That the City Council adopt a Demolition Review Ordinance as set forth herein, to preserve and protect buildings of historical significance in the City of Melrose.

Transcript (~1 h 50 min @ 16:39)

Speakers identified by voice; unnamed voices are numbered within this recording. Auto-caption text — verify against the video.

▶ 16:38 Maya Jamaleddine: agenda, ID, uh, ordinance number, ID number 2020-571, that the City Council adopt a Demolition Review Ordinance as set forth herein, um, uh, to preserve and protect buildings of historical significance in the City of Melrose. We have, um... I will turn it to the, um, uh, maker of the ordinance, uh, to speak and then we can turn it to the, uh, members of the, um, administration. Um, Councilor Karamoche- uh, Councilor Takara. That's okay. (laughs) Sorry.

▶ 17:15 Cal Finocchiaro: Close enough. Thank you, Chair, uh, Jamaleddine. And thank you everybody for being here tonight and for the people that spoke. Um, I am not an expert at demo delay. (laughs) Um, we have some experts in the, in the house, so I just want to say thank you to our city planner, Lori Masa, for her support and, uh, for s- supplying the revised d- draft ordinance that we're looking at tonight. Um, her knowledge and expertise in housing development and also preservation is greatly valued. Um, I also want to thank Shane Egan and the historical commission members, um, our city solicitor, Shannon Phillips, and Council Hamilton for, um, your guidance and show of support with this. So Lori and Shane, if you, um, want to come and present and we'll talk about... So we- I know we have some, you know, I know we some- have some revisions too to walk through as well, so...

▶ 18:05 Maya Jamaleddine: Yes, so we have, um, Director Masa and we have Chair Egan, uh, both, uh, present with us to, uh, speak on this ordinance. Uh, just for the record and for the public, I understand that my colleagues have been working tirelessly on this ordinance, uh, in collaboration with the different departments and different, um, uh-... parties involved, um, and we just received some recommendations, last-second recommendations, so we haven't had the chance to read it, but we welcome all the, um, uh, recommendations and suggestions that, um, was shared, um, and the floor is yours.

▶ 18:46 Speaker 8: So, if- if I could just say, I- I- I'd like to say, on behalf of the Melrose Historical Commission, and- and knowing that Jim Bennett's a tough act to follow- (laughs) ... uh, we really endorse what, what, what Jim says, but also, uh, you know, I think to reiterate that we're not looking for, uh, you know, demolition delay to, to stop development. Uh, we are looking for a sensible demolition delay, uh, to pause and say, "Wait a second. Uh, let's analyze if this particular structure is of historical value and should be potentially saved and/or adjusted so we can, uh, honor that, uh, the past of that particular home in some way." So, it may not always be a situation where the house stays the way it is and it doesn't change at all. It's gonna change, we understand that, but if we respect the past, the Historical Commission will work with developers, uh, in that pause period, or even before that, to make sure that the, uh, home is going to retain that, uh, uh, you know, historical significance. So, I just wanted to put that as a preamble to, to this. I think it's very important, uh, and that we are very supportive of this,

▶ 19:53 Maya Jamaleddine: uh, agenda item. Thank you so much. I appreciate, um, your comments, and, uh, Director Massa -

▶ 19:58 Speaker 4: Yes, yeah. ... to share. Thank you for having me. I put together a few slides just to, um, show some data that, um, we thought might come up in this discussion. Um, so, let's see.

▶ 20:16 Speaker 4: Mm-kay. (laughs) I don't know if there's a delay or- (laughs) ... this is not working here. Oh, okay. Um, so the purpose, um, of a demolition delay ordinance, um, is, uh, typically not to prevent demolition, that is a potential outcome, um, but it is for a pause in the construction process, uh, to consider alternatives to demolition, um, for preservation, rehab- rehabilitation or restoring- (clears throat) ... um, buildings, um, and- Okay. ... so that, that can be a great outcome or, um, other alternatives in this delay period, um, are photo documentation of buildings, um, architectural renderings or, um, inventories of properties, identifying materials for salvage, um, that can be used elsewhere or with- or within the, um, whatever happens next with the building or the site, um, and a plan for installation of historic interpretive signage at or near the site. So, this is the map, um, that, um, shows from the Mass Historical Commission of the communities in Massachusetts that have this, um, demo, you know, it's called demo- demolition, demolition delay or review, or there's other names depending on the community. Um, this is a regulation that is, um, a local regulations, it's not in state law that specifies exactly how this process works, so you kind of work with it, um, how you'd like at the municipal level. Um, so there are many communities that have, um, demolition delay and the timeframe for that delay varies, um, from, you know, none to, um, greater than 12 months. You know, it's, uh, can be sometimes up to, um, two years. Recording in

▶ 22:10 Speaker 3: progress.

▶ 22:13 Speaker 8: (laughs) That happens.

▶ 22:16 Speaker 4: Okay, there we go. Um, so Melrose is, um, right here, if you can see- (laughs) (laughs) ... the cursor here. Um,

▶ 22:28 Speaker 4: so the proposal, um, before you includes, um, this review period for any buildings in the city that are 100 years or older, um, or if properties are on or proposed to be on the National Register of Historic Places. And, um, the way that it's, uh, in the- the draft is that the Historical Commission, um, determines if, uh, a property is (soft thump) um, there's a two- two kind of phase determination. Um, if it's a building is, um, significant and then if it's preferably preserved. And so, um, this slide shows (object clattering) some of the factors in determining- making the determination about the association with an important historic person, event, or significant architectural style, um, culture, political, economic or social history, um, or historically or architecturally significant either by itself or in the context of a group of buildings.

▶ 23:30 Speaker 4: Um, and then we, um, (smacks lips) pulled together a map that shows the number of buildings, um, in Melrose that are 100 years or older, um, and there's also a paper copy if anyone wants to take a closer look, um, on the table (papers rustling) . Um, so there are a number, so the ones in- in yellow are the residential properties, the ones in pink are commercial or mixed-use, um, the purplish are churches or, um, religious institutions, and then the green is the local downtown historic district, um, which is along Main Street, um, from Emerson to, um, to Foster. And, um, also on this map is marked the National Register Properties, um, with the red square and municipal buildings that fall into this 100 years or older, um, with the- with the blue square. So, I can zoom in if we'd like, but we also have the, um, the paper map here.And then that map, in terms of the numbers, um, are on this slide. So there are s- 7,800 structures, um, in Melrose, and the number that are, that are 100 years older is, um, 52%, um, of all the structures. And the breakdown in the table, um, shows the, those structures, um, by use so, not surprisingly, you know, most of the structures are single family houses in the city, as we have, um, a lot of that, um, building type.

▶ 25:07 Speaker 4: And then, um, looking at the National Register properties, um, there are, um, the local historic district, which are th- those downtown properties, and then there's these different breakdowns of, um, National Register designation. Um, so with all of those designations, we have 36, um, in the city, and that, uh, preservation restriction at the bottom of that key there is, um, three properties that, uh, have a more, kind of, um, restrictive, uh, protection. Um, the other National Register properties typically don't have protections, um, they're just in this, um, in a database that's run by the Mass Historical Commission. It's called the MACRS database. Um, and so you can get a lot of information by going to this website and, um, searching Melrose and, you know, you can search by a lot of different things, um, to find some great information, um, that people have submitted over the years, um, and submitted for National Register properties or just inventories. Um, so there's a lot of good, good, uh, data there.

▶ 26:23 Speaker 4: And then, to give you a sense of the number of demo permits that the city, um, often sees, we looked at the last three years. Um, there were nine demolition permits that were issued for principal structures that were 100 years or older. Um, and there were 13 demolition permits for garages or sheds, um, and we'd have to take a closer look at the, the age of the structures to get a sense of how many would be within this category of needing review.

▶ 26:52 Speaker 4: Um, and then that's it for my presentation. I, um, am happy to answer questions or walk through any of the, um, the kind of steps involved. Um, but it is kind of, uh, the way that it's drafted is, provides for some flexibility with, um, you know, kind of jumping to that second phase of a, um, preferably preserved status if a property owner or, you know, somebody interested in, um, doing something with the property kind of wants to jump to that second step, um, to try to have some flexibility with, um, kind of getting to the, the results without, um, having to kind of go to the, the first step and kind of adding, adding meanings to the process. Um, and, um, we did put a requirement for public hearings, uh, because it is, I feel, a good thing to have public notification for these decisions that a pub- uh, public body is making. Um, so that, you know, the community is aware and that, that initial determination, which in some communities isn't done by public hearing, it's just a public meeting, um, you know, if, if that decision is made and then people find out after the fact, um, it can be, um, frustrating. So, um, that's the way that we've, we've set up the, um, the current draft.

▶ 28:19 Maya Jamaleddine: Awesome. Thank you. Um, I'm gonna turn it back to, uh, Councilor Panachio. Thank you. And open for any other colleagues who would like to ask questions.

▶ 28:30 Cal Finocchiaro: Yeah, I just want to provide some context. So Ward and I had a, a draft. We brought it to Lori, met with city f- uh, solicitor Shannon Phillips. Um, they gave some revisions. Um, this is the draft that we're looking at that Lori had provided to us that was on the agenda. And then the planning board, and I believe the CBA, ZBA, also the Historical Commission, gave some feedback as well, um, earlier in the process. Um, and then most recently, those changes that we're seeing right now, the updates are, and you can, um, you know. (laughs) Sure. I, I think this is from, they're from the, uh, planning board mostly, correct?

▶ 29:10 Speaker 3: Or-

▶ 29:10 Speaker 4: Right. So, um, I can, I can- Feedback from them. ... share my screen again. So, um, we've met with the, um, historic district commission and the planning board, um, reached out to the zoning board of appeals. Um, you know, this is not a zoning ordinance, but it affects, you know, a lot of cases that the, the land use boards, um, see. So, um, we've, you know, provided the ordinance to get some comments and so kind of started the public hearing process of gett- getting feedback and, um, taking, you know, another look at the ordinance. And so we have a, a version here, and I can, um, I can go through, um, the changes that are, um, that are marked on, on this draft, um, if you'd like.

▶ 29:56 Cal Finocchiaro: Um, I was just gonna say, if, if you wanna, we can go through them each one, but is there an overall sort of theme to the changes that were made?

▶ 30:02 Speaker 4: So, a lot of it is just making sure that it's clear of what the, the process is, and, um, the, kind of the general, the, the biggest, um, pieces of these ordinances, how old is the structure that you're re- you're going to review, and, um, what's the time for kind of setting for, um, determining...... if something else can, you know, so the delay period. The, the period where you're looking, you're working with the applicant. Um, and so they, those things haven't changed as, you know, it's, uh, buildings of 100 years or older. Um, and from that final determination, it's 12 months, um, that the Historical Commission, um, would be, you know, hopefully working with the applicant. Um, it's possible that applicants choose not to engage and just wait out the, the time period. Um, but, you know, I would say typically, people, you know, want to, um, to work with the commission and that, uh, that allows them to potentially shorten the time, um, if they're, you know, satisfying the conditions, are able to, you know, find a, um, an alternative to demolishing the building.

▶ 31:15 Speaker 3: Mm-hmm. Okay.

▶ 31:17 Speaker 4: Um...

▶ 31:21 Speaker 5: Um, uh, are y'all set?

▶ 31:22 Cal Finocchiaro: I was gonna say, should, do, uh, is everybody okay with going through each change one by one or is there-

▶ 31:29 Maya Jamaleddine: How about we, we turn it, uh, to questions- Okay. ... and if there is any clarification- Yeah, perfect. ... it, this may come up. Yes. Um, Councilor Garipay.

▶ 31:38 Mark Garipay: Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have some clarification. The paperwork we have in front of us now, um, this i- was in collaboration with the Zoning Board, Board of Appeals, and your office, these changes? Is, uh, is, is this what's recommended I guess?

▶ 31:54 Speaker 4: So the Historic District Commission, um, wrote a supportive letter, um, that submitted as public comment. Um, they didn't provide specific, um, feedback. Um, the, the Planning Board reviewed it as a, as a whole board. Um, they were a- able to meet on Monday night, so it was good timing to be able to, to get some feedback. Um, a few of the members individually sent comments, but it wasn't as a, a whole board that they submitted the comments. It was a f- a few individual members. And then, the Zoning Board, um, hasn't had a meeting that we, you know, to be able to, to discuss this. Um, so I did inform them, but, um, we haven't received direct feedback.

▶ 32:35 Mark Garipay: So, so what I have in front of me right, right now is this from your office, the recommended changes? Yes. From the Planning Board? So you- It's- ... the Office has recommend- recommend... You're the, you guys are the experts, I'm not, so when I was look- Right. ... when I was looking at it, it looks like it's kind of just cleaning up some language. Mm. There's a few additions, right? There's nothing major change-

▶ 32:53 Speaker 4: There's, there aren't major changes. It's, um, yeah, just making sure that some of the, the wording was clear of what the process is. And then, um, there is a, um, an ability for, in that first kind of determination, if the Historical Commission finds that a building is significant, but they fi- find that they could condition, um, the project in a way that didn't need kind of a full second public hearing, that they would have the ability to do that.

▶ 33:24 Mark Garipay: Okay. Um, the only question I had on here when I was briefly looking at it was, had to do with the years, right? Um, trying to figure out what page it was on. Three. Three? Thank you. Um...

▶ 33:43 Speaker 2: The first version's on two.

▶ 33:45 Mark Garipay: Two? Bottom of two. Yeah, the... Looked like it was, uh, the whole thing was lined out. The, the, I, what, what's... Right? Yeah. Looks like both of them, 100 years and age is line- is, is, um, withdrawn from this. So what is the recommendation in the ordinance? I can't seem to find it right now- Oh. ... but you, is someone else,

▶ 34:03 Speaker 4: uh- There, so page two, there was a, um, potential change to switch to a cert- a date of 1930. So buildings, um, up until 1930 would be reviewed and, um, kind of, we went back to the, the 100 years and it was just a error that that one wasn't caught on page two. Okay. So that would go back to the 100 year.

▶ 34:25 Mark Garipay: That, that's the ordinance we want to make sure- Mm-hmm. ... that's amended here. Mm-hmm. So we have something in there, 'cause right now, if we adopt this, it looks like there's nothing in there- Mm-hmm. ... 'cause they're both marked out. Right. Okay. Um, I mean, I'll let everyone else speak, but I mean, I'm o- or I think I'm okay with the changes, kind of like we did with the food truck. I mean, I would, I would accept an amendment, um, I don't know, after some of the other questions, just to do it all at once, um, 'cause a lot of it's just eliminating some language, but...

▶ 34:55 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Councilor Garipay. Um, um, President Migliorelli.

▶ 34:59 Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for being here and thank you to the makers of the order for all your work on this. I, I do have a lot of questions, so, um, bear with me and I can pause and stop. Um,

▶ 35:13 Leila Migliorelli: so this document, so just for thinking logistically through, the document that is in, in the system, in the agenda that I reviewed earlier, this is edits to that document that was purp- just given to us tonight, okay. And I don't know through the Chair if the makers of the order are comfortable with the edits in the document or, or not?

▶ 35:35 Speaker 3: Okay. (laughs)

▶ 35:35 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. Go ahead, Councilman- So for context, I think it would be helpful to understand that Councilor Finocchiaro and I met with Ms. Masa and we had a draft ordinance and she reviewed that and she reviewed that with Ms. Phillips and then came back to us and said, "Here is the document that the City of Somerville uses and has used for years." And she made those changes and we said, "Yes, we embrace those changes." And so that document was then shared with the Planning Board and the Chair of the Planning Board, Greg Sampson, shared specific changes that we then went into this document and made so that it would conform with his recommendations and that is the document that's before us tonight.

▶ 36:26 Speaker 1: So the, m- through the Chair, the makers of the order, you, you made these, uh, you took those edits and made them to this document? No. Or the planning board did. The pla- uh, the, the floor. Yeah. The planning department. Okay. All right. Mm-hmm. Thank you. That's helpful. Um...

▶ 36:39 Speaker 4: Okay. So for,

▶ 36:43 Leila Migliorelli: uh, you know, demo delay, just, I think for, it's important for the public 'cause I know that a lot of people are here about the Lind house. And demo delay is delaying, it's not stopping. Mm-hmm. It's not stopping. Is there... Is the only mechanism to stop the, you know, f- um, (clears throat) in your presentation you talked about, I think it was, is it only three properties that are historically preserved? Or was it 36? I was just trying to follow along with that.

▶ 37:09 Speaker 4: Yeah. So, um, we have, uh, down at local historic district, which is one district in downtown. Mm-hmm. Um, so there is an ability to have single building districts. And we've started the discussion with the historic district commission, um, along with, um, Shane and the historical commission to kind of work collaboratively to, um, you know, discuss creating a single building district, um, for the 244 Main Street. But, um, you know, that process is, um, you know, can happen at the, the same time as, um- Mm-hmm. ... demolition review. So, um, it is related, but it's, um, it can often be an outcome also of a demolition review if, um, uh, you know, gives time for a community to, um, create a local historic district. And, and that is a way to, um, preserve the, uh, structure.

▶ 38:09 Leila Migliorelli: So that, that local dis- district designation for like a, a single, singular home- Mm-hmm. ... would preserve it and would then, if somebody purchase it- purchases that home, they have to, if they want to, can they not demolish it or can they just renovate it, but have to follow a different set of guidelines that's completely different than this- Right. ... demo delay? Okay.

▶ 38:29 Speaker 4: So this, um, demo review ordinance wouldn't apply to any oth- any local historic district, because that's the jurisdiction of the historic district commission. Okay. Um, so there's the historic district commission, which has the task of, you know, the, um, local historic district review, and that's any change to an exterior, um, of the property that's visible from the public right of way. So, they would have jurisdiction over a dem- demolition or changing, you know, windows or, um, siding or, you know, any of those, um, small details. So it's a high level of, um, review for historic districts.

▶ 39:05 Speaker 1: Okay.

▶ 39:08 Speaker 4: Um... (clears throat)

▶ 39:10 Speaker 1: it- So, so I guess, uh, has the... So is it the historic... Well, actually one more question. The city council would then ultimately approve that local historic district, so that would be because it's a

▶ 39:23 Speaker 4: zoning? Right. It, so it's- Or... ... um, it's outside of zoning, but it's a, um, it is a city council vote. Okay. So, that process is creating a preliminary study report that is sent to the Mass Historical Commission, um, and then there's a 60-day window, uh, where they have to review the application and they make an advisory comments to the, the city council. And that also, that study report also goes to the planning board for, um, comments back to the city council and then it's a two thirds vote of the city council to create that district. And the Mass Historical Commission doesn't necessarily have to recommend that it's passed, um, it's just advisory.

▶ 40:03 Leila Migliorelli: So there is an existing mechanism by which we can protec- protect historic homes in Melrose that would actually do more than this, which is just delaying it, and not actually preserving the home itself. Am I- Right. Yes. Um, is there... Has the historic district commission or historical commission ever undertaken like a proactive effort (clears throat) to look at historic homes in Melrose and tried to, before it's, you know, in this kind of limbo, like, Lind house is on the market now, and I mean, it's a beautiful old home, it is historically significant. Um, is there a way to do that proactively throughout Melrose, to kind of go through and see which homes, um, might warrant that and then that would have that sort of like public process, e- you know, for that, so that there's a, a preservation angle to something that's truly historic? 'Cause I think what struck me about that map is that, e- like, all of Melrose is, uh, so much of Melrose is 100 years or older homes, and, I think like as time goes on, that 100-year mark, and I, I would be... I, I wouldn't be in favor of 100-year mark, I would, I would prefer to like look at, uh, pick a date and time. Um, I, you know, was interested when I saw that 1930 area because, you know, my home is, I think built in the 1950s. It's not, it's fine if somebody y- (laughs) years from now wants to go ahead and tear it down, it's not historically significant at all. Um, but there, there are these older homes in Melrose that are, are very special to our community and so, just curious if the historic district or historical commission has ever done a proactive review of those homes so that, so that we can retain them.

▶ 41:46 Speaker 8: So... I, I could, speaking for the Melrose Historic Commission, not in my time. Okay. Uh, three years on the commission there hasn't been. I know that it, I've heard it's been looked at in the past. (clears throat) Uh, there might be a list out there somewhere. Uh, and we all kind of anecdotally know a bunch of houses that would probably apply. Uh, but there is nothing that, uh, is a strict list that we have already done. Okay. Uh, but we've talked about it.

▶ 42:06 Leila Migliorelli: So if, if any of those homes were to go up for sale and, and someone would potentially demolish it, we would, you would be in the same process you're in right now with seeking that single family, single home, um, local district, historic district. If it were subject to demo delay it would just be delaying the demolition, it wouldn't necessarily... Or though, I guess throughout this whole process you're going through and there's an opportunity, um-Is there an opportunity through this process, and I- I admit, like I did not get to read everything, all these edits and stuff like that. Um, would there be, can you then designate the property as n- n- you know, as needing preservation? Or is this just, this on- the only results in this is just extra process to, to potentially delay? 'Cause I did, sorry, I did notice that there was, in the first paragraph it says, um, an opportunity to seek out persons willing to purchase and to preserve, and I just didn't know if that was part of this whole, this whole demo delay, and how that works.

▶ 43:07 Speaker 4: So the, um, delay period would be a, a time that, um, you know, the city could create that preliminary study report and go through the- the steps to, um, seek the local historic district, um, designation. So, um...

▶ 43:23 Speaker 6: Um, maybe I can address that now- So, no- ... speaking as a member of the- Yes. ... Historic District Commission.

▶ 43:29 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, I'm gonna ask, because this, uh, you could have shared anything during the public comment, and we already closed-

▶ 43:36 Speaker 6: We're not doing another public comment on that. I'm answering her question.

▶ 43:37 Maya Jamaleddine: That would be off the record, um, because now we closed pub- So now I'm answering to your question. That's-

▶ 43:44 Speaker 4: That, thank you. (laughs) (laughs) Um- So, um- ... the history- Sure, so, um, the, so it d- it does set a delay, but it is kind of an independent, um, process. And the Historic District Commission in the discussions with, you know, about kind of moving forward with the single building designation talked about, um, you know, moving forward with other properties, um, and so kind of testing it out with one, and then kind of moving on and, um, because there are, you know, there, so there is the, um, the inventory already that you can, you can look to, to um, to see what properties, um, are, you know, National Register properties, or, um, that, that have inventories. And then also the local knowledge of the Historical Commission, and um,- Mm-hmm. ... but that, that discussion already started that, you know, if we do move forward with one, we would want to follow up with, um, with others.

▶ 44:43 Leila Migliorelli: And that would be like a, that's a public process obviously through all of your meetings that are public meetings. And so there'd be an opportunity for people to come and talk in public comment about the importance of adding that home, um-

▶ 44:55 Speaker 4: Right, it- it does require a public hearing.

▶ 44:58 Speaker 1: Okay, great. That's wonderful. Um, I don't know how much time I have left, uh, Madam Chair, but um, I think, um, okay, just wanna go through my, you bear with me. Um,

▶ 45:18 Leila Migliorelli: does this cover it all? I was looking for like if a home is, let's say like partially destroyed by fire or something like that. Like is this at all related to that or would that be completely different, um, in terms of would this ordinance apply to

▶ 45:34 Speaker 4: that? So if it was, um, it- it would be triggered by an application of, for a request for the Historical Commission to- to start this, um, review period or, you know, a demolition permit or a, um, special permit. So it'd kind of trigger to the applicant to apply to the Historical Commission, um, for this review. If there was a- a fire or some, you know, natural disaster, that would happen, and then, you know, the- that property owner would be repairing the- the structure. So it's not that they would kind of get in trouble if, you know, the kind of the demolition was not, um, their doing.

▶ 46:16 Speaker 1: Okay. I'm just curious 'cause I know- Yeah. ... that's come up a few times in Melrose.

▶ 46:21 Leila Migliorelli: Um, and then just in the definition section saying, um, a minor product- project is adding an addition to the side or the rear of the structure, so if somebody wanted to add something, do an addition to the front of the structure, that's

▶ 46:37 Speaker 1: not, um, that would, that would be considered demolition?

▶ 46:43 Speaker 4: So, so that relates back to the definition of demolition? Yeah. Um, so-

▶ 46:49 Leila Migliorelli: So page two, there's minor, a minor project, so just wasn't sure if those are like adding an addition to the side or the rear is considered a minor project, does that mean adding an addition to the front is a major project? The opposite?

▶ 47:01 Speaker 4: It- it could be if it's,- Okay. ... um, so the- the way that, another piece of this that, um, I should have specified is that it's written as, it's not just total demolition, but it's, um, demolition of more than half of the structure. So, uh, if we're gonna do this, I feel like we should do it. (laughs) And you know, if people are trying to basically get around this demo delay by just, you know, trying to carve off ha- you know, half of the building and, um, or- or just less than half, um, then, you know, it's um, we wanna make sure the intent of this is actually, um, followed through with. So it's, um, if more than half of the building is demolished, then it would be triggered, um, for this determination from the Historical Commission. Um, and then there are some, um, exclusions if, that are listed in this on page one in the definition of demolition, um, so like removal of siding, um, roof shingles, um, windows, maintenance, interior renovations when it's not compromising the integrity of the building, um, exploratory demo, interior, um, demo, and- and the minor produ- projects. Um, so um, we kind of have to look at this holistically in- in making a determination, um, when we get an application, if it fits within this, um, demolition, um, criteria or not.

▶ 48:30 Speaker 1: Okay. (clears throat) So if someone had like, you know,

▶ 48:35 Leila Migliorelli: wanted to redo their house 50% or more of, um-... their home this- it would trigger this ordinance, it would trigger this process- Yes. ... and the home is over 100 years or whatever it is that the council votes on. Okay. (paper rustles) So that would apply to all the homes in Melrose that meet that criteria. Um, on page three, um, under notification, again, I'm looking at the online version, um, application for demolition per- so that obviously, that process exists. There's an existing process for, for demolition. You file a- you get a permit from the building, um, office, and then what would be new would be after you file that application for the demolition permit, um, the commission reviews that and then, and then asks the applicant to then complete another application to the commission?

▶ 49:35 Speaker 4: So that's one of the things we clarified that there- an applicant can complete a demolition review, um, application and to apply directly to the, the Historical Commission. They don't have to go- they don't have to apply for a demolition permit which, um, you know, requires a checklist that from a l- a lot of different city departments and, um, it, you know, there wouldn't be kind of a reason, um, if somebody knew that they had to do this, then they couldn't just apply to the commission to start the process. Um, if somebody doesn't know, that's why we have it in there that, you know, if they do, um, a- apply for a demo or, you know, this- a building permit or other, um, types of permits that would, you know, staff would realize that you- that would need to go before the Historical Commission, um, then that's, that's in there as well, just to make sure that that's called out that this, um, staff would be responsible for informing the applicant.

▶ 50:40 Leila Migliorelli: Okay. Thank you. I'm mindful of my time. I just- w- I guess one, like, overarching question. Um, do you- have you done, um, like, do you have a sense of the increase in cost to the city for going through this process? I just want to be mindful that that is something it's time, staff resources. You don't have a very large department. Mm-hmm. Um, you know, costs to put hearings, you know, notices in the newspaper, which I'm aware of, just so you know. City council does the same thing too. It costs money. Um, I just, I, I, n- sorry to put you on the spot- Yeah. ... with this, but if you happened to ha- do you have an estimate of how much this would be?

▶ 51:17 Speaker 4: So it, it is a big consideration. Um, we have, you know, a small department and we have a lot of boards and commissions, so, um, we did, you know, speak with the Historical Commission about kind of taking them on and, and our department for the administrative, um, process and, you know, um, all that comes with that with the demolition, um, review applications. So we would have to take that on, um, in the planning office. It, it, you know, involves, um, mailing notices using the mail machine, you know, taking in money and, and all those things that, um, would be hard for a volunteer board but, um, you know, something that we do for, um, self-reports and commissions so we would be taking that on, um, in terms of the advertising fees and, um, application fees, we would be creating forms and, um, rules and regulations for the, the commission, um, and having the applicants pay for, um, the, the newspaper notices and, um, the covering the cost of, you know, postcards that, um, that would have to go out to, um, all the abutters, um, for this

▶ 52:26 Leila Migliorelli: operation. The applicants would cover, you'll be asking that? Okay. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Um, okay. I will stop my questions there, just I- I feel like this is a lot of good work, I want to be really thoughtful about it, um, and, uh, given the time I'm not, I'm not sure that I could vote on this tonight, but I- I really appreciate all the work that everyone's put into it so far, so just wanted to say that. Thank you, madam Chair.

▶ 52:48 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, President McLearly. I have next, uh, Councilor Hamilton and then Councilor Panacciaro.

▶ 52:54 Speaker 6: Thank you.

▶ 52:59 Ward Hamilton: (clears throat) So when we talk about protections for buildings, and we talk about demo delay, that's one possible layer, and it's pretty much the lowest layer because it doesn't actually stop anything from happening. It delays it. And the next layer is the creation of a local historic district which you're planning to do for this building. Mm-hmm. So hypothetically, demo delay could be voted on and approved by this committee tonight and then approved by the full council in one week. And if the ordinance in this document was approved with a one-year delay, would that be sufficient time for you to create a local historic district to protect a building?

▶ 53:47 Speaker 4: Yes. Okay. You wouldn't need that much time.

▶ 53:49 Speaker 6: Thank you.

▶ 53:51 Ward Hamilton: So, um, one of the things that we talked about was the burden, or we talked, you spoke to was the burden that this would be on the Office of Planning and Community Development as far as applications and review and fees and certainly we would, we would add fees so that applicants paid for the cost of a demo review process.

▶ 54:14 Speaker 4: So for it, our, you know, we have the planning board, zoning board, historic district commission, conservation commission, and the affordable housing trust. We, um, th- this, um, the city council, um, approved increases to our fees for those boards and commissions. Um, recently we, you know, we don't cover really our staff time with, with that, um, so it's not, you know, kind of-We're not recording our, our time and, and if we did that, we'd have to charge a whole lot more. So- Yeah. ... it is a fairly nominal fee typically, um, for these kinds of applications.

▶ 54:52 Ward Hamilton: How many, how many applications have you had, or how many, other than Caruso's, which is a recent very obvious example, when was the last time a building more than 100 years old was demolished in Melrose?

▶ 55:06 Speaker 4: So, we, we pulled the data in that presentation, so there were nine of the last two, three years. So- Nine out of nine. ... about three a year? About three a year, yeah.

▶ 55:16 Speaker 6: Um,

▶ 55:21 Ward Hamilton: just to reiterate, the document that we're reviewing tonight, this is the document largely that you offered, in that the city solicitor reviewed. Right. Right, so- And this is the document that Mr. Sampson, the chair of the planning board, gave feedback to us and we made changes. So we've taken the document that you provided, and that the city solicitor reviewed, and obviously felt good about, legally. And then Mr. Sampson, who is the chair of the planning board, gave input, which we reviewed and made changes, and that's the document that we've put forth before the Legal and Legislative Committee tonight.

▶ 56:07 Speaker 4: Right. It's, it's from the, it's from the planning office. Uh, we took, uh, Mr. Sampson's suggestions. They're not verbatim, but-

▶ 56:17 Ward Hamilton: Well, I, I, I took them. ... with his input. He sent them to me this weekend- (laughs) Yeah. ... and I- Yeah. ... implemented them into this document. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. So we, we have. So I, I just want folks on this committee to be aware that this isn't a pie in the sky thing, where we're esoterically discussing, what should we make for a demo delay ordinance? This is founded in, um, a document that's, that's being used in Somerville for how many years?

▶ 56:46 Speaker 4: Right, right. So, um, I, I had worked, I worked in Somerville for nine years, and, um, so, and sat next to the historic preservation planner. So, um, and, and worked with George Vericus, who I discussed this with also, so, um, he was mentioned earlier. Uh, so yeah, very familiar with the process there. They, um, changed their, their ordinance, um, a few years ago to, to address some of the issues that they had with that. So, um, we felt comfortable kind of using their, um, ordinance as the, um, kind of the base, um, and, and then changing it from there to, you know, make sense for Melrose.

▶ 57:22 Ward Hamilton: Thank you. I think that's fair and I think that's an excellent basis on which to found our ordinance and if we're averaging three buildings a year that this affects, in a city of about a thou- 8,000 buildings, um, I think that's something that I'm comfortable with. And, and I thank you. Thank you.

▶ 57:44 Maya Jamaleddine: Thanks. Um, next, uh, Councilor Finocchiaro. Is it-

▶ 57:49 Kimberly Vandiver: Li- point of order, I haven't spoken yet on the committee. Don't we each get one comment?

▶ 57:53 Maya Jamaleddine: I, I know, it's just because she's the maker, so if sh- if she wants to add any clarification.

▶ 57:58 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay. Um, actually, Councilor Hamilton (laughs) um, asked some of the questions that I had, um, but I guess my, my one thing that I keep on coming back to is, there, I think there's, like, over 150 communities in Massachusetts that have this, so there's, we're not reinventing the wheel here. This is something that, you know, if you look at that map, it's specifically all around us. I think maybe Stoneham's the only city that doesn't have this. So it's, it's sort of like, it makes sense that we implement something like this. So I think that is sort of, that comes back to me every time I kinda think about this and think about all the, um, the steps and lo- logistics, and, um, so anyways, I just wanted to make

▶ 58:41 Maya Jamaleddine: that comment, but thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councilor Finocchiaro. Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 58:45 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, thank you, Chair Jamaleddine. Uh, I have quite a few comments, and I'll try to simplify, um, and, and keep it brief. Um, so thank you very much to the makers of the ordinance. Um, you've done a lot very quickly, as far as going to many involved parties and making sure to get their input. Um, and I also want to acknowledge the constituents who are here tonight and have emailed as well and sat down for conversations. Um, I've probably put at least 20 hours into this. Um, the, it's an eight-page ordinance, there's a lot of detail. We've, we've gone back and forth a little bit with comments on the document. Um, I actually looked at the Massachusetts Interactive Property Map, which may be the same data source that you use as well. Um, so if, if the councilors are interested, I have, I have, uh, the data in graph form- (laughs) ... um, that I'd be happy to pass around. It says a lot of the same things that, that that map probably shows, as far as the houses in yellow, um, which is that we have a lot of historic homes in Melrose, um, about half of them, um, almost exactly half of them built a hundred years ago, currently. Um, so, uh, I guess to me, that both says that, that the, the commenters are right, that that's a key defining characteristic of Melrose, that we have these, this great breadth of historic homes, and at the same time, it, it makes me wonder if there's a way we could really narrow in on the really critical historic homes with this. Um, because this is, you know, this is pretty broad, um, if we look at... And, and, and it's only three houses a year on average that are actually going through this demo process. But it's, if you were to demo a random house, half a chance that it would go through this process basically, right, because h- you know, half the houses would fall into that. So that's, my, my key question is really around, is it a, what is historically significant and is it a year, is it a time range, um, is it something else, like a collection of these registries, like the National Registry and the Massachusetts Registry and other registries that we could look at? That's, that's really the key question for me. Um-I, I know there had been the year 1930 that some people had talked about, and that, by my read of the data, is 59% of houses in Melrose. Um, interestingly, if we actually look back at 1875 and before, that's only 4%, and that would encompass the Benjamin Lyde House. And so, uh, I guess, my overall thought is that if the r- (gavel bangs) you know, the urge to do this right now is because we wanna get a protection in place, a temporary hold of a year that protects the Benjamin Lyde House so that we can establish a historic district for that house, if that's the goal, I would be much more comfortable with saying 1875, that does catch 4% of the houses in Melrose still, and they're the really, really old ones. And, and certainly the Historical Commission could look through and say, "Actually, there's this house from 1910 that's really important, and that one should also have a district or something like that." But I, to me, that would be more comfortable. I guess that's my primary comment. Um, and I'd be happy to continue, but it sounds like we also may... I'll, I'll let someone else speak and come back to my other questions and see if that resonates with anyone.

▶ 1:02:03 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Councilor Vandiver. Councilor, um, Karamchandy and then Councilor Williams.

▶ 1:02:13 Manjula Karamcheti: Just for the record, I'm a non-voting member, so- That's okay. Go ahead. All right, I just always wanna make sure that every voting member has had a chance first. Um, You're a voting member?

▶ 1:02:22 Speaker 9: No, please go ahead. I insist.

▶ 1:02:24 Speaker 4: I mean, you really should, though.

▶ 1:02:25 Speaker 5: That's okay. Uh- Someone go. Um, that's true. All right. I said that's fine. (laughs)

▶ 1:02:27 Manjula Karamcheti: Well, so I just, uh, I think I'm sort of piggybacking a little bit off of Councilor Vandiver question or comments. I'm just like, really, I think for me, trying to like, understand the process and who potentially would be impacted. And so as I understand it, any house that is older than 100 years, for this ordinance, would be technically impacted. So my house was built in 1910, and so if I wanted to demo 51% of it and I applied for the demo permit, then a process would be triggered. And that process, is that a year-long? Or is the process to have a hearing to determine whether I qualify or my house qualifies as needing a delay? Could you clarify that? Sure. 'Cause I think it's really important.

▶ 1:03:29 Speaker 4: So there is, um, so it's, it's the latter. It's, um, from when the Historic, Historical Commission determines, um, does that, that two-part determination of if the building is significant first, um, if it's not significant, it, the process stops there and demolition can proceed. Um, if it's, um, if it is deemed significant, then it goes to that second determination if it's preferably preserved, um, and then that starts the, the 12-month period. So, there is some process with those, (papers rustle) you know, two public hearings because we need notification and the newspaper and send out, um, abutters' notices. So, um, it does, you know, take some time to, to go through those, um, meetings, and then that's when the, um, if the determination is made that it's, um, preferably preserved, then that starts the 12 month. Um, there is the ability to reduce that time if the applicant is working with the commission and agrees to, you know, to do the documentation or whatever, whatever the case may be, um, that's determined is best for that, um, for that site. So that could, uh, reduce the time.

▶ 1:04:40 Speaker 8: But Lori, correct me if I'm wrong- Yeah. ... but if you could have a situation where you have a house that's over 100 years old, you apply for a demolition of 51% or more, and then, um, that starts a process of, uh, the Historical Commission. Do we, setting up a public meeting, but, uh, we could determine that the house is not, uh, historically significant. That might take a matter of weeks.

▶ 1:05:04 Speaker 10: Right. Right. It's, yeah.

▶ 1:05:05 Speaker 8: Not, not, we're not talking a year for that part, and that could be a number of the applicants for demolition, uh, would probably fall into that category. Uh, so it's not talking about all of those. Yeah.

▶ 1:05:16 Manjula Karamcheti: But again, what it does is provide the opportunity to explore whether a longer delay is needed as like, and if I'm understanding correctly,

▶ 1:05:30 Speaker 11: this is like,

▶ 1:05:32 Manjula Karamcheti: allows for like, the deeper, more intentional work to happen if needed. And so, there, this, it's, this process is like, a yes, and that there is much more to be done within that for like, the historic dis- historic district, um, designation and those kind of things, but it allows for a thoughtful process for that to happen. Yep. Is that correct?

▶ 1:06:00 Speaker 8: Yeah. I mean, my understanding would be like, the demolition delay is sort of a, a catch-all for hitting that, uh, you know, primary age goal and for us to take a look at that home. Uh, and then, you know, we may decide it's not, you know, historically significant, and then that's it. Uh, but there, there could be, you know, houses out there that are, you know, if we're setting it at 100, they were built in 1900 that are historically significant, uh, and that could also set a process for review and demolition. The second part, as I understand, as far as looking at, uh, extending local historic districts, uh, to single lot districts, that's a much more intensive process for one particular place. And, uh, you know, it could take a number, uh, while it may not take a year to get there, it's gonna take a number of months to be able to do that for a single property, uh, as far as my understanding of that. And then you'd multiply that by a handful of other properties, it could take, uh, qui- quite a bit of time to protect those most historically significant.Uh, but I think the demolition delay is really a, you know, a catch-all for some -

▶ 1:07:02 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. ... other ones as well. So, it, it is the pause, it is the trigger to explore sort of what else we might want to do in terms of preservation and determination. Like my house is cute, built in 1910, but probably not historic. So then, I would get the approval and keep moving on with whatever. Okay. So, that part is understood. And it does sound like, and I think this goes back to, uh, President Migliorelli, this is a more reactive approach, but there are other proactive steps that could be taken as well. And so, those we would potentially, if we're serious about preservation, if we're serious about this, we would want to pursue those as well. Is that a f- am I understanding that correctly?

▶ 1:07:52 Speaker 4: Right. Those, yeah, these things can, you know, happen at the same time.

▶ 1:07:58 Manjula Karamcheti: Okay. And then, just in terms of the data of how many 51% demolitions have been applied for, it's been nine in the past couple of years, regardless of the fact that there are 4,000 houses in Mel- Melrose that are over 100 years- Mm-hmm. ... old. Is that correct? Yes. And- So, in terms of the, like, number of applications for 51% demo, there aren't that many.

▶ 1:08:28 Speaker 4: There aren't that many. There aren't that many. And, and, you know, we've given ti-

▶ 1:08:31 Manjula Karamcheti: So, impact-wise for the community, I think I'm just trying to understand, like, the amount it would impact your department, the number of times it would be happening, um, for residents to, like, go through this. That, those are what my questions are for, but I, I think I get it. So, I will pass it off.

▶ 1:08:49 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, uh, Councilor Kamchary. Um, uh, Director Massa, if you don't mind just, um, bring the mic a little bit more, but we, or higher your voice. We, it's, we're having some difficulties, um, hearing, uh, your comments. Um, next I have, um, Councilor, uh, Williams. I do understand that, um, you know, it's just because of this time period, all my colleagues, uh, um, are interested in this ordinance. So, I am opening for everyone to participate regardless if they are on this committee or not. Uh, and I go with, uh, Councilor, uh, Williams, uh, next.

▶ 1:09:31 Ryan Williams: Thank you so much, Chair Jamaleddine. Um, I want to sort of dive right in. I had done a lot of work, like, uh, Councilor Vandiver on trying to understand this ordinance as a person who came into it with really no understanding of how these things intersect. Um, and I want to say that I very much appreciate the time that the, the co-sponsors put into this as well as Mr. Egan and Ms. Massa to join me in a call with MAPC to do a little bit of learning. Um, I learned a lot, and I want to share a little bit of that while I ask some questions about the changes that have been made here and some of the data that you provided in your, excuse me, in your presentation. Um, so the first, the first thing I wanted to ask is could, could the historic commission folks raise their hands? Because I don't know if everybody knows- (laughs) ... exactly who you are. Thank you. Okay, um, you mentioned in your presentation, um, I want to start there. You, there are 600 plus two-families in that list? Yeah? Um, and I was thinking about how many two-families generally do we have in the city of Melrose, do you know? I don't. Okay, that's fair. That's completely fair. (laughs) You know.

▶ 1:10:40 Ward Hamilton: I'm sorry. Madam Chair, just based on what I knew from the, uh, Water and Sewer Commission, we have about 800 two-family houses.

▶ 1:10:46 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Thank you, Councilor Hamilton.

▶ 1:10:48 Ryan Williams: Thank you. I appreciate that, and I apologize for the, um, for the crosstalk. Um, I, I ask because as a person who came to Melrose in a two-family and found it one of the most affordable housing options I could find, really the only one, um, the idea that a majority of the two-families are covered under this is, is something that I find very interesting. Um, and so I wanted to ask if you, uh, with that in mind with the, um, the, the other multi-family structures that you had on the list that were under the, under the existing sort of 100 years, if that's what we stick with, um, when we're doing the housing production plan redo, um, do you think that it would be possible to think about how those structures play into housing affordability? Um, in terms of, like, whether preserving these structures through a demo delay ordinance would be preferable and would lower or stabilize rents? You know, if you ha- if you can think at all of the intersection of these two things.

▶ 1:11:49 Speaker 4: Um, so knowing that, um, you know, multi-family, existing multi-family homes are probably pretty valuable, um, I don't see a big change with kind of demolishing them to, to rebuild, um, sites to, to build new housing. Um, it's, it's definitely possible, but I, you know, I don't see that happening, um, so much, um, in the n- near future anyway with, um, the kind of price or rents that you can get with existing multi-family housing. Um, does that answer your question, or is there- S- ... more to it?

▶ 1:12:26 Ryan Williams: Yeah, I think so. So, you're saying that you don't see there a lot of demand for demolishing multi-family- Right. ... housing. So, we have, and in this specific case of the Benjamin Lyne house, the parcel's being joined with another parcel that is a multi-family building.

▶ 1:12:39 Speaker 4: The two- yes, the two-family.

▶ 1:12:41 Ryan Williams: Mm-hmm. So, at, at least in this case it's relevant, but maybe not broadly throughout

▶ 1:12:44 Speaker 4: Right. And, and there are, um, a lot of our neighboring communities that are trying to create regulations that prevent people from taking two-families and converting them to single-families. 'Cause oftentimes, you know, people desire a single-family if they can afford it. And so there is a, a real effort in the, the planning world to figure this out. Um-This doesn't really kind of fit that, because you often keep the existing structure and you're just doing interior demolition, and this does not, um, address interior demo.

▶ 1:13:20 Ryan Williams: Okay. Um... I noticed enforcement, we talked a lot about enforcement. And I wanted to ask if you felt that the enforcement was achievable? It's a penalty of $300 per day and a block of 18 months on the building permit if you illegally, or in violation of the ordinance, demolish a property.

▶ 1:13:36 Speaker 4: Right. So the, the zoning, um, fees are sim- are, you know, the same. And so it's, it often is more of a, kind of a threat (laughs) to, to tell a, you know, a property owner that that's, we have the right to charge that.

▶ 1:13:50 Ryan Williams: Okay. Um, I wanted to ask about some of the strikes that I've seen here, 'cause I had looked over the old one pretty carefully, but I, some of these I wasn't too sure about. Um, so why did we strike illegal demolition and interior demolition?

▶ 1:14:02 Speaker 4: So, uh, it's not referenced in the rest of the ordinance, and I believe it's in there just for discussion during, you know, public hearings about these kinds of cas- cases as, um, to define them to be part of the conversation. But it's not actually referenced in the, the text, the rest of the text of the code, so we did take them out.

▶ 1:14:22 Ryan Williams: So, that means that this ordinance doesn't cover interior demolition?

▶ 1:14:26 Speaker 4: And, and, um, there is no jurisdiction to do that. Um, it was just the in- it was in there as a, um, a reference to, you know, if you're totally... If, it, it takes a lot of kind of review of an application, but if you're kind of totally gutting a property and you're, um, gonna create a structural issue that then would, you know, cause the exterior to, uh, be demolished, then that's included in there as a, you know, just in case that, that were to be the case.

▶ 1:15:00 Ryan Williams: Okay, thank you. Um, and I, I wanted to call out for colleagues who are interested in the year that the year appears in several sections. And notably, in section five, there's references to the 100 years, so, um, I'm also interested in, in thinking more carefully about the years. Um, but as a non-voting member, I'd sort of leave that up to the folks on the committee to think through. Um, on page four, I wanted to ask about in section three, the sort of penultimate pair, the second from the bottom. There's a sentence that through edits reads, "The building is significance." And I think that's supposed to be significant, right? Yes. The building is significant, yeah, okay. Um, super minor but, um... Okay, the meat of this. I wanted to ask about, um, page seven. There is a series of sections called Shortening or Ending the Demolition Review Period. My understanding from reading this that essentially the commission, I mean it says this, "The commission may shorten or end the period at its discretion if it determines that no one's gonna buy it or preserve it or rehabilitate it." They come to a plan for limited demolition that preserves the property. They agree to some mutually agreeable strategies for preserving heritage like photographing, renderings, uh, salvaging materials. Basically, they come up with an agreement to preserve some of it that the commission finds suitable. The commission's allowed to, at any point, just say the demo period is, is, is eliminated. Right. Yeah, okay. So, I was thinking to Councilor Karamcheti point about, you know, the house that you find out, you know, was owned by a famous person, um, and you go through the whole process, but then you come up with a plan, "I wanna really, like, photograph or preserve this element." If the commission feels that that is sufficient to preserve the history, you may waive the demo period.

▶ 1:16:51 Speaker 2: Yes. Yeah, okay. Um, um,

▶ 1:16:57 Ryan Williams: and I notice that we're excluding city-owned buildings (laughs) , um, which I, I, I'm interested, how many city-owned buildings do we have there besides, of course, the one we're in in Melrose Hall, I'm s- I'm, uh, Memorial Hall?

▶ 1:17:10 Speaker 4: So, we are in a local historic district here at City Hall- Yeah. ... and, you know, the fire station, um, the, so there, there aren't many that, um... So we took a look, especially at the ones that are, um, kind of the, the new public safety building sites, and none of those fall within the, the 100 years. Um, the, you know, Mount Hood, um, that structure, um, the police station, um, is just outside of the local historic district, so that would be something that, um, would, um, when, you know, we figure out what we're gonna do with that site. If, if it does involve demolition, that would be something that would have to go through, um, review the... And, and so it's, it's still going to the historical commission, um, for a look at the municipal properties. Um, it just doesn't require the, the public hearing in the same way.

▶ 1:18:00 Ryan Williams: Okay, and, um, the nine demos per year, do you know even the most (coughing) , even the most recent ones? Do you know what those buildings became? Did they become... Was it a single-family home that became a single-family home? What was it?

▶ 1:18:11 Speaker 4: Mm-hmm. Yeah, so they were, um, six of those were redevelopment sites that went before the planning board, um, and then the rest were conversions back to a single-family house.

▶ 1:18:21 Ryan Williams: Six of them were, were, we'll call them upscaled from single family to multi-family.

▶ 1:18:27 Speaker 4: Or two family to four. Oh, I see. There are a few of those, yeah.

▶ 1:18:32 Speaker 8: But to be clear, that was nine over the last three years, right?

▶ 1:18:34 Speaker 2: Correct.

▶ 1:18:36 Speaker 8: Could you say that again? To be clear, that you said nine over the last year? I'm sorry, yes. Over the last three years, yeah, I just wanna be clear.

▶ 1:18:40 Ryan Williams: Thank you. Yes, nine over the last three years. Thank you, I'm sorry about that. Um, well, I... Okay. Um, thank you very much, uh, you guys. This has been a super thoughtful process. I really appreciate it. I feel that this is sort of a planning tool more than it is... I mean, it's a planning tool that sort of injects historic preservation as a community goal. Um, I've, you know... If anybody wants to see a really great example of this in work, they should go to Bow Market in Somerville because that was a, um, historic property that was, um, preserved and turned into a thriving commercial, uh, commercial use. Or they should go to Union Square, which has a couple of very funny little tiny-... buildings that have giant apartments behind them- (laughs) ... because the character was the little, itty-bitty front entrance, and then all of the affordable housing was built behind it. Um, in my conversations with housing colleagues in MAPC, I found this to be a way to balance the community needs of affordable housing, environmental, uh, preservation, for instance, not demolishing structures or protecting them, or salvaging them, adaptive reuse, um, to balance housing development with architectural preservation. And I think that this is written thoughtfully, and I really appreciate the work of everyone who's put so much time and energy and thought into this. Um, so I just wanna say thank you, and I look forward to seeing what the committee discusses. Thank you.

▶ 1:19:56 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Councilor Williams. Um, Vice Chair Romanul.

▶ 1:20:02 Devin Romanul: Thank you, Madam Chair. And, uh, I wanna thank first, the sponsors of the legislation for all of your legwork, the members of the administration for, uh, doing what you're doing, and, and for all the members of the public who are still here. (laughs) My goodness. Um, congratulations to you all. Um, uh, this is what meji- messy legislating looks like. And, um, uh, certainly and everyone who wrote in as well. Um, most of my colleagues have asked, uh, and answered all the, many of the questions that I had, particularly on the micro, but perhaps piggybacking on the, uh, most recent speaker, I, I wanted to ask very broadly, um, I, I'll, I am, uh, uh, very much in favor of historic preservation, so I'm, I'm very grateful to see this. Um, I am also, uh, sometimes you hear on the macro, like, uh, demolition delay used as a tool to prevent development, and so I wanted to ask what you've seen, given the map of myriad communities in the 128 Belt, um, that are using legislation like this, but also have housing production plans of their own and MBTA community compliance and, and just general, um, housing goals that they might have. Have you seen ... What is the interplay between historic preservation and, um, you know, housing development and, um ... and I appreciate those considerations here.

▶ 1:21:15 Speaker 4: Sure. So, um, most, as you know, most communities have it, and so, um, developers that aren't familiar with Melrose will ask, you know, what, "What's the delay period?" So, they kind of factor that into their permitting and, um, it often does take a long time to, to permit projects. So, um, they're able to kind of, uh, start the process and, um, you know, still get the results. Um, there are a lot of communities that build a lot of housing that, that have demolition delays. So, um, it's, you know, it's, it's not a, um, it's not a barrier. It's something you have to consider though. Um, and I think having criteria, as we've put into the ordinance, to focus the commission, um, we, you know, always have to think about a future commission, not the people that are on the commission today. Um, so and, and being thoughtful about that. And, I think also, um, you know, having professional staff that can help the commission, um, to, to really make sure that they're looking at those criteria and, um, evaluating applications is helpful.

▶ 1:22:32 Devin Romanul: Great. Um, and my only other question is, since a couple of people have asked about it, do you, do you have a preference as to a fixed year versus having a hundred years and eventually e- encapsulating more and more of the city? Do you think there are comparative advantages of either of those approaches? I, I'd love to hear some professional feedback.

▶ 1:22:47 Speaker 4: Yeah. So, I've ... You know, I ... Historic preservation ha- was never my specialty, but, um, so I, um, I don't know if you wanna take my opinion. (laughs)

▶ 1:22:58 Speaker 12: (laughs) I'm asking. But I, I- (laughs)

▶ 1:23:00 Speaker 4: ... feel that even though, you know, there's times when buildings weren't constructed to the same quality, that it feels a bit arbitrary to me to pick a certain date. Uh, I mean, a hundred years is also arbitrary, but it, it, it's like a moving, you know, more of a, a moving target with you're, you're reevaluating as history, you know, moves forward. So ... And, you know, obviously the, the City Council could always, always change this ordinance if, you know, in like 20 years- (coughs) ... it, it feels ridiculous to be reviewing, um, you know, buildings of a certain age. Um, we didn't kind of do a more fine-grain look at, um, to see if there was like a particular year that would make more sense for kind of setting as that, uh, target. So, I felt more comfortable with a hundred. It gives, um, some kind of, um, timeframe, but also it is flexible with, as we move forward, um, looking at, at, uh, buildings. So-

▶ 1:23:58 Devin Romanul: Great. Thank you so much for, uh, for your answers, and I appreciate everyone's feedback. Thank you.

▶ 1:24:02 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Vice Chair Romanul. Uh, next I have Councilor, uh, Stewart.

▶ 1:24:11 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. (clears throat) Uh, thank you for being here. Um,

▶ 1:24:16 Speaker 9: so

▶ 1:24:18 Robb Stewart: just Mr. Breuer, 'cause I've known him for quite a while, I have a great deal of respect and I think, uh, his, his opinion and guidance carries a lot of weight in my personal, uh, impact on this. So, thank you for sharing that. Um

▶ 1:24:34 Robb Stewart: so I didn't get quite a (laughs) clear answer. Like, how long do you think a delay is gonna be for, you know, a typical ... I just don't want it ... gi- give me your, your

▶ 1:24:45 Speaker 9: honest feedback on it.

▶ 1:24:47 Speaker 4: For, um, considering the, the time that it takes to schedule public hearings and things like that, like on the- Yeah.

▶ 1:24:53 Robb Stewart: ... front end of things? And if you need to give me two or three different examples of when it, it's gonna be three months versus six months ver- versus a year. I'm just curious about that.

▶ 1:25:00 Speaker 4: So, it'll, it'll be a ... If, if a building is deemed, um, appropriately preserved, it will be a year. And then it's up to the applicant to work with the commission to reduce that time. Okay. So, but there will be a few months of, um, meetings and process before that year starts.

▶ 1:25:17 Robb Stewart: So, table stakes are the year, and then the applicant has to figure out how to make it smaller? Right. Got it. And after that year is up, then they can demolish it anyways. Yes. Okay. Unless they go and do all the stuff that the Historical Commission will do to make sure that little piece of property is, like, historically significant and then they can touch the building. Did I get that right?

▶ 1:25:41 Speaker 4: Unless the, the Historic District Commission submits for a, a single building local historic district.

▶ 1:25:47 Robb Stewart: Right. And makes that little plot of land historically whatever you call it. Okay. Yes. Got it. That would only affect the external of the building.

▶ 1:25:56 Speaker 13: Yeah.

▶ 1:25:58 Robb Stewart: Okay. And so then, and that fits within the year so that way you have a year to save the lion house or whatever house, right? Okay. Um, so,

▶ 1:26:11 Robb Stewart: uh, you know, generally, this sounds great, um, but in practice when I start thinking about the details and to think about the future, and you were bringing this up just a moment ago, um, you know, I look 10, 15 years down the road and all of a sudden we're 1940, houses in 1942 and post-war. And these houses are not historically significant, which is why I'm not comfortable with that 100-year mark. And I would be, as opposed to you, I'd be much more comfortable with the date and time. Um, and that could be changed if we needed to move it. So, I don't think I'd support the 100 year, uh, just because of the fact that, not today, but we're moving forward. And we will, we are (laughs) you move forward quicker than you realize, as I'm learning. Um, so, um, that's something that I'm not comfortable with. I just want to share that. Uh, the other aspect that was talked about briefly, but, um, I still don't have a good read on it is, who's managing this process? And you're saying, "Well, volunteers will do it." You have no accountability with volunteers. And I know they're very good people and they, they're gonna do that, but you don't have that accountability that you have with an administration. And that's concerning to me, especially when it is something of significance like this. So who, who's managing? I mean, l- what's, who's managing that process?

▶ 1:27:30 Speaker 4: So the, the planning department would, um, manage the demolition preview ordinance and, um, you know, uh, just as we do for the other boards and commissions, um, take in the applications, you know, process the applications, set up the meetings, um, send out the notifications and all of that. And, you know, Inspectional Services will have to play a key role in, uh, reviewing applications that come in, um, to ensure that they're caught before, um, they issue a demolition permit. So, it is, it is increased, um, work for, for that department as well.

▶ 1:28:06 Robb Stewart: And has Inspection Services looked at this, signed off on this? No. So they need to. We, we wanna get their buy-in, right? I would think.

▶ 1:28:18 Speaker 4: Yeah. They- Okay. ... um, would have to be involved. So,

▶ 1:28:21 Robb Stewart: I would acce- I would suggest that we involve them as well.

▶ 1:28:27 Speaker 9: Um, and let's see. What else?

▶ 1:28:37 Speaker 9: Uh, there was one other point I wanted to make.

▶ 1:28:42 Robb Stewart: So, no. Oh, we actually covered it. We were talking about the, um, so yeah, on the garage. That's right, the garage and shed. Right? That was the, the number that you quoted was 13. Is that over that three-year period, was 13? Yes. Okay. So it's still not significant. So you're talking 22 overall

▶ 1:29:00 Speaker 9: application processes.

▶ 1:29:02 Speaker 4: Right. And those 13, um, we didn't capture the year, so it's, it'll be a lot less than that for the number that were over 100 years old. Um- Okay. And, um, yeah. Just, uh, you know, and getting back to the, the date, I, you know, we can take a closer look at what, you know, if there's kind of a clear way to, to pick a certain, um, year. But it, you know, there's obviously varying opinions about that. It's like if someone may think that a 1940s house is, uh, you know, um, histor- historically significant because time goes on and things... (laughs)

▶ 1:29:41 Robb Stewart: Look at the linoleum. Right. I get it. (laughs)

▶ 1:29:44 Speaker 4: So it's, um, you know, it's, there's varying kind of philosophies on this.

▶ 1:29:50 Robb Stewart: Yeah. Yeah. Well, at the same time, I, you know, it feels like this process is being rushed to save one house. And we should do it right. Right? We shouldn't do it for one house, we should do it for the community, I would think. Right? I mean, I think the lion house, very, very important building, I agree, um, with the Historical Commission and, and hate to see that, anything happen to that, but in this process, I don't think, uh, it shouldn't be the means to the end, right? Is, "Oh, we got this done, so we could save..." No. It should be, "Oh, we created, uh, the right process that the other communities have that makes sense for Melrose."

▶ 1:30:32 Speaker 9: So, I'll leave it at that. Thank you, Madam Chair.

▶ 1:30:35 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Uh, thank you, Councilor Stewart. Um, I'm, I'm gonna pass it back to my colleagues. I just w- have comments, uh, uh, since Councilor Stewart brought this up. Um, did the commission reach out to the owners, I'm just wondering, uh, of the lion's house?

▶ 1:30:55 Speaker 9: Uh, the commission? No, we haven't reached out to the owner of the lion house- Okay. ... at this point.

▶ 1:31:00 Maya Jamaleddine: And d- do you usually, you know, have any communication with, owners of, uh, historical properties?

▶ 1:31:10 Speaker 9: So, right now, the only time we've been, we've been involved when we've been, we've been invited into the process, uh, on a few occasions and we've gotten involved and rendered our opinion in that case. But right now, there's no mandate for us to do that. Uh, uh, and so we, we don't make a practice of reaching out- Right. ... in special cases, uh, or whatnot.

▶ 1:31:28 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Thank you for clarifying this. Um, I have next Councilor,

▶ 1:31:35 Speaker 9: um, uh-

▶ 1:31:36 Maya Jamaleddine: ... Panachiaro. Yeah. And then, uh, Councilor Hamilton.

▶ 1:31:40 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. Um, so I just wanna make some comments to some of the councilors that are, um, bringing up valid points. Um, Councilor Stewart, um, through the chair, I think that this actually... it feels very rushed. Um, and obviously, the Benjamin Lyon house kind of got this going, um, but I'm, I'm going to state this again, it's- we're not reinventing the wheel. This is Somerville's re- revised, refined ordinance that multiple parts of our administration have looked at, and they're knowledgeable in this area, and I feel like we have a, a really great ordinance put together. Um, we didn't pull it out of thin air. Um, the other thing I want to say is, in Massachusetts, most demo review ordinances have a 50-year standard, okay? And the next from there is 75 years. So, we actually are being very gracious with 100 years. Um, so I'm not op- opposed to putting a date, but I said this to Lori and to Shane, I defer to them. Um, this is what they do for work, and, um, based on the fact that 50 years is standard, I think 100 years is pretty, pretty great. And like, like you said, it shifts sort of with, or, uh, as time goes on. You know, a 1940 house is (laughs) historical in context to what we're, the year that we're in. So, um, so I just, I just wanted to make those, uh, two comments. And then my other question was, could you go over... I think the criteria that we have in this ordinance is unlike other ordinances, right? We added specific criteria that, um, I think Councilor Williams had created. Um, there's a lot of, a lot of ordinances do- sort of have more of subjective review and don't have like, um, for instance... if we look

▶ 1:33:36 Speaker 3: at... sorry, I thought there were changes here.

▶ 1:33:40 Cal Finocchiaro: Like, it has to be associated with one or more historic persons or events, so that's under 5B, criteria for determination of significance.

▶ 1:33:51 Speaker 3: I know, it has to be-

▶ 1:33:53 Speaker 12: The next page as well has the list. Okay.

▶ 1:33:56 Cal Finocchiaro: This one? Right. So there's multiple, you know, criteria. Can you kind of talk about that a little bit more? I think that's what keeps us from reviewing, um, hundreds of homes in the city. It's mostly, they have to kind of fall into this.

▶ 1:34:12 Speaker 4: Right. Um, so... All right, so on page three, um, B, there's, um, the list there. So the first one that's there, associated with an important historic person or event or with a broad architectural, cultural, political, or economic, or social history of the city or the commonwealth, um, or the historical or architecturally significant based on, um, period of time, style, method, building construction, or association with a re- um, reputed architect or builder, either by itself or in the context, um, of a- a group of buildings. And then it continues on to, um, add more specificity with looking at the setting, the materials, the design, location, workmanship, expression, and association. Um, and then we added another kind of, um, point about this, that the commission will adopt further design, uh, standards, um, and that can be within, you know, rules and regulations of the commission, um, to establish minimum criteria for evidence for, um, supporting the significance, um, and outlining the methods that they're, uh, they're gonna use to, to weigh that cri- that cri- criteria, um, in advance of getting an application.

▶ 1:35:26 Cal Finocchiaro: Okay, great. So I feel like, you know, um... I mean, you said three a year that you've been sort of... and this is not even using really this criteria, correct?

▶ 1:35:37 Speaker 4: So th- the, um, the three a year was based on the, the age of the, the building. Okay. Um, and the applications that... Th- the demo applications that we got, um, narrowed down by the ones that were for s- uh, buildings that were 100 years or older.

▶ 1:35:53 Cal Finocchiaro: So you think... I mean, I know this is... You'd have to kind of go back to these structures, but you think of those three per year, were any of them, would you deem historically significant? Would they have to go through this process? I mean, I know that's... But just off the re- like, off your memory.

▶ 1:36:09 Speaker 4: Well, I mean, so an interesting one is the, um, 681 Main Street, that Caruso site, so- Mm-hmm. ... I'm not sure, uh, what the (laughs) commission would- Mm-hmm. ... um, would say with that one, and um, the, you know, building was not in great shape. Um, there could have been, you know, a, a process that, um, of documentation or, um, you know, doing more inventory work for that building. Um, I'm not sure how much that building was altered over the years. That's- That's often what happens- Yeah. ... um, with some of these structures, but that's kind of the part of the, um, the homework that's done. Um, but that's kind of an example of one that, um, you know, may have piqued interest. Um, and typically, you know, there, there have only been kind of a few that, um, I can kind of remember in my 10 years here that were, um, kind of more homes, like th- uh, singles or two families that, um, were kind of sad that the... there wasn't kind of an investment to restore the property, um, because it does, it does often take a lot of money (laughs) to, um, if it, if a building hasn't been kept up- Mm-hmm. ... to restore it to its former glory. Mm-hmm. And there really just needs to be a desire to do that.

▶ 1:37:39 Cal Finocchiaro: Great. Thank you. I just want to make another point too. Um, establishing a demo review ordinance was a part of both the 2004 and 2017 master plans for the City of Melrose. Um, and now we're here years later without one, and we're finding ourselves kind of scrambling to kind of figure out something. I, I know it's not about the Benjamin Lyde House, but that's kind of brought this, you know, forefront. And I just, I just feel like personally, I think this is something that should be part of our community, and, um, we shouldn't kind of wait 10 more years to find ourselves. Maybe the Phineas Upham House will be, you know, regardless if we do the local historic, uh, districts and whether we actually pursue that. And, you know, that takes time. Um, so this is obviously, (laughs) I'm sponsoring the de- (laughs) the ordinance, but, uh, this is why I think it's so important. It's because so much time has passed and they're part of the city plan. So,

▶ 1:38:36 Maya Jamaleddine: that's it. Thank you. Thank you, um, Councilor Panachio. I have, um, Councilor Hamilton, President Migliorelli, and then, uh, Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 1:38:50 Ward Hamilton: Thank you, Madam Chair. And, and thank you for the privilege to speak earlier, and I will be brief. I'm mindful of my fellow councilors' time. Um, Caruso's very interesting example because in my conversations with Mr. Talarico, who's our building commissioner, he issued a permit for demolition of that building almost a year ago. So, I don't think that a demo review process would have hindered what was going on with that building, which has been closed for decades. Um, is this rushed? This is absolutely rushed. This is about that building being knocked down. My predecessor as chair of the Historical Commission, Mr. Bennett, spoke earlier. He was here before the Board of Alderman in 2017, advocating for a demo delay ordinance in 2021. I was working towards that, and it didn't work out when I was chair of the Historical Commission. Here we are now. It's no longer this esoteric conversation about protecting important buildings. We now have an important building that is endangered. Cambridge, Somerville, Newton, Brookline, Wellesley, Arlington, Belmont, Winchester, Wakefield, Reading. They all have demo delay. We

▶ 1:40:05 Speaker 6: don't.

▶ 1:40:08 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Thank you. Um, next is, uh, President Migliorelli.

▶ 1:40:14 Speaker 1: Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, just to actually, with Caruso's, I feel like that's a good example of a building that probably should have been brought down a lot sooner. So, I guess I'm not understanding how demo delay

▶ 1:40:30 Leila Migliorelli: would... Uh, I, I guess I feel like demo delay in a historic home, uh, on Caruso's versus a historic home are two different things. So, I just wanted to throw that out there. I don't think Car- I mean, saving Caruso's charm, I, I think there's a lot in that building that was problematic. It's not like it was not torn down because of historic charm. It was not torn down because there was- (laughs) ... issues, chemical issues in that building, and the, the culvert underneath it. So, I don't, I don't know if that's an example that w- is relevant here as, as maybe other homes. Um, which brings me to my question, are we at all concerned about, um... Are there any legal ramifications for us driving this conversation around a home that is about to be sold or purchased, and, and we are enacting legislation for a singular home, which has been said frequently throughout the night? Do, do you have any concerns about that?

▶ 1:41:25 Speaker 4: I don't have concerns about that. Um, I mean, this, this process does apply to, to all structures, um, in Melrose. So it's, you know, there's oftentimes reasons why, um, uh, residents get interested in things, and, you know, and councilors or... Um, so I, I don't see a legal issue, um, with that. Um, with the- So you- ... local historic district designation, we're kind of looking into that process, and, um, the Mass Historical Commission does recommend contacting property owners to inform them, um, you know, at the, the start of the process that, um, the commission is, um, looking into that for, um, somebody's property. So, we will do that when we, you know, as we move forward.

▶ 1:42:10 Leila Migliorelli: Yeah. No, I understand that process. Yeah. I'm just wondering if this ordinance, there's no, we don't have to be concerned about the, the-

▶ 1:42:19 Speaker 4: No, it's not specific for that, you know, for that property.

▶ 1:42:22 Speaker 1: But even the conversation- So- ... here is specific? That doesn't matter?

▶ 1:42:26 Speaker 4: No. Uh, you know, it's the City Council's right to, to pass an ordinance, and, um, you know- Okay, if you're comfortable with that. ... kind of the, the motivation be, you know? Yeah. Um- Yeah, but this, this does apply to all, um, buildings, not just, um, houses. So, uh, if I, I use the Carusos as an, as an example, as, um, a recent building that was demolished, that if this ordinance was in place, the Historical Commission would be, um, reviewing that to, to make these determinations- Mm-hmm. ... before it could be demolished.

▶ 1:43:00 Leila Migliorelli: Okay. Um, do you... Is it... So I know that we've talked a lot about how this is based off other communities. Are sheds and garages really like... That's really something that would need to be reviewed? I, I, I don't know that there's a reason to protect a shed or a garage over-

▶ 1:43:15 Speaker 4: Yeah. I mean, it doesn't have to be part of this. It's, um- There are often kind of interesting, um, accessory structures in Melrose. So, that's why it's included in here, but, um, it, it could be struck.

▶ 1:43:28 Leila Migliorelli: I'm, yeah, I'm just thinking if you had a, you know, you had a property and you had an old garage or shed that was falling apart. Uh, I mean, I, I suppose, I guess you go through this, the process, and it just, it seems like it's hindering what people can do to their own private property. So, I would, I'd just be kind of curious about that. Um, what was the...You said the Planning Board reviewed it. They didn't take a vote on it? Do you have a sense of ... So, we've ... So, in t- in talking about the other, uh, 'cause Councilor Stewart just reminded me of this. So, Inspectional- (laughs) Services hasn't looked at it. You've looked at it. Um, your offices looked at it, the Planning Boards looked at it. Planning Board did not take a vote on it, but there was conversation at the Planning Board meeting. Could you describe that? Was there, you know, overwhelming consensus for this, or support, or not?

▶ 1:44:17 Speaker 4: There were a lot of varying opinions. Varying opinions, okay. Um, some members were supportive. Um, some, you know, thought the 100, um, years was, or the, I'm sorry, the 12 months was too long. Um, some, you know, were not supportive of it. So, it really was kind of a range of, um, responses from the Planning Board.

▶ 1:44:38 Speaker 1: And the Zoning Boarder- Board of Appeals? Did they-

▶ 1:44:40 Speaker 4: They didn't, um, review this as a ... We didn't have a meeting within the- the time to- Okay. ... discuss it with them.

▶ 1:44:47 Leila Migliorelli: Okay. Um, Madam Chair, just as, um ... I- I feel a little bit uncomfortable moving forward without getting those key, key players, um, uh, you know, their input on this. Um, I would be, uh, (microphone thumps) like to make a motion to hold in committee, um, if there's a second? So, motion to hold.

▶ 1:45:09 Maya Jamaleddine: We have a motion to hold made by President, uh, Migliorelli. Do we have a second?

▶ 1:45:19 Maya Jamaleddine: Once, twice, okay, that motion dies. Um, uh, Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 1:45:24 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, thank you Chair Jamaleddine. Um, a few comments in response to the discussion. I really appreciate the robust discussion. I'd, I- I, uh ... One of our other colleagues at one point commented that we should not be so timid to, uh, work on legislation and ordinances, and I- I- I agree. I- I think this is great. It's a meaty discussion. Um, to an earlier point that was raised, um, through the Chair, about the a- about, uh, other communities and having 50 or 75-year, um, versions. I think, I would guess, I have not looked at the data for other communities, but Melrose is older, right? And so, you know, what's old in Somerville is different than what's old in Melrose. And so, that's why I think a larger number makes sense, because we have, we have so many more and so much older housing. So, I, and to Councilor Stewart's point, I think, I think that's part of making it work for Melrose is finding out what is, what is historically significant from Melrose and- Yeah. ... putting that in there. Um, I, I, I, I appreciate the, um, the discussion around we have these criteria, um, that would be used. I still ... I- I do feel there's a lot of discretion in that, um, because you know, you, uh, and I- I see that it's going to, you know, uh, we would have, the commission would adopt standards, but they're not yet specified around that. And I mean, there's- there's a lot in here, right? Like you could zero in on the building using certain materials or being in a certain style. I mean, I could see an art... I feel like, uh, not being at all an expert in historic preservation myself, but I feel like I could see a commission interpreting that fairly broadly (microphone thumps) and defining many, many buildings as significant or representative of the style or part of a block of houses that's significant. So, I- I feel like there's a lot of latitude in that, which- which, you know, could be okay. But, um, but we should be aware of. Um, so I guess, um, uh, that brings me back to my earlier comment about 1875. And- and while this- I- this process is fast, I- I personally would be okay ... I would just like to reiterate with starting with 1875 as a more restrictive year, getting the process in place, getting it going, and then we could always come back and amend it, um, further to a different year or other things as we see what's working, what's not working. And like, I would like to get a starting point out there. So, um, I, uh, if it's okay, I would like to make, um ... First, I would, uh, I think, we're probably through discussion, okay, we're working off of this document with the changes. So, I would make a motion that we would, um, accept the, um, red lines and update that document, if that's okay, so that we can have that one going forward to work off of?

▶ 1:48:02 Maya Jamaleddine: So, we have a motion made by Councilor Vandiver to accept all the changes that, uh, were made, uh, and suggested by, um, Director, uh, Massa. Do we have a second? I'll second that. Uh, and as seconded by Councilor Garipay.

▶ 1:48:22 Speaker 5: Um, discussion. Uh, President Migliorelli.

▶ 1:48:23 Leila Migliorelli: Madam Chair, um, through the Chair, uh, how do we want to handle ... I haven't looked at everything yet, 'cause we just got this when we got here. On page two, the double strike outs

▶ 1:48:35 Speaker 1: (paper rustles) of the years, and then I think Councilor Williams had pointed out some other part on-

▶ 1:48:42 Kimberly Vandiver: It's on page four, significance. ... page four.

▶ 1:48:43 Speaker 1: So, I don't know how you want to handle that. And I don't know if there's any others in there.

▶ 1:48:48 Speaker 4: I think those are the two.

▶ 1:48:50 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, I- I could amend the- the motion to include those two changes, or we could do a separate motion after? Are you, um, withdrawing I- I- I ... If people are comfortable with it, I would withdraw my prior-

▶ 1:49:00 Mark Garipay: Uh, I'll withdraw my second, if you want to redo the motion- When

▶ 1:49:03 Kimberly Vandiver: I withdraw your- ... and make those changes, I'll second. Yeah. So, uh, I motion to accept all of the changes in this docu-

▶ 1:49:07 Maya Jamaleddine: No, I, uh, so, you withdrew your motion. I withdraw the second. And Councilor Garipay withdrew his second. Now we have a new motion, uh, by Councilor Vandiver. Go ahead.

▶ 1:49:18 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. Uh, I would like to motion to accept all of the changes that are in the document before us, with the exception of, on page two, uh, the last full sentence, uh, page two should read, "At least 100 years old," and not built, and it should not read, "built on or before 1930." And on page four, uh, in C3, the word significance should be changed to significant.

▶ 1:49:50 Speaker 7: I'll second that.

▶ 1:49:51 Maya Jamaleddine: So, we have a motion made by Councilor Vandiver, um, to,

▶ 1:49:59 Maya Jamaleddine: uh...Um, accept, uh, all the amendments, uh, made by, uh, Director Masa and, uh, to make the change in page two. Uh, Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 1:50:14 Kimberly Vandiver: Yes. At the bottom of page two, what's read on our document, to, um, uh, keep the at least 100 years, to be consistent with rec- the rest of the document. And to, um... Or say, sorry, at least 100 years old and to remove built on or before 1930, again, to be consistent with the rest of the document. And, um, the other change- In page four? And on page four, under C3, to, uh, there's a word in reg, in red, significance, and it should actually read significant.

▶ 1:50:47 Speaker 5: Did you get that?

▶ 1:50:51 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Okay. Um, we have a second, uh, by, um, Councilor Garipeh. On discussion. No

▶ 1:50:59 Maya Jamaleddine: discussion. Um, I'm gonna ask for a roll call- Sure. ... if you don't mind. Yes.

▶ 1:51:08 Speaker 3: Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Garipeh? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. President Migliorelli? Yes. Chair Jamaleddine?

▶ 1:51:20 Maya Jamaleddine: Yes. This motion, uh,

▶ 1:51:24 Maya Jamaleddine: passes. Uh, we're still with Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 1:51:26 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. And, uh, I would like to make a, I would like to make a motion, and tell me if this is possible right now, because we may need to find all the places it's referenced. But, uh, I would like to make a motion to update, uh, to remove all references to 100 years, and to instead reference the year 1875. Would you accept that motion? Or is that not specific enough?

▶ 1:51:54 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, w- let's see if we have a second for that. So we have a motion made by Councilor Vandiver to remove all, um, uh, references of, uh, 1930, year 1930, and replace it with-

▶ 1:52:09 Speaker 3: 100 year, sorry.

▶ 1:52:11 Maya Jamaleddine: 100 years. Oh, I'm sorry. Uh, remove all, uh, references of 100 years and replace it with-

▶ 1:52:18 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, the year 1875.

▶ 1:52:20 Maya Jamaleddine: ... replace it with the year 1875. Uh, do we have a second?

▶ 1:52:26 Speaker 3: Second.

▶ 1:52:28 Maya Jamaleddine: Uh, we have a second, uh, made by Councilor Finocchiaro. On discussion. Councilor Garipeh.

▶ 1:52:34 Mark Garipay: Um, thank you. I, I support this order. I, I want to see something pass. I'm okay with changing, changing to a date. I think 1875 is a little too far back. We didn't become a city until 1900, so we're, we're losing, uh, you know, 20... At least, if we went with 1930, we're losing 25 y- years as us not being North Malden, but being the City of Melrose. So, um, I'm okay with changing a date, but I not am comfortable going back to 1875. So I'll vote no on that, but if someone wants to come up with a, another idea, um, I, I support this and I want to see it go through, so, um... 1900?

▶ 1:53:18 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. Uh, if I... Can I respond or... Yep, go ahead. Um, just as far as considering the date, when I was looking at this, um, about a full 20% of the structures have 1900 listed as their year. Um, and I assume that's because of, you know, record keeping issues going back that far. So, um, I would even go, well, I would even go to 1899 or something like that. But there's just so many structures at 1900, and I... So that, that's my stance on it.

▶ 1:53:49 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, Councilor Hamilton.

▶ 1:53:50 Ward Hamilton: Madame Chair, very briefly. So, uh, assessor's records are frequently wrong. And so to Councilor Vandiver point, 1900 is a catchall. So if you used a year like 1899, that would probably be a good compromise.

▶ 1:54:09 Kimberly Vandiver: Okay. Uh, would you like to withdraw your second and I'll...

▶ 1:54:12 Cal Finocchiaro: Yeah, I will withdraw my second.

▶ 1:54:14 Kimberly Vandiver: I withdraw my motion about 1875.

▶ 1:54:18 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Um, so that motion, uh, was withdrawn, uh, and the second as well. Um, councilor-

▶ 1:54:27 Kimberly Vandiver: Uh, may I, may I make, hopefully my final motion- (laughs) ... uh, to replace all references to ni- uh, 100 years old with instead, a reference to, um, the year 1899?

▶ 1:54:41 Speaker 3: Second.

▶ 1:54:41 Maya Jamaleddine: Awesome. We have a, a motion made by Councilor Vandiver replacing all 100 years, uh, oh, by 1899, um, seconded by Councilor Finocchiaro. Uh, on discussion.

▶ 1:55:00 Maya Jamaleddine: Seeing none. Madame Clerk.

▶ 1:55:02 Speaker 3: Okay. Vice Chair Romanul? Yes. Councilor Finocchiaro? Yes. Councilor Garipeh? Yes. Councilor Vandiver? Yes. President Migliorelli? Yes. Chair Jamaleddine?

▶ 1:55:13 Maya Jamaleddine: Yes. That motion passes. Um,

▶ 1:55:18 Maya Jamaleddine: what is the will of the committee?

▶ 1:55:22 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, Councilor Finocchiaro?

▶ 1:55:23 Cal Finocchiaro: I'd like to make a recommend- a recommendation for passage. (laughs) I'm so tired.

▶ 1:55:28 Maya Jamaleddine: Second. So we have a motion to, uh, recommend to the full council- As amended. Um, as amended, made by Councilor Finocchiaro. Do we have a second? Second. Seconded by, um, uh, Councilor Vandiver. On discussion, uh, Madame President.

▶ 1:55:46 Leila Migliorelli: Thank you, Madame Chair. Um, I, I can't support this motion, um-... as amended because I need input from the other companies. We, when we just, uh, the other, uh, organizations within the city, when we did this, um, for food trucks recently, we held it in committee til we got a final clear draft. I would feel comfortable getting that, get, before taking a final vote, um, getting that feedback from the, the necessary, uh, stakeholders in the city, and also looking at a clean copy. I, I can't just, editorially, I, I can't approve something without seeing a fine clear, final cle- clear copy and we have precedent in the Council for not doing that as well. So, that's why- Thank you. ... I won't be supporting it.

▶ 1:56:33 Speaker 5: Councilor Stewart.

▶ 1:56:34 Robb Stewart: Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, as a non-voting member, I just wanted to state my, my thoughts on, um, what, uh, President Migli- Migliorelli is sharing as well. Um, (clears throat) given that it's a holiday week, I know that, uh, Mr. Talarico is on holiday this week, um, 'cause I tried reaching out to him this morning, he wasn't available. Um, so he will not have a chance to review this before next Monday. I don't think we want to give him one day to review this 'cause there may be questions. There may be questions that people on the Council may have. So (clears throat) , if this came to the full Council next Monday for a vote, I would vote no. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair.

▶ 1:57:13 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, I have a question on discussion. If we, whether we pass, uh, this ordinance or not, what are the risk for, and I'm gonna be very specific, on the, uh, lined house? Uh...

▶ 1:57:31 Speaker 4: So, if the (clears throat) , if a demolition permit was, um, requested for that house, um, it could be granted and then demolition could proceed, if this didn't, if this wasn't approved.

▶ 1:57:46 Maya Jamaleddine: Uh, how long does it take to get a demolition approval?

▶ 1:57:53 Speaker 4: I, I believe it's ... S- so for a building permit, the inspectional services has 30 days to respond and, you know, the, it often requires additional information and, you know, so there's kind of a back and forth. Um, it needs to be a complete application. Um, I'm not 100% sure for a demolition permit if that's the same timeline. Um, so, I mean, typically, property owners don't demolish structures until they know what they're going to be building on a site, um, but there's no kind of protection, there's no requirement that they

▶ 1:58:25 Maya Jamaleddine: do that. And as of today, we don't have a request, uh, for permit for demolition for that specific property? No. We don't. So we still don't even know if this is going to be requested or not?

▶ 1:58:40 Speaker 4: Right.

▶ 1:58:41 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. Um, so if it wa- if we put this ordinance on hold, what are the chances that ... I guess, it's, uh, it's very subjective right now. Um, what are the chances or the risks that we're taking to, uh, for that specific property?

▶ 1:59:03 Speaker 4: Uh, right. It would, it would be my guess as to, you know, what, what the property owners would decide to do. But they, you know, um, they would have the right to do it. I, you know, I don't know that they would. But-

▶ 1:59:18 Maya Jamaleddine: We ... Right. Because we only have 45 days limit to hold it in committee. We don't have over 45. After 45 days, that ordinance would expire if we don't vote, uh, on it. Um, so just, that's just for the public also, and, and as, um, general information. Um, I have Councilor, uh, Hamilton.

▶ 1:59:42 Ward Hamilton: Thank you, Madam Chair. Under Mass General Laws 780 CMR, there is no such thing as a demolition permit. It's a building permit. And that building permit may necessitate demolition, and the building inspector or his designee has 30 days to act on that. So if somebody walks into ISD tomorrow morning and applies for a building permit- Mm-hmm. ... that demolishes 50% more of 244 Main Street or any other building in Melrose built earlier than 1899, they're going to be grandfathered in and nothing that happens here tonight is going to stop them. However, if we move this, if this is moved forward and is acted on by next Monday night, then anyone who were, was to go into ISD and apply for a permit would be stopped. So, time is literally of the essence. And, um, if I owned 244 Main Street and I was advertising that building to be attractive to developers, as they are, and I knew that this meeting happened tonight, I would hurry up and go apply for a building permit- Mm-hmm. ... and demolish the building, or a permit to replace the roofing and windows. And what they'll frequently do is take the roof covering materials off, they'll blow out the fenestration, and they'll create a building that is just gonna be exposed to the weather. So, um, time is of the essence. That's, I, and I understand and I, and I absolutely respect the considerations and the comments of President Migliorelli, of Councilor Stewart, but this is literally time is of the essence.

▶ 2:01:32 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you. Thank you. Um, Councilor Williams.

▶ 2:01:35 Ryan Williams: Thank you. I appreciate your, your deference for allowing me to speak on this. Um, I know everybody's very tired. We have two more City Council meetings, uh, is that right, in this year? December 1st and December 15th, right? (papers rustle) Um, so I, I, you know, with the motion on the floor and the, um-... ability of the committee to decide and send it up to the full council. I just wonder, not knowing if there's some flexibility within that window of the 1st to the 15th, by which we could get the answers we're looking for, rather than sort of have to have another committee meeting to then send it back up to the council, or if there's a way to, to handle this in council, (sniffs) while we wait for the, you know, feedback people are seeking. I, I tend to agree, like if, if you skip the 15th, the next meeting is January 5th, um, which is, you know, notably more than 30 days after today. (laughs) So, um, you know, I just, I, I, I, I tend to agree that time is sort of of the essence on this and would rather do something slightly imperfect and then adjust, um, later or immediately. If that's the case, um- Mm-hmm.

▶ 2:02:44 Speaker 2: ... than, than do nothing. Okay. Thank you.

▶ 2:02:48 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, Councilor Stewart.

▶ 2:02:50 Robb Stewart: Yeah, my... Madam Chairman, (clears throat) my intent is to give the fair representation of the, um, the part of the a- administration that's gonna be directly impacted by this. But in, uh, deference to the concerns about, uh, the immediacy, I, you know, I don't think any of the councilors will like this, but I'd be happy to come in at any time to do any kind of special vote on this. So, um, you know, if the 15th is deemed too long of a time, then if we have to come in on... If, if I, I will not speak for the others, but if I have to come in on the 4th to make that vote, I would be more than happy to make that vote.

▶ 2:03:32 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, ma- councilor. Thank you. Um, Councilor Pinocchiaro.

▶ 2:03:35 Cal Finocchiaro: Thank you. Um, I think we're actually looking at the two people (laughs) that are gonna be actually doing the bu- bulk of the work for this ordinance, correct? It's gonna come to your office, and then you're gonna be reviewing it and working together. Sure. So, I just, I just want to say, I, I appreciate your concerns, uh, through the chair, Councilor Stewart and Councilmember Migliorelli, but I do feel like this is, this is the ordinance. (laughs) These are the people that will be working with the ordinance, and I just keep on coming back to that. If they're okay with it and they feel... And I, I, I do appreciate that we should get some other, um, departments to review it, um, but I do feel comfortable with moving it forward and then coming back with maybe some edits and, and suggestions, uh, before full council. So, um...

▶ 2:04:20 Maya Jamaleddine: Thank you, Councilor Pinocchiaro. Just for the record, my comments were not to, uh, to try to delay this as much as just to clarify- Mm-hmm. ... what could happen, um, but that does not reflect my decision yet. Um, Councilor Vandiver.

▶ 2:04:36 Kimberly Vandiver: Thank you. Uh, through the chair, to co- uh, to piggyback on Councilor Pinocchiaro's comments, um, I, I think that, uh, number one pre- I, I think my understanding of this is, is that the, the building inspector, while involved, would be, would not be taking on a significant workload relative to this. So I, personally, I'm not... I... If we got comments to the, like, contrary, I'd be happy to make adjustments there, but I don't expect... I would be surprised if there was a lot of concern about the form of it from the building inspector. Um, and then secondly, we do have the ability in full council to make amendments, I believe, prior to voting. So if we got that feedback the morning of the 1st, or if we scheduled a meeting for the 4th, you know, that would- Mm-hmm. ... give us some time. I know it is rushed. I completely, (taps table) you know, agree it's rushed. I don't like that it's rushed either, but I do see that there's a reason it's rushed, and so I, I'm still advocating that we move this forward.

▶ 2:05:37 Maya Jamaleddine: Anyone else on discussion?

▶ 2:05:42 Maya Jamaleddine: Um, President Migliorelli.

▶ 2:05:44 Leila Migliorelli: Just, uh, like the timing point, if this, we have a meeting on the 1st, to Councilor Stewart's point, I don't, I don't know that the answers that I need are gonna be available. I'm not making anyone work through the Thanksgiving holiday to get me my answers. Um, I, I also don't like to make people like come in from Thanksgiving holiday in a day to answer questions on the 1st. If it, if we can get answers and then hear it on the 15th, that's fine, and I get the answers, you know. I just, I don't feel comfortable, um, doing my due diligence. However, it seems, if I were to read the tea leaves, there's enough votes to keep this going. So you don't need my vote to, to keep this moving. (laughs) So thank you. (laughs)

▶ 2:06:21 Speaker 5: Thanks. Um,

▶ 2:06:23 Maya Jamaleddine: if there is no one else on discussion, um, Madam Clerk.

▶ 2:06:33 Speaker 3: (papers rustling) Do you want to restate what we're voting on? (laughs) Do it, do it, and then, and then I'm good.

▶ 2:06:38 Speaker 4: (laughs)

▶ 2:06:39 Speaker 3: Okay. (laughs) All right. Here we go. Vice Chair Romanul. Yes. Councilor Pinocchiaro. Yes. Councilor Garipay. Yes. Councilor Vandiver. Yes. President Migliorelli. No. Chair Jamaleddine. Yes.

▶ 2:06:53 Maya Jamaleddine: Okay. This motion passes. It's actually, I'm surprised, I did not expect that was gonna happen. (laughs) I thought it was gonna be like the food truck.