HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-12-05-MMC-min
Monuments & Memorials Committee
Meeting Minutes
Thursday, December 5, 2024, 4:00 p.m.by Zoom
Members Present: Linda Dixon, Chair; Avram Baskin, Glen Bassett, Regina Sutton, George
Gamota, Leslie Masson, Liz Huttner, Mariela Vaso, Nick Wong
Guests: Miriam Gusevich, Barry Cunha, Bebe Fallick, Dawn McKenna, Cindy Savage, Lester
Savage, Anne Lee, Matthew Pronchick
Business:
Linda convened the meeting at 4:10 pm after initial technical difficulties. She read the
Town notice regarding the conduct of public virtual meetings, and declared that a
quorum was present.
The committee approved the minutes of its meeting of October 5th, 2023 by roll call
vote.
Lex250 Memorial Proposal
Barry Cunha and Miriam Gusevich presented an update on the Lex250 memorial project. Barry
pointed out that a prior rendering his group had received, showing a sight line from the
Minuteman Statue, was not accurate. The rendering was based on an old design and the
monument was not depicted as being in the correct location.
After Barry’s comments, artist Miriam Gusevich presented the latest version of the memorial,
which included additional landscaping. The group tested different colors for the poles, but they
ultimately decided to keep the original red and blue colors. The revised design shows the
monument site as being handicapped accessible. Miriam described the design as being
intended for people to stand in the middle of the monument, to get the sense of the vulnerability
of the militia as they faced the British regulars. An open book, listing the names of the militia
members, stands at the end of the plaza.
Leslie Masson asked how far the installation was from the sidewalk, but Miriam and Barry were
unable to provide an exact answer. Miriam went on to mention that the design and location was
intended to provide a “subtle invitation” for people to cross the street and approach the
monument.
Glenn Bassett asked about the color choice. He thought they were going to change the colors
in response to resident concerns about the original colors. Barry responded that they had tried
various ways to soften the colors, but the committee felt that with softened colors “the impact of
the whole monument just changed drastically”. The committee took the concern about the colors
very seriously. Barry went on to say that the colors were not for a specific moment in time, but
that the monument was intended to be timeless. Barry pointed out that the current political
association of red and blue changed as recently as 30 years ago, when Republicans were blue,
and Democrats were red.
Avram Baskin asked if there was a new public comment period for the latest design. Barry
responded their plan was to have a community forum at which they would present their latest
plan and design.
Leslie Masson was concerned that the committee doesn’t have current and complete
information. She pointed out that the town website still describes the poles as being 8 feet, not
six feet high, and lacks the latest images. Miriam stated that the current version shown to M&M
showed six-foot poles. She also pointed out that they tested a version with eight white poles, for
the eight members of the militia who died in the battle. Miriam showed a view from across Mass.
Ave. and said she felt the design does not draw attention from the Minuteman Statue. Leslie
disagreed. Miriam felt that the design of the statue and the proposed monument were
complimentary, offering two ways of telling the same story, with the statue a traditional depiction
and the proposed monument being contemporary and experiential. Leslie questioned whether
the design was universal or rather a design for the moment. Miriam responded that it’s a story
of courage, about men who were willing to risk everything for something they believed in.
George Gamota supported the design, saying that it complements the Captain Parker statue,
and that he believed now that we were past the election, people would be OK with the colors.
Avram Baskin disagreed, as he was not past the election or his concerns about the colors. He
stated that he would not be ready to vote until he saw additional feedback from the community.
Leslie requested a report, something M&M can read, rather than basing their decision on the
presentation given at the meeting.
Nick Wong felt that we need metrics we could use to evaluate the monument. What is our
directive? M&M has a charge to evaluate new monuments and memorials and make a
recommendation to the Select Board, but there are not specific metrics we are supposed to use
to make the recommendation. Avram felt that public opinion was important, and that it would
influence his vote. Barry Cunha responded that in a process like this the people who don’t like
something are going to be the most vocal.
Resident Dawn McKenna stated that she didn’t believe the proposed design was appropriate
because it didn’t fit the requirements set by the Select Board. She believes the requirements
allowed for something on either side of the path, not both sides. She thinks the monument
duplicates the memorial on the Battle Green that already lists the names of the militia men who
fought in the battle. Dawn also commented that landscaping was not up to the designer and that
the location is very visible from any direction. She also expressed concerns about the amount
of drilling that would be required. As someone who helped to write the Battle Green Master
Plan, Dawn said that a structure like the proposed monument was not what they had in mind.
Glenn Bassett asked about maintenance. Miriam responded that a maintenance budget is
included and that it was her understanding that maintenance would not be an issue. Barry
confirmed this information.
Resident Cindy Savage stated that she was opposed to the design. She considers the Battle
Green historic district to be “sacred land”, and the proposed monument will take away from the
area. She would rather not have anything in Belfry Park, that it would be a distraction from the
Minuteman statue.
Member ,Baskin Avram submitted, Respectfully 2025. 2nd, January be will meeting M&M next The p.m. 5:40 approximately at adjourned meeting The developers. student the for projects
discuss to meeting January the attend to Ding Wei ask to going was she that announced Linda• base. data the managing on Nick with work to wanted anyone if asked Linda• discussion. that
continue to meeting M&M next the attend and try would landscaping. about Pinsonneault with call phone a had Linda•
Dawn McKenna gave some additional comments about the process that selected the current
design and location, to which Miriam Gusevich disagreed, based on her experience as one of
the four design finalists. A spirited discussion followed. Bebe Fallick stated that it was irrelevant
whether it was one side or both sides, and urged that the process move beyond animosity.
In response to q question about maintenance, Miriam responded that there had not yet been a
soil study performed by a qualified engineer, but that that study would take place.
Linda interjected that she had just heard from the chair of the Historic Districts Commission that
HDC’s certificate of appropriateness remained under review.
There was another “spirited discussion” between Bebe Fallick and Leslie Masson regarding the
budget for the project.
Linda and the committee agreed that, given the lack of a Certificate of Appropriateness from
HDC, M&M would not take a vote that night. Avram Baskin asked if they would still be going
ahead with the public outreach without a vote from M&M. Barry Cunha is still planning on such a
public outreach before presenting to the Select Board.
After Linda closed the discussion the following M&M business was discussed.
Committee Business