[Speaker 1] (0:13 - 15:49)
Good evening. Welcome to the public hearing for the Swampscott Historical Commission's final determination on the General John Glover site. I would like to introduce members of the Historical Commission.

My name is Nancy Schultz and I'm the chair. And we have Jonathan Lehman, who's the vice chair. Ryan Judkins, who's our treasurer.

And Brad Graham, who's our secretary. We also have a couple members online, Francesco Riley, Richard Smith. And I'm sure others will be joining us.

So thank you so much for coming. So tonight, I'm not going to be rehearsing the well-known story of General Glover's many feats, which were detailed at both the planning board hearing and the Historical Commission's initial determination. General John Glover's historical significance is indisputable.

Instead, tonight, before we open the public hearing, I will present a timeline that shows how we got to be where we are at the moment, facing the demolition of a truly significant historic structure. So when I do open the public meeting, I will ask speakers to either speak in the mic, or if you need the mic brought to you, we will do that. And please identify yourself and give your name and address.

So without further ado, I guess we'll begin the presentation. Okay, so this is a Glover site timeline that I found. It's from the Saugus Ironworks.

And starting on the far left, we see a timeline back to 12,000 years ago for the indigenous occupation of New England. And from there, you see the various names that have been assigned to various periods. And at the far right, we have the colonial period.

So it goes from 150, 400, 1,000, back to 12,000 years ago. So I think it's a good reminder of how long this site has likely been occupied, and that when we talk about it as the Glover site, it certainly does have a history before that, some of which I'll be detailing. Okay, so we'll start with the colonial period.

As many of you are familiar, between 1617 and 1620, there was an epidemic of illness in New England that is estimated to have carried off between 50 and 75% of the native population. So jump to 1629. And can you hear me okay in the back?

Okay, great. Francis Ingalls builds the first Massachusetts Bay Colony tannery on Humphreys Brook. He's considered one of the first folks to settle the area known as Swampscot.

Jumping to 1737, Colonel William Brown, future owner of the farm on the Salem, Lynn, and Marblehead border that Glover would later purchase, is born in Salem to a prominent family. By 1759, he's probably living in the Brown family farm on the site, run by and taxed to the operator, Thomas Vining, Vining, for whom Vinin Square is named. He was operating the farm, but the Browns actually owned it.

In 1776, Brown is an avowed loyalist. He ends up fleeing Salem, Massachusetts for England in 1776, never to return. So then we enter the Glover era.

William Brown, you know, John Glover starts serving in the American Revolution. William Brown does not, and he's actually in England. He becomes listed in the Banishment Act, and by 1780, his property is confiscated.

In February 1781, the farmhouse and the surrounding acres are purchased by John Glover. It's part of the recompense for his service during the American Revolution. And in 1782, he moves to the site, where he lives until January 1797.

Okay, so the Glover descendants own the property for several years. Before you, you see a 1902 map of Vinin Square, and members of the family are involved in the site for a few generations. Okay, early 20th century, A.E. Little's Sunbeam Inn, Paradise Road, which is now the site of the Vinin Square Shopping Center. This is about 1920, and it was a farm, an inn, and there were lots of buildings on the site. So here is the history of the General Glover Inn and Restaurant. 1957, Anthony Athanis opens the General Glover Inn and Restaurant.

It closes during the 1990s, which means that that area, that site, has been unoccupied for 25-plus years. Mr. Athanis died in 2005, and in 2020, Swampscott imposes a fine on the blighted property. And my understanding is none of those fines were ever actually collected.

In February 2021, the Select Board asks if the property should be condemned. It's just, basically, it sits abandoned and neglected for 25 or more years. Okay, so now we get to our most recent history.

In June 2022, town meeting approved a zoning overlay. Discussions begin about a proposed 140-unit housing complex for the site. And in the fall of 2022, the Swampscott Historical Commission began conversations with town administrators, the planning board, and Leggett-McCall developers.

So we have been in on the conversations about the site since the development was proposed. In February 2023, the Historical Commission was awarded $6,100. It was a cultural sector recovery for organizations grant from the Massachusetts Cultural Council to support our preservation efforts.

And we put that money to use right away. In March 2023, the Historical Commission made an initial determination that the house and the site is indeed historically significant. And at that time, we voted to hire structural engineers for an assessment of the condition of the original Glover House.

Okay, so on March 30th, 2023, we hired Structures North consulting engineers and preservation architect and planner, Frederick Detwiller. And the goal was to make a comprehensive study to determine whether the house can be saved, moved, and restored at another location. We needed to know the condition of the building.

So the key finding from that report, it's a 40-page report with photos, and then I have another report from Mr. Detwiller. But basically, what they said, after spending a day, they were in there with hard hats and taking lots of photos. So the original Glover House, which is the central part and the L, those all date back to the 1700s.

The rear L and the main house is entirely timber framed, and nearly all of it is still existing. The chimneys still present in the house are almost entirely original as well. It has historic fireplaces on the first floor, all the way up to the clay mortar detected at the attic level.

So it's clear that that central building and the L all date from the 1700s. So there are serious concerns. During the 25-plus years the property has been simply left to deteriorate, it has been contaminated by mold and asbestos, and there's significant water and beetle damage.

And so the photo there is just one of the photos. We have several of, you know, it's underneath the first floor that the conditions are the worst. So the conclusion that Structures North, our structural engineers, came to is, aside from the first floor framing of both the L and the main house, which is where a lot of the damage is occurring, the timber frame and much of the floor decking and roof sheathing of the general Glover House is in generally salvageable condition.

There are small top pockets of framing that will need to be replaced or repaired. However, overall, the house is capable of being disassembled, reassembled, and restored in an alternate location, if that can be accomplished. So this is directly the conclusion of the structural engineers.

All right, so then I want to show, from our preservation architect, some of his interior architectural photos showing the condition of the house and some of the architectural features. You know, there are many original features dating to the 1700s. This door frame, for example.

Hello, Richard. The chimney with a beehive oven. There's another photo of a different chimney.

There's a fireplace with some very interesting hand irons. There's an original winder stair, and as depicted by Charles Wilson Peale in the staircase group, a very famous photo from 1795, it's the same kind of winder stair, an original architectural feature. And there are some, you know, the fireplace, the paneling, some of this is entirely original.

So I thought it would be helpful to have a comprehensive history of the site before we open up the public comments. The purpose of this meeting, as I understand it, is to hear from the public your thoughts on this building, what should be done. Thank you.

What should be done and what your thoughts are. And again, I'm going to ask that you speak into the mic because we have several people tuning in from home and they can only hear you if you speak into the mic and you can either come to speak in this mic or we will bring a mic to you. But I thought it would be appropriate to end with a photo of the General Glover Regiment and we do have some of our members of the General Glover Regiment with us tonight.

Welcome. Welcome. So can you please speak into the microphone?

It's okay. Okay, sorry. This gentleman would like to know who owns the house.

I believe the house is still owned by the Athenas family until the closing happens where it will be transferred to the ownership by Leggett & McCall. I hope that's still correct. I don't know that the papers have been signed yet.

So yes, I believe it's still owned by the Athenas family, sir.

[Speaker 3] (15:50 - 17:23)
May I jump in for a minute? Yes. Just to jump in for a minute for context for those who might not know, the Historical Commission is mandated to review destruction permits, demolition permits for properties that are 75 years old or older in town.

This falls under that, of course, because the house would be entirely demolished if the current applicant goes forward with their process. As part of our mandate under the town bylaws, the Historical Commission has the option of imposing a nine-month demolition delay on the destruction of a property whose purpose is to try and arrange some sort of alternative to the destruction of a property that we have decided to be significant to the history of the town. So this meeting tonight doesn't change that process, but it's the next step in the process of deciding whether that delay is an appropriate delay or whether we might in some case waive the delay maybe due to an agreement with the developer or something else.

So I wanted the public to be aware of the options in front of the commission and what our goal here is tonight as to whether you believe that the right decision is to impose a delay, although with the understanding that if we do that, we need a clear plan in place as to why that should be the correct choice.

[Speaker 17] (17:25 - 17:28)
Thank you, Alan. Excuse me, are you voting tonight on that?

[Speaker 3] (17:28 - 18:08)
We are not. Thank you for clarifying that. We have ten days from this meeting to discuss the results of the public hearing and to come to a determination as to whether we believe this property to be, quote, preferably preserved, which is the designation for a nine-month delay on it.

Or less. All of our hearings are open to the public, although they are currently virtual, except for situations like this. But the agendas are always posted online, multiple days in advance.

[Speaker 1] (18:09 - 18:11)
It's Thursday, April 20th at 7 o'clock.

[Speaker 3] (18:16 - 18:28)
Should I bring you a microphone? Here we go. I just have a question.

I didn't get a chance to read it. What does it mean to waive a delay? Can you repeat the question?

[Speaker 1] (18:29 - 18:29)
I didn't really hear it.

[Speaker 3] (18:29 - 18:36)
So she asked, what does it mean if we decide to waive a delay? Would you like to answer?

[Speaker 1] (18:37 - 18:39)
You can go ahead.

[Speaker 3] (18:39 - 19:15)
This is sort of a gray zone, but it's something that we have done in the past. If we feel like everybody is more or less on the same page, our goal as a commission is to make sure that the history of the town of Squamishcott is respected in developments going forward. But we also recognize that given our authority in the bylaws, our delay may not ultimately change the course of events.

So sometimes we have been able to come to amicable agreements with developers where we believe there's a common ground.

[Speaker 10] (19:18 - 19:24)
Has the commission formed any initial opinion about what you would like to see?

[Speaker 1] (19:26 - 19:29)
Could you identify yourself, sir, please?

[Speaker 10] (19:30 - 19:31)
Richard Willey, 30 Friday.

[Speaker 1] (19:32 - 20:07)
Okay, thank you. This is part of the process, Richard, that we want to hear what the community thinks, how they would advise us, and we are fully going to this meeting with the idea of learning what the feeling out there is in the community. We did make an initial determination to say it's historically significant, which triggered this whole process, including this public hearing.

But we are genuinely interested in hearing what people have to say.

[Speaker 10] (20:07 - 20:31)
I understand that. It seems as though any decision with regard to the building has to be viewed in the larger context, formed any opinion as to how it's going to fit into the context of a new development.

[Speaker 3] (20:34 - 21:16)
Our previous meeting did discuss this. It was last week, and I'm not sure if it was posted online yet, but we went to some thoughts about the future of this site. We are cognizant of the fact that this is a derelict site and is currently a blight and an eyesore on Swamp Scott.

We are also cognizant that the history of this site goes back to the Revolutionary War, and we would like to find some sort of common ground which recognizes both of those truths. We have not made a determination as to whether we think a delay is appropriate or what middle ground we might be able to find, and this public hearing is hopefully something that will influence that.

[Speaker 10] (21:17 - 21:35)
Certainly as a layperson, at the very least, there may be materials in the building that are worthy of salvaging and donating to some entities who would reuse them.

[Speaker 3] (21:37 - 22:05)
That is at the very least. The comment was that some of the materials in the building could be salvaged, donated, and reused, and that is exactly the sort of thing we'd like to hear tonight. One possibility, of course, and this happened with the White Court development several years ago, was that some of the materials that were salvaged, some of them were requested to be incorporated into the design of the new building.

There are other possibilities as well.

[Speaker 10] (22:07 - 22:22)
I would hope the Historical Commission would advocate relocating those materials to entities that are interested in the project.

[Speaker 1] (22:24 - 23:26)
Well, that was one of the recommendations in the report that we commissioned, the reports. We've already been, the preservation architect has suggested that if a demolition should occur, as opposed to taking the building apart, salvaging it, and moving it elsewhere, that we have a preservation expert going through the building to decide what's architecturally significant and have that taken out prior to demolition. So that is in the report.

This does cost money to hire professionals. The commission has expended a considerable amount of money to obtain these reports, and so we will be looking into what we can do going forward. That's why we were kicked out of the meeting.

We're not happy with that.

[Speaker 10] (23:26 - 23:37)
Did you make a comment? Somehow. Okay.

You're approval? Yes. Okay.

Can I assure you that was contingent upon the developer's case?

[Speaker 15] (23:38 - 23:42)
Because everything was good from my end.

[Speaker 10] (23:42 - 23:42)
Okay.

[Speaker 1] (23:44 - 23:52)
I mean, I imagine there could be conversations following this meeting if those were recommendations that came from the public.

[Speaker 3] (23:54 - 24:26)
The short answer is that we can try. Would you like to come to the microphone over here, please? Thank you.

And could you clarify, do you need to push the button to speak into it? Do not push the button.

[Speaker 1] (24:27 - 24:32)
And you are, please? Your name? No, I know.

[Speaker 15] (24:32 - 24:35)
I'm waiting until she puts the mic on. Is the mic on?

[Speaker 1] (24:36 - 24:36)
Yes, it is.

[Speaker 15] (24:36 - 25:44)
Oh, okay. Hi. My name is Marie Epstein, and I work for the Swampscot Library, and I do do some historical research for them.

I just want to say that I feel that Swampscot has not maintained any of its historical sites. There's no, besides the oldest house, there is no extant old 1776, as far as I know, sites. And when we look at nearby Salem, who's only three years older, they have maintained and tried to keep the character.

Now, they were a different beast because they were a town and we were just farmland, but the Glover is farmland, and the way I see it, and I look at it, is that it presents a view of the past, the way it exists, the whole site, not just, you know, to take it out and put a development in. And I would love to see the building at least preserved.

[Speaker 1] (25:49 - 26:39)
Well, I think, you know, we have an interesting opportunity before us. The 250th anniversary of the American Revolution is coming up in April 1775, and certainly there might be funds or grants, because this is our revolutionary history. And so I do think, you know, it would require a lot of support.

It would require the support of not only Swampscot, but of Marblehead, and I know we have some people here from Marblehead, and I have invited the Salem Historical Commission to participate. I don't know if they've logged on, but this would, you know, something of this magnitude would have to be a three-community effort.

[Speaker 2] (26:42 - 31:12)
Thank you. My name is Kenneth Schutzer. I'm an attorney in Swampscot.

I was very familiar with the white court negotiations, because I was part of them. But my position here this evening is just to reiterate why we're here, and I think to a large degree it's been explained. But at the end of the day, if they're prepared to wait us out, they can do what they wish.

So really the dynamics of this process is to extract the best you can, because after that nine months is over, your authority not only dissipates, it just disappears. I was wondering whether the applicant, Leggett McCall, has made any overtures to the Historical Commission relative to what they are prepared to do. There's a term in the industry called linkage or mitigation, wherein the parties extract from each other certain aspects of what they're looking for.

And clearly the nine months is your sword, and theirs, obviously, is they can do what they wish. And I was just wondering whether there has been any attempt by Leggett McCall to engage the Historical Commission in any type of conversation relative to what they're willing to do. Now, everything is economics, and our economics is a nine-month delay.

They own a building, they're paying interest on that, they're paying taxes. But they're a much larger entity than we as a town, and therefore I think they understand their strength, and whether we understand ours or we understand their weakness is probably secondary. But I was just hoping that there was some type of discussion going on, because there is no question, there's no question in the minds of anyone here, that that building is historically significant, the site is historically significant.

It's probably the most significant site in the town. It has history to it. It's unfortunate that 25 years have gone by.

I was looking at some of the pictures, I think I left my umbrella in one of those rooms, and I now know where it is, and it probably hasn't moved in those 25 years. But it's so important that we see if we can come up with some type of suggested relief. I know when I heard Angela Ippolito from the planning board, when they were going through their process, which, by the way, I think you have actually more authority than they do, because the way that they redrafted that zoning bylaw really gave them very little authority.

It's unfortunate. I think the town sold itself short, but that's just my thought on it. You have far more authority, I believe, than they, and I think you can extract from them something, because all she wanted was that they, as I understood it, was reconstruct a portion of that lot to show our concern for Swanscot's past, Swanscot's history, and our love for what that represents.

And they were unwilling to do anything. As a matter of fact, they shut her down. I thought that what I overheard was being talked to, or being talked at rather than being talked to.

And I just was wondering whether that dialogue or any dialogue has occurred, because I'm hoping that we can salvage something. I would like very much to see a portion of that building preserved, even if it was incorporated in what I think is an overbuilding of that site, but that's a secondary, and that's not your issue. But to incorporate some of what is there, I mean the chimney, the rooms, any of it could be built into.

Now, granted, it would take away from the number of units, and therefore theoretically it would take away from the profitability of the number of marketable units, but I think that's what give and take is all about. So I was just wondering whether any of that has occurred, because if it hasn't, I would encourage it. And if there's anything that we as a community could do to help assist in that process, I'm sure most of us that are here this evening would gladly raise their hand and pitch in.

[Speaker 1] (31:12 - 33:22)
Thank you. Well, as I pointed out in the slideshow at the beginning, we started talking with the developer, Legan McCall, very early into the process. The Historical Commission had input into the planning board decision.

We had substantial input, I would say. There is a planned memorial park on the site where Salem, Marblehead, and Swampscott meet, and we have discussed with the developer ways of using some of the artifacts that are on the grounds to make a very nice park. In the course of our conversations, I asked, would it be possible to move the house to the park?

And they were very clear, and they said, it is not possible for the house to remain on the property. So I would say we have had productive conversations with them, but they are also not willing to move the house and leave it on the property. If the house can be moved, which it seems possible to do it, we would need to find another site.

And there are some ideas that are being discussed about other places to move the house, if it were to come to that. Even the idea of possibly reconstructing part of it or some of it along the rail trail as kind of an amenity for the rail trail. So there are a lot of ideas being talked about, and we would just...

I mean, the Historical Commission, all of us, the seven of us or nine of us, however we are, we can't do this alone. This would have to be a community-wide effort, not only of Swampscott, but of Salem and Marblehead. Do you want to add to our discussions about...

[Speaker 3] (33:22 - 34:24)
Just a couple of comments. So the developers have attended several Historical Commission meetings, and as Nancy laid out, there is currently a plan for a memorial park, which would include the incorporation of a historic stone sundial, which is currently on the site, as well as an interpretive sign explaining the history of the General Glover property. They also intend to do a few minor things, like incorporate some of the current stone fence posts and some of the, I think, 19th century iron lamp posts into their design for the landscaping of the site.

Those have been fantastic conversations with the developer. The question... And I think we're all on the same page with wanting those things.

The question is whether the public and the commission feel like those are significant enough nods to the history of the site, or whether we should push in some sort of linkage negotiation to try to find a more publicly amenable common ground.

[Speaker 2] (34:24 - 36:32)
Well, it's clear that they've offered something, but it's also clear to me from listening to you and listening to the commission that that's not enough. And what I don't know and what I'm hoping to hear is what you as a commission would be advocating that we could support. Because I think you could go around the room or get a sense of this meeting.

Everybody's looking for something more than a park dedicated to a prior not only structure, but what it represented. Have you as a commission or a board given any thought to what you would like us as a community to support to go back and try to get that message across? Now, everything that you say comes down to one very simple concept, and that's money.

And they have it, and they're looking for something, and they stand to make a significant amount of money on this site at a cost that's significant to the town. So, you know, it really is hardball. And I'm just wondering, you know, our hardball is a nine-month delay, and that's going to cost them significantly.

I haven't been able to tabulate it, but I suspect it's going to be quite a number of dollars. And I would like to see that money not only spent in terms of meeting the needs of the Historical Commission, but meeting the greater needs of the town. Because once this is lost, it can never be regained.

You know, history is something you can't buy back, but you can preserve it if you can. And I'm just hoping that this commission really exercises its muscle, because I think all of us are clearly behind it, and I would be somewhat reticent to suggest that I think that there's nobody in town who is happy with what's going on. And their degree of dissatisfaction, I guess, changes, but you are the one charged with that responsibility.

And we're just hoping that we as a community can convey that to you.

[Speaker 3] (36:33 - 38:42)
Thank you, Mr. Schultz. So, if I may, we discussed some possibilities in our previous meeting for things that we could ask for from the developer. Knowing that this is currently a one-sided conversation, we have to enter into it with them.

And I think this is really kind of the crux of the meeting tonight, speaking to the public, what do you want us to ask for? So, some things that we discussed. One thing, keeping the goal in mind, you know, sort of backwards design.

One goal the commission has is historic awareness of the depth of this. I think of time as sort of a vertical pole, right? When you move into historic sites, it draws you down deeper and deeper into the past.

And so, one thing we discussed is a possibility. This is just an option in the air. As you drive past the corner of Salem Street, and you turn into, you know, then and there in the shopping center, would something publicly visible on the corner there, recognizing that this is a historic site, be useful?

Would a statue of General Glover be useful? Would something else be useful there to engage people as they pass by? Should we ask for some sort of interior modification of a development plan where there is a General Glover Museum inside a common room that is publicly accessible?

Again, knowing that this is a one-sided conversation right now. Should we ask for a flat donation to some sort of historical fund that the town can use to support another site, if not this one, in lieu of some modification on this site? Should we do something that we haven't thought of yet?

But this is where public comment would really help us as we consider approaching the developer to ask for some sort of middle ground if we're willing not to delay the project for nine months. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (38:43 - 38:44)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 4] (38:44 - 39:35)
Thank you. Barbara Betta, Chestnut Street Marblehead Mass. Since I'm the sort of oldest member of the reenacted regiment in 1974, when we put the regiment together for the bicentennial, of course we would be in the favor of keeping anything that is related to Glover.

And I'm with the Councilor. I would say that I don't think we need to open the box. There are other ways of making this happen.

One of the things, we don't have a representative of the developer here?

[Speaker 3] (39:35 - 39:36)
They are online with us.

[Speaker 4] (39:36 - 45:24)
They're online. Okay. And I just happen to be in the construction business.

I've done development, usually on the commercial side. I don't think you've looked at all of the options. What I would, since there is a delay, and that's why we put things on paper first before we put a shovel in the ground, because we look at the plans and see how it can be resized, changed, to accommodate some of these interests.

One of the ideas would be incorporating that house into the development, because it's a big piece. I walk the site. I know where it is.

I have a pretty good idea. I mean, probably about 90% of those buildings, those outbuildings, can go bye-bye, because they're in such a state. I live in a house, 1830.

The whole house was picked up with the chimney, and a whole foundation was put underneath the house. In construction, you can do a lot of stuff. I've seen it.

I've done it. I'm doing the Elbridge-Gary house in Marblehead. We're restoring that.

But a couple of things that I'd point out. You know, you've had to have a pretty big, I don't want to say wealthy, but the Desco Country Club, that property was probably part of the farm. So I would certainly go to them to include them in the discussion.

Most of the Tedesco, a lot of, I shouldn't say most, I should say a lot of the Tedesco folks are from Marblehead. So we can certainly make an appeal to them to see what they could provide money, or maybe a piece of the property that they could look at and maybe enter the discussion. They've got some deep pockets, and if they get behind the project.

I mean, we have some limited amount of funds, and I don't want to speak out of turn, that we would support the project. And just so the Swampscot people know, there was a Swampscot citizen who belonged to the regiment. Eunick Jarvis was in the Fifth Company, and he was a private in the regiment, and he came from Swampscot.

Of course, it says Lynn in his enlistment documents, because that was Swampscot at one time. But I think you need to look at other alternatives. We would certainly be in favor of that.

We're in favor of anything that involves Glover, and, you know, we, I'm sure, would lend a hand, however you want to do it. One of the things, if the development, I think if, and I'm a little sort of surprised that the marketing people can't see, you're naming the development, I think it's, what is it, the Glover residence. I should think from a marketing standpoint, you include a big chunk of whatever was Glover into your marketing effort, and what better piece of marketing evidence would be to have the bloody house sitting on the property and restored?

You know, so we can certainly give you a hand on that. I've done a lot of restoration work, and I have all of the construction licenses to do it, too. But I would lend a hand with doing that advisory.

We've got a big crew. We can certainly give you a hand there. I'm not concerned about anything, mold and asbestos.

We take care of that every single day. You have a crew come in there that is certified. They take out the mold.

They take out the asbestos, et cetera, et cetera. And as long as the bones, and I think you have that assessment, the bones are good, then you can move it, have the developers take a look at how they can massage their plans, their building, to incorporate that as part of their project. I mean, to me, it's a no-brainer.

But anyway, that's my piece. And if we can do it, we'll certainly be behind it. And no matter what happens, I'm sure we can make an event out of it in the name of Eunice Jarvis, who was, in fact, a member of the original regiment.

[Speaker 1] (45:25 - 45:26)
Thank you so much.

[Speaker 4] (45:26 - 45:26)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (45:26 - 45:27)
Thank you.

[Speaker 14] (45:32 - 45:45)
We have someone online labeled CC guest who has been waiting very patiently with your hand up. So if you'll please unmute yourself, and you can ask your question or comment.

[Speaker 1] (45:57 - 46:03)
CC, are you able to hear us, and are you able to unmute? We see your hand.

[Speaker 3] (46:06 - 46:12)
Why don't we lower their hand for now? And CC, if you'd like to make a comment in a few minutes when you're back, please do so.

[Speaker 1] (46:12 - 46:17)
Okay. Okay, do you want to come up?

[Speaker 3] (46:19 - 46:21)
Oh, there's the hand back again. All right.

[Speaker 5] (46:26 - 51:09)
Hi. My name is Judy Anderson. I'm in Marblehead, also, out at the end of the peninsula on a little house built in 1719.

And I'm on Orange Street, and I'm an architectural historian and a social historian and a historian historian. And it's great to have this finally dealt with. It's been a long time coming.

Things always happen suddenly, and it's too late because nobody knows what's happening. Everybody's driven by that and seeing what's ever going to happen to that. So this is a great opportunity, and I just had a couple of thoughts.

Marblehead has had some experience with trying to save a building, an important building, and couldn't do it. And the building was disassembled. Thank God the National Park Service took that over, and it was the last remaining 18th-century warehouse on the entire Massachusetts coast.

It's now in Salem, not in Marblehead. It's great that it's in Salem in some ways, because 500,000 people a year see it and know that there's a Marblehead over there. On the other hand, it's also really sad that it's off of its footprint, no matter how many pieces of wood were left or not left.

Context is really important. So I hope that in these discussions that you'll be having as a commission, and hopefully with the developers, that that very important point, which I believe, and I think most people here do believe, that site-specific is really important. On the rail trail, potentially nobody's really going to see it except the people who jog or walk.

That Vinton Square site is such a busy site that everybody drives by one way or the other. So if there's any way to keep it on the site one way or the other, that's great. The suggestion about talking to Tradesco, which is the abutter, is a great idea on so many different levels, and maybe even there's a portion of property that could be discussed.

But I think that's a really important point to consider, context. Once it's gone, as people have said, it's gone. Even if it's someplace else, it's gone.

But the other thing is, this is a great opportunity because General Glover is known for his accomplishments. The wretched conditions that he talked about and endured, we don't hear so much about. We hear about the Valor, and it certainly was Valor, and saved the Revolution a couple of times or several times.

But there's an awful lot of meat there, and there could be opportunities to educate about that in more ways, how things impacted people, but also Glover's career after the Revolution. People think, oh, he was just poor and then he died. That's not the case.

Everybody had to pull themselves up and rebuild the community from their bootstraps. And it was hard, and it took years and years and years. But Glover was on the state legislature.

He was a selectman in those years living in that house. And then his family must have lived there, as you said. He had quite a few children, as everybody did.

So there are, I think, some real educational opportunities here, but you can't really do any of that unless you have something to look at. And keeping that on the site is so important. A lamppost from the 19th century or 20th century isn't going to do it, and you all agree there.

So while that's a nice gesture for the developer, it's no skin off their nose at all. And they obviously value Glover's name, and I hope that they might get enthusiastic about it. I'd be happy to volunteer some services, along with Glover's regiment, to talk to them if you think that that would be helpful.

But there's a fireplace chimney breast there, that wooden chimney breast. That could be incorporated into the new development. The whole structure would be harder.

So there are a lot of elements to discuss. But I think keeping it on the site one way or the other, whether it's inside a building or on the site, inside the development structure or on the site, I think that's just really critical. And it can be rebuilt and moved.

It can be moved. And even partially rebuilt. That's something.

[Speaker 1] (51:10 - 52:03)
Well, I would just like to, before we hear from you, agree with you that anybody who steps up, whether it's the developer or Tedesco or some other organization, anyone who steps up will be building a wonderful legacy for themselves, and their name would be lauded in the community. I think, you know, it would be really, I would not want to have my legacy, you know, let the building be destroyed or lost forever. I think that's a really bad legacy for anybody.

So I would just encourage people to be thinking not only about the past but of the future and how, you know, how this vision could create a very nice legacy for your organization.

[Speaker 3] (52:06 - 52:22)
And to add one comment that reiterates a couple of things that have been said, I do think there is a deep economic value to history. Why do we live in Swampscott and Marblehead in part? And I would like to see that emphasized further in the project.

[Speaker 1] (52:24 - 52:25)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 7] (52:25 - 56:10)
Seamus Daly, 14 Ridge Road in Marblehead. I am the current commander of Glover's Marblehead Regiment, and that means I'm president of the corporation. We had a meeting on this on Thursday of last week, and we discussed a few things.

I'd like to reiterate those. I'll reiterate some personal positions. One is probably I would much prefer to see a fully preserved original building on another site rather than just, say, a chimney breast in the development.

It's not obviously the ideal positions here that, you know, we'd like to see a fully preserved building on site. But if that's not entirely feasible, I think we've seen enough transplanted historical buildings. I think Strawberry Bank in Portsmouth has some very representative examples that look really good in that context.

Admittedly, this would be likely a standalone affair because there's not probably many other buildings, though, put in proximity to it. But, again, I think I'd much prefer to see the original building in a setting where people could see it, get access to it. And to that effect, I think I'd like to represent that, number one, the regiment would like to be part of that should it be able to come to pass.

We'd very much be interested in hosting our meetings in that site. We're in a modern conference room on Thursday of last week for our meeting. But imagine for us the regiment being able to hold a meeting in one of Glover's dwellings.

That would be up there in terms of historical significance and context. I'd much rather we'd be able to do that than not. So to that end, we discussed how would we support this.

As an organization, we're more than happy to be the face of any possible fundraising that might have to occur in order to affect any of the options that have been considered to date. But, secondly, we would also be very willing to cede a fundraising effort. The regiment has some significant funds not for day-to-day operations, but it's for a scholarship fund that we run.

One of the things that we did for the restoration of Fort Sewell, which completed last year, is we funded the cannon that is now visible on the ramparts, and we made a very substantial donation for that. Obviously, this dwelling needs a lot more than what we donated then, but we're more than happy to consider funding such a fundraising effort. Probably the biggest proviso we would have is that confidence that it's going somewhere, that it's going to be a material outcome, and that we're not just putting the money into a pit.

That's not meant to be pejorative, but we would like to know that our funds are being spent in a cause that's going to have a material outcome, and our definition of success would be to cede the building, to be able to use it, to be able to honor General Glover outside of the house, which we do twice a year at Glover Square, his dwelling inside Marblehead. So, to conclude, we're very much supportive of any initiative that may involve the preservation of the dwelling, be it on site or elsewhere. Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (56:15 - 56:38)
Well, thank you very much, Mr. President and Commander. The Historical Commission would be delighted to partner with you, and you are certainly our first official partner that you've stepped forward, and you could be considered the first and the leader of the rest of the partners. Thank you.

[Speaker 2] (56:38 - 56:41)
In your revolution against the...

[Speaker 1] (56:43 - 56:45)
Do we have some other comments?

[Speaker 14] (56:45 - 56:52)
We have C.C. Guest again, and it looks like you're unmuted, so please go right ahead.

[Speaker 13] (56:53 - 58:57)
Yes, sorry about that. It was technical difficulties, but I managed to figure it out. My name is Cynthia Cindy Cavallaro.

I'm an actual direct descendant from General John Glover, so it's not only someone that was born and raised in Swampskate, raised my kids here. It's also a very personal issue to me as well. Attorney Schutzer and the other gentleman, the contractor for Marblehead, and I missed a lot of what the gentleman that just spoke said, but I got the gist of it.

My comment is if we could come together and maybe join as a committee where we can share a lot of great ideas that have come up, and the majority sounds similar. We want to preserve as much as we can and where it is located right now so that the history doesn't get lost. The idea of moving it to the rail trail to me doesn't make any sense at all.

It needs to stay where it is, and we need to preserve as much. With the developers on the line, I hope they can hear us loudly and clearly that we have the stamina, the tenacity, and most of all the passion and love for our town to drag this out as long as humanly possible to get it to be the way it should be. The fact that our hands were tied with the purchase of Hawthorne, the Glover had to come along with it.

Along with that comes a huge amount of money for Leggett and McCall. Let's make it perfectly clear that they're in it for the money. We're in it for our communities, for Swampskate, for Marblehead, and for Salem, and that's the number one priority here.

Thank you for your time.

[Speaker 1] (58:58 - 59:04)
Thank you, Cynthia. How about Rick Dentweller? He's our preservation architect.

[Speaker 14] (59:04 - 59:07)
Rick, if you'd unmute yourself, please.

[Speaker 1] (59:09 - 59:10)
Rick, can you unmute yourself?

[Speaker 9] (59:11 - 59:21)
Yes. Thank you. I've been very impressed by a lot of the comments and especially— Who's the speaker?

I'm Rick Dentweller.

[Speaker 1] (59:21 - 59:24)
Rick Dentweller, he's our preservation architect. Oh, okay.

[Speaker 9] (59:25 - 1:02:09)
At any rate, it's been a very good point about linkage, and I wondered if anyone had ever approached the Athanas family for any kind of contribution. But the other thing is the option of either leaving it in place hasn't been explored as far as I know. We were brought into this within, like, two weeks of now and managed to put two reports together.

John Watney's father died over Easter, the structural engineer, but he managed his office to get the report to Nancy in time. What I would like to just express is that this house needs a lot more study. There's a lot in there that you cannot see in a one-day walk-through visit.

It also was owned by Glover during Washington's visit in 1789 and during Lafayette's 1784 visit to Marblehead. So how did he use this farm? There are fireplaces in there that are unique and really irreplaceable.

When you move it, if you can move it with the chimney intact, that would be ideal. If you can leave it there, there are plenty of examples of developments that are surrounding a park with a jewel in the middle. The Edward Devotion House in Brookline is one example, if anyone wants to look at that.

The other thing is that people who think it's hopeless when you see this place, we're not afraid of mold and asbestos either. If you go to the park in Concord, you'll see Colonel Barrett's farm, which was in probably worse shape than this house, and it's now restored and it's a part of the park. I see it as a potential meeting place.

It was an inn. It has kitchen fireplaces in it with four beehive ovens and two different fireplaces. So there's a lot of potential there for it to be adapted and used as a meeting place.

I mean, why not the Glover Regiment? Why not the residential community that's being built during the 250th of the Revolution? And I don't think anyone would want that to be on their record, that they demolished General Glover's house and saved the Army of Washington three times during the war.

So that's just my spiel, and I'm saying we just need the 90 days to consider the alternative plans and to study the building better.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:10 - 1:02:11)
Thank you, Rick.

[Speaker 9] (1:02:12 - 1:02:13)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:02:13 - 1:02:18)
Do you need the microphone, please?

[Speaker 2] (1:02:19 - 1:04:22)
Great ideas, and believe me, it's inspiring to sit on this side and hear such unanimity on a subject because it's just so alien to me that everybody agrees on anything. But that clearly seems to be the case here, except for the developer. But the only way this is ever going to materialize is a vote has to be taken by your board to put in that nine-month delay because then that gives us some negotiating ability.

Because right now we're just talking to each other, we're supporting each other's beliefs, we're all feeling good, but we're not necessarily in a position to accomplish anything unless you as a commission vote that delay in. Then we can have that dialogue because then we have something to work with. I mean, it's clear if I ask for a sense of the meeting, but that's not my role, that's your role.

It's clear to me that those that are here and those that are listening support the belief that history lost can never be regained. And this is a jewel that I'm learning more about as the moments go on. I was about ready to change my clothes and join the regiment over there, but my wardrobe just doesn't allow for that.

But I really feel good. I have such a good feeling that I'm here tonight because it's inspiring. But I need you as a board to take that vote.

I don't think you're going to hear anyone who says, take it down, history has no value, because they wouldn't be here tonight. People are here tonight because they believe in you and they believe in the board and they believe in history and they believe on that we have an irreplaceable gem. And it's for that reason that we can go on all night long.

But I'm really asking for this board or this commission or this assemblage to take that vote and to make it clear so then we can have these discussions and it will be far more meaningful.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:23 - 1:04:41)
Thank you again. I want to clarify one thing and reiterate one thing. The Swamp Scout planning board has approved the current plan of the developer.

Just so we're all on the same page with that.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:41 - 1:04:42)
You can only go so far.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:43 - 1:04:44)
Yes, thank you.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:44 - 1:04:45)
And then they pick you.

[Speaker 3] (1:04:45 - 1:04:58)
And the developer has currently stated firmly that they are not willing to incorporate the current building into the plan. I didn't say that we can't do anything about that, but I just want to be clear about those two things for the moment.

[Speaker 2] (1:04:58 - 1:05:10)
What I need is that you guys have that authority. And that's why that bylaw was crafted by the town. I'd like to see it crucified more frequently than they have.

And I'm asking you guys to do it.

[Speaker 3] (1:05:11 - 1:05:23)
One possibility is we could vote to impose a nine-month delay pending some sort of mutually satisfactory agreement, in which case we'd lift it earlier. That is a possible outcome of this hearing.

[Speaker 2] (1:05:24 - 1:05:57)
It seems like there's so much going on, so many thoughts. The time frame that we have to work in before you have to make that decision is really not long enough, I believe, for that to occur. I've heard a number of ideas.

I've even heard a number of people who are volunteering their time. But time takes time. And I think that if those that are in a position to want to develop it know the strength and know the unanimity of thought amongst those that are here, I think it will put you in a stronger bargaining position.

[Speaker 1] (1:05:58 - 1:06:01)
Do you want to come to the microphone, sir?

[Speaker 2] (1:06:01 - 1:06:03)
Here's the microphone if you want it.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:03 - 1:06:03)
Oh, okay.

[Speaker 2] (1:06:03 - 1:06:04)
The microphone can come to you.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:05 - 1:06:05)
Okay.

[Speaker 22] (1:06:07 - 1:06:10)
Michael Cognata from Go Ahead. I'm just a lowly private.

[Speaker 5] (1:06:12 - 1:06:13)
Just like Enoch.

[Speaker 22] (1:06:15 - 1:06:34)
No, it just occurs to me from listening to this that the developer can also be educated. I mean, this is an educational site, and I think that is very valuable and what makes it so valuable. But the developer can be educated to realize that this may actually enhance the prestige and the value of that site, not diminish it.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:35 - 1:06:35)
Thank you.

[Speaker 22] (1:06:36 - 1:06:36)
Thank you.

[Speaker 1] (1:06:37 - 1:06:39)
Yes, ma'am. Do you have a...

[Speaker 19] (1:06:47 - 1:07:44)
Thank you. My name is Donna Thompson, and I live on Paradise Road. First of all, I think the building should be preserved.

Make it into an inn or something. But we don't need more apartments in the area. We have a hot enough time getting down Paradise Road as it is now.

What are we going to do? 144 apartments times two. Where are the cars going to go?

Who the hell gave them the permission to do this? But it should be preserved. It should make it an inn or something.

With the park. So have you been following the process from the beginning? Well, I read things, but I mean, I drive Paradise Road.

Right. No, we all drive it. Oh, no, I actually can't get to my house unless I drive it.

Okay. All right. And it's a horror show.

[Speaker 1] (1:07:45 - 1:09:13)
Thank you for your passion. And I do have ideas. I mean, I will just say that the historical commission, you saw the timeline.

This all started in 2022. We have been completely involved in this from the beginning. We just expended a considerable amount of our own resources to get these structural reports.

So we have been working very hard to see that the right thing is done here. And if you remember the timeline, you know, the 25 plus years where it sat just moldering and no one paying attention was important time that was lost. And so now we are at the 11th hour.

I like to refer to the hail Mary pass. You know, I'm a product of Catholic schools on the hail Mary pass. I mean, that's what we are looking at at this moment.

So much time has gone by. The building has been allowed to deteriorate and it would require a massive effort on the part of many, many people to make something good come of this preservation effort. It's what it's all doable.

Okay.

[Speaker 4] (1:09:14 - 1:10:30)
Yes, sir. Again, Glover's regiment. A comment.

I think your funding was well spent. Okay. Just so you have the data on the structure itself.

So one of the things, one of the things I learned in the Navy 30 years is don't volunteer, but I'm going to break that. I'll volunteer to give swamps. Historic commission, whatever I've, I've been involved in multimillion dollar construction projects and massaging clients and towns and, and, and, and the developer.

Developers, I should say. So I'd be willing to give you folks a hand. I think you have my card.

Please feel free to call me. And, and I would, I would recommend to the board that you call a construction project meeting ASAP represent, and they're going to hear all of the comments. I'm, I'm sure.

And we got it. We have to enlist the counselor over there. The regiment needs a lawyer.

[Speaker 15] (1:10:32 - 1:10:33)
Well, we got that.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:33 - 1:10:41)
Don't worry about that. We got a musket, whatever you want. If, if I volunteer, you volunteer.

[Speaker 23] (1:10:42 - 1:10:43)
Yes, sir.

[Speaker 4] (1:10:43 - 1:11:27)
Anything you'd like, we'll make it for you. If you want. We have a musket too, but anyway, you know, please feel free to lend a hand and I'm sure Ms. Anderson, I don't want to speak for her, but she is ultra knowledgeable in historic renovation and restoration. So she's a resource. I hope I can be a resource. The regiment certainly the skipper has already volunteered us as well.

So please feel free to call on us.

[Speaker 1] (1:11:27 - 1:11:29)
Thank you so much for that generous offer.

[Speaker 10] (1:11:34 - 1:12:10)
The buildings on site is a series of buildings. Some of our rambling structures in the new England tradition. Do you know, or can you approximate the building or buildings that you are interested in most in saving?

And I think, and I think that should be part of a, an illustration that gets out to the public. So they understand precisely or more precisely what you're talking about.

[Speaker 1] (1:12:11 - 1:12:45)
Well, we have identified the two original houses. The main house is a three story building. It's about 800 square feet.

And the L is, has been identified as being very close to the construction date of the original house. So the rest is added on and we have the report from structures North and from Mr. Debt Willer. And so we, we are aware of what are the most, you know, Okay.

[Speaker 18] (1:12:47 - 1:12:49)
We can do that.

[Speaker 16] (1:12:51 - 1:13:45)
My name is Duncan Maitland. And I grew up in upper Swampscott on Roy street. I can't believe.

The piece of history. That Swampscott now possesses. Within its boundary.

And. To think that the possibility. That that jam.

May disappear. Where does the town of Swampscott. Stand on this.

What have they been doing in the background? We have people that write grants. If we need a grant.

What has been going on in the background, as far as Swampscott itself. Do they even, are they aware of what. Possibly we could lose.

[Speaker 1] (1:13:46 - 1:14:43)
Well, I. As I stated, these conversations began in 2022. And so the historical commission has been in conversation with a lot of people.

I think people understand. The significance of the site. But prior to 2022.

People are saying, let's find it as a, you know, a. Decrepit property. Let's let's declare it an eyesore.

And it, it sat for so long. So. You know, the commission has been engaged.

From the very beginning of these conversations. But we obviously. Need broader community support.

And so. I think the town officials are well aware of the value of the historical value of the property. But they need to hear from citizens needs to be a community effort.

[Speaker 16] (1:14:44 - 1:15:28)
Well, I also want to give complete credit to the commission. Because I've attended some of these meetings. And I've heard what the developer has told us.

As far as the condition of that building was not even. Good enough for a human to enter. So they used cameras.

To show us exactly what existed. The pictures that you showed us tonight. It's a beautiful, beautiful.

Building that definitely needs to be preserved. Period. And I think we have some other people that would like to speak as well.

[Speaker 21] (1:15:30 - 1:15:59)
Molly Connor from the swamp Scott historical society. And I just wanted to. Say that we are.

Utterly supportive of preserving anything that we can. The building, especially. Whether it's in the same spot or relocated.

I just want to say that we had that, we have that support, but do we know how much it would cost to move a structure like that? So we can get an idea of like what kind of monetary. Fundraising we need to do.

[Speaker 3] (1:16:01 - 1:17:03)
We. We don't have an estimate exactly on this building. However, we could extrapolate from our current effort that we have received some bids on.

There's a property. The. I'm sorry, I'm having a minor.

Thank you. The Pitman house that we have been for the last two years trying to preserve. Currently it's slated for development as well.

There's a complex going in on top of that property. And we have been trying to move the house and to find a way to make that. Into some sort of preserved and habitable structure.

And the current plan, which is. Still up in the air after many negotiations with the town and with habitat for humanity, which has been a partner on the project. Has predicted that the cost of moving that building, which.

It's a slightly smaller, I think, than the size. So we're looking for this one, but maybe someone else can confirm that it's about 150,000. Is that right?

[Speaker 1] (1:17:03 - 1:17:07)
No, it's. 65 to 100,000.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:07 - 1:17:08)
That's lower than I heard before.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:08 - 1:17:34)
Thank you. So we're talking about trying to move. 35 Pittman to a vacant lot and preserve it because that is another pre 1800 house.

Someone said, told me, and I'm not sure if this is correct, but I'll. I'll throw it out there. That we only have.

About 20 houses in swamps. Got the date before.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:34 - 1:17:35)
1850.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:35 - 1:17:37)
1850. I thought it was 1800.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:38 - 1:17:38)
1850.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:39 - 1:17:39)
Okay.

[Speaker 3] (1:17:39 - 1:17:42)
Most of them are between 1800 and 1850.

[Speaker 1] (1:17:42 - 1:18:15)
These houses. Have been torn down. Throughout the town.

And, you know, if you look at Marblehead. Or if you look at Salem. They have done.

A much better job preserving the character of their historic. Buildings then. I'm afraid swamp Scott has.

And. So. Every time we lose.

A house from 1850 or certainly before 1800. We're definitely losing an important cultural treasure.

[Speaker 5] (1:18:17 - 1:19:25)
And also. Remember the explosion in Danvers. The 18th century structure on that.

Was slated for demolition. And when the explosion occurred. 44 houses.

Were damaged or destroyed. And the. These houses are very strong.

The structure is strong. It can be built around. It can be moved.

All these Christians. From the 20th century. Are not.

Being an important part. As you said. One of only 20.

And only 18th century. Maybe less. So.

I think it's definitely possible. I think the. I think.

The town. What it should be doing. And what it can do.

Before. As we work.

[Speaker 11] (1:19:31 - 1:20:46)
Okay. Make a comment. To the point.

Of the cost. I think there are some significant differences. Between this property and.

We were talking about moving. My understanding is. That.

Portions of the. And. This is.

Completely. Reassembled. At the new site.

There are also issues of. And I know. It's been addressed.

Somewhat. There is no asbestos. And mold.

Standard in the pitman property. So that has to be dealt with here. That's a significant cost.

It can be done. But it is a significant cost. And so.

I don't. It also the pitman property is currently being lived in. So.

It is habitable. This property. Is not.

So those are significant differences. I just don't want people to get the wrong idea about the cost. Because when you hear something like, oh, it's 65,000 dollars.

You're like, all right. You know, that can be easily done. I think there are.

Substantial costs associated with the Glover property that. We're not included in. So just so everyone's aware of that.

[Speaker 17] (1:20:47 - 1:21:31)
Right. Brian Drummond. Do you want this mic?

I got a second. For you. Historic society.

So I'm going to follow up on a comment that. Kenny made, which is a question of. If you vote for.

A nine month demolition delay. And nothing moves forward within that nine months. Then the building gets demolished.

So. So if I was. The.

Person wanting to build up all that. I wouldn't do anything. For nine months and let the clock run out.

You know, I don't. I don't see where you have any. Trump cards, right?

[Speaker 3] (1:21:32 - 1:21:47)
It becomes a question, essentially, as Mr. Schutzer pointed out of finances, basically. Can what we ask for cost them less than the cost of delaying for nine months. And the ill will that would be generated.

And the overall there. And there is an economic cost.

[Speaker 2] (1:21:50 - 1:21:51)
No. No. With the British.

[Speaker 17] (1:21:52 - 1:22:09)
And then. And as the official swabs. Historical commission.

I think you tie into the state. Historical. Folks.

And there's. Should be something on the state level that can also. Support us in this effort.

If you ask for it.

[Speaker 3] (1:22:14 - 1:23:34)
If. If I may. Moving the property.

Is a possibility which will continue to discuss. In order for that to happen. We need a clear plan for what it should be.

In the future for the Pittman site, for instance, we are trying to have. Town. With Habitat for Humanity purchase a piece of land.

To which this house has been relocated. And then becomes a. Private, although D delimited.

Residents for affordable housing for just two units. There's no public access to the Pittman house. We would be preserving the structure, but we're not preserving its public accessibility or its public interest.

Regardless. We think that's a. Effort worth pursuing.

And so we've been doing it. But that doesn't mean that if we didn't make similar with this one, that we'd be able to have the regimen. Come in.

Two or something like that. I would love to hear. With.

The collection of minds we have here. Creative ideas. If we can, that might fit both.

Possibilities both preserving the history of the depth. The engagement of the site for the public, as well as potentially. Being amenable to the developer so that we can pitch them something.

That is a linkage that finds common ground. If we have any ideas.

[Speaker 2] (1:23:35 - 1:25:17)
I think we all realize it's going to take some time to do that. I think that the suggestion made of incorporating it into the new structure was an excellent one. I know there's a cost associated with that.

And I'm just hoping that we can be as dogged in our determination. In that regard. To be as convincing as the, as the Glover.

Troop was with the, when the British came. So no, it's, it's going to take, it's going to take a lot. And, and, you know, the, the sad part is, and I, I've heard that this has been going for a long time.

We've all known about it, but when it gets to, when it gets to the boiling point, which is where we are right now. That's when you're at a real advantage. And that's when we can hopefully get more town.

Involvement. Because I just don't think the town has a clue. I think they're clueless.

I think they're historically clueless about anything that's going on. That doesn't impact them directly. And I think we need to educate them.

And, but I think that's going to take a little bit of time. And I think that nine months, you know, if, if nothing else, if. And this goes, this goes to Brian's thought.

If nothing else occurs during that nine months, I think you will have coalesced enough people to understand what they've lost. And they should know that they should understand what they've lost. Because it's worth something.

And if it's painful, then they deserve it. But I think we deserve to at least inform them of what's going on. And I think that's going to, in that nine months, is, is, it's an imperative that we have that time.

Because there are those of us, and I, and I can only imagine there are far more than those that are in this room, that feel the way that we do. I just don't think they understand enough for them to be as passionate as some of us are.

[Speaker 18] (1:25:17 - 1:26:09)
I think an important part of this is that this building has literally been banished, has been buried from history for many years. I think if, you'll understand what I'm saying, what I'm talking about here. But the fact that it is not in the state inventory of historic places is really quite extraordinary given the associations it has with General Glover.

And somehow it just got buried in all those buildings. And nobody seems to have remembered that it was there. So we've got a process of trying to bring it all back up to the surface again and make it visible to people so they understand what we're looking at losing here.

[Speaker 2] (1:26:10 - 1:26:25)
Nature has tried to reclaim it. You know, it's so covered now with overgrown bushes and trees and shrubs. It's easily forgotten.

But this is the point where it has to be remembered. And that's our charge.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:26 - 1:26:36)
If I could comment on a suggestion. One is, I don't know who's in the audience here, but is there a reporter for a newspaper here?

[Speaker 1] (1:26:36 - 1:26:36)
Online.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:37 - 1:26:38)
I'm sorry, where are you?

[Speaker 1] (1:26:38 - 1:26:39)
I believe.

[Speaker 4] (1:26:39 - 1:28:10)
It's online. Okay, fine. So leave it to them to make this known.

And I agree. It needs to be publicized a little bit more. So the suggestion I have, since time is of the essence here, I would recommend, if you guys were a client, that you convene a project meeting, ASAP, like I said, with the developer and put our collective heads together and come up with a solution.

It's pretty obvious here that this is a historic piece of structure with a long history. Certainly the ownership, Clever, has a long history. And if the state doesn't hear about it, then I think it's up to the commission to make a noise.

And I think we have contacts with the state, historic folks. So we can make some noise to say, you guys missed this. Get on the ball and put it in your repertoire of historic structures.

So, I mean, that's something, that's an action item somebody can take care of. And then convene the construction meeting. Let's get the ship underway here.

Because I hear it loud and clear, and certainly you've heard from us in Marblehead.

[Speaker 1] (1:28:11 - 1:28:25)
We're crossing the Delaware and it's full of ice. Brian, you want to add something?

[Speaker 17] (1:28:25 - 1:28:51)
Brian Drummond again. So I was just thinking that relative to, you know, the cost to move it, if it's $65,000 or $100,000, that's maybe one and a half electric vehicles. It doesn't seem like a whole lot of money.

And perhaps, you know, the John Adams Society or foundation would help support that, because I'm sure John Adams knew Clever and would be supportive of that.

[Speaker 2] (1:28:51 - 1:29:04)
None of this can happen, Brian, unless this commission takes the vote to delay the process to give us that opportunity. Because if I were Leggett McCullough, I wouldn't be talking to anybody unless I had to.

[Speaker 17] (1:29:04 - 1:29:05)
Right, right.

[Speaker 2] (1:29:05 - 1:29:08)
Because talk is expensive to them.

[Speaker 1] (1:29:08 - 1:30:31)
Well, let me just say a process that we have imagined. Let's imagine we get preservation engineers in there to help us reclaim significant architectural features. We have from structures north the start of a blueprint.

They would probably need to be brought in further of how the house could be disassembled. Then the pieces of the house need to be cleaned. Then they could be put into storage in trailers someplace on town-owned land.

Then there could be additional conversations about where to put it and what to use it for. I mean, that's just one way of viewing the process, but I'm not sure we necessarily have to have the entire plan ready in the next few months. I think there would be time, but I think the key thing would be if we decide if there's support to disassemble it and then store it while we have broader meetings about siting and future uses, I think that that's possibly a more doable process.

[Speaker 2] (1:30:32 - 1:31:59)
I just have one question. I'm getting a rather disparate concept when I'm listening to the chair from what I heard from those that are here this evening. I thought what I was hearing this evening is they wanted to maintain the structure.

In a perfect world, it's going to stay exactly where it is and let Legge McCall work around us rather than their demanding that we leave a couple of pieces and we put them in a place and we call it a park. I think there's a real sense that we want to keep the structure, and we want them to use their imagination in finding a way to utilize what is important to us. We know what's important to them, and it's clearly not the appearance of the structure from the very get-go when the original drawings were.

It's not the appearance. It's how many units we can generate, what the cost is for those units, and what money we will derive. I think from their perspective, it's economic.

Ours is not. We have to say, this is what we're looking for, and we want you to come to us because otherwise we're not going to be happy for nine months. I think it's imperative because the minute you start talking disassembly, we've already stepped back and admitted defeat.

That's my thought.

[Speaker 11] (1:32:00 - 1:32:21)
Ken, can I ask, what's your thought on if the developer keeps the house on the site and restores it or saves it somehow, but the public has no access to it, how do you compare that to disassembling and moving it to another site where the public would have access and the regiment could meet there, things like that?

[Speaker 2] (1:32:21 - 1:35:14)
I'd like to see a combined. I'm not the person with all the answers, or I wouldn't be here. I'd be probably someplace else.

I'd be running for office maybe. But right now, what I see is something I want to see preserved, and I want to see some creative thought, and there are those that are far more intellectually above where I'll ever be in terms of coming up with an idea. I'd like to see a combination of a community who lives there that says that we live in the former General Glover home.

It's wonderful. It has some historic significance, and I think that has value, and I think that's come up before, and I don't know how you market that, but maybe it's marketable. So it could be both.

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, and they can't be some kind of symbiotic relationship that they both gain something by being fused. Not somebody wanting to be fused because they were Siamese twins, they were born that way. These are people we want to bring together because we think that the whole is greater than those parts, and I think those parts combined, which is the preservation, allowing some money to be generated, because that's another thing that Swanscote is dearly lacking is revenue, and if you can get them both, if you can somehow manage to get revenue from these new homes, combine it with a structure that is historically significant, but more importantly something you can't afford to lose, then I think we've accomplished far more than we've ever set out to do. And I don't think it's been – maybe it's been viewed that way, but economics has gotten in the way, and it's really our job to make sure that there's a way that we can possibly convince those that have put blinders on their eyes that it's an impossibility. Because from their perspective, no is a two-letter word.

It's so simple to say it because that's the end of the dialogue, no. But yes comes with conditions, and I think we can do that, and I think if there are enough of us, and that idea gets out, and it's going to have to percolate over time, but we're going to need all that nine months to get them to the table, and they understand that at the end of the day there may be such a backlash of not only those that live in Swanscot, but those that live in Salem, or even the greater Massachusetts area that values historical significantly buildings, especially one called Glover, then maybe we can do something.

You know, I almost feel revolutionary. I don't know, I didn't even wear the jacket, but I think that there's something to be said for that perspective. It's got to start somewhere, and maybe this opportunity, you know, listening to these gentlemen, you know, I'm not going to say I'm inspired, but I'm feeling a lot better than I was when I came in.

[Speaker 11] (1:35:15 - 1:35:51)
So I hear your point about yes comes with conditions. I like that line. I think part of what we're doing here is trying to figure out what those conditions are, and so I'm not pressing you.

I'm using it as a way for the community to start thinking about ideas. For example, another thought, would you rather see the house perfectly restored, but surrounded by tall apartment complexes, or would you rather see it disassembled and placed on a new site? I'm not asking for an answer for you.

I'm just pressing the whole room.

[Speaker 2] (1:35:51 - 1:36:03)
I couldn't give you one because I can't imagine that. You know, my ability to imagine is limited. Right.

But they're both far better than what Leggett and McCall is suggesting.

[Speaker 11] (1:36:04 - 1:36:38)
I think Ryan made this point earlier. If we impose conditions, we have to have a plan. It does us no good to say, nope, you can't build your buildings, and then we all walk away and forget about it for nine months.

That doesn't make any sense. We have to have a plan, and I ask these questions so that people start to think about what that plan is going to look like. Do you want the house there but no one can access it?

Do you want it on another site so people can access it? Those are the things we have to think about so that we can start formulating a plan before we impose these conditions for no purpose.

[Speaker 4] (1:36:38 - 1:39:02)
I would answer your question to be determined, okay, in the construction. But one thing that I think Swampscott and the Commission should realize, you folks and the town as a whole is in the driver's seat here. You guys should be driving the bus here.

And don't lose that fact because there's a lot of procedures that have to go through. You have to get it re-approved by the planning board. You have to pull permits for this thing.

There's all kinds of infrastructural stuff that need to be looked at. And, again, I don't know. That's why you have a project meeting to develop this sort of thing or to talk about it and to explore those things.

But, you know, everything is on the table as far as I can see, well, a lot more than the plans that I saw down at the town hall. So don't give up hope. I think you guys need to drive it.

The town as a whole needs to drive this thing. You've got nine months. You need to get going.

But, you know, there's a lot of steps that really need to be looked at. But, like I say, you guys are going to determine those steps, and the developer needs to take a look at it, whether you move it, you can surround the house with trees to screen. I mean, there's like a ton of stuff that you can do to make this a really nice piece of property, historically relevant, and, you know, it'll be a destination, basically.

I mean, you guys can sell, you guys, the town, can sell this as a destination point, like we do, Fort Sewell and some of the places around Marblehead. You know, do we have a chamber of commerce here in town? Is there a chamber of commerce?

You may want to bring them involved with this, too. But, you know, it's an all-hands-on-deck type situation, and, you know, some of these questions that you bring up need to be determined at that project meeting with the developer.

[Speaker 14] (1:39:02 - 1:40:12)
One thing I wanted to mention also is I wouldn't necessarily discount moving it. I know the gentleman said earlier he'd like it entirely restored, and in order to entirely restore it, it might be necessary to move, and certainly the locus would be better than around other tall apartment buildings. There is some precedent for moving quite a few Frank Lloyd Wright homes that were in the way of highways or other things.

In Pennsylvania, right near Fallingwater, there's a place called Polymath Park where one by one they've disassembled former Frank Lloyd Wright homes, put them in trailers until they can rebuild them, not just there but in other parts of the country as well. So there is some precedent for moving historic homes and placing them in a locus that is a lot more like when he built them than where they would have been had they allowed a highway to pass 20 feet away.

[Speaker 2] (1:40:12 - 1:40:18)
I respect you, John, and if that's what you think, then I will support it.

[Speaker 5] (1:40:19 - 1:42:48)
Did you want to add something? I wanted to speak a little bit to the point that you brought up and for all of us as we're thinking about it, and then the rest of Swampscott and the other towns as well. The historic houses that are open to the public, for example, in Salem, most of those have been restored back to what they originally looked like.

So they are on their footprints in most cases. They don't necessarily look exactly like they did because we don't know, but they certainly looked a whole lot different in the 1700s and in the 1800s than they did starting in the early 1900s when they were restored back to an appearance. So there's precedent for taking this house, and even if it's moved 50 feet or yards, whatever the property place is, at least it's still on the Glover property if it does get moved, and what's really cool is that you could see what his farm looked like.

We can see what Judge Jonathan Corwin's house looked like, or pretty close to it anyway, given the fact that we can't keep it right there. Ideally, it would be nice to keep it right there in the middle where it is on its footprint, but there's going to have to be so much structural work and foundational work done anyway, and if it's surrounded by apartments, nobody's going to see it. It's going to be just another retirement facility and maybe beautiful, but if it is relocated onto a side of one of the roads, you'll be able to see what it looked like, and there is an advantage to moving it.

That's just one thing to consider, that there is a big advantage to moving it, and if Tedesco could be brought into this conversation, that border property might be the optimum answer. If the developer who owns this property, Swampscot, doesn't, if they're not willing to give a footprint of however many square feet, maybe Tedesco could, but maybe the developer could, in fact, for maybe an accelerated timeline or something, I don't know if that's possible, for the nine months, maybe they could set aside, instead of that park with lampposts, maybe they could set aside on the edge of the development a place for this house where it could be seen.

[Speaker 1] (1:42:49 - 1:42:50)
I already suggested that.

[Speaker 5] (1:42:51 - 1:43:23)
I have suggested that. And maybe they can reconsider that. Okay.

And if not, I think we just need to have some serious discussions. Like, I can't remember your name in context, but as Mr. Arbetta said, get the planning meeting going ASAP, and the State Historical Commission, they could send a representative over to be present at that meeting to talk about what other things have been done in other places. So I think that would be valuable.

[Speaker 2] (1:43:24 - 1:43:40)
You know, Ms. Schultz, if, when you're standing there by yourself and you're negotiating with Leggett McCall versus knowing that you have the support of not only us, but a regiment behind you, I think you might be more convincing.

[Speaker 4] (1:43:41 - 1:43:43)
With muskets and cannons.

[Speaker 3] (1:43:51 - 1:44:01)
The problem with the National Historic Site designation is that it has very little regulatory authority. It's basically a vanity designation.

[Speaker 18] (1:44:03 - 1:44:06)
What has teeth is a local historic district.

[Speaker 5] (1:44:07 - 1:45:00)
And a partnership is essential, because if you are going to receive grants to do something with this, you have to be, for most grants, especially government grants, state grants, you have to be a 501c3, you have to be a municipality. This private property is none of the above. But if you partner with the Swampscot Historical Society, for example, this could give that entity another dimension that's really cool for Swampscot.

They could be involved in this. We need another house to take care of. Well, exactly.

Yeah, just take this. But that's just something to consider. You need that partnership, because somebody has to receive the funding.

No, that's true. And maybe it's partnering with the town, because the town as a municipality can do that too.

[Speaker 15] (1:45:01 - 1:45:12)
I have a question. Does the property have to be sold? I mean, is the sale a done deal?

Is that something that is?

[Speaker 1] (1:45:12 - 1:45:43)
I think it is probably a done deal. I mean, I think this is happening. It's already been approved by the planning board.

Any changes to the original plan would have to go back to the planning board. The process has moved very quickly, starting in 2022, but now it's, I mean, really, this just started last year, but it's moving very quickly.

[Speaker 5] (1:45:45 - 1:45:50)
And the developer wants that. Yes, yes.

[Speaker 1] (1:45:53 - 1:46:31)
Exactly. Of course. Do you guys want to?

Of course. The planning board did a lot of research, and the historical commission had a lot of input into the decision of the planning board. And we asked for certain concessions around a lot of the artifacts on the property.

But everyone is aware that this is a historic, a building of historic significance.

[Speaker 5] (1:46:31 - 1:46:32)
And it's private property.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:33 - 1:46:39)
It's still, I believe it still is private property. I don't think the papers have passed, so.

[Speaker 18] (1:46:39 - 1:46:56)
It is, and I think the other thing I would note is that it was only, what, a week and a half or two weeks ago that we actually got inside the building to see what on earth was there and what the condition was. And we've been, we've had the specter of this.

[Speaker 1] (1:46:58 - 1:47:04)
We can't hear her.

[Speaker 10] (1:47:04 - 1:47:36)
It had to have been assessed when it was a restaurant. All the commercial buildings that are on the property must appear in some assessment form. The other thing I was going to ask you is, if this property or the building in question is not registered with the state as a historical structure, can it be done by you in a timely fashion?

And will this help you in your argument?

[Speaker 1] (1:47:37 - 1:47:48)
The developer has agreed to hire a consultant to do that Form B for us. It's part of, that was one of the things that they agreed to do, to document the building.

[Speaker 3] (1:47:52 - 1:47:54)
But that doesn't really help us.

[Speaker 10] (1:47:55 - 1:48:04)
If it were registered in the state, does that provide a different viewpoint as to what it is currently?

[Speaker 1] (1:48:05 - 1:48:15)
It probably would, but that process is extremely cumbersome and doesn't get done overnight. It's a very long, detailed process.

[Speaker 5] (1:48:16 - 1:48:20)
But the developer has agreed to participate in that process?

[Speaker 10] (1:48:20 - 1:48:20)
They have.

[Speaker 5] (1:48:21 - 1:48:22)
That's a good thing.

[Speaker 10] (1:48:24 - 1:48:25)
I'm not fighting it, right.

[Speaker 1] (1:48:26 - 1:48:35)
I'm sorry, you're in the back and you didn't have a microphone. I'm not sure I heard your comment. Did you have another comment?

Could you speak into the microphone?

[Speaker 11] (1:48:39 - 1:48:47)
Ma'am, you were asking, I believe, about was there any discussion about the current condition of the property? Was that your question?

[Speaker 8] (1:48:48 - 1:51:36)
Hi, I was confused. I believe I heard the gentleman say that the developer said that the building was condemned and you couldn't walk into it, so that people were unaware that you actually could. You can't.

I think one of the problems is, I never really knew that building was there. I don't think it was, you know, we did drive by it for 25 years, but we didn't know the significance of it. Now, knowing the significance of it, and as you say, it's the 11th hour, but, you know, to let something with this historical impact just be demolished, I mean, the whole site should be preserved.

And it's sad because, you know, I remember reading about Simsbury, Connecticut, where the tobacco farm was being sold to a huge developer, 230 acres, and then it was realized that Martin Luther King spent a summer there. And so now the whole entire parcel is preserved and it's a national landmark. And here we have something that started American history and we didn't know about.

I was unaware of it. So I'm believing that a lot of people were unaware of it. And not just Swampscott town folk, but on a state level, a national level.

I mean, this is part of what made America. This was the starting point. And to have a developer come in and take that property, the whole parcel, when you see other communities preserving the entire parcel and bringing it back to what it was, that people can walk amongst it and go into the house and have tours and demonstrations.

And here's another piece of Swampscott history, just like, and I won't mention all the other parts of Swampscott history that are now other developments. Now here's another one. And it's just sad that, as you say, there's not many properties in Swampscott left that date back historically because we just let developers come in and take them and destroy them and make meager other things.

I'll leave it at that. And I think that's the problem here. A lot of people were unaware.

I mean, it was the Athanasus family. It was private property. Not a lot of people knew what was in there.

And, you know, the Athanasus was very famous. They owned multiple properties in this area. And so it was just unknown.

You just don't go onto people's private property and find out what's on there. So now it's like we're just finding out. And it's unfortunate that a developer just wants to build another development when this is a historical site.

The whole site is historical, not just the building.

[Speaker 23] (1:51:37 - 1:51:38)
And that's how I feel.

[Speaker 8] (1:51:38 - 1:51:41)
I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

[Speaker 6] (1:51:44 - 1:51:45)
That's it?

[Speaker 1] (1:51:46 - 1:51:48)
Do you need a microphone?

[Speaker 6] (1:51:48 - 1:51:49)
I have one right here. Do I push the button?

[Speaker 1] (1:51:50 - 1:51:55)
No, don't push the button. State your name, please.

[Speaker 6] (1:51:55 - 1:52:16)
I'm Rob Levine. I'm with my wife, Jill. We've been in Swamscott since 96.

And a quick question always comes to me that don't know me. Were you born and raised in Swamscott? Well, I'm still looking for Swamscott General Hospital.

So I don't think that's the case. But I don't have to tell you where I was born, Nancy, because you and I are from the same town.

[Speaker 23] (1:52:17 - 1:52:17)
That's right.

[Speaker 6] (1:52:18 - 1:55:50)
And what goes through my mind when I sit through this is you're familiar with what happened in South Street in Pittsfield with the Colonial Theater, which had rich history. I mean, it goes back. The history of that theater was magnificent.

And in 1997, there was a grant for $2.7 million, time value of money going now at 23. It's much more than that. And when I hear about, you know, what we can do in capturing some funds from historical society and we're maybe not designated that way either at federal or state level and that could, you know, create some delays and issues.

The Colonial Theater's renovation was funded by a Massachusetts convention bond. It wasn't historical. Even though, you know, Hillary Clinton was there and cut the ribbon and it had all the historical significance of that time and heralded such, it was with the value of tourism and a convention bond.

And when I look at all the great ideas tonight about, you know, preserving the rich history, and it's just awful that I feel guilty myself driving past that. You know, we knew. Jill and I had a popover there when we first, on Valentine's Day, I think in 1997.

We knew the significance. I feel bad that I sat back and wasn't as active as I could have been because the history of General Glover, the property, what took place there, and the opportunity to make it not just a location for the state but for tourism, national and, God, global tourism of where the Revolutionary War and all the gentlemen here and the regiment. I mean, it's just, you can't rewrite that.

I'm proud when I bring visitors from out of town and we drive past Salem Street and tell the story of what happened there. And then we drive through Marble and say, well, these are the houses that are still there. So, you know, the opportunity, I think, and I don't have the background that these gentlemen have and Ken has in law and development, but what a great opportunity for a first-class museum, meeting place, convention, you know, function hall.

And if we can still satisfy the developers in some subset of development and the monies, if at all possible, that we get with some of the means that I'm referring to can offset some of their loss, I think that's the direction. Or, you know, of course, stop it any way we can would be the first approach, if that's at all feasible or practical, right? But to think out of the box, anyway, and convention, tourism, I don't think we need to be just boxed in with historical.

We need your help, of course, on the historical side. I'm not discounting your strength and the state's strength there. But there may be other funds besides the ones that were just kind of down the rabbit hole lane.

[Speaker 15] (1:57:38 - 1:57:48)
I'm glad to share with all of you. I would, too.

[Speaker 24] (1:57:48 - 1:57:50)
Yeah, they're both critical.

[Speaker 2] (1:57:51 - 1:57:53)
That's the deal that I'm going to call them back on.

[Speaker 17] (1:57:59 - 1:58:01)
They won't get this chance.

[Speaker 8] (1:58:02 - 1:58:04)
Both of them, once they're gone, they're gone.

[Speaker 17] (1:58:04 - 1:58:09)
Exactly. They won't get this chance. We're going to leave this.

Well. So we're done.

[Speaker 3] (1:58:10 - 1:58:30)
I've heard enough of this. I don't need to end this. Okay.

I agree. So I believe there are some larger issues that the select board is taking into consideration. I'm sure you know in terms of 4D housing and our limited numbers of affordable housing and things like that.

[Speaker 2] (1:58:31 - 1:58:44)
Affordable housing is 16 or 17% of all of those. They gave us that because they were going to be making money. This is not being done by the hubris and the generosity of Leggett-McCullough.

[Speaker 3] (1:58:46 - 1:58:52)
I'm sure there is an economic angle there, but I would not presume to know the minds either of the select board or of Leggett-McCullough.

[Speaker 2] (1:58:52 - 1:58:55)
Most producers that lend money don't do it to leave money.

[Speaker 3] (1:58:55 - 1:59:05)
I believe that. I would like just to reiterate that in the words of Virginia Woolf, we have a brand-new sixpence here with our nine-month delay.

[Speaker 2] (1:59:05 - 1:59:07)
You have to believe that. Are you prepared to vote on that?

[Speaker 3] (1:59:07 - 1:59:47)
We could. We won't make that decision tonight, but this is feeding into that. And honestly, it seems to be unanimous here in terms of what the public seems to think, although that's the chair's call to make.

But in terms of what we would all love to see and what we might be able to make happen, we may need to make some pragmatic and realistic decisions to find the middle ground. And I would like to reiterate, whether it's tonight or after this meeting, if anyone has creative thoughts that might hit both of these goals, please send them to the historical commission so that we can consider them for our next meeting.

[Speaker 10] (1:59:48 - 2:00:07)
I think that's been developed quite frankly at my table. And it has to start now, and it has to be fully developed. If you don't do it, how much is going to happen?

[Speaker 3] (2:00:12 - 2:00:29)
So here's the thing. We can go to the mat with it, basically. We can decide there's a nine-month delay.

We can raise public outcry. We can raise public support. Honestly, the most likely outcome of that is they just wait us out.

And in nine months, the same thing happens to this property as happened to White Court.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:30 - 2:00:31)
Yes.

[Speaker 23] (2:00:35 - 2:00:37)
Yes. Yes. Yes.

[Speaker 2] (2:00:39 - 2:01:55)
Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. And I don't think you have that. Oh, no, there's no ZBA involvement.

The way that they craft this bylaw completely cuts the ZBA out of the process. This has been the most clever way that I've ever seen of having an overlay district, which I think is illegal. But it's – I think it's squad-zoned that they, you know, so somebody challenges it and it goes through.

No, they gave the planning board all the authority, but they gave them no authority to make any decisions that could ultimately prevent the project from going forward. That's what they did. And the town bought it, and they sold it to you, and they wrapped it up in this nice package, and they said that because we're getting a Hawthorne property, we're willing to close our eyes to what we have.

That's what they did.

[Speaker 3] (2:01:59 - 2:01:59)
Thanks, Ken.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:03 - 2:02:05)
Well, we are okay.

[Speaker 14] (2:02:13 - 2:02:15)
People at home cannot hear you.

[Speaker 1] (2:02:15 - 2:02:17)
You need it for the people on that screen, please.

[Speaker 12] (2:02:21 - 2:04:24)
And I'm sorry for my naivete regarding all of the logistics. I have followed it, not completely coherently, and appreciate your contribution to this entire endeavor. My question is, do we have any insight as to whether or not the developers, even though it sounds like they're willing to do something around the historical piece to the property, are they amenable to potentially saving it and making it a mini-museum?

I'm not for the development. Let me just say that. But if it comes to pass that this is what's going to happen, is there any understanding as to their thoughts on how much this could help that property?

I mean, it really could be another epicenter in Swampscot. When you think about the walkability of that entire area of Vinnins Square, how saving it and making it a mini-museum for the students, for the townspeople, and a community entity that could be connected to this. And this has been done historically in the United States.

There have been many famous places that condos have been built on top, but the lobby has been open. I don't want this to happen. I'd rather not have the development be there at all.

I don't live too far from that. But suffice to say, if it must go through, is there any insight as to where they are in thinking about this? Because it really could help their property to preserve this and make this so unique.

It is such a unique piece of history, particularly if they're going to be calling it the Glover Residences, and then having this Glover Museum that the students in the town could be involved with. It could be a nice way to kind of bridge the gap if it comes to that. Any insight on that?

[Speaker 2] (2:04:24 - 2:04:26)
Are they going to be able to respond? They're allowing this?

[Speaker 3] (2:04:27 - 2:04:37)
You can invite them to. I don't know if they will. The insurer would let us.

Samuel Cole is their attorney.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:37 - 2:04:47)
Yeah. Mr. Cole, if you're still listening, would you like to say anything before we end the meeting?

[Speaker 8] (2:04:55 - 2:04:57)
Yeah. Crickets.

[Speaker 1] (2:04:59 - 2:05:00)
Yeah.

[Speaker 14] (2:05:03 - 2:05:04)
He's unmuted.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:04 - 2:05:06)
Mr. Cole. Hello.

[Speaker 14] (2:05:06 - 2:05:06)
Hey, everyone.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:07 - 2:05:22)
Hello. We just wondered if you wanted to say anything as we close this meeting. I'm sure you've heard a lot of opinions and just wondering if you have any thoughts for us.

[Speaker 20] (2:05:25 - 2:05:57)
So I think as we've gone through this process, starting back in last August and even before that in terms of dialogue with the town, I think we have been very receptive to hearing different perspectives. I think you referenced some of those as you thought about the project and what we have included regarding the site. From the sounds of it, this is going to be an ongoing dialogue, and we look forward to continued conversation.

[Speaker 1] (2:05:59 - 2:06:18)
Thank you. OK. All right.

Well, you have opened a door by your presence tonight and your comments, and we will walk through the door and have more conversations. So thank you so, so much for your time and your…

[Speaker 3] (2:06:19 - 2:06:20)
27th?

[Speaker 1] (2:06:21 - 2:06:22)
The 20th.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:23 - 2:06:26)
20th. It's a Thursday night.

[Speaker 1] (2:06:26 - 2:06:37)
It's all online, not in person. Thank you very much. All right.

Well, thank you so much. And I guess I should adjourn.

[Speaker 3] (2:06:40 - 2:06:41)
Thank you guys for coming. Thank you.