6.16.2026 Historical Commission

Good evening, I'm Richard Mancini, Chairman of the Historical Commission for the City of Fall River. It is Tuesday, June the 16th and we are meeting at One Government Center on the first floor in the hearing room. Pursuant to the open meeting law, any person may make an audio or video recording of this public meeting or may transmit the meeting through any medium. Attendees are therefore advised that such recordings or transmissions are being made, whether perceived or unperceived by those present and are deemed acknowledged and permissible.

Our recording clerk this evening is Felicia, she's sitting here on my left. And the meeting is being televised and recorded by Alex Mello of the Fall River Government TV. Present this evening are—welcome aboard, Ken, we have a new Commissioner on board this evening. So Ken Shegdak is our new Commissioner, and we have our co-chair Jonathan Lima, and Commissioner Connie Soule, Commissioner Joyce Rogers, Caroline Aubin, and Commissioner Ryan Klein. And I am the chair and we have Felicia Parker here as our clerk.

Felicia, have all of the petitions been properly advertised and all interested parties been notified in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Historic Commission for the City of Fall River? Yes. Okay, I hereby declare Tuesday, June the 16th, the regularly scheduled meeting of the Historical Commission for the City of Fall River open for such business and resume before us. Okay, let us begin, we're set.

Okay, we have no Open Meeting Law violations. And we're going to go through the following agenda. We have a roll call, Ken, would you start? Ken Shegdak, present. Jonathan Lima, present. Connie Soule, present. Joyce Rogers, present. Caroline Aubin, present. Ryan Klein, present. Rick Mancini, present. Has everyone reviewed and looking for a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting? I'll make a motion to approve June 16th's minutes. Second. Okay, taking a vote—I'm sorry.

Can I just say that there is an issue with the May 19th minutes—Ashley was no longer on the board and she's listed as being present. Okay, I will fix that error. Thank you. Other than that, are the minutes approved? Okay, Ryan? Yes. Caroline? Yes. Joyce? Yes. Connie? Yes. Jonathan? Yes. Ken? Abstain. And, Rick, yes. All right, do we have any citizens' input today? State your name and address, please.

Hello, Alexander Silva, 148 Purchase Street. I'm the President of the Board of Directors of the Preservation Society of Fall River, which is the non-profit in the city. Members of the Fall River Historical Commission, the Preservation Society of Fall River opposes the commission's decision to deem the 12-month demolition delay bylaw non-applicable for the circa-1915 central police station at 158 Bedford Street.

As you know, all city-owned historic buildings on the Fall River register of significant structures are required to adhere to the 12-month demolition delay bylaw. The purpose of this bylaw is not merely procedural, it exists to provide the community, municipal officials, and other stakeholders with an opportunity to explore alternatives to demolition, possibly pursue stabilization efforts, identify redevelopment opportunities and, if demolition proved unavoidable, develop a plan for the documentation and salvage of historically significant materials and architectural features.

To date, the evidence presented by the Building Department has failed to demonstrate that conditions at 158 Bedford Street have deteriorated to the point of constituting an immediate public emergency requiring the extraordinary step of bypassing the demolition delay process. The rationale offered instead appears to center primarily on the project scheduling concerns and the approximately $1.4 million allocated for the demolition.

While these may be legitimate administrative and financial considerations, neither actually constitutes an emergency under the intent or spirit of the demolition delay bylaw. The Preservation Society believes that the Historical Commission should have the opportunity to follow standard procedure and waive the demolition delay bylaw if it deems warranted, but only after sufficient evidence is provided to the community.

The city began soliciting demolition proposals months ago, demonstrating that demolition has been contemplated for some time. Had the demolition delay process been initiated when those efforts commenced, the city would not find itself now seeking relief from a requirement that has long been applicable to this property. The demolition delay bylaw was not even referenced in the demolition solicitation documents despite its clear relevance to the project.

If the demolition delay bylaw is not waived, the community would then have the chance to contemplate whether perhaps the $1.4 million allocated for the demolition of the police station with no future reuse or remediation plan would not maybe be better used to stabilize the roof of the building and set it up for future redevelopment.

The Preservation Society has formally requested copies of any recent inspections, engineering reports, or structural assessments demonstrating how the condition of the former police station has allegedly deteriorated to create such an immediate threat to public safety, and we request that the Historical Commission do the same. The Preservation Society reached out to the administration this past February with a request to salvage certain elements if demolition was necessary.

We are hoping to receive commitments from the city that items valuable to the community and its public safety history are salvaged and preserved for future generations, but we need the time afforded by the delay to guarantee that. Despite years of neglect, the former Central Police station remains a commanding presence within the downtown streetscape.

To the casual observer standing on Bedford Street, the building still presents itself as a remarkably intact and architecturally distinguished structure with clear potential for adaptive reuse. Its demolition would represent the permanent loss of a significant civic landmark and another chapter of Fall River's architectural history. The historical significance of the building extends well beyond its former use.

Designed by Fall River architect Edward M. Corbett, a member of the BMC Durfee High School class of 1899, the police station was among the earliest works of a designer who never actually received any formal architectural training, but nevertheless became one of the city's most notable architects. By 1928, Corbett's talents had matured to the point where he was entrusted with designing the Fall River Technical High School on Rock Street, formerly known as Resiliency Preparatory School, and his body of work also included the second Granite Block.

Historically, the Central Police Station formed part of a cohesive governmental center that included the federal Post Office and Custom House, the Central Fire Station, the Second District Court, and the original City Hall. With the loss of many of those historic and civic structures over the past few decades, the former police station has assumed an even greater importance as one of the last surviving anchor buildings of that governmental complex.

Its contribution to Fall River's skyline is equally significant. Situated at the foot of the Highlands, the building's distinctive roofline serves as a visual landmark that immediately captures the attention of those viewing the city's historic core from a distance. That removal of this structure would leave a noticeable void in the skyline and diminish the architectural character and visual continuity of one of Fall River's most historic districts.

For all these reasons, the Preservation Society respectfully urges the Historical Commission to reject any effort to bypass the demolition delay bylaw absent clear and compelling evidence of a genuine emergency. The public deserves transparency regarding the condition of this historic building and the community should be afforded the opportunity envisioned by the bylaw to explore alternatives and, if not, document the structure and preserve elements of its history before irreversible action is taken. Thank you.

All righty, let's continue. We're going to go to Notice of Intent to Demolish. 190 Kempton Street, that was an older building, not on the significant structures list, so a letter of non-applicability was issued to demolish and no delay required. And then, this I guess would pertain to the subject matter that was just brought up by Mr. Silva.

It says here, and I'm sort of moving toward my notes, the Director of Inspectional Services informed the Historic Commission of the intent to demolish the building—that would be the old police station located at 158 Bedford Street. The property has officially been condemned and, in the letter, and the letter is in your packet this evening, citing the bylaws Massachusetts General Laws which specify that if the building commissioner designates a building as being a public safety hazard and it needs to be taken out of service, that automatically removes us from the loop.

So we no longer are contained within our requirements to impose the one year on city property. So that letter was responded to. We have to get these letters or these notifications responded within ten days, and so I was communicating back and forth and you were constantly kept in the loop via the emails. Any questions?

Have you seen any reports? Because I didn't see any, you didn't include any. I understand about the bylaw, but the reports to substantiate the claim—no, I did not. Do we have any evidence of an emergency? Only that the building commissioner designated the property as being condemned and being a public safety hazard. And once that's put into effect, he is the authority having jurisdiction, then that relieves us of any responsibilities.

Was there a date that was issued, where the building was condemned? Yes, there's been well, there's been a lot of news articles and reports from the Mayor and others, and there's been discussions at the city council meetings regarding that on a pretty regular basis. That has been documented? Well, sure, it's on video and things of that nature, minutes of meetings.

So do we—there's no action that we can take beyond this puts us out of the loop responsibility? As far as the Historical Commission, yes. Are we being vocal? Yes, we have made requests, there are certain portions of the building that we would like to retain along with the Preservation Society and we have made those requests. The eagle, some of the granite columns, the Fall River insignia up on the top of the building. There's also work that's going to be done on the Central Fire Station and the brick on the police station is similar brick as being used on the Central Fire Station so we've requested also that some of that brick be salvaged so that it would match up perfectly because it's been aged.

So we don't have the ability to reject the delay? Not at this point, we're overridden by Mass General Law 140. Why do we have the bylaw in place then? I mean, the bylaw that was created for the city buildings of Fall River, the one year. Why do we have that in place if a statement regarding a building being condemned and we're taking it at face value and not by documentation—how does that override? I'm not an attorney so I can't answer that other than we're out of the loop when in there are many properties that come through that want to be demolished that are not in deteriorating condition so at that point we would say no or vote on it and put a one-year moratorium on it. But with this being overridden by the building commissioner, it takes it out of our hands.

I'm looking in the background, we have the building commissioner here. Would you like to request he come forward and maybe speak to us on the subject? Mr. Hathaway, would you like to come forward and speak to us on this matter?

Glen Hathaway, Building Commissioner, Inspector of Buildings, City of Fall River. Good evening. So I understand your concerns, all of you. This building has been sitting idle for I'm going to guess 25, maybe 30 years. It's been in to my knowledge four developers' hands and handed back to the city for one reason or another. People have tried, administrations have tried, this Mayor has tried.

And with that said, everybody's tried, but nobody is putting any money into the building. Therefore, the roof is leaking, it's been leaking for probably 20 years. Well, nature takes its toll. You're asking for reports? There is not many. The last developer I requested before he restarted again that he get a report from an engineer. He chose not to do that based on the walk that him and I took through the building.

And from the day he walked out originally, or I stopped him from working originally, to the day he decided to come back, there was considerable change within the building and that's due to water damage. Why he didn't go for the engineering review? Probably because he needed another $2 million to fix the damage in a six-month time frame beyond when he started. That doesn't include all the other things that went going on in the building.

Each and every one of you, I'll give you engineering report, the best report I can give you: I'll take you there personally, I'll let you stick your head in the door and it'll answer all your questions to see a building in the condition that it's in right now and it'll be self-explaining to you what's going on in that building. Not our fault that the building is sat there. I believe the city has tried.

So, Mr. Hathaway, I have to say something. So the smoke stack at the King Philip, before your time, the smoke stack was deemed as unsafe and that it was collapsing. It cost the taxpayers and the Preservation Society ninety-something thousand to hire a civil engineer to prove that wasn't the fact. They were claiming it had a hole in it and that it was collapsing and, in fact, that wasn't the fact. The same thing happened with the Abbey Grill or the church on Rock Street where they said that the tower needed to come down because it was falling apart and it was a danger, a safety concern. And a civil engineer went in and again showed that it was the laminate that was falling off, not actual structural damage.

So when I look at the police station, I'm not a civil engineer, but when I look at it, those walls are straight. The exterior of that building still looks amazing. I understand what's happening on the inside from neglect, clearly. The elements are getting in. But I don't see the structure itself as falling apart and needing to emergency come down. And I guess that's why I'm asking about reports because I know how much it cost to prove that the Abbey wasn't falling or that the smoke stack at the King Philip Mill wasn't falling.

Well, again, I'll be more than happy to take you for a walk and point out everything that I'm concerned about. To put more money, taxpayers' money, your money, everybody's here money into a building that has been tried to be rehabilitated by at least four independent people, contractors, and unsuccessfully completed, I think it's time that the building come down. It's in deplorable condition and you're right, some of the walls do look nice to you, but get up close and start looking around.

It's not so much that the concrete walls on the outside exterior are decaying in several areas, I'm not going to deny that, severely decayed in some areas. I've gone up in a fire truck, in a ladder truck, and I've taken some of the cornice stone that's in the front of the building to stop it from falling on people's heads. That's why the fence is there and it's been there for some time. I maybe four months ago I went up again and took four more pieces down. The fire department brings me up as a courtesy.

Contractors, developers have tried, they're restricted to space, they're restricted to structural integrity when they put the building back together again, it's too costly. I know you haven't been here for the entire time that they've and going back to the towers for one second. So the smoke stack—I reviewed the stack, the stack had straps around it, the strap the chimney was reviewed by a structural engineer and an architect and they deemed it also unsafe. Not yes, they had compromises in it that were done by intentional, they were asked specifically to remove—yes, for people to evaluate the structure and then they left it like that.

I can remember my former boss putting a a drum around it up high enough. Would it have fallen anytime soon? No, but sooner or later the maintenance of these things, even though we like to preserve them, becomes far more expensive than what it appears to be in the cost of maintaining it. We have one down north I believe that is maintained and it's going to stand up for many years. They put quite a bit of work into the bottom half of that. The acid and the fumes or the acid so to speak from the coal back in the day eats at the brick and it just continues to eat and then mother nature takes its course.

I'd like to save a lot of things, there's a ton of things that I'd like to save. Unfortunately, it's too costly to save some items that have gone by the wayside due to the unfortunate neglect that they're experiencing. I'd be more than happy to walk you to the police station. I think you'd get your eyes really opened up. I've been in there before—no, you haven't been in there in the last year, year and a half, or two years. It's deplorable. Really is. Any other questions?

I guess my question would be why are we overriding the delay process? How much longer you want to wait? Well, I don't know, just a the delay process once the delay process—what's the delay going to accomplish in a building that's been sitting there for 30 years with nothing happening? Well, I don't know, but the the delay process—that's my point.

I am granted a job that requires me to ensure public safety, and that's what I'm trying to do: ensure public safety. You have a building adjacent to it and you have a street adjacent to it and you have another street adjacent to it. And Connie may be right, the building's not going to collapse so to speak into the roadway, not that one. There is others that we have to be concerned about, but not that one.

But we do have chunks of concrete, chunks of cornice material that is structurally unsound. Currently right now there's none that I can say, but I watch it daily—not daily but weekly I check it, especially during the cold season when the frost hits and the water rain freeze-thaw cycle. Like I said, I think it was three months ago I took down three more pieces with the help of the fire department on the it would be the southwest corner facing Bedford Street. There's three more pieces of cornice or four more pieces missing from there.

So to delay it for another another six months, you're just delaying the inevitable and you're putting public safety at risk. I've had probably ten accidents, ten accidents that I've replaced the fence at least probably eight times of the ten accidents over there at a cost to the city because it's the city fence, my department owns the fence. It keeps getting blown over, hit by cars or people knocking it over. Children, kids playing. And it's just the maintenance—it's time for that building to come down.

And it's had we've had the community has had 30 years to do it, or 25 years to do it, or wherever it's been sitting vacant and it hasn't been accomplished. Delaying it another six months or seven months, I don't see anything changing. I really don't. What about the thought of putting some the money that is being used because it's a lot of money to take that building down. What about using that money to weather-tight it so that it doesn't continue?

What are you going to do with the building after it's weathertight? I don't know, I mean we have we have an armory, we have a Bank Street Armory that could use that money to make it weather-tight and preserve it for the future versus the police station. The police station is beyond. And you have other buildings that should be a concern of the city and preserve them and move on. I don't like to tear the building down, I don't like tear buildings down. I don't like to spend taxpayers' money unwisely. It's time to move on with this building and there is no other way for it to move on other than demo.

Perhaps years ago, you talk about 1.4 million, but let's say 25 years ago, had the city invested the money into the building and removed the asbestos we wouldn't be paying the amount we're paying for demo today. Okay, so there's a lot of things in play here and it's costing that much money because there is still asbestos in it. And it's not airborne, it's not going to be airborne when they tear it down, there's a protocol. But the fact of the matter is that if these things were removed years ago when you could walk in the building and do things semi-comfortably, some of the asbestos has been removed by one of the contractors and he was removing it illegally and that's how I stopped them because he couldn't afford to do it legally.

He was doing it illegally and that's why he got stopped by me and I called DEP in and the building was the renovation was stopped. It's a complicated building to revitalize and if it wasn't somebody would have done it a long time ago. One of the four developers, I maybe five developers. I don't know exactly over the years how many developers but there is at least four. So I think the building's had its ample tries of people trying to revitalize the building and they haven't succeeded. Now it's time to tear it down and it's been one nightmare after another to be honest with you.

I can't it there's more ghosts in that building to stop me from tearing this building down than you can imagine. Obstacle after obstacle after obstacle, someday I'm going to have a dance in the middle of Bedford Street when that building comes down. But it's coming down, I can guarantee you it's coming down with or without your help. It's coming down, I've had it with the building. The building is a public safety hazard. I don't know what it takes to make anybody understand that, but it is. Kids go in there, I keep them out, I can't afford to have a child get fall through that floor in there and become death.

I can't afford to have a fireman go in there trying to save kids or police officers trying to save kids. This is a public safety hazard. I can't keep the people out of the building long enough. The homeless have become a problem, the kids have become a problem, everybody. It's a public safety hazard. I'm done. The building the Mayor, the City Council has granted me the money to tear this building down, it's coming down and I'm going to get it down one way or the other if I have to chisel it down myself. It's coming down, I can guarantee it. I finished, I'm done.

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I really don't. The city has had a long time. I guess maybe more of a point of order than anything else is that I sit here and I feel convinced that this was placed into this status specifically and intentionally to bypass the 12-month delay. That's just the feeling I get, and your smile speaks volumes. This is like Ahab's whale for some reason and that's fine, we're not here for that, but let me ask you a question.

How long ago was the rule put into place for the one year demo in put into ordinance? How many years ago? Three or four, maybe even longer than that? No, it wasn't. It was instituted into law, into ordinance I believe due to a building that was in another part of the city and was demolished without a six-month even delay. Okay, but now the rule is there. Now the law is there. This particular building has been there far longer than that and should have come down. Nobody stepped forward to develop it, sir.

I don't disagree with that. I'm just saying it feels like there's an intentional—there's nothing intentional on my part other than me doing my job. Well, I we keep coming back to the the justification for condemning the building as being its eminent threat to public safety. It sounds like, hearing you speak and hearing others speak, that we all agree the building is in is not likely at all in the next 12 months to collapse onto any of the adjacent streets. So negating it seems convenient that we would negate the 12-month delay and granted the city's had 30 years of delay, I don't dispute that. It just seems like there's an intention to skirt the rule. That's all.

Could the Commission go on record at least to to prohibit, maybe to discourage this from happening in the future, this putting aside—it's already on the record. We're on the record opposing the the we're on the record opposing—not an official vote for this building. Just going on record so in the future they can say that we opposed this, if that's the Commission's will. Just to have us not be compliant in not speaking up or not having taken some kind of action even though it's obviously this isn't going to it's not going to make any difference. That's my concern. I'm new here, but I'm concerned this my I'm going to be compliant in not speaking up or not having taken some kind of action even though it's obviously this isn't going to it's not going to make any difference.

Well, that's our position, we're a Historical Commission. So I agree. There is an ordinance in the city with an automatic one-year delay for city buildings—six-month delay on public buildings. That's in effect. Let me just read some of this just a quick thing, but we have Mass General Law requires taking us out of the loop so really we have no say in this. I think that's where we have to look at the bigger picture. Mass General Law, once it's deemed unsafe, there's really no discussion for us. Correct.

Let let me just—we've all received all of these communications that have been going on. I try and keep you abreast. We have originally, and that particular short synopsis I do not have here—it's not here, but you all have a copy of the correspondence that went back and forth, and more for the general public at this point so they can be aware that we have been contributing and and working well with this. What we did is we got a request to submit a letter of non-applicability for the demolition of that building and waive the one-year delay.

And excuse me for reading but I'll read right out of here—and it says 'Hello Glen, this is from myself writing back'—and we have to respond with these things even though we have to take a formal vote at certain times, we do have to get back to comments and requests within an amount of time. It says 'Thank you for your request, the Historical Commission Board has always and it has been reaffirmed recently that the Chair may issue a letter of non-applicability to any property not listed on the Register of Significant Structures list.'

'The Historical Commission board, however, has always required any significant historic property listed on the Register of Significant Structures to be presented to the board by a representative of the project or property at a regularly scheduled meeting to explain the situation and reason for the demolition request. The board would then vote on the request. A letter of the result would be sent out the next day. A yes majority vote would allow the chair to remove the delay and authorize the building department to issue a permit if and when the building department requirements are met.'

'The city ordinance states that a one-year delay in demolition from the date the request was received be imposed for any city property listed as a significantly historic property. This property was officially listed on the Register of Significant Structures in April 28th of 2015. Without going into details, your interest in presenting to the board is greatly appreciated. When requested, (needed by the 9th of June for the agenda submittal to the city clerk), your request will be placed for discussion under new business. The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, June the 16th at 6:00 p.m. in the lower chambers. Thank you for your request, see you soon, hoping all works for you.'

So, I'm sure that's why Mr. Hathaway is here. But then the response back was—this was from Mr. Hathaway responding back to my email: 'I am sure you are aware the building located at 158 Bedford Street, former police station, has been a staple in the community noted to be demolished for well over 10 years now. This building due to neglect and failure to maintain is collapsing within itself and must be demolished ASAP.'

'While I respect your concerns and passion for existing city buildings, the demolition of this particular building should not be a surprise to anyone in the community. Under Mass State Law along with Mass General building codes, I have declared this building unsafe under chapter 143 section 6 through 12 along with the Mass State building codes 780 CMR section 116 unsafe structures and equipment. Due to what seems to be a never-ending battle to obtain the necessary funds to demolish such structures, the city has finally allocated the funds necessary to complete the demolition.'

And then there was just a response back from myself: 'Good morning Glen, thank you for your quick response. Thank you always for citing the Mass General Law and building codes with reference to this project. This written information is ideal for relieving the board of its responsibilities for maintaining Chapter 35-38 Section 8B and Section 38-36. The Historical Commission Board is fully aware of the Mass General Law and building codes with reference to demolition and acknowledges that with this official written conveyance of information, the Historical Commission Board is no longer responsible for maintaining Chapter 38, Historical Preservation of the city's Fall River Ordinance 38.'

Chapter 38-68 identifies that the demolition delay—in quotes—'shall not apply in the case of eminent and serious danger to the safety of the public.' And again, we thank and so on. So we received from Mr. Hathaway the bylaws in our own bylaws and our own Chapter 38 specifically states that if some authority, i.e. the building commissioner, states that this building's in eminent danger, who are we to say no it's not?

What kind of danger? We heard today children and the homeless are taking residence in there, there's a public safety there. And if that's the stand the building department's taking and they're issuing eminent danger and it's got to come down, we have to accept that and that's the extent of our authorization—it's gone. But, do would you put a motion into play and I will definitely go to the corporate counsel and bring that to his attention and ask for a a legal definition? I certainly will. Have no quarrel with that and I think that's within our jurisdiction and within our realm of authority.

I'd like to see documentation showing where this conclusion came from. And do we not have the right to see that? Like, whatever the reports were. I'm looking in the background, we have the building commissioner here. Would you like to request he come forward and maybe speak to us on the subject? Mr. Hathaway, would you like to come forward and speak to us on this matter?

I mean, I think it makes sense in the way—I'm just not—what you read, the responses that you read from the building inspector actually justifies your concern, John's concern. It actually so I do think we need clarification and I still feel like this imminent danger that is being discussed in there—where's the proof of that? And I'm not—he asks you know in and asking me to go look inside—I'm not licensed for that, I don't that's not for me to make that decision.

I've walked through some horrible-looking buildings that I didn't think would be revitalized and were. So, I don't know. I think it's we would do ourselves it would be an injustice not to at least have some kind of documentation to prove what is being told to us. And getting counsel I think is an excellent idea. At least it that we're not absolutely complicit in something that we have questions about. And I have questions about 'Don't tell me to stick my head in the doorway and that's going to somehow be revelatory'—it's not conclusive.

I certainly would not be a proponent if a building was unsafe for it to remain. That's not what this—I'm not all about tying myself to a building so it doesn't come down, that's not what this is about. But I do feel that this building has been neglected for far too long and like an intentional neglect, and now it's being presented to us as an emergency and I don't like to be put in that kind of position.

Just to clarify, they haven't produced a report or physical documentation, a video, anything, pictures of the interior damage. Correct, they haven't done that. No, not that I've seen. So the I I also share your concern—I understand that obviously if a building is you know said to be an imminent threat, but following our guidelines are we just going off of the written word without any documentation whatsoever? And I know our hands are tied by the time it gets to that, but and to piggyback on your concern, my concern is justified because of the history that I've had with this being told to us and then we had an engineer go in and prove otherwise.

I would just feel better seeing physical documentation because I'm sure that it is in horrible condition. I mean, the windows are open and and that's another thing, the Bank Street Armory, when we walked through it, the windows were open, we were literally physically closing the windows ourselves. So the elements were coming into the Bank Street Armory. So you know the neglect is real. Right, and I'm sure that if it if it is a danger, no one wants anyone to be injured or maimed, but I would also like actual documentation of that more than just stick your head through a doorway.

I have one question—in Mr. Hathaway's letter of June the 2nd, the statement is 'the city has finally allocated the funds necessary to complete the demolition.' Who did that? The city council did that? I assume the City Council did that. Has that been documented? I don't know where that statement came from and who authorized the demolition and had the money to do it. It is the city council that goes before them for approval.

My concern is for the record, for the Commission, and how it's going to look at how we handled this very important demolition and what did we do and what did we require and what did we go on record do? So then people down the road will say 'Gee they didn't necessarily accept something about sticking your head in the door as proof that the building needed to come down, a very important building in this city. And the person that's requesting this is the person that's responsible for the neglect (certainly not the staff people here) but the entity required responsible for the neglect of this important building.' And we're just not going to roll over necessarily and without requiring more information.

Would the board like to make a motion for that and I could research? Are we interested in getting Corporate Counsel response? I mean, I think it makes sense in the way—I'm just not—what you read, the responses that you read from the building inspector actually justifies your concern, John's concern. It actually so I do think we need clarification and I still feel like this imminent danger that is being discussed in there—where's the proof of that?

Wait, just state that again. Would you please state that again? It appears that the board is requesting that we get more representation. The next step would probably be go to legal, our corporate counsel, and ask our corporate counsel for an opinion, where are we, the Historical Commission, what position do we have at this point once this authorization to rule on that building as being unsafe for public safety, where do we stand? I guess that's what we would be looking for.

So if someone wants to make that motion and second it, I will definitely take that or anyone else here or we can go with a few members and speak to Corporate Counsel. Absolutely have no quarrel with that and I think that's within our jurisdiction and within our realm of authority. But we also have to bear in mind that there are given Mass General Laws and there are also laws in our own Chapter 38, Historical Preservation, that specifically states that if some authority, i.e. the building commissioner, states that this building's in imminent danger, who are we to say no it's not?

What kind of danger? We heard today children and the homeless are taking residence in there, there's a public safety there. And if that's the stand the building department's taking and they're issuing imminent danger and it's got to come down, we have to accept that and that's the extent of our authorization—it's gone. But, do would you put a motion into play and I will definitely take that or anyone else here or we can go with a few members and speak to Corporate Counsel. Absolutely have no quarrel with that and I think that's within our jurisdiction and within our realm of authority. I'll move that.

And I think I know what the result will be, but I think it's important again for the record that we have questions that we went to that step to question that as a as a body responsible for the historic preservation of the city. So I mean and I I don't doubt what the questions the answer is going to be, but I think I'm just for the record I think it's good that we would do that. Is that in the form of a motion? I would move that.

You're going to move it as a motion so let's do we have a second? I'll second. You'll second. All right, shall we take a vote? Ryan Klein, no. Caroline Aubin, yes. Joyce Rogers, yes. Connie Soule, yes. Jonathan Lima, no. Ken Shegdak, yes. And, Rick Mancini, no. But the yes carries so I will tomorrow make a phone call to Mr. Ramsey and set up an appointment.

I know in the motion that we just had, we didn't talk about reports, getting that. I mean, I'd like to see reports accompanying the you know—well, I'm open to that amendment if you want to amend it. Okay, right we'll we'll look for reports also, if they're available. We don't know if there are any, we were pretty much told there were no official reports. But that we're asking for them is important. We'll ask, correct. And even the guidelines used to declare an imminent danger. Well, we got that I'll have ask the Corporate Counsel to clarify all of those particular steps. Correct. Okay.

All right, let's see—Correspondence. There was a property owner at 710 Rock Street. There's a garage there, it's actually it's a nice small barn, it's part of the structure, it's in the 40C district. The owner asked to allow that to be taken down and 'no you cannot do that, you've got to get it assessed properly. Get an engineer to look at it, get some the building department get a good qualified a representative to to give us a judgment on the building.' Have not heard anything as of yet, and it's it's a shame to take this small barn—it's a small barn, it's very unique, very with a loft on top of it, I was very impressed with that structure.

Yeah, I mean this this is a small garage. Um, I might have to go back to Mr. Hathaway as the building inspector to to assess the situation and give us the results. It is the city council that approves, that goes before them for approval. My concern is for the record, for the Commission, and how it's going to look at how we handled this very important demolition and what did we do and what did we require and what did we go on record to do?

Actually, you any other comments? No. All right. Actually, there was an email that we received from the Mass Historical Commission regarding the Academy Building, that they're that has a preservation restriction on it. I haven't got a response back. I spoke with you about that the other day. I think I have to email you the draft for you to finalize however you see fit. Okay, just send it all through it was a fine the last reading it was fine-tuned so we can go forward. I do want to get that over to the state so we don't. All right.

Little Theater, just a little update: they've put up all of the staging and they're ready to start tiling the roof. Still have not seen the the tile installer there yet. I was there today, still nothing going on, but the the staging looks nice. No new information on the Central Fire Station. I guess the front Durfee Street portion went out for bid and the it's another architect working on the remaining portion of the building (the sides and the back and the interior) and that they have had no meetings or anything else since on that, it's on hold.

The exterior windows on the Anawan 6 fire museum are due this month. They've all been set and there's plywood in there, you notice all the casing has been done but no windows have have arrived yet. They're due in June, pretty much the end of June so you know, maybe they're here and we just don't know it yet. Any questions on the Anawan? No.

The MPPF, which is the Massachusetts funding form it's preservation form, what's happened is that we got approval, there's a letter somewhere floating around it was sent here to the Historical Commission and Felicia has not seen it yet. It was sent out on the 10th of June. It was approved the 30K, thirty thousand and that's going to be added to the sum we already have to start doing between the Preservation Society and the Historical Commission. We were charged by the City Council as a team to evaluate and look at the Armory and evaluate what needs to be done and then get an assessment on the damages, get an assessment on costs and also get a best-use assessment on that property and we're kind of working on that.

The city attempted to apply for this money last year and it failed and with Alex did a tremendous amount of work, made an excellent brochure and we sent it in from the Historical Commission. Did you see the new grant writer? He was the grant writer, yeah. And again, we're working very closely with Al Oliveira, the City Director of facilities director, so between the three of us right now we're sort of pulling that together. And now that we officially, we're having a meeting on Tuesday afternoon between the three of us to sort of pull this together and get some direction. Okay. So that's a great win for the city and for the Armory, looking good.

The next meeting is Tuesday, July the 21st. Do we have a motion to adjourn? Motion to adjourn at 7:21. I second that. Roll call—Ryan Klein, yes. Caroline Aubin, yes. Joyce Rogers, yes. Connie Soule, yes. Jonathan Lima, yes. Ken Shegdak, yes. Rick Mancini, yes. And we'll adjourn our meeting of June the 16th. Thank you very much for attendance. Thank you, Alex, for your presentation.