 Hey, Nancy, how are you doing? Okay, it looks like we're recording already. Yeah, I hadn't. Stunned out panelists invitation. So, we started and we'll just wait, I guess, for everyone to join. It might be a short meeting. Right. And Steve isn't going to be here. I don't know if you saw that. Yeah, he emailed me a little bit ago. Yeah. And I think the important thing will be just to. I think we have like 2 or 3 applications that it'll. Probably be submitted shortly. So we'll have to schedule a hearing. Oh, fairly soon again. Yeah, 98 fearing is proposing to come back. Oh, they're proposing a second unit on the property. 98 fearing. They had, they had been, I think, I think, I think they came to the commission a while ago and just, I think it was last summer or fall to just discuss their, their plan. Oh, these are the people who wanted to do the massive apartment. The 2 or 3 duplexes or apartment or something. Yeah. And the rest of it's, you know, smaller things like mini splits or new windows or things. Okay. Do you know what the proposal is for 98 fearing? It's to do, it's in a, you know, like a an apartment building. It has 3 or 4 units. And it looks, I mean, they've really changed the proposal. So it looks, it looks like a second house on the property. Not, you know, I think originally it was a much, much, much bigger building or buildings. And so now they've changed it. Yeah, they have to still go to the ZBA as well. But big enough to have 3 units. So we're talking 12 more people living on the property. Yeah, I mean, it's a fair, I forget exactly what it, how big it is, but right, something like that. It's pretty big. Oh, 3 or 1. Hopefully we get 2 more commissioners. Yeah, Karin's not going to be here. Right. And Steve is not. Right. Someone's trying to reach me. Steve can't. No, he just emailed a bit ago and said he's pretty sick. Oh. Just click on it and Nate will make you, he'll, he'll turn you into a panelist. Oh, magically. Greed is having trouble getting on. Oh, I think you just have to click on it and then you'll join. He said, she said it says it expired. Um, she might be clicking on. The one from today. 3038. The one from last time, maybe. Yeah. Did you get the, the message from him today with, with a zoom connection? Is that Greta? I'll just forward it again. Yeah, it's Greta. Yeah. Oh, she's got it. Okay. Use that one. Okay. Okay. No problem. Yeah, I think some people schedule. I mean, we never, I wouldn't do it for a board or committee, but some people schedule a recurring meeting. So the link is valid for every one, but the way we have to reschedule everything. I don't, I wouldn't do that. Elizabeth, I read your book and I've now recommended it to everybody. I know it's the most fascinating story and it's so, oh, I just couldn't get over it. I want to do the hike now too. Yeah. Um, I was just up in Haydenville this morning. Um, we're putting, um, there's all these activities for the 150th and we're putting at least 75 markers all the way down the flood route with a little explanation of what happened at that spot. Oh, that's great. Yeah. And there's going to be a big ceremony, um, at the Williamsburg congregational church on May 18th and they're going to reenact the horse ride. Oh, my gosh. Okay. I want to know the horse. I think it would make a great movie. You know, I've often thought that and others have said that. So I had no idea that it all happened. And historically, in terms of how it changed, how the state works, it's really very interesting story. Yeah, it is. Thank you. Well, it's three or four. We started. So this is being recorded. I'm not sure if there's any more commissioners that we would expect. I think this might be it. Yeah. Currents not going to be here and Steve's not going to be here. So I think that we are they. So, uh, I'll call the meeting to order then. Um, and I'll start with the roll call. Uh, so Nicole. Here. Elizabeth. Here. Greta. Yeah. Bruce. Yeah. And, uh, I'm Nancy Mattner and I'm here and we're here to, uh, hear. One requested with Stalin and new interior door. Uh, and then we have some other bylaw changes that we're going to discuss and East Amherst as a potential historic district. Um, this is a zoom meeting, uh, and anyone from the public who wants to access it can do so. Um, Nate, do you want to begin with 19 McClellan? Sure. So 19 McClellan, it was a request to install a new exterior door, uh, covered stairs and lighting at the kind of rear of the structure. We talked about it on February 13th. The applicant has since asked for this to be withdrawn, so they're not going to move forward with it. Uh, but since we've already started opening the hearing, the commission has to vote to allow the withdrawal. Uh, you could still, you know, vote to deny it, but you know, they've indicated they're not going to move forward with the project. Do I have a motion to, uh, prove that they withdraw? Or a motion to deny Elizabeth? Or I support their withdrawal. Is that what that would it be? Yeah, I, I moved to support the withdrawal to support their withdrawal. And I'm just checking it. Okay. Is there a discussion? Okay. Let's move to a vote. Then, uh, Bruce. Hi. Rita. Hi. Uh, Elizabeth. Hi. Nicole. Yes. And I also support it. So, uh, we will allow them to withdraw their, their proposal. Um, question. I thought Steve was joining the meeting. Uh, Steve is ill and he had gone to Mexico and he picked up some kind of bug and he thought he was going to be able to be here, but he is not. Okay. Cause I saw it just a moment ago that he was asking for a link. So I, that part of it is what I was confused about. Yeah. He emailed me as well and said, I'm sorry, I can't make it. I'm not, he said he's really not up for it. Okay. So that's, that's, that's the explanation. Thank you. Yeah. So, um, this brings us to the public meeting discussion of the proposed bylaw changes, Nate. So I think you are the one who has, uh, the information for us. Yeah, I can, I'll share my screen in a minute. So, you know, we were talking about, um, regulating parking areas and then drainage infrastructure, the, uh, you know, there are small changes. The building commissioner provided some input. We're still thinking about how to, uh, word a few things. Um, and then moving forward, if the commission likes the changes, it's a general bylaw with the town. So we would have to bring it to the town council for their review. And then it would have to go through, you know, a review of a subcommittee and get back, but I think, you know, if we, if we want to forward it along after, you know, we discuss that we can. And, um, let me just share my screen now. So there's, you know, what we're proposing to do is add a definition called parking areas. And it would mean, you know, newer expanded improved surface with, within the property. So it couldn't be, you know, pavement in the right of way, right? So we, the local district only regulates things on property, uh, designed to accommodate a total cumulative number of five or more parking spaces. That way, if it's, you know, not a centralized parking area, but you know, multiple areas, um, and then parking areas do not include other areas such as an access drive, not designed for parking spaces. So, you know, the driveway itself or other turnarounds would not be regulated. And, um, you know, my only question was, does it need to be improved or impervious, like what about stone dust? But I think, you know, an improved surface doesn't, I think that, um, we're not really regulating that. It's on the ground plane, but it just means, you know, some parking area, right? So it could be, it could be gravel, it could be paved, but just the, an area that's designated for five or more parking spaces. Um, you know, and that's, it's not, it's regulating and it's not regulating the use, it's really regulating the area. So we'd have to be, you know, if this were to move forward, we have to be careful saying, you know, we don't like the number of spaces or we think, you know, five spaces is not enough for the proposed use. That's not what we're, we'd be looking at. It would be really how does the parking area impact the site design or the layout or the relationship of buildings to buildings or to the street? And so, um, yes. I guess my question would be five is quite large. Um, was, was five parking spaces, like how did that number come about? Could it be less? Cause I mean, I'm just thinking, you know, we're not asking about a driveway, but, you know, if it's an additional five parking spaces to a driveway, that's a very large, additional asphalted area, if even three parking spaces is pretty big in addition to a driveway. Yeah. I mean, I think some of it would be, you know, like, it, you know, it's a total of five throughout the property. So it's like, you know, does the commission really want to review three parking spaces? I mean, you know, it could be that, uh, typically, um, there's no permits required for, uh, some of this. And so the difficulty will be, how do we capture this? And typically, you know, what it might be is that there's another permit associated with it, you know, a building permit, a renovation, a ADU, you know, something, but if someone were to go in and just increase their driveway a little bit and put some parallel parking off the side or something, we, the town may not hear about it. Typically, you know, so it's five, you know, we were saying that that's usually associated with a certain size or threshold that would trigger some review that would capture it. But so Nate, does it, it seems like something's happened or this has come up before it's been an issue before or started to be an issue. Could you just say a little something about the kinds of situations that arise that make this necessary? Yeah, I'll just say that Bruce had his hand up too. I think. Oh, sorry. No, but, um, I'll answer your question, Elizabeth. Yeah, I, you know, since the district was adopted and I think, you know, especially given the housing market and changes in Amherst, I think, although it's a residential area, there are a few instances where, say a property turns into a rental or something happens where they actually want to put in like 15 parking spaces on the property. And it's no longer a residential and character. It's becoming, say, more commercial or institutional in the parking could be in the front or on the side or cover the backyard. And so then really that parking area is something that is impactful to the, you know, to the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. And, you know, I think Brookline and a few, maybe it was like Dorchester have kind of some regulations around this, and they will say that the parking area should be behind the building. They don't allow it, say in the front. We, you know, the town has the zoning bylaw has other regulations, right? So you can't have parking in the, you know, in the right of way and certain things. So, you know, this is not as descriptive. And so it could be that we have some other language about no parking in the front. But that, you know, I think that, yeah, anyways, I think there's some can, some communities are trying to consider how they do that without, you know, it's not really regulating the use of the, you know, as a parking. It's really the parking area and how visually it can disrupt the neighborhood or, you know, Bruce. Let's make sure I'm not muted. Couple of things. First of all, five is up the poor and or if we have a duplex with the current parking generation bylaw, that amounts to four spaces. So it's not uncommon for us, for these areas to be have houses that are converted to duplexes. And so I think five is a very logical starting place because otherwise we'd be getting involved in in all sorts of considerations about whether we allow some duplexes or not, because if we were to say no to, say, for that we would perhaps then be fighting the zoning board and the bylaws and any, any permitted use for a duplex. So I just don't think we want to go in that direction. So I think five is a very logical starting place, five or more. But then Elizabeth, in answer to your question or further to what Nate said, I think I could give a more specific example or answer that question more specifically. And it was that in my view, anyway, that this cropped up once we got an application from they can't remember whether it was coal, whether it was coal construction or for someone for a property on was it fearing and it had, it had to do with the realization that large sites could have multiple primary uses. And suddenly, certainly I am on the planning board then became aware because I didn't realize this, that that you could start building second and third primary uses on sites that were large enough. And so we saw a situation where we had someone who was trying to develop a site in our district this way and it generated a colossal amount of parking. And that was when we, we said, well, because this was, I think those of us on the committee at the time said, well, this is out of scale. This amount of parking is out of scale and, and scale considerations are part of our purview, but parking was not specifically an item of a scale where we could address inconsistency or inappropriateness of scale. And so what this is doing is folding that in to what we are allowed to take into consideration. So I think, Nate, that's really the answer, isn't it? To the question as to why, why now, what happened that caused us to be interested? I think it was that development on fearing. Yeah. And I think that the realization that there's the zoning allows, like you said Bruce different or more than one use. And so the impact, you know, I, I pose this to the planners, lists or throughout the state or historic listserv and a few communities said, oh, well, you know, your bylaw. And I'd have already said, I've already said this. It could like indirectly regulate parking because it's the relationship of building. So if, you know, someone's putting a parking area and it's causing a building to be set back more than say what the neighborhood has in terms of a consistent setback or relationship to the street, then you could indirectly say, well, you know, the building needs to come forward. So then that means the parking needs to be moved. But by making a defined term that then is something that is reviewed. It could be, you know, looked at on its own as opposed to, you know, it kind of secondarily because of a, you know, some other design or some other structure on the property. Hmm. Anyway, I'm good with the language. Are there any other concerns about this language? I think it's good. And I would like to see this resolved before 98 fearing returns to us as Nate says it is going to. I guess another thought just because like whenever we list a property, we kind of count out how many cars can get in the driveway. As parking spaces, you know, just so people kind of have an awareness before they even get to the property. So like some of these very long driveways, I mean, could be six, you know, it could be two, two, two, you know, back behind each other. I don't know if it matters. I'm just trying to. Like really make a distinction between their driveway and like making additional parking. Sure. Yeah. Yeah. And I think that's a really good point because, you know, a lot of homes might have a driveway where you can stack cars and have four cars in there for your, you know, for the household. And so, you know, in my mind and, you know, the building commission really does the anytime then a driveway gets repaved and it gets enlarged by a foot, you know, on one side, are we really going to regulate that and have it go through a permit. And so that's where it, you know, it's excluding the access drive. So it really is, you know, if there's a driveway and then they, you know, someone might make a really wide driveway and then, you know, that side part is really the parking area. Right. I mean, you're not going to have a driveway that's 30 feet wide. Right. That means they're going to have some of that's for parking. And so we would therefore declare that that's a parking area. Right. Right. Right. Yeah. Do we need to specify driveway widths in order to be able to make such a declaration with confidence? Let me just, let me, I'll put a comment in. Just so we, it's a right. Yeah. Right. Like wall feet or, you know, eight, you know, whatever 12 feet per. Yeah. Single lane or something like that. We could a single aisle or something. Yeah. Yeah. So the driveway is considered to be a paved area. The venue paved area, no wider than 12 feet. Or it could be 24 for a two car. But yeah, I feel like we could come up with some language or something. I think it's a good point that you, that you make. Nicole. Yeah. I think it sounds, it sounds good. Yeah. Right. So we're not going to be saying, right. So, you know, you have, you know, a house and you have a driveway and you can, right, you can stack five cars that that's not the parking area. That's just, you know, yeah. So I think if there are concerns that they would have to be addressed by other parts of our by law or other, you know, the rental by law or something like that. Yep. Right. Right. And so then there's multiple pieces that could be working on a property, right. It could be zoning could be a rental or just, you know, rental by law. And then here down in structure, we then fold in the new parking area definition, as well as an ad or above grade drainage infrastructure. And I, you know, the drainage pieces. And it's defined now anyways as a combination materials other than a building, including a sign fence wall, terrace walker driveway. And it doesn't include such things as it, you know, so the building commissioner thinks sure it can include any, any type of combination of materials then so it could be like a drainage overflow structure. Or, you know, but I think we're to put this in there. It clarifies it a little bit more. So, you know, we're seeing, especially with new stormwater regulations getting in place where even if it is not much of a big addition to a building or a number of units they might be putting, you know, an overflow structure in their front yard or there's, you know, more things that we haven't that weren't envisioned when this by law was adopted and so yeah. And so I mean, for example, that's a take your front yard thing, it could be that someone decides to put a thing in there and they're thinking well it'll be a dorm structure of some sort and we say well no really this just do a, you know, one that's in the same plane as the lawn so it's essentially a lawn outlet so I didn't necessarily think we're in the business of saying you can't put in drainage infrastructures but just that as you say we want to say what they look like and try and make them look as innocuous as possible. Right, so I mean I don't yeah I think there's some projects where the drainage overflow is basically like a concrete box you know it's like 18 inches by 18 inches and you know to me that's a industrial commercial look but you could do it on a single family home or like Bruce said you could have a nice kind of accurate great right that you know smaller and it meets the same purpose and so. Yeah, but like, like they have at the Eric Cole Museum some very nice elegant, simple kind of truthive in inlets there. Right, right. And so I think, yeah, so to me that's you know, that's the other change. There, the only one was a removal of. We. Yeah, I don't, I don't think we can legally say this. We say each member and other members shall continue to serve an office after the expiration of their term until a successor is duly appointed and sworn in. That's our Bruce Colton. I'm not responsible for this I didn't know we are. I'll tell California, but I think the, the drainage piece the only thing that Rob and I, the building for sure talking about is in the exclusions. We then say terraces walks, driveways are similar structures provided they're at grade, which is somewhat inconsistent with the new definition so we're thinking about how to how to word this exclusion. You know, and it's really funny this was a state template, but typically, you know, terraces walks and driveways are always at grade and so if they're not then there's a retaining wall, which is a structure which gets reviewed anyways and so it's an odd. And we're both looking at this today thing like wow this is kind of odd language. You mean it's redundant. Right so when is the terrace not at grade. I mean if it, like I'm saying if it, you know, because then you're essentially if it's not at great it means you're bringing it up with a wall or some berm which becomes what what you're concerned about. Right as well to the commission is going to review anyways and so. I think that's the only other piece we'd work to get all this to be consistent and then, you know, we could, I guess, move it forward to council we'd have to kind of write a memo and, you know, I don't know if we'd say we petition the council but we'd ask for this to be updated. Yeah. So, should you bring this back to us before we write this letter to the council. Yeah, I think we could do one more revision. I think we can come back and then you know if you have it in word if you have if anyone has any comments or anything else you can send those to me. Okay. Good. Well, thank you for working on this Nate, and I think that we all had agreed that this was necessary and this looks like it's what we probably need. Yep. Next item or did you want us to take any action on this before we move. No, I think I'll bring it back next time and maybe it'll be maybe it should be could be done then. So the next item is this the discussion of East Amherst as a potential historic district. And we do have a message from Steve on this topic. So, he says that the CPA grant comes up before town council at tonight's meeting. And he met with Chris Scully who has agreed to complete the form B's for all the properties in the National Historic Register, many of which are already completed or partially completed. And it's his opinion that many of the houses on spalding should be included since they are the same period and are architecturally noteworthy. I think I agree with that there. We walked down spalding or some of us did. And I would agree. He and Chris agreed on a commission of 18,500, which would leave 1500 in the kitty for copies and mailings. So that's for the committee to mission to think about. Do people have thoughts about including spalding. Oh. It sounds nice. Sorry, go ahead. No, you do. I need a little refresher on spalding street. Yeah, I was going to try to pull up a map. Oh, thanks. I have, I just pulled up the map for myself. But I'm trying to think about the housing in relation. There's other side streets too closer like some way street. But remember some way. What's on show me. I don't remember what's on spalding. Spalding goes all the way up to the power lines. I know we've got one or two houses on that street. I mean, we being, I think the planning board. I'm looking, I can see them now. If you just pull up spalding street and then just sort of go around in a circle. Yeah, I see. That's a very old one. I mean, my only thoughts is, well, where do you draw the line? And is there, so the question is, is there a modestly compelling reason why the line should be drawn? Oh, I see. It doesn't go all the way up. So if this map is visible here, the purple is e-samurse. And it includes, you know, properties along main street up to the Ithmar conky house here. So it goes all the way up Salem street or to spalding. And so, you know, we said, okay, if we use this e-samurse village as the, as kind of the base, you know what, how much further? So we, you know, and PVPC had been looking at expanding this. So we're thinking going down Pelham road, you know, next, a few more properties. Maybe, you know, maybe to the north, this is okay. You know, at hedgerow. And then, you know, the question becomes right, how much further down south. And so, you know, if we use this area, we don't think these properties to the south along the common are. It changes character. And then right there, some way street Salem and spalding. And so really that's kind of, to me, and like up to Aspen chase here. So it's kind of just how much more do we add in this area? And the historical commission, Massachusetts, historical commission. You know, would ask, like, how did we. There's already been a justification for the East village, but we could say, well, we also examine these additional properties. And here is where we think, you know, 20 more properties could be added. And so. Is there an appreciable difference between spalding and some way street. I think there is. I mean, some way is, is, is down flat and, and heads off into the, the, the route nine and is largely student. It's largely, I think, you know, highly occupied student, highly occupied rental in housing. And, and, and I would say that the properties have been degraded somewhat. So this is some way street. So I think that there is a few older homes. Oh, I'm wrong about that. I mean, I'm looking on the, on the West side, but this, the east side looks much better. It's a few homes, but maybe it doesn't go all the way. Whereas spalding street is. You know, consistently a different. Yeah. Time period. Yes. And so, I mean, I think that's where. You know, I mean, to me, it looks, it does look different than some way. So. You know, East Amherst is one of the older centers. And so, you know, I guess it depends on how. What we're kind of saying the period of significance is, or what the date ranges would be. Well, but I was going to say is it, we deciding now whether we should include it for the purposes of study, which is an easier decision than whether we are committed to making the case. If we've got the funds, I think we should do the research on these buildings so we can afford it. And then we're in a better position to make those decisions. Yeah, that makes sense. Does Steve say what his thinking was? I mean. I know it seemed like they're really. Interesting older buildings. Yeah. I mean, I think Chris Kelly's had worked for mass historic and as a consultant and maybe he had been, it sounds like he must have. Done some research himself and determine that spalding had some relevant properties. I mean, I agree. I think the planning department could also have some additional funding if we needed to get a few more properties done. And so, you know, really, as long as the council supports the $20,000 request, I kind of agree with Bruce. I mean, what we'd be getting would be research and new updated inventory forms on the properties. And so whether or not it becomes part of the district, we'd have, we'd actually have more research on these properties. It would just be a, that's kind of, to me, that's the benefit of, of the CPA funds. And then it becomes ready to kind of a decision of the commission and the town, how, where the boundaries are. That's kind of a secondary piece at this point, I think. That seems right to me. Does anybody disagree with that though? Is there anyone who opposes including trying to include spalding at this point? I think it's good to include it at this point. I think when it comes to justification, it, you know, you talk about East Amherst village and it's not really an East Amherst village. You know, you don't want to miss Nomer. Is it a separate district itself? I don't know. But I think it would be good to do the research and then we'd know. Yeah, I think right when we had PVPC look at this, there was some, at one point we're saying is there like a depot district, you know, you know, it's like where, where, where are the boundaries? You know, are they in, do they align or do this or some overlap? And so it is interesting because yeah, East Amherst, it could just be that it's so centric around the common, right? That there was a really early East Amherst and then. So, yeah. This is different, maybe. Right. Well, let's ask Chris to go ahead and include spalding in his research. And except, you know, is there any reason not to accept that 18,500. I think once the funding gets approved, you know, we can't spend it until July, but we can, you know, work with. We can get a contract ready and get going right away. So. Good. All right. I think we have a consensus then to go forward with. The next item on the agenda is mailing notification to property owners. And Nate, what did you want to say about that? Yeah, you know, it's something that hasn't happened in a while. I don't think. And so it had been, you know, we had kind of been sending out, I don't know if this is visible, like a tri-fold that we could put in a mail just in a, in a typical envelope that would go to residents. And so, you know, it could be that we, we might want to update something like this and then mail it out just so we, you know, just keep property owners aware that they're in local historic districts. So it's something we have. Yeah. Is it a company with a letter? Because I could see somebody receiving this as being educated on information of Amherst, not that my house is in the local historic district. And so, you know, it could be that we, we might want to update something like this and then mail it out just so we, you know, just keep property owners aware that they're in local historic districts. So something we have. Yeah. Is it accompanied with a letter? Yeah. I mean, I don't know if this one was accompanied by a letter, but we could. That's a good idea to actually tell them. Yeah. I think like very clearly, like, you're receiving this because you are in the local historic district. Right. Yes. If it's mailed in a letter, we could do that. If it's sent out as a card, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's mailed in a letter, if it's sent out as a card, we could use a stamp, you know, like, that says be aware if you're, you are in the district or something like that. I mean, that might be a bit crude and clumsy, but it's a way of doing it. I think we want to make it more positive than that. Congratulations. You're a hind. No. That's clever. Didn't we talk about like draft or something sending those to the real estate agents too. So when they sell a house, they can give that to potential buyers. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, I, I check when stuff comes on and then basically I look to see if in disclosures they say whether or not they're in the historic district. I see. So one of them just came on and I had sent it to Nate to say that they did disclose. So it was more of kind of like back peddling that my idea was if they didn't disclose it, then to send them. The information via email even just saying the house you just listed is in the historic district just so you can share this with buyers. Please. Is that McClellan? Mm hmm. That's what I thought too. Yeah, we, yeah, I worked with, I've talked to the assessor and our GIS manager about putting this on the property card and we're still working on that you know could go in the notes but then it gets lost and I was hoping to have you know a new field or something that right could say local historic district but the you know the software that assessors use. I think I don't know if you know how difficult it is to change it sounds like it's difficult it has to match what the state wants and so you know we've we've had a few discussions about it but with our new permitting our building permit software. We've been listing it so I know that at least when building permits or other permits now are applied for it's you know they we can see that that they're in a district more easily than we could previously so at least that it's working. It'd be nice to get it on a property card though just so you know it's I don't know how many people look at their property card honestly I actually but you know they said realtor would as things change it would be somewhere on somewhere public. That's easy. Yeah, that just did it's much more easily accessible from the public. Right. For us to that's just kind of like one spot that we start with. Right. Yeah I mean it's yeah I mean there was a after the Dickinson district had been established for like four or five years and we had consistently mailed out property owners. I think for the first four or five years. I remember a property came and applied for a permit. And then we say oh you know you're a local local historic district the owners like I have no idea what you're talking about I'm like well we've sent you a notice that at least five times. And you received you know some other things inside you know I'm either they don't know you know all those half a dozen things in the mail got lost or they really didn't pay attention. Will co-ignorance is not an uncommon phenomena. I mean to me it's like if I receive something like that I'd keep it right you know I'd. Okay what does that mean like you know if so we've done this has been a few years since we've done like a notice or something but I think this year we'd be nice to do another one. Thank you. Yeah, I do too. Okay and then the next thing is upcoming applications that we need to schedule a public hearing for you said you had a few coming in. Yeah 98 fearing will be submitting an application, you know we they had a discussion months ago last year in the summer fall. But I think they're actually ready to submit an application. There's one for one or two for many splits one for new windows and a property, maybe another accessory dwelling unit and so you're thinking for scheduling a meeting. You know if we could schedule it for like three or four weeks out and that way it could double as a public hearing because we do need two weeks notice for the hearing. And so, Nate is the 98 fearing the one that we were fearing. The one that we had looked preview to like I said last year. And so they've changed the proposal but it still is a second, second structure on the property. Yeah. We gotta get that parking thing in there soon. Yeah, it won't capture it but I you know the commission has the ability to look at how massing is related to each other and spatial relationships of buildings. And we've already had an impact clearly. Right. So we're looking at April. And like the week of the 15th or 22nd. 22nd is pass over so let's not do it. Yeah, we wouldn't. I'm just saying that week too, like if we even did. I guess so this is a Monday. 15th. Or. Yeah, or. Um, the 15th is school holiday so. Yeah, let's not do that then. Yeah, let me just, I mean, I think, I mean, if we actually did April 29, that would still work because we have to. You know, that way it was posted on the 15th. We have to get the legal add in. Almost a whole week before so that only gives us. People 2 weeks to have application submitted. And that would give us enough time to go back and forth and get. Get that taken care of. Okay, 3 o'clock on the 29th. Works for me. Yeah, I think so. Do we have anything else unanticipated items or public comment? Oh, yeah, let's have a look. There's one member of the public here. Hilda, if you want to raise your hand, I guess. Hilda, did you want to say something? No, I was just saying when I was doing some research on the properties west of Convert. Park a couple of years ago, I did find that. Most of those houses that were not put in the historic district do have notifications or did then notifications on the property record card. The historical name of the house. Probably the date it was built that cards may have been changed since then, but at that time. They were noted on at least for that area. Yeah, thanks Hilda. Yeah. Okay, is there anything else that people anyone would like to raise? If not, I would entertain a motion to adjourn. No mood. Second. Those in favor, let's see Nicole. Yes. Bruce. Yes, I usually vote by pushing the red button. Yes. And Elizabeth. Yes. Thank you, Nate for as always for all the work you do before these meetings. I held up. And thank you Hilda for coming and always coming in. Yes. Well, good input. I think there's probably some stuff here I can write a couple of paragraphs above. Yeah, it's interesting. I just looked down a property card. I didn't see the historic name, but they do have the year built. But yeah, I was. Yeah, I'll keep working with the assessor because it'd be nice to have a. Clear place where it's noted that the property is in a local historic district. Yeah, that really would be ideal. Or just disclosure purposes. I mean, then it's like. Public gets. The houses that I'm more than 75 years old. People should be alerted. Yeah. That they're being regulated. Yeah. I mean, that's, that's for the demolition review that. Yeah. That happens when they apply for a permit. It'd be hard to put it all on. Look poverty card. Right. Well, thanks everyone. So April 29th, it'll likely be a hearing. Probably three applications, maybe four. Okay. But I'm thinking if you send in the letter out. You can alert. People besides those that are in. Local historic distrust. That they've got to be aware. About changes they can make. For now, we'll just stick with the district. I think it gets expensive to. Yeah. Keep mailings. All right. So, so if we're in the train, I too, I'll have a draft letter in the bylaw, hopefully in a final form, send me comments and then we can. Move after that. Great. Thank you everyone. Bye. Bye.