29>> parking they had um NES Group had um an

58:34additional smaller uh building sign that

58:37was 27 inch by 27 inch and it said Bay

58:39State Bank with the address. um that

58:41smaller building sign was removed um

58:43from scope and based looking at the two

58:47different packages uh this one was added

58:50um it's 27 by 36 and again it's just

58:53stating Bayate uh bank operation center.

58:57Um

59:00then this one

59:02this was part of the original scope. It

59:04was a a blade sign um on an existing

59:08post. It's just a new face. Um,

59:10originally it said Bay State Bank, 44

59:12West Street. Now just we're just adding

59:15the operation center to it.

59:17>> Okay. So that one will keep retain the

59:20actual address

59:22just on that one.

59:23>> Yes.

59:24>> Yeah.

59:24>> Yep.

59:24>> Okay. The others will just say the State

59:26Bank operations center.

59:27>> These ones are

59:28>> This one is new. Um just um labeling the

59:32parking lot for the employee parking

59:34around around the side.

59:38Okay.

59:41Any comments?

59:43All right. So, I'll open it up for

59:45public comment.

59:48None. Okay. Can I have a motion to close

59:50public comment?

59:50>> I'll make a motion to close public

59:52comment.

59:53>> Second.

59:53>> And on that motion, Commissioner

59:55Bernett,

59:55>> yes.

59:55>> Commissioner Gutierrez,

59:57>> yes.

59:57>> Commissioner Andre,

59:58>> yes.

59:58>> Commissioner Santos Dustivo,

1:00:00>> yes.

1:00:00>> Chair Helki,

1:00:01>> yes. And now, can I please have a motion

1:00:04for a certificate of appropriateness?

1:00:09That was for

1:00:11Sorry.

1:00:13>> Yeah. 44 West Street. Hang on.

1:00:21Okay. Sorry. I had this I had this as a

1:00:23building demo. All right. Um

1:00:29the commission finds that the Hold on.

1:00:34um

1:00:37changes um at

1:00:4044 West Street consisting of installing

1:00:44signage signage is appropriate for the

1:00:47mass for the I'm sorry the uh Elm Park

1:00:51neighborhood local historic district

1:00:54>> second and on that motion commissioner

1:00:56Bernette

1:00:57>> yes

1:00:57>> commissioner Gutier Levote

1:00:59>> yes

1:01:00>> commissioner Andre

1:01:01>> yes

1:01:01>> commissioner Santos Rivbo

1:01:02>> yes y

1:01:03>> chair Holerski.

1:01:04>> Yes.

1:01:06>> You're all set. Thank you.

1:01:07>> Thank you.

1:01:07>> Thank you very much.

1:01:08>> Thank you.

1:01:11>> And now item seven, uh, 6 Massachusetts

1:01:14Avenue.

1:01:41Good evening.

1:01:44>> I'm George Tetler, uh, president of 6

1:01:48Massachusetts Avenue in Worcester. My

1:01:50wife Sheila is with me.

1:01:52I want to thank the commission for

1:01:57its attention to our front steps uh at

1:02:00the last hearing and uh that's completed

1:02:03and uh it looks fantastic and we're very

1:02:07happy with that. Uh

1:02:11so we're here to discuss uh a chimney

1:02:14that is at the very rear of our house.

1:02:18U some of these slides Sheila can speak

1:02:22to more than me, but uh the you'll see

1:02:27uh in a red lower left corner the slide

1:02:31has a a red

1:02:33>> Oh yeah, his his was never turned on.

1:02:35>> Thank you. A red square that uh shows

1:02:40where the chimney is. Uh, and that is,

1:02:43you know, the furthest point from

1:02:45Massachusetts Avenue if you were

1:02:47standing on Massachusetts Avenue facing

1:02:49our home. You'll also see in in that

1:02:53picture uh that there are three other

1:02:55chimneys

1:02:57on the house. uh two on the left side

1:03:00facing our driveway and one on the right

1:03:02side facing our lawn and a very large

1:03:06locust tree that we maintain and uh keep

1:03:11in good condition with the help of a

1:03:15forester.

1:03:16Uh so in 2023

1:03:20we had the home repainted uh and at the

1:03:24time we consulted with staff uh about

1:03:28the paint painting and uh we had

1:03:32insulation done and uh and everything

1:03:34was fine. Uh the the when when the

1:03:39painting was done uh the painter

1:03:42discovered that the rear chimney, which

1:03:44at that point was painted white, uh was

1:03:47in such a horrible condition by virtue

1:03:49of years of uh having uh various layers

1:03:53of paint put on it and the moisture

1:03:55getting into the brick and into the

1:03:57mortar that the chimney couldn't be uh

1:04:01saved even with uh with replacing bricks

1:04:06and replacing mortar. And so at that

1:04:09point it was in danger of collapse. Uh

1:04:12and that chimney by the way is in the

1:04:15interior of our home. So it you see from

1:04:18the roof up the the chimney but the

1:04:20balance of the chimney is in the home.

1:04:23It's inside the structure itself. So um

1:04:27we engaged a master craftsman

1:04:30uh who uh replaced the chimney uh in its

1:04:35exact uh in its exact uh former

1:04:40condition. Uh was a very expensive

1:04:43project as you can imagine. Uh and we

1:04:47did it to protect uh the home uh and uh

1:04:52and make sure that nothing f further was

1:04:54damaged in the in in our structure at

1:04:57the time. Uh it was replaced in the

1:05:00exact same form uh with materials that

1:05:05were comparable to what was there before

1:05:08uh it was replaced. And you can see in

1:05:11the two slides there, uh, the the left

1:05:15slide shows the the hole in the roof

1:05:17before the chimney was replaced as it

1:05:20was torn down. I suppose we could have

1:05:22approached you and said, you know,

1:05:24rather than replace this chimney, we'll

1:05:26just put the roof there uh and re patch

1:05:30the roof. Uh but you know, we're we're

1:05:34very concerned about the historical

1:05:36integrity of our home and wanted to

1:05:39replace that chimney, although we rarely

1:05:41if ever use it. Um so we did that. Uh at

1:05:47the time, uh we believed that and and we

1:05:52were careful uh to to uh look and make

1:05:57sure that it was not visible from any

1:05:59street. and uh Sheila who was a former

1:06:02co-chair of this commission was well

1:06:04aware of that rule and uh we determined

1:06:07that it wasn't uh visible uh at at that

1:06:12time. Uh so uh we've been advised uh

1:06:17that to the the chimney was formerly

1:06:20painted white and we've been advised

1:06:22that it would be bad for the integrity

1:06:26of the chimney to paint it again. Uh

1:06:30it's hardly visible from either from any

1:06:32street even today. Uh although the the

1:06:37locust tree has been trimmed back a

1:06:38little bit and so uh I think Michelle

1:06:41took a picture which shows that

1:06:44>> you can if you

1:06:45>> So that's from Metaf Street in the

1:06:47middle. That's where you get the better

1:06:49view. Actually the view the I'm sure in

1:06:51the wintertime it's probably pretty

1:06:53visible from Massav, but from Metaf

1:06:55Street is where you get the best view of

1:06:57it.

1:06:59Uh so um so the question is uh uh

1:07:05hopefully the question is uh before you

1:07:08is whether uh the chimney should be

1:07:10repainted white. Now, historically, our

1:07:13home our home dates back to 1751.

1:07:17And the chimneys were never painted for

1:07:20many, many years. And uh Sheila can walk

1:07:23you through various photos

1:07:27that show that they were not painted.

1:07:30And uh you know, somewhere in the

1:07:32[snorts]

1:07:3350s maybe, somebody decided to paint

1:07:35those chimneys.

1:07:38>> Okay. And today obviously uh if that

1:07:41decision were being made today, we would

1:07:43not have made that decision. Uh so I'll

1:07:46let Sheila speak to the

1:07:48>> You can mute yourself.

1:07:49>> Okay.

1:07:51Thank you. Um

1:07:55I wanted to also I just realized I did

1:07:57the math. The building is now 275 years

1:08:00old this year.

1:08:01>> This year.

1:08:02>> So that's pretty impressive. Now let's

1:08:04see where Michelle went. The one thing I

1:08:06don't have a picture of because it in

1:08:091751 you couldn't take a picture. But

1:08:11this is an artist rendering of what the

1:08:13building would have looked like at the

1:08:16time.

1:08:17>> And you'll see as I show you some of the

1:08:19historical pictures because I just I'm

1:08:20the keeper of the box that has all this

1:08:22stuff. And there's one picture I need

1:08:24from you that I don't have.

1:08:26>> But if you could Yeah. Let's start with

1:08:28this one because in 1801

1:08:32the courthouse was too small and was

1:08:35moved to what I understand is like the

1:08:37head of Green Street looking down

1:08:39towards Kelly Square and was made into a

1:08:41residence. And you can see it's kept a

1:08:44lot of the same things. It was moved

1:08:46with oxen and I the story is that it

1:08:49didn't get far enough one night so they

1:08:50just parked it in the middle of the

1:08:51street and then moved it the rest of the

1:08:53way the next day. And it was moved twice

1:08:55after that as well. Um, so you have a

1:08:58roof trim, um, a not a captain's walk,

1:09:01but something at the top, the four

1:09:03chimneys, um, and there is a a sort of

1:09:06entryway. The right hand side shows it

1:09:09when it was rebuilt on Massav

1:09:12um, by members of the Trumbull family

1:09:14who felt that it was very important to

1:09:17maintain the historical character of the

1:09:19building. And again, you can see the

1:09:21four chimneys and I I looked, none of

1:09:24them were painted. I think Michelle if

1:09:26we go back please to the Yeah. So this

1:09:29is the one I don't have the top left.

1:09:31>> Yeah. So that's when it was in Salem

1:09:32Square

1:09:33>> and my understanding from

1:09:34>> these are not these are different

1:09:36chimneys. So the these you

1:09:38>> I don't even know if that's the same

1:09:39building. Do you think that's the same

1:09:40building?

1:09:40>> It is the same building. Yeah. I did

1:09:42some research into it. I got I got this

1:09:45from the Worcester Historical Museum.

1:09:48Um, so it was it had been moved to or

1:09:51Museum of Worcester I should say now,

1:09:52but it had been moved to Salem Square

1:09:55for a time and you can see the form

1:09:57lines up. So like the fenestration is

1:10:00the same. This is different here.

1:10:02>> Have another image that has that on it.

1:10:05>> Yeah.

1:10:06>> But my my sense is that um from reading

1:10:10that this is about 1899 when it was

1:10:13slated for demolition because it had

1:10:16gotten so run down. And that's why you

1:10:18probably can't even

1:10:19>> really recognize

1:10:20>> related all the the roof trim had been

1:10:23taken off.

1:10:23>> Yeah.

1:10:24>> As it was getting uh more and more

1:10:26fragile or whatever. And so then you've

1:10:28seen the picture of it on Massav. This

1:10:31middle one shows some of the timbers

1:10:33outside as they're reconstructing it.

1:10:35But notice also the side porch and

1:10:38entryway. Um the building goes straight

1:10:41back. And when you look down at the

1:10:44bottom right, you can see that sort of L

1:10:46edition that goes straight back. You'll

1:10:48see how that got changed.

1:10:50>> And then in the front, you can also see

1:10:52the four chimneys are still on the

1:10:54building. Um, then we have at the bottom

1:10:57in the 1960s, somebody moved into the

1:11:00house and decided, it's too bad you

1:11:02weren't here then, um, to renovate and,

1:11:06uh, really alter the building. You can

1:11:09see the fourth chimney on this side has

1:11:12been removed. So, uh, two fireplaces

1:11:15inside were also removed. Um, the porch

1:11:18on the side, which I don't, yeah, it's

1:11:21sort of blurry, but that's up in the top

1:11:23right, has been removed. Uh, side

1:11:26entrance has been changed. The front

1:11:28entryway was changed. Um,

1:11:31>> and for some reason, after 200 years,

1:11:33they decided to paint the chimneys.

1:11:36[snorts]

1:11:37And we've already talked about Chinese

1:11:39before. So, um I figure this one you

1:11:43didn't have a date for, but it agrees

1:11:45with a 1976 TNG art.

1:11:48>> Yeah. So, so these pictures that I got,

1:11:50they were dated 1900, and I knew it

1:11:52wasn't right, so I just put on unknown

1:11:54date. I I figure looking at it, they're

1:11:56probably mid mid mid to late 20th

1:11:58centur. And that was in the TNG. And you

1:12:01can tell because the bushes have have

1:12:03grown up a little bit since the 1960

1:12:05renovation. And then if we want to go uh

1:12:09and then to the next one, I think.

1:12:12So, um here we are with the chimneys

1:12:16again. And on the right is a picture

1:12:17George mentioned. We had the house

1:12:19painted. We've had it painted twice, I

1:12:21believe.

1:12:21>> So, one question before you go on. Do

1:12:24you know from your research if the

1:12:26chimney caps and the corbals were

1:12:28painted black?

1:12:29>> They were painted black in the 50s. Not

1:12:32originally. So, like the brick that we

1:12:34see right now, is that just shadow?

1:12:36>> I think it's just shadow from the

1:12:37pictures that I have. It's hard to tell.

1:12:40>> It's really hard to tell, but um I don't

1:12:44get a sense.

1:12:46>> Yeah.

1:12:47>> You know, I have the images here.

1:12:49>> Yeah. So, the back doesn't look as dark.

1:12:51>> Yeah.

1:12:52>> Okay.

1:12:52>> It's just the the fluted area creates a

1:12:55shadow.

1:12:56>> Yeah, I think so, too.

1:12:58>> Um

1:12:59Yeah. And I don't, you know, there was

1:13:01sort of an underground railroad thing

1:13:02with that,

1:13:04>> you know, helping slaves, but that's

1:13:06>> we learned today maybe loyalists too. We

1:13:09were talking about this earlier.

1:13:10>> Yeah. But it's exactly,

1:13:11>> but I've read that it's myth. I I don't

1:13:13know.

1:13:14>> Yeah.

1:13:14>> I I don't like to ascribe anything like

1:13:16that to buildings.

1:13:17>> I think it was just Wouldn't it be fun

1:13:19if we did that?

1:13:21>> Um, and they also took out the extension

1:13:23that I mentioned, so it's no longer a

1:13:26straight side on the Salsbury Street

1:13:28side. Um, it would be this side of the

1:13:30house. You can see they chopped it and

1:13:33actually put in a brick patio. Um, I

1:13:35think the rationale was to make the old

1:13:38house part, the original house look more

1:13:42>> u prominent. Um, so let me see if I have

1:13:46any other notes. But that's about it.

1:13:48You know, I just find that the history

1:13:49is fascinating and I it's like shame on

1:13:52you for doing some of the taking some of

1:13:54the trim down and painting the chimneys

1:13:56because we talked about that. Um my

1:13:59other story about the chimney is when

1:14:01the painter recommended him to us, came

1:14:05to my driveway and he said, "Oh, I know

1:14:07you." He was a former student of mine

1:14:09and I was very impressed that he was

1:14:11able, you know, it's really nice to see

1:14:12somebody turn out to be a great

1:14:14professional. He did a great job, but I

1:14:16was the one at home and he kept coming

1:14:17out going, "I I don't know. I don't

1:14:20think I can do this." I said, "Why?" He

1:14:21said, "Somebody like repaired this with

1:14:23almost plaster and it's not working and

1:14:27the bricks are disintegrating." And he

1:14:28said, "It's not what you did. It's been

1:14:30going on for years." And we would have,

1:14:32as George said, that chimney comes all

1:14:34the way down into the kitchen. So, it's

1:14:36a big open thing. And we get water and

1:14:38try to figure out why we're getting

1:14:40water. So, that's why. and he said um

1:14:43first he tried to say let me just see if

1:14:45I can take out ones that are bad and

1:14:47rebuild it but he kept going down and

1:14:50down and down and then he said okay I'm

1:14:52going to have to just cover this I'll go

1:14:54repoint the other chimneys and then let

1:14:57me know so of course adding to the cost

1:15:00of painting we had the cost of

1:15:02rebuilding the chimney but we felt it

1:15:04important to restore it so

1:15:07>> did they did he use the um the older

1:15:10mortar the Sand base mortar.

1:15:13>> I do not know that.

1:15:14>> Probably not if it's newer new brick.

1:15:16>> It's new brick. Yeah. So, you would need

1:15:18to buy a type S.

1:15:19>> I don't think you could use any of the

1:15:21brick that was there.

1:15:22>> So, the rebuilt chimney is of the same

1:15:25dimension because as we noted, the the

1:15:28fluted part at the top. It's really hard

1:15:30to tell with the shadow, if the size, if

1:15:32the dimension is is the same. And I

1:15:35think one of our main things was to make

1:15:37sure that it had the exact same

1:15:39footprint. Yes. Um,

1:15:42>> and then the other

1:15:43>> are the same size too. He was very

1:15:45careful to make sure the bricks were the

1:15:46same size and the same color.

1:15:50>> So I I think hard hard thing is that the

1:15:54other chimneys are painted white and

1:15:56it's been painted white for a long time.

1:15:58So now you have this new build one that

1:16:00although it matches the footprint,

1:16:03it kind of almost stands out even more

1:16:04now because it's not painted. And I know

1:16:07that's usually not something that we but

1:16:10that's where it's kind of difficult

1:16:11because like you stated in the winter

1:16:13and fall the leaves are down. You can

1:16:15see it. I don't know.

1:16:17>> I mean you can my assumption this like

1:16:20the reason why I put in my caption I

1:16:23said full foliage Massachusetts Avenue.

1:16:25I've never been down there in no foliage

1:16:27Massachusetts Avenue. So I don't know

1:16:28how visible it is.

1:16:30>> Yeah.

1:16:30>> You said

1:16:31>> go ahead. You said in your application

1:16:33that the this chimney is on a addition

1:16:37in the in the 50s. Is that referring to

1:16:39the part of the building it's on or is

1:16:41that referring to the paint as an

1:16:42addition?

1:16:42>> It's it's on a part of the building that

1:16:46came from the original I believe um it

1:16:49was added to the original building in

1:16:511840.

1:16:52>> Okay.

1:16:53>> So I think when they reconstructed it

1:16:55but it is not the original courthouse.

1:16:57>> Yes. innovation occurred in the 50s that

1:17:00put the bay window in and did a lot of

1:17:03work, interior work and patio on on that

1:17:08side of the house.

1:17:09>> I think there was some confusion because

1:17:11in the application it says that the the

1:17:13chimney is on a 1950s portion of the

1:17:16building.

1:17:16>> Yeah.

1:17:16>> Oh yeah,

1:17:17>> that's

1:17:19apologies. That's

1:17:22meant to say that the renovation of that

1:17:24building

1:17:24>> was during the 19 Oh, Michelle, what

1:17:26were you going to say?

1:17:29>> I can't remember, [laughter] but I can

1:17:30make something up. Um,

1:17:33no,

1:17:34>> if I may, I think you you were going to

1:17:36say about talk about the visibility of

1:17:38the streets, right?

1:17:39>> No, I was done talking about that. So, I

1:17:43don't I don't we obviously don't know

1:17:45because I have not been down there in

1:17:47winter, so I don't know what the

1:17:48visibility is. What I was going to say

1:17:50is this painting was done which you and

1:17:53I talked about earlier 60 years ago and

1:17:56one of the chimneys has already

1:17:58disintegrated. Now you have the thing

1:18:01about the fact that it's new brick now.

1:18:03So new brick can take paint. However, if

1:18:07the other historic chimneys, what what

1:18:10is the condition of those? Have has have

1:18:12you had anybody assess any of the

1:18:14masonry members there? Well, I've spoken

1:18:17with Raymond James about this and uh

1:18:22he sense that over time uh we should uh

1:18:27remove the paint. That's what I was

1:18:29going to say.

1:18:29>> That was our next question. Do we let

1:18:31the current paint fade to eventually

1:18:34match the new build or do something to

1:18:36get

1:18:37>> to get it right? They're gonna have to

1:18:38actually use like chemical strippers and

1:18:40hand scraping it up. So that's why I ask

1:18:42you what like if the condition is good

1:18:44enough then just scrape it you know when

1:18:48you can

1:18:48>> if you were there right now this front

1:18:51left one is already disintegrating after

1:18:54>> so you're going to have to rebuild it

1:18:56>> well it's just what happens is when the

1:18:58paint comes off it takes a layer of

1:19:00brick with it right

1:19:01>> so you find these

1:19:03>> more porous on on the driveway

1:19:06>> um

1:19:07>> because we can assume based on the

1:19:09pictures I mean what What year is What

1:19:13year is this from? The chimneys were

1:19:15probably brand new in this picture.

1:19:16>> Um, that's when they moved the building.

1:19:18So, 1900.

1:19:20>> Yeah.

1:19:20>> So, yeah, it's used the old brick

1:19:24>> to reconstru everything and reconstruct.

1:19:26>> So, they didn't buy new masonry for the

1:19:29chimneys.

1:19:29>> I don't believe so.

1:19:30>> So, they're even older than that. So,

1:19:31yeah. Then they probably have a really

1:19:33really

1:19:34>> I mean, I can't guarantee that, but from

1:19:35whatever everything I've read, they took

1:19:37everything and took it apart. And

1:19:40somebody said they took it apart and put

1:19:41it back together and took it.

1:19:42>> I don't know. That that looks like new

1:19:44brick to me. If if you look

1:19:46>> It looks really perfect.

1:19:47>> It's It's like It's like really good.

1:19:49[laughter]

1:19:50>> So, but but either way, we can we can

1:19:52figure at least 125 years old. It's It's

1:19:55still old no matter what.

1:19:57>> So, the the best thing to do probably

1:20:01would be to retain

1:20:04what you have. Of course, you probably

1:20:07learned tonight, people come to the

1:20:08commission for just about everything,

1:20:10even changing words on signs. So, like,

1:20:12make sure when you in the future when

1:20:14you have to strip paint, just make sure

1:20:16you come to the commission to at least

1:20:18get the approval for that. But probably

1:20:20the thing that makes the most sense is

1:20:22to allow for the chimney to exist as it

1:20:24does now. And then you just try to get

1:20:26back to the unpainted condition going

1:20:28forward.

1:20:29>> You know, my other take is that it's not

1:20:32part of the original building, too. So,

1:20:35it's it's back there. And Metcast

1:20:38Street, honestly, you're looking through

1:20:39the neighbor's yard into my backyard.

1:20:41It's like, okay.

1:20:42>> Yeah.

1:20:42>> And I did that today because I said,

1:20:43"Wow, that's really weird." And it's

1:20:45just a little area. But anyway, but it

1:20:47is it almost

1:20:49>> so where you can't see things, people go

1:20:51for what's called a certificate of

1:20:52non-applicability. So, that's where the

1:20:54commission says, "Nope, it's out of our

1:20:56purview," which is what they did with

1:20:58the stairs. So, if it is somewhere that

1:21:00you can't see, you go for that type of

1:21:02application. If it is something that's

1:21:03visible, which technically this is,

1:21:06yeah, then you go for the

1:21:07appropriateness.

1:21:08>> Yeah.

1:21:09>> Our neighbor immediately behind us has

1:21:12an entirely brick home with chimneys,

1:21:15big tall brick chimneys, too. So, it

1:21:17sort of matches and this chimney

1:21:21>> this chimney face faces.

1:21:26>> I mean, we'd prefer for it to be brick,

1:21:28you know, not painted. So I I I mean

1:21:32>> and even though it's not the original

1:21:36part of the building, it's still really

1:21:38old and it's been a part of this

1:21:40neighborhood for a really long time. And

1:21:42I think my main concern was just that

1:21:44the dimensions wanted to make sure those

1:21:46were the same because with the shadow at

1:21:48the top, it was kind of hard to tell if

1:21:50it matched up. That's honestly the the

1:21:53main part that I care about is just

1:21:55matching the existing footprint of what

1:21:57was there. And I'm sure different times

1:21:59of the year it's more visible than

1:22:01others depending on which direction

1:22:02you're looking. Um it would be nice if

1:22:05the main building could get back to its

1:22:07original brick color. We know that

1:22:08they're old, but that's something that

1:22:09would have to be down the road again.

1:22:11And if you do choose to do that or it

1:22:13becomes an issue,

1:22:14>> of course,

1:22:15>> you just have to come before us with

1:22:17that. Um does the commission have any

1:22:19other comments about this project?

1:22:23Well,

1:22:24>> then I'm going to open it up for public

1:22:25comment.

1:22:27Anybody online?

1:22:29>> Could I have a motion to close public

1:22:30comment, please?

1:22:31>> I'll make a motion to close public

1:22:32comment.

1:22:33>> Second.

1:22:34>> And on the motion to close public

1:22:35comment, Commissioner Brunette?

1:22:37>> Yes.

1:22:37>> Commissioner um Santos Rivo?

1:22:40>> Yes.

1:22:40>> Commissioner Gutierrez,

1:22:41>> yes.

1:22:42>> Commissioner Andre,

1:22:43>> yes.

1:22:43>> And Cher Horski,

1:22:44>> yes. So, now we're going to do two

1:22:46votes. Correct.

1:22:47>> The building demo delay first.

1:22:48>> Yes.

1:22:49>> Okay.

1:22:49>> So, could I please have a motion for a

1:22:51building demolition delay wa?

1:22:53>> Sure. I'll make a motion for the waiver

1:22:55of the 12-month building demolition

1:22:57delay. The commission finds that the

1:22:59retroactive demolition at 6

1:23:01Massachusetts Avenue consisting of

1:23:04replacing the chimney would not be

1:23:06detrimental to the historic or

1:23:08architectural resources of the city of

1:23:10Worcester.

1:23:11>> Second. And on that motion, Commissioner

1:23:14Bernett,

1:23:14>> yes.

1:23:14>> Commissioner Gutierrez,

1:23:16>> yes.

1:23:16>> Commissioner Andre,

1:23:17>> yes.

1:23:17>> Commissioner Santos Rivo,

1:23:19>> yes.

1:23:19>> Chair Horeski,

1:23:20>> yes. Okay.

1:23:21>> And now, can I please have a motion for

1:23:23a certificate of appropriateness?

1:23:25>> Appropriateness, not non-applicability.

1:23:27>> Correct.

1:23:27>> Okay. Got that. Okay. I shall make a

1:23:30motion for a certificate of

1:23:31appropriateness.

1:23:33The commission finds that the

1:23:35retroactive changes at 6 Massachusetts

1:23:37Avenue consisting of replacing the

1:23:38chimney

1:23:40are appropriate for the Massachusetts

1:23:42Avenue Local Historic District.

1:23:44>> Second.

1:23:45>> And on that motion, Commissioner

1:23:46Bernett.

1:23:46>> Yes.

1:23:47>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavod.

1:23:48>> Yes.

1:23:49>> Commissioner Andre,

1:23:50>> yes. Commissioner um Santos Rivbo.

1:23:52>> Yes.

1:23:52>> And Chair Harkski.

1:23:53>> Yes.

1:23:54>> So you're all set.

1:23:55>> Thank you.

1:23:56>> Thank you.

1:23:58>> I guess we should have a party.

1:24:01>> It just occurred to me

1:24:04this year.

1:24:06>> That's [laughter] great. That's

1:24:09>> Thank you.

1:24:10>> A long time.

1:24:12>> Okay. [sighs]

1:24:13>> And now moving on to

1:24:16other business.

1:24:19We have a request for determination of

1:24:22local historical significance for the

1:24:24Greenale Norton Eagle Monument and War

1:24:27Memorial.

1:24:30Sir, are you here for the eagle?

1:24:33>> That's me.

1:24:34>> Come on up.

1:24:35>> That's me.

1:24:38[snorts]

1:24:53Did you want to give some background to

1:24:55it or we just kind of let

1:24:56>> Oh, you want to uh introduce yourself

1:24:57first?

1:24:59>> Hold on a second.

1:25:00>> Oh, is it on?

1:25:01>> Yes. My name is Philip Nyberg and I'm

1:25:05here representing the Swedish National

1:25:08Federation of Worcester.

1:25:09>> There we go. Thank you.

1:25:13And uh we uh have an have an interest in

1:25:17the Greenale Eagle because it is in the

1:25:22Greenale section of Worcester which is a

1:25:24predominantly Swedish or had been a

1:25:26predominantly Swedish neighborhood for

1:25:28many years. The Greenale Eagle was

1:25:31created uh as a war monument after World

1:25:34War II. Was done by a Swedish sculptor

1:25:38sponsored by George Jeepson, president

1:25:40of Norton Company, and it sits in Norton

1:25:43Company's almost front yard.

1:25:46>> Uh so there's a lot of of significance

1:25:49for us. The situation that we're looking

1:25:52at was that uh the eagle is the base of

1:25:57the eagle, I should say. The eagle

1:25:59itself is fine. The eagle is sculpted

1:26:01from, according to the sculptor himself,

1:26:05some very hard Swedish marble and it's

1:26:09holding up very fine, thank you very

1:26:11much. But the pedestal and uh raised

1:26:15base that it sits on is deteriorating

1:26:18somewhat. So, we're concerned about it

1:26:20and we would like to see it uh so

1:26:23designated that we pay more attention to

1:26:26it.

1:26:32Okay. So, we have done some research

1:26:36about this as well. Um,

1:26:39and we know that it is a World War II

1:26:41monument dedicated to Americans who lost

1:26:43their lives in World War II and

1:26:45specifically Norton Company uh employees

1:26:48who were of Swedish descent, which made

1:26:50up a predominant amount of the Norton

1:26:52Company. um since it having been erected

1:26:56um the sculptor Carl Mills um is a noted

1:27:03Nazi sympathizer and it makes this a

1:27:07very difficult situation. Again, as part

1:27:10of the commission, our job here is to

1:27:14determine the local historical

1:27:16significance

1:27:18of this monument. Um, I would really

1:27:22appreciate some feedback from the

1:27:23commission in regard to this.

1:27:29>> First off, you are you does this come as

1:27:31news to you?

1:27:33>> No.

1:27:35>> As as it he he didn't know for very

1:27:37long. He found out yesterday.

1:27:39>> Okay. So

1:27:40>> Michelle brought this to to my attention

1:27:43and so I also did a little looking into

1:27:46this

1:27:47>> and I would point out that uh Carl Milis

1:27:52has done some very impressive sculptures

1:27:56not only in Sweden in Europe and in the

1:28:01United States including a major

1:28:03sculpture in sculpture in St. Lewis

1:28:07depicting the meeting of the waters. Uh

1:28:11he was very active in the 30s and 40s.

1:28:16It pro was recognized as probably the

1:28:19most recognized celebrated uh Swedish

1:28:24sculptor of that uh of the 20th century.

1:28:28He the what you're referring to is they

1:28:32have noted he in some private

1:28:36communications in the 30s with people in

1:28:40Germany. His wife was Austrian

1:28:42um did express some admiration for the

1:28:47things that Germany was doing at that

1:28:49time.

1:28:51In fairness, I think you should also

1:28:53note that he later came to this country,

1:28:57lived in this country, became a United

1:28:59States citizen, and died here.

1:29:04So I think

1:29:07to focus on a very small and non-public

1:29:12part of his life

1:29:15compared to the artistic achievements,

1:29:19including this little thing in our own

1:29:22city, uh I think is is

1:29:25perhaps not justified.

1:29:28>> I think personally it's a lot simpler

1:29:30than that. I don't think that we even

1:29:32need to consider the sculptor. I think

1:29:34we need to consider the sculpture

1:29:38and that's what I would recommend to the

1:29:40commission because when you're looking

1:29:42at the criteria, there's four criteria.

1:29:46In my opinion, it meets criterion A. Is

1:29:50this resource associated with events

1:29:52that have made a significant

1:29:54contribution to the broad patterns of

1:29:55our history? It is a local monument to a

1:30:00national event. That's what it is and

1:30:03it's a good example of it.

1:30:06>> Is it associated with the lives of

1:30:08persons significant in our past? I don't

1:30:11think that this sculptor is objectively

1:30:14is is objectively important. I also

1:30:17don't think like the men and died men

1:30:20and women who died for this country that

1:30:22is not a catch-all that works here. C.

1:30:26Does it does the resource embody the

1:30:28distinctive characteristics of a type

1:30:30period or method of construction or

1:30:33represent the work of a master or

1:30:35possess high artistic values or that

1:30:38represent a significant and

1:30:40distinguishable entity whose components

1:30:42may lack individual distinction? Is it a

1:30:45pretty good example of 1930s sculpture?

1:30:48Probably. But I would still go back to

1:30:50criterion A. And does the resource have

1:30:54a likelihood of yielding information

1:30:56significant in history or prehistory?

1:30:58No.

1:31:00So,

1:31:01you only have to meet one of the four

1:31:04criteria. Um, and

1:31:07I will just reiterate, I know we had

1:31:10conversations earlier about whether or

1:31:12not Norton might have known who they

1:31:14were hiring or whatever and what his

1:31:18political leanings were. I don't think

1:31:20so because like I said

1:31:24he was still living at that point. He

1:31:26was a Swedish sculptor. Norton had no

1:31:29way to weigh his political leanings when

1:31:32they hired him. So I think that we have

1:31:35to look at this sculpture in the context

1:31:37of the neighborhood and American

1:31:40history. And also we have to recognize

1:31:43that there's dark parts of all American

1:31:46history. It does not make it less

1:31:48significant. So I will say I'll just say

1:31:51that

1:31:57>> does anybody else have any comments

1:31:58about

1:32:00>> this? Yeah, I I concur. When I was

1:32:03reading through this, I also think that

1:32:05the only real criteria it falls under is

1:32:09is a I think

1:32:11>> echoing what

1:32:13>> Michelle said it um B is just too broad

1:32:17catch all and then

1:32:20>> I think C I don't think we want to do

1:32:23that for a number of reasons. So I think

1:32:25a if it's going to go be approved it

1:32:28would be under A only.

1:32:33>> I think monuments and there's there's

1:32:36many monuments that that bring up

1:32:39questions but it also helps to introduce

1:32:40dialogue and I believe in um signage

1:32:45that supports you know

1:32:49why history is the way that it is and

1:32:51what's happened. So,

1:32:53>> but I don't think signage is is

1:32:55>> No, I'm not saying that. I'm just saying

1:32:56like monuments in general.

1:32:58>> Yeah.

1:33:00>> Yeah. So, I mean what happens in the

1:33:02project is separate. Simply what you are

1:33:05being asked to do is determine whether

1:33:07or not this sculpture is locally

1:33:09historically significant.

1:33:14>> So, would I just ask for a motion to

1:33:17determine its local historic

1:33:19significance under criterion A?

1:33:20Criterion A only.

1:33:22>> Yep. I'll make a motion for

1:33:23determination of local historical

1:33:25significance.

1:33:27[snorts] The commission finds that the

1:33:29Greenale/Norton

1:33:31Eagle Monument and War Memorial are

1:33:33locally historically significant in the

1:33:36area of criterion a broad patterns of

1:33:40our history for the purpose of

1:33:42application for community preservation

1:33:45act funding.

1:33:47>> Second. And on that motion, Commissioner

1:33:49Bernett Yes.

1:33:51>> Commissioner Gutierrez Lavote.

1:33:52>> Yes.

1:33:53>> Commissioner Andre.

1:33:54>> Yes.

1:33:54>> Commissioner Santos Rivbo.

1:33:56>> Yes.

1:33:56>> Commissioner Hnarkski.

1:33:58>> No.

1:33:59>> Okay.

1:34:00>> Passport to one.

1:34:04>> So, you're all set.

1:34:05>> You're all set.

1:34:06>> Thank you very much. [clears throat]

1:34:10>> Policies and procedures.

1:34:13>> I don't think we have any, Michelle.

1:34:15Correct.

1:34:15>> We do not have any policies and

1:34:17procedures. Um, and then item C is an

1:34:22invitation from Worcester Housing

1:34:25Department to comment on a HUD funded

1:34:28project at

1:34:31171 Austin Street. I wouldn't recommend

1:34:33commenting on that. Um, I will leave

1:34:35that up to the commission. Stop me if

1:34:37you want me to.

1:34:38>> Yeah, typically no, we don't make

1:34:40comments on those. So,

1:34:41>> unless it's full demo usually. Yeah. And

1:34:43then the last item is review and

1:34:46approval of the Belmont AM Zion Church

1:34:48preservation restriction. Did you all

1:34:49have a chance to look at that?

1:34:51>> Yes. So, we need to

1:34:53>> I don't have it printed out. I I'll I'll

1:34:55have you digitally sign it. I will send

1:34:56it to you, but you do need to take a

1:34:57motion to accept it.

1:34:59>> Okay. So, I'll make a motion to appro

1:35:01accept and approve uh the preservation

1:35:05restriction for the Belmont AM Zion

1:35:09Church.

1:35:11>> Second. And on that motion, Commissioner

1:35:13Brunette,

1:35:13>> yes.

1:35:14>> Commissioner Gutierz,

1:35:15>> yes.

1:35:16>> Commissioner Andre,

1:35:16>> yes.

1:35:17>> Commissioner Santos Rivbo,

1:35:18>> yes.

1:35:18>> And Chair Hoski,

1:35:20>> yes. And for approval of minutes, we

1:35:23have July 23rd, 2026, August 6th, 2026,

1:35:28September 3rd, and 17th, 2026. Did

1:35:31everybody have a chance to look over

1:35:32these minutes?

1:35:34>> Yes.

1:35:34>> Um, can I please have a motion to

1:35:36approve the minutes as written?

1:35:38I'll make a motion to approve minutes

1:35:40from the July 23rd, August 6th,

1:35:43September 3rd, and September 17th, 2026

1:35:47historical commission meetings as

1:35:49written.

1:35:50>> Second.

1:35:51>> And on that motion, Commissioner

1:35:53Bernett,

1:35:53>> yes.

1:35:54>> Commissioner Gutierro Zodi,

1:35:55>> yes.

1:35:56>> Commissioner Andre,

1:35:57>> yes.

1:35:57>> Commissioner Santos Divo,

1:35:59>> yes.

1:35:59>> And Cher Helarski,

1:36:00>> yes.

1:36:01>> And that concludes the meeting. So if

1:36:04everybody's in favor of adjourning, say

1:36:06I.

1:36:06>> I. Ready?