►
Description
Docket #0296 - Petition for a special law re: An Act Relative to the Boston Landmarks Commission
A
A
The
committee
held
a
hearing
on
february
8
2021.,
in
accordance
with
governor
baker's
executive
order,
modifying
open
meeting
laws,
we're
able
to
conduct
our
business
on
zoom.
This
allows
us
to
continue
our
job
of
making
sure
that
laws
and
ordinances
and
conversations
happen
at
the
same
time,
balancing
the
public
need
and
safety
of
the
moment
public
may
watch
the
tearing
live
via
live
stream.
Excuse
me
at
www.boston.gov
city
dash
council
dash
tv
on
xfinity
8,
rcn
82,
verizon
964..
A
It
will
also
be
rebroadcasted
at
a
later
date
for
public
testimony.
Written
comments
may
be
sent
to
the
committee
email
at
ccc.go
boston.gov
and
will
be
made
a
part
of
the
record
and
available
to
all
the
counselors
quick
summary
of
what
is
before
us.
This
is
a
homeworld
petition
which
will
amend
section
2
of
chapter
772
of
the
acts
of
1975..
A
At
the
hearing,
the
committee
discussed
the
current
process
for
landmarking
the
importance
of
local
involvement,
as
well
as
the
relationship
between
historic
preservation
and
development.
We
were
very
clear
that
we
believe
the
two
can
coexist
and
that
you
can
develop
and
also
acknowledge
the
history
and
significance
of
certain
landmarks
in
a
community.
A
The
community
committee
also
discussed
resources
with
the
significance
to
the
city's
neighborhoods
and
how
they
would
be
designated
as
landmarks.
The
committee
recognized
that
having
landmarks
with
local
significance
will
provide
equity
and
will
allow
the
city
of
boston
to
preserve
its
local
history
participating
today,
along
with
the
counselors
who
are
here,
is
roseanne
foley
executive
director
of
the
landmark
commitment,
lin
smiled
smilidge,
chair
of
the
landmarks
greg
gaylor
executive
director
of
boston
preservation
alliance
steinke.
A
Executive
executive
director
of
the
preservation
alliance
of
greater
philadelphia.
We
also
have
greg
vassell
from
greater
boston,
real
estate
board
and
adam
hundley.
Hyundai.
Excuse
me
from
goldstone
stores.
So
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
have
the
counselors
we'll
have
the
counselors
do
some?
Not
so?
Actually
I'm
just
going
to
have
the
the
oh
excuse
me
I'll
announce
who's
here
and
have
the
lead
sponsor.
Do
a
brief
intro
if
she
feels
one
is
necessary
and
then
we're
going
to
get
down
to
the
working
session
or
the
business
of
the
working
session.
A
So
an
order
of
arrival,
we
have
counselor
clarity,
counselor
glenn
and
the
lead
sponsors
counselor,
bach
and
myself
here
today.
I'm
just
checking
real
quick
to
make
sure
any
of
my
colleagues
may
have
joined.
I
don't
believe
so
counselor
baker's
also
here
I
did
not
skip
you,
counselor
baker.
I
said.
A
Okay,
it's
an
internal
joke.
So
with
that
counselor
bach,
a
very
brief
comment,
so
we
can
get
to
work.
D
Thank
you
so
much,
madam
chair,
and
thanks
to
everyone
for
being
here
today,
I
counselor
braden,
and
I
introduced
this
as
a
very
simple
change
to
the
landmarks
legislation.
In
fact,
it's
so
simple
that
I've
now
had
a
couple
of
media.
Folks,
call
me
and
say
it
doesn't
seem
like
you're
changing
anything
at
all,
because
we're
just
switching
an
an
and
to
a
comma
and
or
and
frankly,
I
think,
there's
some
argument
that
it
may
have
been
intended
from
the
start.
D
When
the
landmarks
commissions
legislation
came
in
in
1975
to
make
it
possible
to
landmark
things
that
are
of
significance
to
the
city,
but
the
way
the
language
is
worded
has
led
to
a
situation
in
boston
where
our
landmarks
commission
is
only
able
sorry,
I
think
I'm
getting
feedback
from
someone's
machine
I'll
go
on
there,
but
a
situation
in
boston
where,
in
order
to
landmark
something
it
has
to
be
of
significance
to
the
state
or
the
nation
and
as
we've
learned
through
digging
into
this,
that's
contrary
to
what
a
huge
number
of
other
cities
are
able
to
do
around
the
country.
D
We're
very
pleased
to
be
joined
here
today
by
representative
from
philadelphia,
as
was
mentioned,
but
we
have
dug
up
dozens
of
examples
of
places
where
folks
are
able
to
do
local
landmarks
and
all
our
kind
of
peer
cities
and
even
across
the
river
in
cambridge
they're,
able
to
do
that,
and
I
think
that,
as
the
city
approaches
its
400th
anniversary
at
the
end
of
this
decade,
it's
really
important
that
we
be
able
to
preserve
history.
D
That's
important
to
all
the
city's
communities
and
the
tendency
with
the
with
the
state
and
national
significance
standard
has
been
to
skew
towards
kind
of
white,
wealthy
historical
narratives
at
the
expense
of
many
of
our
immigrant
neighborhoods
and
preserving
black
history
in
the
city.
And
so
I
think
this
is
it's
a
simple
change,
but
it
will
open
up
the
process,
which
is
still
a
process
for
landmarking
to
to
all
this
really
worthy
important
history.
D
And
so
I
think
it
is
a
a
small
but
significant
blow
that
we
could
strike
for
equity
and
historical
preservation
and
commemoration.
And
I
was
also
grateful
grateful
to
the
administration
for
comment.
D
You
are
hearing
and
expressing
support
for
this
change
and
also
for
the
examples
they
provided
of
the
fact
that,
right
now,
we've
ended
up
with
a
kind
of
workaround
where
often
we're
creating
one
building
architectural
conservation
districts
in
order
to
save
things
that
are
really
important
to
the
city,
and
I
think
it
would
be
more
straightforward
and
more
consistent
with
what
we're
doing
elsewhere
to
to
make
this
small
change.
D
So
it's
a
homeworld
petition
would
then
go
to
the
state
house
and
I
hope,
to
earn
colleagues
support
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
being
on
this
cooking
session
today.
A
Thank
you,
so
we're
gonna
go
right
to
work
unless,
in
terms
of
the
language
and
suggestions
and
questions
that
folks
may
have.
And
again
I
listed
some
folks
already
who
were
here
during
the
hearing,
and
I
just
want
to
go
ahead
and
go
back
to
them
unless
any
of
the
counselors
want
to
have
language
changes
right
now,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
go
right
to
the
to
the
invited
guests
and
I
see
no
no
hands
being
raised.
A
Okay,
so
we'll
start
with
the
landmarks
commission,
we'll
start
with
the
chair.
The
landmarks
commission,
roseanne
foley
executive
director,
excuse
me.
F
Hello,
madam
chair,
I
just
had
some
internet
issues
and,
of
course
the
timing
was
exquisite.
I
am
so
grateful
that
this
is
coming
up.
We've
had
many
potential
landmarks
that
were
of
significance
at
the
local
level
that
we
just
you
know.
We
disappointed
a
lot
of
folks
in
the
neighborhoods
because
we
just
were
not
able
to
make
the
case
for
above
local
significance
and
it.
F
G
Thank
you,
I'm
going
to
say
hello
to
adam.
I
who
used
to
who
served
on
the
land
works
commission
and
we
miss
them
just
a
couple
sort
of
disparate
comments.
First
of
all,
I
think
this
is
a
no-brainer
and
I'm
excited
about
it.
I
know
some
questions
have
been
raised
about
concern
about
whether
or
not
there
would
be
a
flood,
a
sudden
flood
of
petitions.
G
I
don't
see
that
happening,
because
I
think
probably
the
vast
majority
of
bostonians
already
think
that
a
building
that's
significant
in
boston
is
eligible.
So
I
I
wouldn't
anticipate
that
also
some
questions
raised
about
the
ability
to
develop
these
properties
and
I
just
have
a
short
list
of
properties
that
are
either
landmarks
or
pending
landmarks
that
have
been
developed
a
whole
lot
of
them
for
housing.
G
The
collins
mansion
in
south
boston,
the
hayden
building
and
downtown
crossing
the
charlestown
savings
bank
is
undergoing
development
and
incorporating
housing,
st
gabriel's
monastery,
the
chestnut
hill
pumping
station,
the
ames
building
the
rope
walk
at
the
navy
yard.
Another
pending
landmark
undergoing
rehabilitation
for
housing,
blessed
sacrament
church,
the
albert
kittridge
house,
the
st
james
african
orthodox
church
in
roxbury.
So
there
are
a
lot
of
examples.
G
I
also
think,
as
far
as
how
this
will
affect
the
operation
of
the
of
the
landmarks
commission,
it
wouldn't
be
really
appreciable.
I
think
the
commissioners
would
need
to
kind
of
solidify
some
more
concrete
criteria
for
establishing
local
significance,
since
that's
not
what
we've
been
used
to
doing,
but
I
feel
it's
very
doable
and
I'm
very
optimistic
about
it.
So.
A
Thanks,
thank
you.
So
we'll
just
go
on
with
our
our
invited
guests.
I
think
I
had
was
it
greg
next
greg
gaylord
yep
executive
director
of
the
boston
preservation
alliance.
H
Thank
you
and
thanks
counselors,
for
recognizing
the
importance
of
this
issue,
as
well
as
the
robust
discussion
at
the
hearing.
I
think
the
questions.
H
So
we
heard
as
counselor
block
mentioned
from
our
peers
throughout
the
country
that
local
designation,
based
on
local
significance
is
the
norm,
so
boston's
really
the
outlier,
which
really
makes
no
sense
for
a
city
that
prides
itself
so
much
in
its
history.
We're
really
behind
the
times-
and
this
is
a
small
change.
That'll
really
help
solve
the
problem.
I'm
certainly
happy
to
answer
any
questions
and
I
had
a
list
in
front
of
me
as
well
of
historic
resources
that
have
been
landmarked
that
have
been
redeveloped.
H
It
happens
all
the
time
the
list
could
go
on
and
on.
We
can
list
more
to
more
places
if
people
want
to
get
into
that
and
also
review
other
cities,
but
we
did
request
our
friend
from
philadelphia
to
comment
because
they've
been
struggling
and
working
to
improve
their
rules
and
regulations
as
well.
So
I
think
he
may
have
some
useful
insight
for
us.
A
I
sounded
wonderful
by
the
way
when
I
was
talking,
but
no
one
could
hear
it.
I
said:
that's
a
wonderful
introduction
for
paul
sankey,
the
executive
director
for
the
preservation
alliance
of
philadelphia
or
greater
philadelphia,
paul.
B
Thank
you.
It's
an
honor
to
be
with
you
this
morning
from
a
much
younger
city,
we're
only
about
330
years
old
and
boston
is
certainly
one
of
my
favorite
cities
in
the
country.
Greg
asked
me
to
join,
to
just
vouch
for
the
fact
that
the
change
that
you
all
are
considering
making
for
the
city
of
boston
is
would
reflect
exactly
the
criteria
that
we
have
in
place
here
in
philadelphia.
B
B
If,
and
there
are
nine
criteria,
I
won't
read
them
all,
but
the
first
two
are
the
most
important
for
this
conversation,
so
if
it
has
significant
character,
interest
or
value
as
part
of
the
development
heritage
or
cultural
characteristics
of
the
city,
commonwealth
or
nation
that
word
or
or
is
associated
with
the
life
of
a
person
significant
in
the
past
and
by
the
way,
as
most
of
you
probably
know,
pennsylvania
also
calls
itself
a
commonwealth,
then
number
two
under
this
list.
B
If
it's
associated
with
an
event
of
importance
to
the
history
of
the
city,
commonwealth
or
nation,
so
we're
already
in
that
place
where
local
significance
is
considered
adequate
for
local
designation
as
a
historic
landmark,
and
I
would
also
point
out
that
the
national
register
of
historic
places
also
recognizes
local
significance
as
sufficient
if
it
can
be
demonstrated
to
place
a
property
on
the
national
register
of
historic
places.
So
boston
would
also
be
getting
in
line
with
the
way
the
federal
government
does
this
as
well.
B
So
I
think
that's
the
main
point
that
greg
asked
me
to
make,
but
I'll
stay
on
as
long
as
you'd
like
me
to,
if
you
have
any
questions.
A
Thank
you
very
much,
we'll
just
go
now
to
greg
bethel
from
the
greater
boston,
real
estate
board.
I
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
on
behalf
of
the
greater
boston
real
estate
board,
we
would
like
to
thank
the
government
operations
committee
for
scheduling
this
working
session.
It
was
really
important
for
us
when
we
learned
of
this
proposal
to
take
a
few
moments
and
talk
to
our
membership
and
try
to
get
a
sense
on
what
this
would
mean
and
how
this
would
affect
them.
I
We
absolutely
understand
the
spirit
with
which
this
is
offered
in,
and
many
of
our
members
have
done.
Projects
and
and
greg
gaylor
has
actually
honored
them
at
different
events
and
are
key
members
of
his
organization.
So
we
understand
the
spirit
in
which
it
was
offered
and
and
believe
in
historic
preservation.
I
One
of
the
things
that
we
have
come
up
with
is
the
fact
that
there
could
be
potential
unintended
consequences
as
a
result
of
this
change,
and
we
wanted
to
bring
those
to
the
attention
of
the
committee
in
the
form
of
this
working
session.
So
with
me,
I'm
I'm
really
happy
to
have
adam
hundley
who's,
a
member
of
ours.
That
adam
is
a
an
attorney
at
golson
and
stores
his
partner
and
he
practices
in
this
area.
I
So,
madam
chair,
if
you
don't
mind,
I'd
love
to
turn
this
over
to
adam,
so
he
can
talk
a
little
bit
about
the
change
and
and
the
concept
of
sort
of
a
transitioning
aspect
of
this
and
or
as
it's
used
to
be
called
sort
of
a
grandfathering
aspect
for
projects
that
have
already
been
through
this.
E
Great
thanks
greg
so
good
morning,
everybody.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
talk.
This
is
the
first
time
I've
spoken
at
a
council
working
session,
I'm
genuinely
honored
to
do
so,
as
greg
mentioned,
I'm
a
partner
at
holston
stores
in
the
real
estate
department.
E
I
guess
I'm
speaking
largely
for
the
development
and
real
estate
community,
but
I've
spent
much
of
my
career
working
with
and
in
the
preservation
community.
In
fact,
as
lynn
said,
I
had
the
distinction
of
working
with
her
and
rosianna,
at
least
for
a
brief
period
of
time
on
the
landmarks
commission.
I
I've
seen
greg's
name
dozens
or
hundreds
of
times
over
the
years,
so
I'm
thrilled
to
be
working
with
this
group.
E
So
I
also
love
the
spirit
of
this
legislation.
How
how
could
I
not?
And
if
the
council
and
this
group
are
willing
to
consider
the
issue
that
greg
and
I
have
spotted
any
language
that
we
propose
would
not
delete
or
change
a
single
word
of
the
existing
draft
legislation.
All
we
have
in
mind
is
potentially
adding
a
little
bit
of
language
to
clarify
the
intent
and
the
application
of
the
language,
and
that's
that's
what
I
wanted
to
mention
here.
E
So,
as
greg
mentioned,
the
simple
concept
is
transition
and
I
think
most
people
are
familiar
with
the
concept
as
grandfathering.
I
think
we're
just
trying
to
get
away
from
using
that
word
now,
so
we
started
using
the
concept
of
transition
language
and
the
basic
idea
is
just
one
of
fairness,
predictability,
precedent
setting
for
projects
that
are
already
in
the
pipeline.
E
You're
allowed
to
continue
your
project
under
those
laws
under
those
permitting
practices
as
they
existed.
When
when
you
started-
and
you
wouldn't
be
subject
to
any
any
new
laws,
I
see
this
a
lot.
In
fact,
a
couple
days
ago,
this
probably
just
demonstrates
I
should
find
better
uses
of
my
time,
but
I
flipped
through
the
boston
zoning
code
and
I
found
literally
47
different
articles
that
have
some
level
of
transition
language
in
them.
E
D
E
E
E
E
E
I
love
the
simplicity
of
this
legislation
and,
as
I
was
putting
pen
to
paper,
I
was
trying
to
come
up
with
transition
language
that
was
just
a
sentence
or
two
at
most.
I
I
think
I
came
up
with
a
sentence
or
two
that
works.
The
language
certainly
could
be
more
robust.
There
could
be
more
legalese,
but
again
I
was
trying
to
honor
the
spirit
of
this
legislation,
which
is
short,
simple,
efficient
and
come
up
with
a
couple
of
concepts.
E
So
again,
it
would
only
be
a
little
bit
of
additional
language
wouldn't
touch
the
existing
legislation
which
I
I
have
to
you
know,
respect
and
support
being
in
the
preservation
community.
It
would
just
hopefully
provide
some
guidance
to
everybody
and,
in
particular,
the
real
estate
and
development
community,
about
how
this
legislation,
if
it's
passed,
would
be
applied
to
existing
projects.
A
I
only
ask
because
that's
usually
the
the
what
what
what
was
likely
going
to
happen
is.
I
was
going
to
bring
this
before
my
colleagues
next
week
and
I'd
rather
have
the
discussion
about
that
language.
Here
now:
okay,
right
and
and
then,
if
we
can
come
to
a
compromise
here
now,
then
no
no
one's
going
to
be
wondering
about
what's
being
brought
before
the
body
next
week.
Okay,.
B
A
If
what
you're
saying
is
that
one
or
two
sentences,
I
think
that
that's
you
know
we
could
digest
that
together
as
a
group.
Okay.
So
if
you
can
email
that
I'll
give
you
a
couple
minutes
to
email
that
and
in
the
meantime,
I'm
going
to
go
over
to
my
colleagues
to
see
if
they
have
any
any
questions
and
then
when,
when
that
email
is
in
christine,
will
forward
it
to
all
my
colleagues-
and
I
think
actually
she
might
even
be
able
to
do
it
to
everybody
who's
here.
E
A
So
going
in
order
of
arrival
of
my
colleagues,
I
don't
know
if
the
lead
sponsor
would
like
to
kick
it
off
with
some
brief
comments
or
questions.
What's
on.
What's
on
the
table,
right
now
is
a
suggested
language
that
kind
of
makes
sure
that
that
there
is
no
retroactive
application
of
some
some
project
that
has
gone
through
the
vetting
as
it
is
now
and
has
passed
that
vetting.
A
The
other
proposed
suggestion,
if
I
understand,
is
a
broader
kind
of
vetting
from
the
zba
isd
that
that
vetting
will
can't
be
undone
by
what
is
being
proposed
now
so
counselor
bach
and
then
counselor,
flaherty
and
counselor
flynn,
then
counselor
baker.
D
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
a
couple
of
comments.
I'll
hold
comments,
obviously
on
the
language.
Until
we
see
it
just
one
thing:
well,
we're
also
breaking
I
just
wanted
to.
Let
colleagues
know
that
you
have
in
your
inbox
and
thank
you
to
the
preservation
alliance
for
this.
In
addition
to
the
philadelphia
example,
we
pulled
together
other
places
that
do
local
landmarking
and
so
have
a
kind
of
document
that
rounds
up.
D
So
just
again,
that's
I
think
in
everybody's
inbox,
courtesy
of
christine,
so
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
people
get
a
chance
to
see
that
and
then
in
terms
of
the
suggestion
from
the
real
estate
board,
and
from
adam
I
mean
I,
I
definitely
think
that
coming
up
with
something
that
sort
of
helps
set
like
helps,
establish
those
legitimate
expectations
for
people
who
are
already
in
a
process
make
sense
to
me.
I
think
that
I
mean
it
needs
to
be
sufficiently
narrowly
drawn.
D
For
instance,
like
you
know,
if
some
of
these
old
buildings,
we
hope
are
going
to
stick
around
for
a
while,
if
somebody
initiated
a
landmark's
petition
now
and
50
years
from
now
something
comes
out,
you
know,
I
think,
there's
there's
some
edge
cases
right
of
trying
to
think
about
what
counts
as
being
in
a
process
and
and
what
you
know
and
not
sort
of
not
making
it
those
the
additional
sentences
hugely
onerous
and
as
you
as
you
refer
to
adam.
D
You
know,
we
have
a
fear
here
in
the
council
that
the
longer
something
is
that
we
send
up
to
the
state
house,
the
less
likely
it
is
to
make
its
way
through.
So
certainly
we
want
kind
of
drafting
efficiency,
but
but
definitely
open
to
looking
at
that
language.
And
having
that
conversation,
I
think,
what's
really,
I
think-
and
I
think
I
just
want
to
underscore
to
lynn's
point
as
well.
D
I
think
that
I
think
that
bostonians
don't
make
this
distinction
when
they
bring
things
to
the
landmarks
commission
right
now.
I
think
they
they
bring
something
to
landmarks
commission,
because
it
feels
like
an
essential
part
of
their
built
environment
and
their
and
their
storied
history,
and
so
I
think
part
of
what
I'm
trying
to
do
is
make
the
actual
law
and
the
remit
of
the
landmarks
commission
more
closely
match
that
aspiration
amongst
our
residents
from
all
our
communities.
D
So
I
guess
I
would
be
curious
to
sort
of
hear
what
lynn
and
and
roseanne
and
greg's
instincts
are
are
on
this
piece
as
well.
Madam
chair,
when
that's
appropriate.
K
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
for
hosting,
and
also
for
the
lead
sponsors,
council,
bark
and
braden
for
their
efforts
here
and
and
for
the
panelists.
And
obviously
the
goal
for
me
here
is
to
make
sure
that
we
continue
the
productive
discussion
that
we
had
during
the
hearing.
K
Particularly
as
as
it
pertains
how
critical
it
is
for
our
city
to
have
the
ability
to
proactively
protect
the
many
historical
buildings
that
we
have
in
our
city
and
in
our
communities,
so
particularly
so
that
residents
and
developers
have
transparency
and
predictability
and
process
and
kind
of
goes
to
the
sort
of
the
the
the
theory
and
then
practice
breakdown
and
obviously
adam
made
some
very
valid
points
in
terms
of
sort
of
how
it
actually
plays
out
so
be
interested
to
sort
of
see
when
those
are
reduced
to
writing
seem
to
make
sense.
K
For
my
vantage
point
and
again
looking
forward
to,
I
think,
from
this
hearing,
also
working
with
landmarks
to
make
sure
that
they're,
appropriately
funded
and
given
the
resources
so
that
they
can
be
more
proactive,
as
opposed
to
reactive-
and
I
mentioned
in
the
initial
hearing
that
oftentimes
in
the
community
process.
Folks
will
reach
out
at
the
11th
hour
to
landmarks,
to
engage
them
and
some
of
it
all
of
it,
legit
for
for
historical
purposes
and
others
trying
to
block
a
project.
K
So
I
want
to
make
sure
that
it's
used
as
the
very
proactive
useful
tool
and
then
it's
appropriate
and
it's
not
being
used
at
the
11th
hour
to
to
try
to
afford
one's
efforts
to
to
develop
or
redevelop
in
the
city,
and
so
striking.
That
balance,
I
think,
is
important
and
again,
while
I'm
looking
forward
to
adam's
language,
to
see
whether
or
not
that
is
something
that
would
fit
well
here,
and
my
last
point
is
to
greg
gallard.
Are
you
on
the
corner
of
g
and
in
silver
street?
K
Because
if
you
are
looks
like
my
aunt's
house
is
on
your
left
with
the
flagpole
coming
out
of
it?
So
great
great
view
there
I'll
tell
you
said.
H
A
That's
what
then
may
have
give
him:
okay,
counselor
baker.
C
Baby:
okay,
okay.
Thank
you.
I
just
like
to
echo
some
of
what
council
flaherty
had
to
say
that
ted.
You
know
you
hate
to
see
this.
This
good
legislation
used
as
a
weapon
to
try
and
you
know,
block
block
developments,
but
I
I'm
also
interested
in
the
changes
that
that
greg
had
put
forward
greg,
and
I
don't
know
what
your
name.
I
forget,
what
you
adam
adam
and
greg
before
I
just
got
them.
C
You
know
I
think
that
they're
valuable
in
adding
them
in
on
this
ordinance
on
this
homework
petition
here
just
to
make,
because
I
have
something
in
that
exact
position
right
now:
they've
been
going
through
their
in
the
community
now
for
probably
a
year
and
a
half
or
two,
and
I
think
people
may
finally
be
in
an
okay
position.
C
You
know
block
that
when
it's
at
the
11th
hour
so
and
also
thank
the
lead,
sponsor
and
also
the
people
that
that
that
are
on
the
landmarks
commission,
for
the
work
that
you
do.
Thank
you
for
what
you
do.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
L
Thank
you,
madam
chair,
and
thank
you
for
this
conversation
this
afternoon.
I
am
tuning
in
late,
so
I
don't
want
to
repeat
what
anyone
else
has
said,
so
I'm
here
just
to
listen
and
engage.
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
Thank.
A
You
I
just
so
so
I'm
up
next
in
terms
of
comments,
so
I'm
looking
at
the
language
now
I
think
everyone
has.
Can
we
just
confirm
everyone
got
it.
A
Everyone
has
it
lin,
greg,
gaylor,
okay,
all
right,
and
so
it
seems
the
the
bold
language
is
what's
added
to
the
current
language
that
we
right,
okay,
and
so
it's
two
sections
as
adam
described
the
first
one
really
discusses
applications
that
are
already
that
have
already
been,
I
guess
vetted
by
the
landmarks
commission
before
this
law
is
passed
and
that
that
would
not
this.
A
This
wouldn't
undo
that
then
the
second
part
is
more
broad
and
seems
to
say
that
says
essentially
that
the
landmarks
commissioned
no
action
for
the
landmarks
commission
under
section
one
which
is
not
here,
but
because
we're
amending
section
two,
but
under
section
one
shall
be
inconsistent
with
or
invalidate
any
actions
taken
prior
to
the
affected
date
of
this
act
by
the
zoning
board
of
appeal,
boston,
redevelopment
authority
or
inspectional
services
department
of
the
city
of
boston.
A
I
can
tell
you
my
knee-jerk
reaction
is
that
second
part
is
way
too
broad.
It's
way
too
broad.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
abuse
of
people
blocking
development,
I
can
also,
I
feel
like
people
would
use
that
language
to
say
that
you
can't
you
know
we
we've
gone
through
isd.
A
If
the
landmarks
commission
has
spoken,
they've
spoken,
but
I
cannot
imagine
that
I
would
ever
be
comfortable
with
basically
saying
landsmark
commission
is
just
forever
under,
like
will
never
have
any
impact
on
isd,
bra
or
zba,
especially
right
now,
with
the
the
controversies
around
the
z,
all
three
agencies,
but
especially
the
zba
and
the
bpda.
Many
people
believe
that
the
landmarks
commission
is
one
of
the
few
places
where
they
can
go
and
actually
be
heard.
A
So
those
are
my
thoughts
about
that,
and
so
I'm
gonna
go
actually
over
to
lynn
and
greg
and
roseanne
about
your
thoughts
about
any
other
language.
That's
proposed,
so
we
can
start
with.
Actually
roseanne,
I
think,
was
the
first
on
the
go.
So
is
roseanne
foley.
You
still.
F
Hello,
madam
chair
yeah,
I'm
having
problems
with
my
computer,
so
I
just
locked
my
video
to
see
if
that
helps.
I
I
hope
everyone
can
hear
me.
Yes,
okay,
okay,
so
the
the
the
part
where
we're
talking
about
if
a
landmark
petition
has
already
been
heard-
and
you
know
not
accepted
and
denied
by
the
commission-
that's
actually
handled
further
down
in
the
enabling
legislation.
F
There's
a
there's,
a
two-year
waiting
period
for
another
petition
to
be
heard
by
the
commission.
So
that's
that's
already
handled.
Do
you
have
the
section.
A
For
that,
or
is
it
we
can
look
it
up,
but
yeah.
F
F
It
would
be
I'm
trying
to
be
polite
about
this,
but
other
city
agencies-
don't
don't
trump
the
landmarks
commission's
work.
We
we
have
this
problem
all
the
time
with
the
the
zoning
ordinance.
Sorry,
the
zoning
code,
article
85,
where
it
is
required
before
there
is
a
demolition
permit
for
us
to
check
to
see
if
a
building
is
historic
once
a
building
goes
through
article
85.
F
F
F
This
is
this
is
very
common,
but
there,
it
just
seems
like
this
is
not
the
place
to
link
up
all
the
different
agencies.
F
A
F
G
Thank
you.
Yes,
I
I
agree
strongly
that
article
85
definitely
should
play
no
part
in
this.
It's
really
confusing
the
issues
they're
not
related.
G
G
I
would
just
stop
after
in
the
first
sentence
on
a
landmarking
petition
period,
and
that
certainly
seems
reasonable,
but
definitely
very
uncomfortable
with
the
rest
of
it,
and
I
think
it
it.
It
really
confuses
and
conflates
the
issues.
A
Thank
you.
So
we
have
one
suggestion
for
so
we
have.
First,
we
have
adam's
suggested
language
of
which
lynn
just
said.
Her
suggestion
is
to
get
to
the
balance
of
making
sure
projects
are
not
put
in
a
gray
area
to
simply
put
after
the
word
petition
a
period
and
to
delete
the
rest
of
it.
So
it
would
read,
however,
section
one
shall
not
apply
to
any
property
which,
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
this
act,
was
the
subject
of
action
by
the
landmarks
commission
on
a
landmarking
petition
period.
A
Okay,
then,
we
have
greg
gaylor.
H
I
thank
you
counselor,
you
know.
While
I
understand
the
intent
and
question
and
requests
you
know,
we
certainly
don't
want
to
penalize
people
that
are
already
made
there
a
certain
way
through
a
process
and
predictability.
You
know
we
certainly
support
and
think
that
this
whole
effort
is
enhancing
predictability,
and
you
know
the
comment
was
made
about
unattended
consequences
of
the
initial
proposal,
and
this
is
to
resolve
that.
H
I
think
this
actually
generates
more
unattended
consequences
on
top,
and
even
you
know
that
abbreviated
version
and
suggestion
by
bilin,
I
think,
is
problematic
because
you
know
part
of
our
whole
discussion
was
our
concept
of
what
is
historic
and
significant
is
not
fixed
in
time.
It
evolves
and
changes
and
properties.
We
consider
significant
today
and
people's
history.
We
consider
significant.
Today
we
may
not
have
20
30
40
years
ago
and
again
going
forward.
So
while
I
understand
the
desire
for
property,
is
you
know
well
long,
a
current
process?
H
As
roseanne
noted,
the
language
currently
allows
things
to
come
back
for
landmark
reconsideration
after
a
two-year
waiting
period,
so
that
you
know
keeps
it
someone
from
keep
coming
back
and
back
and
back.
So
I
think
this
really
needs
to
be
narrowed
somehow
to
things
that
are
at
a
certain
approval
process,
and
then
you
get
into
the
challenge
that
people
were
just
mentioning,
which
is
you
know?
Bpda
approval
is
different
from
landmarks
approval,
so
I
think
this
needs
to
be
refined
much
more
carefully.
You
know
it's
a
little
hard
to
do
it
on
the
fly.
A
With
just
a
kind
of
clarification,
since
the
law
already
has
the
two-year
wait
period,
would
it
make
sense
then-
and
this
is
to
adam
or
to
simply
say
prior
to
the
effective
date
or
within
instead
of
prior
to
the
effective
date
that
can
encompass
a
lot
of
projects
say
within
the
last
two
years
or
within
the
two
years
of
the
effective
date,
so
that
we're
only
concerned
with
those
pro
like
they
would
have
a
wait
period.
You
know
what
I'm
saying.
E
Yeah
yeah,
I
hear
you
so
these
are
all
good
comments.
Counselor
edwards
I'll
I'll
respond
to
that
in
just
a
second.
If
I
could
just
briefly
mention
I,
I
never
intended
this
language
to
have
any
city
agency
trump,
any
other
agency
just
to
emphasis
or
to
prevent
a
project
going
back
to
the
landmarks
commission.
Again,
all
I'm
suggesting
is
that
the
current
change,
arguably
shouldn't
apply
to
a
project.
That's
already
gone
through
its
permitting
process.
A
I
think
that
we're
a
little
bit
confused
if
I
bought
this
project
in
1970
yeah
and
then
didn't
want
to
do
anything
until
for
a
while.
You
know
that
that
the
whole
I
bought
it
under
a
certain
set
of
regulations
yeah,
but
you
know,
then
the
regulations
changed
on
me.
I
I
guess
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
at
least
that's
where
I
think
some
people
are
confused.
We
don't
the
prior
before
prior
before
this
act
is,
is
pretty
broad.
E
Yeah,
but
you
totally
understand
that,
but
the
language,
why
don't
we
focus
on
the
first
sentence?
I
think
when
lynn
makes
a
fair
point,
you
know.
Certainly
it
gets
broader
towards
the
end
and
even
towards
the
end
of
the
first
sentence.
But
if
we
focus
on
lynn's
the
language
that
lynn
was
focused
on,
it
would
only
apply
if
there's
been
an
actual
action
by
the
landmarks
commission.
E
A
I
think
roseanne
foley
brought
up
the
fact,
and
it's
section
85-4-
that
there's
a
two-year
wait
period
anyway
within
the
law.
So
if
it's
rejected
what,
if
a
landmark,
if
I
try
to
landmark
my
house
and
it's
rejected,
I
would
have
to
wait
two
years
anyway
and
then
I
would
so
that
they
would
proceed
under
the
current
standard.
A
E
E
Yeah
I'm
with
I'm
with
you
counselor
again,
I
I
guess
I
would
just
mention,
especially
in
this
day
and
age,
I'm
working
on
a
lot
of
projects
that
are
just
dead
in
their
tracks.
They
started
five
years
ago
four
years
ago,
10
years
ago,
and
they
have
permits
and
they've
gotten
whatever
extensions
they
need,
but
they
just
haven't
started
construction
yet,
and
I
think
those
kinds
of
projects
would
be
very
concerned
about
the
risk
of
a
new
petition
under
the
new
legislation.
A
I
understand
so
if,
if,
if
essentially
I've,
my
process
is
taking
eight
years
and
in
that
process
I
got
a
favorable
landmarking
decision
that
dismissed
an
attempt
to
landmark
my
house
that
petitioners
or
those
petitioners
could
easily
come
back
under
the
new
regulations
and
and
then
now
we
subject
me
to
a
different
set
of
standards.
Correct.
A
I
don't
know
how
that's
different
from
other
things
that
happen,
I
mean
we
change
our
zoning
all
the
time
we
change
what
what
the
standards
are
for
our
variants
and
and
sometimes
time
is
not
your
friend.
If
you,
if
you
have
10
years
in
the
process
and
the
laws
change,
we
do
it
with
civil
rights.
We
do
with
our
environmental
laws.
We've
done
it
with
the
zoning
amendment
be
passed
votes
when
they
amend.
They
have
to
usually
go
to
a
higher
standard
right.
E
I
think
there
are
47
articles
of
the
zoning
code
that
have
transition
language
like
this
and
it's
usually
more
robust,
and
it
basically
says
the
new
zoning
is
not
applicable
to
projects
that
have
filed
for
a
building
permit
or
have
filed
for
zoning
relief
or
have
filed
for
a
pda
prior
to
the
publication
of
notice
of
the
zoning
amendment
and
again
I
think
that's
just
a
fairness
argument
that
you
can't
subject
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline
to
new
zoning,
and
that's
that's
really.
All
this
is
in
a
slightly
different,
more
efficient
form.
A
Okay,
I'm
gonna
go
back
through,
oh
sorry,
greg
vassell
did
you
have
any?
I
didn't
call
on
you.
That's
all
I
didn't
know.
That's
fine,
I'm
fine!
Thank
you
paul
paul
from
philadelphia.
A
Yes
did
you
have
any?
I
mean
we're
on
the
language.
It
might
be
a
little
too
in
the
weeds
for
you,
but
that's
where
I'm
wondering
if
you
have
any
comments
on
that,
and
I
see
you
patricia
obama
as
well.
Did
you
want
to
comment
at
all?
No
okay,
so
just
on
the
language,
if
you
had
any
suggestions,
I
don't
know
if
philadelphia
is
in
the
middle
of
this
as
well.
Maybe
you
have
some.
B
Nothing
exactly
like
this,
but
what
occurs
to
me-
and
this
may
or
may
not
be
helpful-
is
that
if
a
property
is
subject
to
an
active
permit,
application
that,
at
the
time
that
this
legislation
is
passed,
that
there
would
be
a
carve
out
for
that
property.
But
if
it's
a
a
defunct
application,
as
one
of
the
guests
here
today
suggested
that
goes
back
five
or
ten
years.
I
don't
see
why
that
property
wouldn't
be
subject
to
the
provisions
of
this
amendment.
B
So
that
was
that's
the
one
reaction
I
had
to
this
conversation.
Thanks
for
the
opportunity.
A
Thank
you.
It
looks
like
we
have
actually
some
people
from
the
public
who
may
want
to
comment,
so
I'm
going
to
check
in
with
carrie.
Just
to
my
colleagues,
I
just
got
this
text,
so
I
apologize
to
the
people
who
are
waiting,
I'm
going
to
check
the
weight
room
and
see
allison
bultinas.
J
Yes,
hi.
Thank
you
so
much
for
calling
on
me
hope
you
can
hear
me
all
right.
Can
you
hear
me
yeah?
We
can't
thank
you
just
a
couple
of
thoughts
and.
J
Active
citizen,
preservationist
friends
of
historic
mission
hill,
often
following
landmarks
commission
meetings
and
have
submitted
petitions
some
successful,
some
not
for
buildings
like
the
gardner
museum,
etc
in
in
the
area.
So
counselor,
I
don't
believe
you
read
aloud
the
two
sentences
that
attorney
hunley
proposed,
so
that
might
be
helpful.
But,
oh,
okay.
Thank
you.
My
two
comments
related
to
understanding
the
duration
of
a
permitting
process
that
projects
in
boston
go
through
it's.
J
It
can
be
very
expansive,
as
mentioned
earlier,
and
factors
like
covet
or
recessions,
etc,
can
cause
projects
to
get
extended.
You
know
extensions
and
and
longer
periods
of
time
with
where
an
applicant
is
allowed
to
continue
with
isd
and
so
on,
and
that
gets
very
vague.
I
would
say
it's
a
very
open-ended.
It's
it's
not
a
clear,
well-defined
area
in
boston
I
feel
like,
and
so
involving
that
with
the
submission
of
landmark
petitions
seems
a
very
complicated
thing.
It
doesn't,
it
seems
like
they're
separate
tracks.
J
I
I
think
the
process
of
submitting
a
petition
to
landmarks
commission
is
is
something
that
then
you
can
rely
on
the
commission
to
either
accept
or
reject
a
petition,
and
certainly
if
a
petition
has
been
accepted
and
it's
put
on
the
pending
list
as
there's
a
very
long
list
of
pending
designated
petitions
for
designation
those
those
buildings
that
are
on
the
pending
list
should
be
allowed
to
be
considered
under
the
any
change
in
language
in
the
legislation.
J
A
No,
I
appreciate
that,
and
I
just
just
for
clarification
purposes,
so
we
were,
I
think,
adam
was
mentioning
that
there
are
a
lot
of
projects
that
got
that
were
not
landmark.
That
may
be
then
held
to
a
higher
standard
that
could
make
them
landmark.
I
think
what
allison
just
brought
up
is
there's
some
that
were
found
to
have
been
landmark
before
and
as
I
go
into
this
process,
I
guess
allison
are
a
little
confused.
Would
you
want
them
to
be
re-landmark.
J
Or
no
I'm
saying
the
pending
just
to
clear
up
the
idea
is
a
petition
is
accepted,
but
it
isn't
there's
a
second
process
with
a
hearing
to
actually
vote
on
a
designation.
J
You
know
a
study
report
has
to
be
done
and
so
on
so
there's
often
a
very
long
period
of
time
between
when
a
petition
has
been
accepted
and
the
actual
vote
on
designation
and
so
all
those
buildings
that
are
on
the
pending
landmark
list.
Some
of
those
might
only
have
what's
called
local
significance
right
now
and
when
a
vote
is
actually
taken.
J
If
the
vote
had
been
taken
right
now,
they
they
wouldn't
have
received
designation,
but
under
the
new
legislation,
potentially
they
might
be,
but
they've
been
on
the
pending
list
for
a
long
time,
just
to
make
sure
that
they,
once
the
vote
is
when
their
hearing
is
scheduled
for
a
vote
that
they
it's
the
new
legislation
that
they
would
be
subject
to.
A
Absolutely
and
then
we're
going
to
go
through
to
counselors.
E
Honestly,
I
I
I
kind
of
support
that
idea
and
maybe
if,
if
the
council
were
considering
my
language,
let's
say
even
the
first
clause,
one
thing
we
could
say
is
subject
to
final
action
of
the
landmarks
commission
and
therefore
will
be
clear
if
they've
merely
accepted
a
petition
or
taken
some
informal
action
or
provisional
action
that
doesn't
count,
but
if,
if
they've
gotten
all
the
way
to
the
end
point
and
they've
said
that
this
is
not
a
landmark,
then
this
sentence
would
be
triggered.
I
I
think,
that's
a
fair
comment.
A
And
where
would
you
put
in
the
final
action
right
before
the
picture?
Sorry,
lynn,.
E
I'm
not,
I
don't
mean
to
describe
this
to
you,
but
I
just
thought
it
was
a
good
comment
you
had.
If,
if
we
were
considering
the
first
sentence,
but
maybe
just
the
first
part,
it
would
say
section,
one
shall
not
apply
to
any
property
which,
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
this
act,
was
the
subject
of
final
action
by
the
landmarks
commission
on
a
landmarking
petition
period.
G
I
I
feel
like
I
need
to
spend
a
little
more
time
digesting
this
it
it.
It
does
seem
reasonable
at
first
flush.
Yes,
I
mean
landmarking
can
take
more
than
20
years
from
the
submission
of
the
petition
to
the
actual
vote
to
landmark,
so
that
does
make
this
more
clear
and
more
predictable.
Yes,
I
guess.
A
All
right
and
for
allison's
to
allison's
original
request,
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
read
the
language
out
loud
for
those
people
again
who
are
watching
it
from
at
home.
They
don't
have
this
document
in
front
of
them,
so
the
original
language
is
proposed.
Nothing
notwithstanding
any
other
law,
rule
regulation
or
provision
to
the
contrary.
These
section,
shell,
applies
to
the
boston
landmarks
commission
only
period.
The
amended
language
going
on
is
as
follows.
A
Okay.
So,
as
I
had
mentioned,
we're
going
to
go
back
through
counselors
for
any
questions
and
suggestions,
we'll
start
again
with
the
lead
sponsor
and
then
we'll
go
to
counselor
flaherty
councillor
baker,
counselor
savvy
george.
D
Bob
yeah,
thank
you.
I
was
trying
to
send
something
back
and
I
I
feel
like
I'm
close,
but
I
I
guess
my
my
comments,
so
I
mean
I
think
I
think
allison's
point
about
final
action's
important
one.
I
think
I
totally
agree
with.
I
think
we
all
link
article
85
in
our
minds
here
in
terms
of
like
the
two
tools,
but
this
is
really
only
speaking
to
the
landmarking
tool
and
I
I
agree
that
sort
of
as
roseanne
referenced.
D
I
think
we
all
have
lots
of
open
questions
and
I
think,
probably
you
know,
people
in
the
real
estate
board
and
on
the
preservation
alliance
have
different
views
about
how
how
our
whole
regulatory
apparatus
between
landmarks
and
isd
and
and
the
bpda
and
all
like
operates
and
should
operate
but
ambitious
as
I
am
on
many
occasions.
I
am
not
aiming
to
take
that
on
in
this
petition.
So
in
this
petition
I
I
want
to
avoid
getting
entangled
in
that
set
of
questions.
D
I
think
that,
in
terms
of
I'm
trying
to
think
about
a
way
to
narrow
to
narrow
this
sentence,
this
sort
of
first
phrase
to
maybe
be
something
like
like.
So
if
we,
if
we
have
that
first
phrase
right
the
kind
of
I'm
trying
to
pull
it
up
here.
However,
sexual
much
is
not
applied
to
any
property
which,
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
this
act,
was
the
subject
of
final
action
by
the
landmarks
commission
on
a
landmarking
petition.
D
So
two
thoughts
of
mine,
one
is
to
say
like
within
the
last
10
years,
or
something
because
I
just
think
that,
from
an
from
an
agency
administrative
perspective,
it's
useful
to
kind
of
have
like
a
total
set
of
landmarks
competitions
that
you
knew
were
like
might
fall
into
this
category,
like
if
you're
trying
to
keep
track
of
who
the
exception
applies
to,
and
I
don't
think
you
want
it
to
be
some
sort
of
open-ended
like
list
all
the
way
back
to
the
history
of
the
of
the
founding
of
the
commission,
and
then
the
second
thing
would
be
to
kind
of
add,
and
this
I
had
a
question
for
adam
about.
D
So
you
know
so
sort
of
it
said
was
fi.
Subject:
final
action
by
the
landmarks
commission
on
a
landmarking
petition
within
the
last
10
years
and
is
actively
in
the
bras
article
80
process
at
the
time
of
enactment
or
is
actively
like
you.
You
made
the
reference
to
the
fact
that
there
are
a
bunch
of
places
in
the
zoning
code
where
we've
put
in
this
transition.
D
If,
if
I
and
my
neighbors
tried
seven
years
ago
to
landmark
the
I'm
just
trying
to
come
up
with,
you
know
the
the
corner
store,
that's
a
super
famous
building
right
like
that
in
our
neighborhood
down
the
street,
and
we
were
and
roseanne
had
to
reject
us
because
we
didn't
meet
the
state
significant
standard.
And
then
this
change
happens
and
we
say
hey.
We
would
love
to
bring
it
back
and
there's
no
active
development
going
on
with
that.
D
Building,
like
it
seems
to
me
like
the
language
is
currently
drafted,
would
rule
those
folks
out,
and
that
seems
like
it
would
be
penalizing
them
for
having
been
kind
of
on
the
ball
before
so
so
I'm
curious,
if
you
could,
if
you
could
speak
to
like
anywhere,
that
a
kind
of
a
legal
description
of
the
type
of
project
you're
thinking
of
is
used
elsewhere.
E
Yeah,
absolutely
again,
all
really
good
helpful
comments.
Can
I
respond
to
both
of
those
points
counselors
so
on
the
first
one?
I
hear
you
about
the
time
period
for
what
it's
worth.
If
the
council
would
consider
this,
I
like
the
idea
I
I'd
sort
of
love
a
longer
time
period,
if
you'd
consider
that
I'm
just
thinking
that
I
have
projects
not
a
lot,
admittedly,
but
there
are
projects
that
were
stalled
in
the
great
recession
and
they're
they're,
keeping
their
permits
alive,
they're.
E
Unquestionably,
projects
like
that
that
you
know
yearly
they're,
keeping
their
permits
alive
and
they're
getting
additional
permits
and
they're
hoping
to
start
construction
once
the
the
pandemic
ends,
which
would
put
it
more
like
you
know,
15
years
to
20
years,
so
just
something
to
think
about.
But
I
hear
your
point
that
we
don't
want
to
be
looking
back,
50
or
60
years
for
an
issue
like
this
and
then
your
second
point
is
an
excellent
one.
E
Again.
The
drafting
here
is
challenging,
because
I
was
trying
to
keep
this
pretty
short
and
simple
oftentimes
transition.
Language
says:
you
must
have
submitted
your
application
for
zoning
relief,
for
example,
and
you
must
actually
get
your
zoning
relief
and
you
must
ultimately
construct
your
project
consistent
with
your
zoning
relief
and
that's
to
prevent
people
taking
advantage
of
this
language
and
basically
throwing
something
in
the
pipeline
which
they
know
is
going
to
get
rejected.
And
then
they
have
an
argument
that
they
have
the
benefit
of
this
transition.
D
E
Yeah,
I
I
think,
honestly
of
those
47
sections
of
the
zoning
code.
I
might
even
build
up
to
find
one
while
others
are
talking,
but
I
think
there
is
often
concepts
that
you,
you
must
continue
your
permitting
and
actually
get
the
permits
and
the
relief
that
you've
requested
and
you
must
ultimately
construct
the
project
which
is
the
subject
of
those
permits.
D
Yeah,
because
I
think
for
me
something
that
said,
you
know,
however,
section
one
should
not
apply
to
any
property
which,
prior
to
the
effective
date
of
this
act,
was
the
subject
of
final
action
by
the
landmarks
commission
on
a
landmarking
petition
within
the
past
10
years.
I
hear
you
maybe
15
20
seems
crazy
to
me
and
and
and
then
fill
in,
like
the
the
set
of
stipulations
that
describe
the
project
that
we're
talking
about
right.
That's
fair,.
E
C
Just
a
a
brief
comment
that
I'm,
you
know
it's
kind
of
a
lot
to
follow
here,
we're
going
back
20
years,
15
years,
I'm
not
really
sure
where
I
am
on
those
projects.
My
concern
would
be
more
of
the
person
that's
in
the
in
in
whatever
process
they're
doing
right
now,
and
then
this
new
legislation
come
out
and
then
just
get
added
on
top
of
a
process
of
somebody.
That's
that's
in
the
middle
of
it
right
now.
C
I
think
I
think
what
adam
is
talking
about
those
all
the
projects
that
already
have
their
that
already
have
their
permits.
Those
should
those
should
go
forward.
I
I
think
with
with
whatever
it
is
they're
doing.
You
know
the
old
things
it
like.
I
said
my
concern
would
be
someone
that's
in
the
process
right
now
this
passes
and
then
you
know
the
neighborhood
group.
That's
on
the
ball
says:
well
wait
a
second
there.
You
know
someone
made
something
in
that
house
there
they're
back
in
the
20s
and
then
it's
it's
a
whole
new.
C
You
know
that
that
person-
that's
probably
a
small
developer,
gets
pushed
back
to
like
right
at
the
beginning.
That
would
be
a
concern.
Does
it
happen?
Does
this
legislation
protect
that
or
does
the
the
new
home
rule
would
would
be
open
to
a
lot
of
that?
I
don't
really
know,
but
I
just
want
to
voice
that
that
one
one
concern
and
they'll
cut
sort
of
a
rhetorical
question.
Also
thank
you.
A
Thank
you,
counselor
counselor
george
with
us,
though,
just
some
some
initial
thoughts.
I
I
this
is
why
we
we
get
right
into
the
the
language
of
it
at
this
moment,
because
a
lot
of
this
would
have
had
to
have
been
done
by
the
lead
sponsor,
essentially
on
her
own
with
me,
and
this
is
why
the
back
and
forth
is
so
so,
I
think,
very
valuable.
I
think
we've
come
to
some
balancing
points
where
there
is
an
understanding
that
we
want
to.
A
We
also-
and
I
I
don't
know
I
didn't
hear
your
thoughts
on
the
second
part,
that
second
sentence,
which
I'm
very
not
comfortable
with
adam
involving
the
I
didn't
know
if
you
had
any
thoughts
about
that,
but
I
think
most
of
our
language,
most
of
our
thoughts,
are
in
the
first
sentence
where
there
seems
to
be
an
agreement.
There
needs
to
be
a
balanced
approach,
so
just
curious
about
your
thoughts
about
I
just
I'm
not
unless
you
is
there
a
push.
You
know
to
make
me
more
comfortable
with
that
second
sentence.
E
Yeah
so
counselor
again
good
good
comment
and
helpful,
I'm
sort
of
yes,
I'm
being
a
little
facetious.
I
mean
I
love
the
second
sentence,
but
I
also
obviously
love
the
collaboration
with
the
council
and
the
historic
preservation
community,
and
it
does
seem
to
me
that
the
first
sentence
is
more
on
point.
E
This
new
law
is
passed
and
suddenly
the
building
in
question
does
have
local
significance
and
the
petition
is
filed
and
all
that
work
is
gone
literally,
that
that
would
prevent
this
project,
which
is
played
by
the
rules
which
has
gotten
all
of
its
permits,
which
is
operate
in
accordance
with
existing
law.
It's
all
gone
because
a
new
law
has
subjected
it
to
a
different
new
risk,
and
that
is,
I
think,
a
big
concern
by
the
real
estate
in
the
development
community.
E
I'll
say
again:
it's
hard
to
draft
this.
I
get
it
that
my
language
is
is
pretty
pretty
short
and
simple
again.
The
zoning
code
does
this
more
methodically
and
it
says
if
you
have
a
permit
application
in
and
it's
before
the
first
notice
of
a
public
hearing
of
a
new
law,
and
you
proceed
through
to
get
the
permit
in
question
and
you
actually
construct
the
project.
Then
you
have
the
benefit
of
this
transition
language
and
that's
to
put
in
all
the
protections
that
we're
we're
talking
about,
and
we
could
do
that.
E
But
I
think
it
was
counselor
bach
who
said-
and
I
totally
sympathize
it's
hard
to
have
a
beautiful
one-sentence
legislation
and
tack.
Two
pages
of
legalese
on
to
that.
So
I
was
trying
to
come
up
with
a
short
form
that
I
thought
got
to
the
same
point,
which
is
you
can't
invalidate
the
permits
that
are
granted
by
major
city
agencies
for
a
project
that
is
played
by
the
rules
played
fairly
and
just
got
caught
up
in
a
new
law
at
the
at
the
very.
A
Okay,
thank
you,
I'm
going
to
essentially,
I
think,
we're
I
wouldn't
say
we're
at
loggerheads.
I
think
we
actually
agree
with
the
same
goals.
It
is
a
question
of
of
how
this
language,
which
I
do
think
there
will
be
some
changes
right
as
proposed,
but
a
lot
of
that
will
be
based
on
the
lead
sponsor,
which
I
know
kenzie
or
counselor
box.
A
Excuse
me
is
working,
as
you
say,
stated
on
that
kind
of
sweet
spot
language,
so
I'm
going
to
unless
anyone
has
any
additional
thoughts
about
language
and
and
by
the
way,
adam
greg,
lynn,
rosemary.
We
accept
testimony
and
to
allison.
We
accept
testimony
and
thoughts
on
language.
Far
beyond
this,
this
working
session,
you
would
just
need
to
submit
it
to
our
boston.gov
emails,
to
make
sure
it's
part
of
the
open
meeting
conversation
and
in
part
of
this,
with
the
headline
of
this,
of
this
ordinance
homeworld
petition
in
there.
A
So
we
all
keep
it
in
the
conversation
within
so,
but
I
do
appreciate
all
of
you
for
coming
in
and
I
appreciate
all
of
you
getting
to
work
in
this
working
session.
Thank
you,
greg
vassell
and
greater
boston,
real
estate
board
for
coming
in
on
this,
with
some
some
good
suggestions.
A
So
I'm
gonna
go
back
through.
I
guess
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
allow
counselor
back.
If
you
have
any
concluding
remarks
or
any
updates
and
then
I
think
for
the
most
part,
we'll
we'll
end
with
you.
D
Great
thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
was
just
going
to
ask
adam
if
you
wanted
to
send
along
the
even
what
you
were
just
referring
to
the
kind
of
language
about
the
sort
of
you
know
something
that's
in
the
mix
prior
to
the
prior
to
the
the
new
law.
That
might
just
be
helpful
for
thinking
about
even
this
category
of
like
who
of
who
you
know
who
sort
of
gets
exempted.
I
think
I
think
I
do
want
to.
D
I
do
think,
there's
a
way
for
us
to
solve
this
problem
sufficiently
for
for
projects
currently
in
the
pipeline
kind
of
based
off
of
that
first
sentence
without
going
in
the
second
sentence,
and
I
I
think
one
of
the
issues
that
roseanne
was
raising
is
that
as
much
as
it
may
feel
this
way
to
the
development
development
community
right
now,
like
the
landmarks
commission,
never
invalidates
the
processes
of
these
other
boards.
It's
just
like
its
own
parallel
process
that
has
to
do
with
historic
preservation,
and-
and
I
understand
this
is
my
reference
like
I
understand.
D
Right
like
the
funny
thing
is
that
the
historic
preservation
community
is
also
frustrated
by
that
placement
in
the
process,
and
so
I
do
think
there
is
like
a
broader
policy
conversation
about
how
we
solve
this
in
a
way
that
is
better
for
kind
of
the
historic
preservation
of
the
city
and
also
for
predictability
in
the
development
sphere.
Like
that's
a
real
problem
that
we
have
it's
just
that.
D
That
is
something
that
I
think
we
all
need
to
like
talk
about
and
figure
out
and
like
and
and
probably
involves
like
sort
of
shifting
how
the
order
of
operations
of
some
of
our
processes-
and
I,
like
I
said
I
actually-
I
do-
have
ambitions
to
help
us
solve
that
problem,
because
I
hear
about
it
all
the
time.
But
I
don't
with
this
act,
so
I
just
I
I
I
hear
what
you're
saying
about
that
fear
of
like.
D
But
I
do
think
that
the,
but
what
you
mentioned
about
kind
of
I
just
want
some
I'm
trying
what
I'm
going
to
have
my
staff
do
and
what
I
would
invite
others
who
are
watching
to
do
as
we
work
on
this
in
conjunction
with
the
chair,
would
just
be
any
place
where
there's
a
description
of
that
sort
of
captures,
the
type
of
project
that
we're
worried
about
that
we've
used
elsewhere
in
in
the
city
code
or
in
parallel.
D
I
think
that
would
be
helpful
for
us
to
sort
of
solve
for
this
right
now,
so
it'd
be
great
to
send
it
over
and
otherwise
I
just.
I
really
appreciate
it's
a
real
brain
trust
on
the
phone
today
on
this
front,
and
I
appreciate
everybody
making
the
time
at
short
notice
to
do
this
with
us
and
and
grateful
as
ever
for
for
the
chair
and
her
thoughtfulness.
So
thank
you,
madam
chair.
A
Thank
you
very
much
so
with
that,
assuming
there's
a
good
back
and
forth,
and
we
can
strike
that
balance.
I'd
like
to
bring
it
before
my
colleagues
again,
knowing
timing
is
also
everything
at
the
state
house
as
well,
and
making
sure
that
the
we
we
can
strike
that
balance
together
and
get,
I
think,
appropriate
legislation
up
there.
So
I'm
going
to
go
ahead
and
conclude
this
working
session.
It
doesn't
stop
the
conversation
again.
People
can
submit
language
suggestions,
corrections,
concerns
and
questions
throughout
with
that.