Is all that clear? Please stay tuned for any possible further developments.
You might get the feeling that Mr. Kefalas and his attorneys are having trouble coming up with an acceptable strategy. Or at least one that they feel will work since they have had so very many of them. But there is something new afoot. You could call it an attempt to rewrite history. Here is how it is all explained in the latest Planning & Community Preservation staff report (link).
The key phrase here is "a 60-day extension to allow time to prepare a new historic resources report for the property." As you may recall, the previous report, as prepared by historian Charles J. Fisher, concluded that the Henry A. Darling house does (or at least did) have some important historic significance. Meaning that razing the place was probably not the most legal or ethically informed thing Kefalas could have done. It is also how the place got red-tagged by the city.
So I guess the strategy now is to concoct a new historic resources report, one concluding that the Henry A. Darling house never had any historic significance whatsoever.
If you wish to read portions of the Charles J. Fisher report establishing the historical significance of this house you can do so by clicking here and scrolling down.
More news as it comes our way.