 October 4th, 2022 meeting to order. We are here conducting this by Zoom. We have an agenda and we move in accordance with the items listed on the agenda. I don't see any changes to the agenda. There's two items up for the consent agenda and then we have a historic preservation training. Mary, any changes that you're aware of? No changes tonight. All right. We have no additional communications that I see and I'm assuming that's still the case. Everything has been posted. Okay. I'm moving right along then. We have minutes from our last meeting that we will take up in our deliberative session. Mr. Dong is here with us tonight. This has been marked for the consent agenda and so that means staff has recommended approval without a hearing. I think that's appropriate for this one. But Mr. Dong, have you seen the staff's recommended findings and conclusions? Have you seen the staff report on your project? Yes, I have read the report. Do you have any issues with it? Do you have any concerns? No, I don't have any concerns. Is there anyone in the audience who thinks this shouldn't be a consent agenda item and is here to speak on it? Hey, Mary, the only, there he is. Yeah, I saw a handout but. And Caitlin's there too. So I don't see anybody there. So is there anyone on the board who thinks this shouldn't be a consent agenda item? All right. So with that, can I get a motion to approve? Yeah, I'll make a motion. So on ZP 22509 98100 North Willard Street, I move that we approve the application, adopt staff findings and recommendations. Second. Is that Chase? Chase, please. Yep. All those in favor? How many are voting on this? We had some light comers. One, two, can I have hands up? One, two, three, four, five, six. Right. Caitlin's not participating then. Correct. She just came in. Mr. Don, your request is approved. Enjoy. Oh, thank you very much, everyone. Appreciate your time. Take care. Thank you. All right. Our next agenda item is ZP 22512 5557 Howard Street. Montana Burns and Montana Burns and PJ McHenry request to relocate previously approved home occupation from first floor to second. This has also been marked on the consent agenda. Are the applicants here? I see Montana's here. Good evening. I'm here and PJ is here also. One moment. Let me grab him. Okay. Hello, everyone. PJ McHenry is also here with a crying two year old. Sorry. That's okay. It shouldn't take long. Have you folks seen the staff report? Have not seen it. Is that part of the minutes? No, it's just it's posted online and I believe staff usually sends it out. It basically says that your project should be approved and it contains some conditions of approval relevant to home occupations. Oh, yeah, we did receive that. Any issues with those? No. Is there anyone on this board who thinks it shouldn't be treated as a consent agenda item? I don't see anybody in the audience for this project. Nobody? All right. Can I get a motion to approve this one? Brad moves. Yeah, I'll make a motion. So moved. Second. Brokes. I think we need to discuss it all in favor. Unanimous. There you go. All right. Enjoy your relocation. All right. Thank you. Thank you so much. Take care. Bye. And with that, we are done recording and progress aspect of our day. We turn to our other business, which is historic preservation training by Professor Thomas Visser. Yes, I have Professor Visser. He's signing in right now. I'm pleased to make the introduction. Tom Visser has directed the historic preservation program since 1994. He's a tenured member of the UVM history department and has taught courses in researching historic buildings, architectural conservation, building technology and other preservation topics at the University of Vermont since 1985. He has published a field guide to New England Barnes and Farm Buildings and more recently, Porches of North America. And he has published in such journals as The Bulletin of the Association for Preservation Technology, Preservation Education and Research, and the New England Quarterly. You may remember him. Maybe Brad remembers him as serving on the Design Advisory Board here for the City of Burlington. He has also served as a Vermont District Environmental Commission member and has served on the Executive Committee of the National Council for Preservation Education. Welcome, Tom. Well, thank you very much. Can you hear me? I've been having some technical issues at this end, but hopefully it works. We can very well. Thank you. That's great. Well, I look forward to chatting with you all, and it's nice to see some familiar faces here, and hey, once again, be part of these important conversations. I think particularly in these times where, well, the world is always changing about us, and the challenges continue, and it's especially nice to see some fresh faces and looking at, shall we say, some fresh approaches to some of the preservation issues that are certainly facing us. How would you like me best to proceed? I've got some slides put together here. I'm still, I ran into some technical problems. I'm not quite sure if I can share them or not, but I can try. Well, I'd love for you to share them. Mary, can we make Mr. Visser a presenter? He is a panelist, Tom. You do have an opportunity to share your screen. Okay. It should see a little green box at the bottom of your screen. It says share screen. It just came up. Okay. Very good. And let me just find the right one here. And, well, let's just try. Okay. I may just have to do a little quick screen sharing. Hold on. Be with you in one second here. As always, there are some permissions to grant here. Okay. So if you are able to choose those images you want to share and then go back to your Zoom screen, you can push the little green box at the bottom. Okay. Let's try that. And it will ask you which screen you want to share. Yeah. Okay. I know we make it look so easy, but I know also that it is not. Yeah. Well, we've been using Teams, and so I can do the Teams, and this is, it's like French and English, you know. May we? Okay. System preferences. Okay. Unluck. Zoom is on. We'll not be able to. Okay. Until your screen is clear later. I appreciate your patience on this. Power point in. Look at that. With any luck, are we ready to roll now? If you are. More or less. Historic preservation review. Okay. Well, what I thought I would do just to keep it simple is I'm looking forward to some conversation here. You know, as always, you know, particularly over the years of what was in the classroom or sitting in City Hall. It's always the conversations that are important. And I don't want to be, shall we say, preaching from the pulpit and saying, this is the only way it's done. But what I wanted to introduce is these concepts. And, you know, this is starting out with section 5.4.8 of the historic buildings from the city code. And just to kind of lay this out as a starting place, and I look forward to questions, comments and discussion as we go along. What do you mean by this? There's a lot of terminology in here. A lot of loaded sort of words. And how can we perhaps explore some of the nuances here to be effective and to sort of fit with the general approaches that are being used? So anyway, I mean, we'll just start out with this basic concept that the city. The slides that we're looking at are blank slides, but I think maybe we have their in the way. Okay. Thank you for the input. You are sharing a screen. New share. Let me try that again. Is it now do we have the picture? Yes, 5.4.8 historic building. Okay, great. Great. All right. Well, let's let's let's then continue then. Yeah. So we've got these regulations in the city that are intended to help us preserve, maintain and enhance the historic character, scale, architectural integrity and cultural resources within the city. I think this concept of historic character is one of these sort of amorphous things that, you know, we sort of know it when we feel it, but it's sometimes very hard to nail down particularly when we get into the sort of shall we say the gray areas. One of the issues that has certainly come up broadly nationally within the field is this idea of integrity. And what I mean by that is 20, 30, 40 years ago, there was an overall preponderance of shall we say, consensus in historic preservation circles that the goal should be to try to preserve things as they were as much as possible to what they were quote unquote originally, and that to try to maintain them in that state would be a goal. Certainly today, as we look at the broad range of issues with regards to livability and so on, there's this tendency to look at this idea of integrity somewhat broader. And I know I don't know if this has come up with a con in the conversation or not, but I mean it's sort of say, okay, do those need to be the original clabbards if the clabbards are replaced is does this then become an issue or is that okay? What do we mean by character? How much breadth is there? What do we mean by integrity? How much breadth do we have? So there's no kind of, you know, hard, fast rules here, but it's all sort of within context, within precedence, and so on. Does that kind of fit with some of the issues that have come up so far with your group? And certainly, Mary, there have been discussions of integrity. I'll put the question to you. Regularly. You know, and I could start right out with a certain project that we were involved in, and what was the year 2000, a certain chicken boned cafe, where there were questions about the integrity and how that integrity had been lost, and indeed by Mary's research, she was able to demonstrate that that historic building in the Battery King Street historic district was very much intact to how it had been many generations before, although there was that chicken on the roof that could be removed. And so here again, we get these conversations. We could probably spend the whole evening talking about integrity and so on, and I hope we can come back to it, but I want to move things along a little bit. So the next sort of concept here, of course, in the city's ordinance is the goal to promote a sense of community based on the city's historic growth and development and maintaining that sense of place by protecting historic and cultural resources. And again, it's not just the mansions on the hill. Let's face it, one of the first historic districts that was put on the National Register in the city was down on the Battery King Street neighborhood, and that came in direct response to the concerns over the losses to the community after the urban renewal demolitions in the city. So there's a long history here of being aware of the broad patterns of history. It isn't just the mansions, it's also the tenements, it's the shops, it's that texture of community that has been so important for so many generations that we want to keep in mind when we're thinking about this so-called sense of place and what is important to people in respecting its history and in its culture. Another goal, of course, is to promote the adaptive reuse of historic buildings. And I mean, what better area than sort of the Pine Street Arts District if you want that really demonstrates how buildings can be adaptively reused or Church Street or so many other neighborhoods. We're so fortunate that the city has such an amazing building stock that indeed dates from its rapid growth during the 1800s, especially the second half of the 19th century, and how fortunate we are that so much of that is still intact and that it hasn't been splintered by parking lots and infill and so on. That we have a walkable community in many, many areas of the downtown core and that that absolutely lends itself to adaptive reuse projects. I think, you know, this whole area, I mean, for those of you who managed to make it down to this year's art hop, I mean, once again, what a celebration of what can be done with the adaptive reuse of historic buildings in the city and to serve this wide variety of needs in many cases with minimal levels of intervention. I mean, the old, you know, factory that, you know, made multi-serial, the old factory that made maple syrup, the old factory that made brushes. I mean, all of these things have been adapted and we have been so fortunate that we have them. So under the whole notion here of the regulations is this sense of eligibility to the state and national register of historic places. And for effective purposes, the state register of historic places, for the most part, their regulations comply with the national register of historic places. These are promulgated by the National Park Service and for consistency, it's nice to see that these are included within the Burlington City ordinance. I think where there sometimes can be confusion is in those communities where if the community has one sense of eligibility for a local register, and if there's a state register and a national register, and if they're not in conformity, one could run into potentially some issues, particularly if it's a type of project that is looking for state and federal support in order to get, shall we say, federal investment tax credits for a certified rehabilitation. And I think this is one of these practical areas where it's important for the city to be aware of what the state regulations are and aware of what the national regulations are, and that's sort of where the focus of this conversation is going today. Yes, it is the city who sets the local regulations, nevertheless to avoid conflicts and frustrations on the part of property owners, having that broad awareness is obviously important. So for the state and national register, the general starting place for eligibility is that the building is 50 years or older. This is not written in stone, okay, but it is the starting place. Now what that means is, you know, here we are in the year 2022, and we do the math, and where are we? For some of us, it doesn't seem that long ago, that we're all the way up into the 1970s now for what is technically considered to be potentially eligible for listing of historic buildings. We have a certain cathedral downtown, which of course, you know, has been nationally discussed. I got an email this morning from a national organization called Doko Momo discussing the issue that's happening as we speak right now in Burlington. It's national news. So again, this understanding of the preservation of the recent past is very much going on, not only nationally, but internationally, the Doko Momo organization documentation and whatever of historic sites is an international organization, and suddenly we've got a case right here in Burlington that's getting press coverage in this context. Generally, it falls into this area that we talk about historic buildings from the recent past. And I think for many of us, you know, of a certain generation, hey, you know, there was that kind of intuitive cutoff that historic buildings were those that might have been built, you know, when our grandparents were around and maybe before the Second World War and so on. But here we are looking at a lot of buildings that were constructed after the Second World War, moving into modernism, brutalism and these styles that now are very much on the front burner, if you will, with regards to these discussions for historic preservation. Can I just check in with everybody? Does this resonate somewhat? Brad, you've got a smile on your face. Here on mute, Brad. Our ability to talk about what you're bringing up is limited because it may come before us. Okay, we won't talk about specifics, but in general, I know you and I have probably had some conversations over time about some of these tensions of preserving buildings, maybe even some of you had a hand in at some point or other, you know. Well, one of the questions is what happens when you have a historic building that's 90 years old and had an ungainly addition 75 years ago? Well, that's it. You know, and this gets very, I'm glad you mentioned that, Brad, because this gets into this issue of integrity. Okay. And is integrity being defined as what it was originally? Or do we also include those incremental changes that were made up to 50 years ago? And it depends on how, quote, unquote, ungainly those alterations were. This is where it gets into some broad discussions about the historic character. Okay. And would that addition on itself, because for whatever reason, not be considered historic, did it so alter the appearance? This is where we have boys like yours who are going to be discussing these things. This is why there's no, there's no easy, shall we say, a flip of a coin to there's no easy push the button on the computer to answer it. It really is a judgment call. Very subjective. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, one anecdote that I share with my students is early in my career, one thing that I noticed when doing some research on properties included in historic districts was that I looked at a survey was someplace in rural Vermont, and there were some beautiful houses there. And some of the houses had not been included in the historic district. And they looked great to me. I just in what I realized when looking at some of the fine print of the person who had done the review is that the architectural style of the porches didn't match the architectural style of the house. So in essence, there was an 1880s Queen Anne style porch on an 1840s Greek revival style building. And that, you know, at the time, and this was in the 1980s, this lack of integrity, this alteration that you're making refer came up. That was enough so that when it came up, there was, oh, it isn't as good as it might be, and it had not been included. Quite honestly, I felt that it was pretty darn important to understand both that history of the 1840 and history of the 1880. So I wrote a book on the subject that Mary mentioned, Porches in North America, that really tries to explore how these incremental changes can reflect information about the cultural history, these liminal spaces and so on. So again, I think we try to look at those alterations openly as the question is, is there information here that can be useful for understanding the social history and not be too confined by the congruity with specific architectural styles? It's almost as though another kind of thing we talk about in class sometimes it's almost like, you know, one's looking at whatever it is a beagle, a beagle with a poodle tail. I mean, you know, is it a mongrel? Is that okay? Are we going to eliminate it? Because the style of the tail doesn't match the floppy ears on the head. I mean, these are the kind of things that often do come up in this conversation about integrity and congruency. And I guess my point here is that these discussions generally over the past 20 years, 10 years, are moving away from this sense that to be eligible, a building needs to comply rather tightly with a specific architectural style. Does that help? Again, it's a broad conversation that's happening. So let me move ahead here. Okay, so next, a building or site is deemed to possess significance in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the city, state or nation in history, architecture, archaeology, technology and culture, because one or more of the following conditions are present. So I mean, immediately we've got we're moving in about five directions. I think the operative word here is heritage. Okay, so in this kind of goes beyond just shall we say the written history. We know a lot about the heritage, we know a lot about the the written history from research that's been done say by the Chittenden County Historical Society, many historians, others have looked at this, but it may also be more broad in context. It may be, you know, how about the city's role in manufacturing within the context of the Vermont history or even the national history as a lumber importing port? And what about some of those maybe rundown shed shack like buildings that actually are rather important vernacular expressions of something that was important at a certain chapter in the city's history. I'm thinking particularly about some of those buildings associated with the the fairy dock, you know, on the waterfront, you know, those those metal sheds, you know, you know, we're not going to put them up on the pedestal of an architectural style. Nevertheless, this is an example of a a site and these could be buildings that do have a story to tell. And at least it should be acknowledged when these kinds of reviews are being done. So one or more of the following conditions in association with events that have made a significant contribution to broad patterns of history. The challenge I find with this is how do we define an event? Okay, is an event something that people remember or acknowledge, is an event something that was reported in the newspaper? Do you see where I'm going with the problems of defining an event? It wasn't one specific incident, it wasn't when Teddy Roosevelt came or wasn't when General Lafayette came to lay the cornerstone to old mill. I mean, these are events that we can put down to a specific point in time, but there may have other there may have been other things that were happening, particularly when we look broadly at the population and we move away from the stories about the elite and the privileged to looking at what was happening with people in day to day life. So again, this is one of these areas of conversation right now. How do we find events that made a contribution to broad patterns of history? I mean, the historians will make the arguments based on evidence. And when we're using evidence particularly in this area, it includes these sort of archival evidence, you know, the written stuff in the books and the newspapers, the letters, the journals and so on. But the other evidence that's often being used is the physical evidence. And this is where preservation can be very, very important. These buildings, although they're made, we may have buildings for which there has been little written about, the buildings themselves may be testament to broad patterns of history and events. I'm thinking particularly of some of the manufacturing buildings and so on that we have in the city. So again, I'm encouraging you all to think broadly. I know I'm making something that seems pretty straightforward, very, very broad, potentially not not confusing. But at least this is some what I hope is contemporary perspective on these issues. Okay, moving ahead that the other option here is that the site, the building or site is deemed to possess significance in illustrating or interpreting the heritage of the city, state or nation in history, architecture, archaeology, technology and culture because of one of the following conditions being present. Okay, once again, there's an awful lot to cram into the into the brain on this one. But if we kind of distill it down to say people. Now once again, where the conversations are moving in today's world is, we don't want to limit the sort of who is significant to, you know, shall we say, you know, presidents, governors, mayors, highly affected elected officials and so on, there may be many other people who have made contributions, including say John Dewey, as I put up the, you know, we've got the the plaque on, on South Wales Street for recognizing a philosopher and educator and that his house is important and that in its own right could be something that could be seen as significant in illustrating the heritage of the city. So another example then is the embodiment of distinctive characteristics of a type period or method of construction or representation of a work of a master, possession of high artistic values or representation of a significant or distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction. You know, for this, I put grass mowed out. I mean, this outstanding example of a early federal style building. It was recognized by the historic American buildings survey by Herbert Wheaton Congdon in the 1930s. I mean, who's going to argue whether or not it is historic. It is one of the first properties in the city that was individually placed on the city register of historic places because of its architectural significance. So I think, you know, this is an example that certainly fits with that shall we say traditional view of what's historic that I think Brad was alluding to, even though it has also had some changes. You know, the Belvedere on the roof is from the 1850s, not from 1806. And there are even later alterations to it. So here again, we've got this wonderful example of a building that has gone through some changes that is still recognized as distinctive and important. Another criteria then is the quote unquote maintenance of an exceptionally high degree of integrity, especially when it's on the original site and when virtually all of the character defining features are intact. I mean, I just just for the fun of it going through some of my my photos, I came across this example of a house on North North Avenue, where I mean, gosh, if you take a if you look at a photograph of that house from 50 years ago, virtually nothing has changed because it has been so well maintained. It still has the slate roof. It still has the wooden shingles on the upper story. Yes, at some point the front porch was enclosed. And that has been there for generations. But again, it's just this very high level of integrity. This is what we're where it is sort of one of those criteria that could be considered. And this may be an example then of a building that, you know, it's an American four square. If we want to describe it from a stylistic point of view, it doesn't perhaps go up to that level of quote unquote architectural stylistic significance, the grass mount does, but it certainly stands out as a building of exceptionally high integrity. So again, just another criteria to consider. There's also sort of the last one here is a bit amorphous, but that is yielding or likely to yield information important to prehistory and so on. And this is this is alluding to archaeology. And I mean, I certainly, you know, I know there have been a number of issues in the city where a archaeological sites have been uncovered. Sometimes there was it was a surprise. I mean, I'm thinking about some of the excavations when North Street was being done and there are burials from the War of 1812, you know, associated with the encampment near Battery Park, the archaeology that needed to be done in order to meet federal regulation compliance in order to get the federal funding in order to build the Rotary project on Shelburne Street, you know, these things frequently come up. And so we just need to be aware that under state and national register eligibility, this potential for archaeological discoveries needs to be acknowledged. And especially in today's world, the understanding that this can be very important to our improve our understanding of what was here before Europeans arrived. And the whole indigenous, the Native American history, it's this physical evidence that we may be coming across that can be so insightful. And again, when projects are being planned to ask the question, especially if it is, shall we say disturbing undisturbed areas or areas that are have the potential to yield, the question is, has an archaeological study been done yet? Have there been test pits done yet? What's the story on that? So has that been sort of any issues have come up along the lines for which this has been an issue? And I think we've dealt with all of these issues. I think, you know, to some extent, we're also constrained by the words of the CDO. Okay, you know, provide some definitions and guidance for us on how to resolve these things. You know, I think we have to also, to some extent limit ourselves to the presentations of the parties on the various issues. We have to be careful going and making our own sort of independent investigation on these questions, which is a challenge. I'm curious, though, I, you know, at some point, I think you may get to it, but the issue we confront, I think probably the most is demolition by neglect on historic properties, right, that have not been maintained, and how the historic value may be impacted by historic neglect, certainly not even the neglect of the current landowners. I'm curious, I don't want to rush you, but I'm curious how you would deal with that. No, how you as a historic expert address that. Yeah, no, these are two absolutely critical comments. And I'm kind of trying to start out from the ground. I know we've got limited time here. And I'm glad we're sort of branching into these two sort of critically important concepts. And I think just, you know, to talk about the first is, you know, who is the whose responsibility is it to present this information? I think I tend to come back, I mean, because I was an active 50 commissioner for a good number of years, it's that whole question of who has the burden of who has the responsibility for providing the burden of proof. And I think as a review board, we ask the questions, we don't have to do the research ourselves. But you know, if there's an indication that there may be some history, we can ask the question, has the applicant presented sufficient information for us to feel comfortable with this? We ask the questions, they need to provide the answers. If they haven't done the homework, then, you know, this is this is typically a situation where they will should have the responsibility to either do the work themselves or to bring in somebody to help them or into a certain degree, you know, touch base with others who may be able to provide that information. Right, right. So I mean, it could be it could be that the applicant is in contact with the State Historic Preservation Office. So maybe they're looking up to see whether the property is already on the National Register of Historic Places within one of the Historic District. I mean, that information may be out there. I mean, I just want to say, okay, have you looked up the National Register nomination for this, it's online, or whatever. And thereby, I mean, quite literally and intentionally, kind of avoiding getting into that situation where as a review board, we feel like we need to come to the table with the proof of its this or that it is the burden of responsibility on the applicant. But does this make sense? I mean, from yes, I mean, it's a question we have to ask, is this been looked at? Sure. Yeah. And again, that's the starting place. I also think this is one of these questions for which staff can be very, very helpful, right, Mary? I mean, it's when the applications are reviewed, if there seem to be some, shall we say gaps, as a heads up, there may be recommendations to look. I don't want to tell you how the process works right now. But I think typically, these are these areas, and maybe it's the guidelines or whatever. But anyway, I hope that addresses that kind of concept of whose responsibility it is. The other point here is, yes, a demolition by neglect. And I think, I mean, we're kind of to cut to the chase on that. If it appears as though those conditions are moving in a direction where the eligibility for inclusion in the local, state, or national registers is going to be compromised. That then could be, in essence, that point for which one could put down the foot and say, you know, here, here we have a situation that needs to be looked at. And if that makes sense, I'm trying to put it into the context of what we've already talked about. Because let's face it, if just say in theory, if there is a property for which the owner has no interest in maintaining it, and that if in theory that is a property that is historic, one way in theory for it to be removed from being historic is if it loses its integrity due to its condition. So anything that is being done intentionally or by neglect by actually not doing shall we say regular standard maintenance, in essence, could be seen as shall we say following an intent to sidestep the regulations. Does that make sense? It's really, really difficult to, you know, when do you blow the whistle? And what initiates that? I mean, I just, you know, as someone who is sensitive to preservation, hey, I mean, let's face it, there are an awful lot of buildings, not a lot. There are some buildings around the city where we see it and, you know, whatever the cliche is, you know, if it smells like it and it consistently, you know, the weeds are growing all over. Nobody is there. We see the graffiti all over. It's just like inviting something to happen. You know, in the 30-some odd years that I've been here, and I mean, to me too, you know, there have been a good number of historic buildings that have been lost due to shall we say mysterious fires and other things for which there was great potential or whatever. I mean, this is a risk. So I think it is that kind of combination of lack of maintenance, appearance of abandonment, and also just sort of allowing things to incrementally happen. The broken windows, the trash, I mean, these are kind of those indicators. What is, is there a process right now? I guess this is the question for, you know, doing these kinds of shall we say, neighborhood reviews or is it basically complaint driven? Any comments? I assume it's complaint driven, isn't it? No, it's not. I mean, it comes up to us when people have redevelopment of historic properties that have been neglected and, you know, the neglect was historic and we have to weigh whether or not the demolition by neglect negates the obligation to maintain the historic character of the building. It's a very tough decision for us. Time and time again. Of course, of course. And I think, I mean, where it gets tricky is, you know, let's say, you know, for whatever reasons that it may be economic, the building is no longer being used for its purpose. It may be abandoned. It may, you know, it may be empty. And I think, again, it is this sort of this balancing act where the question is, well, if that, if that hole in the roof had been fixed, you know, when it first happened, would there still be a, you know, the potential for a dwelling unit here? Or was it just allowed to deteriorate to the point where for life safety and everything else, demolition is the, in essence, the only feasible option? So I know, it's, this is, this is one of these other areas where, yeah, it's, it's a judgment call. And that's why you're there. That's why, that's why you're, you know, to make those calls. Is there, is there any particular thoughts that you have? I think what mostly comes before us for demolition by neglect is outbuilding. So like old carriage barns, old garages that are no longer of an adequate size for a modern vehicle. Those are the most common. And I, I think one of the things he said, it's like it is no longer useful as it was originally built carriage barn. So the best example of that. Any, aside from what you've already said, anything particular in that case where it's not the primary building, but one of these secondary buildings? Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think, I think in today's concept, today's world of what's being discussed so broadly is, you know, the whole potential for accessory dwelling units happening in these outbuildings that previously under zoning were, were, were, were, you know, not being used, shall we say to their potential, particularly for housing. And so I think being sensitive to the potential for adaptive reuse. I mean, we had a wonderful tour last week with some of the, you know, planning and zoning department staff looking at the missing middle opportunities in the city and AARP organized this tour. And I mean, there's so much, as I say, you know, potential that is suddenly being recognized for using some of these underutilized outbuildings that at least keeping that open as an option right now. There's certainly an incentive to do that. Does that sort of fit with some of the conversations you've been having on that? I mean, you're, you're there basically to, shall we say enforce the regulations, but I certainly there are there is this ongoing conversation of how these regulations may be modified, particularly under zoning, in order to be broader in the applicability of, of increasing density and doing it in a way that is respectful to, to what's there already. I mean, I feel like the problem is most of these come before us when it, it's way too late. Yeah. And then that's just like the nature of, of what our board does and, and when things come before us. And I think there might be some other changes we could consider to encourage adaptive reuse of accessory buildings in particular. Like around the corner for me, there's a beautiful carriage barn that's obviously vacant and abandoned and it is behind a large multiplex historic building as well. And it's like, what can we do to encourage the property owners to redevelop before it's too late? I mean, certainly, I mean, another part of that, I'm getting some sunset here, part of that may be also in some cases, doing whatever can be done to let property owners, you know, know about incentives. There are, you know, certainly federal investment tax credit incentives, if the property is, is included in a historic district, natural registered historic district as a contributing resource. You know, as long as the amount of investment is done in a way that exceeds the current value, and it is done in compliance with the secretary of interior standards, there are, there are generous tax incentives to encourage that kind of work. So I think, I mean, this is sort of one of those areas where we're seeing, we're seeing this happening around the country. And I think particularly in these times where we're sort of looking at incremental steps that can be taken to provide more housing that is in keeping with the character, this, there may be opportunities there. I know, and thinking, particularly, I mean, I haven't done an inventory lately, but they're, you know, intuitively, there seem to be a lot in the Hill section, right, as well as in areas of the old North end, of the secondary back buildings, and many of the primary residential buildings now are, have been divided up into apartments, there's their big lots. There, you know, there may be opportunities that especially with changes in the zoning may, you know, maybe quite, maybe quite interesting and attractive. Well, Tom, Tom, you've mentioned the missing middle and zoning may be slow to change, but we're making changes. Absolutely. Our first project tonight was the inaugural exercise of our historic preservation bonus, which allowed density in excess of limits defined by the ordinance. So for some of these bigger houses that are in, say, the RL zoning district, you may now add as many residential units as you can fit in there. We're not, we're not using density limitations anymore. And I think that's going to be a big carrot towards more housing. It's, again, I mean, this, I mean, it's wonderful to hear, I mean, these are things that are happening, you're doing right in real time. And it's, and it's addressing the, the, these critical social needs that we're, we're all facing every day, and we're all aware of. So, again, how can we in this, you know, facilitate this and kind of move ahead. So it's, I mean, it's very much a topic. It's a topic even, even our graduate students in the historic preservation program right now are very excited. They're taking on a project looking at the missing middle housing in Burlington and they're doing field research, looking at examples to get a better understanding of this kind of concept that until now was not perhaps well understood and maybe kind of ignored for a wide variety of reasons. So again, we're, we're quite contemporary with the, the, these actions that are being taken, which is wonderful. How would you like, how much time do we have and how do we want to, would you like to move from here? So I'd like to give the board members some more time to ask questions. It's been a pretty engaging presentation. And I think we could probably spend a lot more time on this than I think maybe we want to tonight. But I'd like to give the board members opportunity to ask questions to you. I have one that I would like to know. And I don't know how much more you have left Professor Visser. Well, I just, you know, always a little something extra. But if we wanted to get into a review of the secretary of interior standards, I put up some slides for that. But I would, I like your idea of let's, let's have some conversation now and see how it goes. So I'm curious, how would you incur, you know, come, how do we incentivize the preservation of historic properties so that we don't get the situation where they come to us as they're neglected? How on zoning level can we do that? You know, I immediately one thing that starts out, and this perhaps is not your, shall we say, responsibility, but it is, it is certainly how many communities, states and others are dealing with this is through what's usually called advocacy. I mean, we've got a, we've got a nonprofit organization preservation Burlington that does advocacy. It's about education. It's about engagement. And I think, you know, certainly over the years, I mean, one thing that comes to mind are some of the, the publications that the, the, the, the city planning zoning office did sometimes with federal funding coming through the state that are, you know, projects that help people recognize what's, what's out there, whether it's, it's a flyer, whether it's online, whether it's activities. I think this kind of shall we say engaging education is, is one way to do this. Certainly, if there are case studies, it's, it's engaging, you know, with the press, if you will, touting the success stories. I think all of these things, you know, really have, have the potential to plant some seeds of ideas. I just think of, you know, some of the projects that I've seen over the years here in Burlington of really, really decrepit buildings that have been saved that have been transformed. And, you know, I'm thinking of a certain admissions welcome center at the University of Vermont. If you're familiar with that one on South Prospect Street, that building was, you know, the floors were collapsing, the roof was collapsing, and, you know, you know, now it is this welcome map for, for, for the university. And right next door, as we speak, you know, what's happening with the Wattum's house and the Wattum's house barn. I mean, these are the kind of projects that, you know, can, can perhaps send that message that, you know, we can do these adaptations and sort of respect what's there at the same time. I mean, does that, does that fit a little bit? I know it's, I'm moving beyond your responsibility as a board. No, no, I mean, well, we do make recommendations on the zoning changes on how we might want to see amendments to the zoning regulations. We have someone who's on the ordinance committee and I think we're often asked to suggest changes to things that aren't working for us. So, you know, how to incentivize people to maintain historic properties so that we don't get demolition by neglect cases when they are too late is something that I think we've all talked about. Good, good. I mean, you know, I come back to what you just said, having these conversations, it's almost 90, seems like it's almost 90 percent of it. I mean, on the other side of the coin, hey, I know I've been in, you know, seats like yours, it's also listening to the complaints, whether it's complaints that are coming into staff or complaints that are being expressed in the, in the meetings that those who are experiencing frustration, what's behind that frustration? What about the process perhaps could move more smoothly? Whether it's, I mean, even, I mean, coming up, you know, I'm just reflecting a little bit on a project that Mary and I were involved with, with the net zero initiatives and historic preservation for the city. I mean, what that's one of the starting places there was try to map out that the review process to come up with a flow chart for potential applicants. And I know, you know, a lot of work is being done on that, but I think that kind of communication is often quite important. I just want to make a comment, Tom, that those projects you mentioned up on South Prospect Street, and you compare those to similar kinds of, not really similar, but smaller little barns, backbuildings and things like that better in the old North End. The old North End doesn't have the deep pockets that UVM has. For sure. And that's part of the issue that, you know, economic viability, you know, it's, yeah, we can take developers to task for setting a very low bar, but there is some reality to that, too, that there are buildings that are just the cost to rehabilitate them is not, economically, the balance sheet doesn't work. It works for UVM because they're not doing the same balance sheet. And I don't know that there's really resources available to really do that. So those buildings stay empty because there really isn't a way to rehabilitate them gracefully. I guess I'd put it. I hear you. I almost cringe to myself when I mention those, because I know full well exactly what you're talking about. And I know those are deep pocket projects. So I hear you. I hear you when I look around my own neighborhoods. You know, I look at the abandoned garages. I look at the other buildings. And yeah, you know, when that foundation needs to be replaced and the roof is leaking and the sills are rotten, wow, it adds up. It adds up fast. So I think this then gets into this issue of integrity and condition. And at some point, yeah, we need to admit that it's too late, you know, and I think the challenge here is can we somehow potentially be involved or provide guidance or encouragement before it's too late? Yeah. So I mean, I hear you, Brad. Absolutely. So other thoughts. You know, you mentioned, I have one more question. You mentioned that 50 years is eligible. I think people often say, well, just because it's old doesn't mean it's historic. And I would just be curious to hear your thoughts on that, because certainly stuff built in 1972, that's 50 years old at this point. I'm not sure there's a lot of it that we would say needs to be saved. How do we make that split? Well, you know, exactly. I mean, this then is where we, you know, in essence, what becomes significant, it comes back to this concept of significance. And I mean, let's face it, if we're using a 1972 role, in essence, you know, a huge amount of the New North end, in essence, potentially could be eligible for listing on the state or national register. I don't know that surveys have been done on it. I'm thinking about some of, even some of the neighborhoods in the south end that have not been recognized as such. And I think, again, this is one of these, shall we say, the greatest challenges in how we define what is significance and how our properties relating to, quote unquote, broad patterns of history. It's a conversation that's going on nationally. And so I don't have an easy answer for you. I think perhaps, you know, trying to keep up with how it's going. Certainly, with regards to the more recent past, those buildings that are being recognized, perhaps due to their architectural statement, the prestige of the architectural firm, some of their important community uses, their integrity, if they have not been altered much. I mean, these are some of those qualities that may bring it up. So that it's in this kind of, shall we say, area that is getting closer review. How we apply these standards, shall we say, in 1950s suburban neighborhoods, I mean, okay, this is kind of up to the city to decide to be quite blunt. And some cities are looking at these as contributing resources. Some are perhaps being less focused on that. Does this mean that because it's a 1957 ranch house that hasn't been altered, does that mean it cannot have a new garage or it can't have a second story? I mean, again, this is part of the discussion that has to happen locally. And in those kinds of cases, maybe we don't want to necessarily kind of immediately jump to the standards that have been applied nationally for properties that are receiving tax credits or so on. But does that help? It does. It does. It does. Again, I think it's the analogy here is, I mean, to a certain degree, you're at the wheel of this windy road. It's nice to know where the ditches are. But here again, you get to choose the route to a certain degree. So I think that's what I'm really trying to explore tonight or where some of these ditches are that may lead to whatever feedback, red flags, concerns, anxieties, bad press, all of those sorts of things. Sure. Sure. So other thoughts. How about it, Brad? I think something's on your mind. I could get an intuitive sense there. Oh, this is just a can of worms, materials. You're talking about old, what happens with replacement materials, new materials that have come online since the buildings were built, and where is it appropriate to use them? Where is it not appropriate to use them? It's just worms. Oh, it is. It is. I remember when I was serving on the Historic Preservation Review Committee that Bill Freeman and I had lots of conversations about that. To be honest, where I find myself within the field of Historic Preservation, it's quite honestly probably a bit broader in what seems okay to me than what those that are looking at it rather tightly are. So again, when we're looking at issues of maintaining the viability of properties and how they can be maintained in an economical way, at what point is it okay to replace, quote unquote, historic materials with something that's more durable than it may be quite a bit cheaper? Yeah. When we were sort of on the board, I think one of those areas that was kind of a hot button was slate roofs. You know, and from a broad pattern of history, we look around the city and wow, a city like Burlington, Vermont has an outstanding collection of slate roofs and it has to do with our location. We're in Vermont, the railroad's brought it up, and it is something that really makes Vermont special. Does that mean that every slate roof has to be maintained? Well, where do we get to that sort of threshold of where it doesn't make economic sense to maintain it and slate? The rule of thumb that we use, I don't know if it's ever been kind of, it was written down, but as a board, the rule of thumb that we use has kind of been recognized by the slate roofers trade is if more than a third of the slates are deteriorated, then it is no longer repairable, everything should come off, and then that in essence could be that point where it would make sense to reexamine whether or not it's appropriate to replace it with some other material. I think another conversation that we've certainly been having lately, especially looking at net zero and carbon emissions and so on, is that, okay, what about metal roofs that may be far less producing carbon emissions that may be lasting a century as opposed to asphalt shingles? Yes, they may be more expensive, but what's the payback? I mean, have metal roofs been coming up in conversation? There seems to be a broad trend towards across the country to, shall we say, being more open on the municipal level for using that type of roofing just in recognition of its durability and as a way to reduce long-term maintenance costs as well as not relying on petroleum and carbon emissions related to it and so on. I have this conversation has made me think of something else that I have wondered in the city about chimneys in historic preservation, where chimneys are functionally part of the mechanicals of the original house. So especially with the 50-year timeline, are we getting to a point where PVC pipes coming out of the side of the house are historical preservation if we're using the same standard? Curious your thought on basic chimneys. There's obviously buildings in town that have decorative chimneys that it's very much part of the architecture. I'm talking about the chimney was for the purpose of the heating system in the household. To use a bit of jargon, the measure that I would use to consider this, let me move around, I'm getting some sunset, I don't know if it matters, is to ask the question whether or not the chimney is a significant historic character defining feature. I know that's a mouthful, but this is a concept that we use, shall we say, all the time in the field of historic preservation. Significant historic character defining feature. And so all of those concepts would need to be true. If they're true, then we would tend to advocate for its preservation. So we're looking at Grasmouth because these massive fireplace chimneys, yeah, we would want to make the case for retaining them. On old mill, some of the historic chimneys had been lost, but when the university worked out an agreement, a mitigation agreement with the state of Vermont for doing a lot of changes on the interior, the state preservation office said, okay, for mitigation, put back all of those chimneys because those were significant to not only understanding its age, but also those pairs of chimneys as they were laid out, provided the evidence of how that used to be three separate buildings that were connected. So there was all of that sort of history that was represented by the chimneys, even though right now they're dummies, okay? So again, I would use that concept to ask, is it a significant historic character defining feature? It's a judgment call, right? And if it's the back chimney of, you know, that was for the kitchen stove that has not been used for a hundred years and it's not seen from the road or the street, there would be obviously be a lot, a lot more latitude than it is, shall we say, a chimney on an end wall parapet of some of those wonderful examples that we have, you know, from the, from the federal style or going into the 1830s or 1840s around the city where it really was something special. Does that help on that? Going to use that as a ruler to ask the question, is that a significant historic character defining feature? Yeah, that does, that does, thank you. I mean, that is, if I can just say, continue, I mean, that is the general rule that can be applied to so many other features, like the porch, like the siding, like the window sash, and so on. If it's there, you ask, is that a significant historic character defining feature? If it's not, if it's an alteration, that can erode that level of significance and that gives, in essence, you more latitude if the applicant is asking or proposing to replace it. Yeah, sorry, go ahead. No, I was just saying, I'm conscious of our time. This has been fairly engaging presentation. So, I'm curious if any other board members have any opportunity, but I'm looking to wrap us up here. Is this something that we typically do once a year or twice a year? We've never done it. It's the premiere. Well, I know I haven't spoken much, but I think that it has been great, and yeah. Well, it's been my pleasure to chat with you on this, and I hope it's helpful. I'm here as a resource, and just let us know up here at the University of the Historic Preservation Program if we can help. I don't want to step on any toes, and I appreciate where you are. I mean, having been in some of those seats over the years, it's your judgment. This is what's important. I think consistency is important. I think the other thing, of course, that hasn't been mentioned is that, okay, let's face it, on these matters, it really isn't so much of a quote unquote aesthetic judgment call. It's not so much how, whether I'd like to see this or that, what we really want to try to do is to follow what these regulations are, what these standards are, and to be consistent. I think on that level, being familiar with not only the ordinance, but obviously the Secretary of the Interior Standards and hopefully some of the jargon that I've thrown out today will be helpful when you're having these conversations. Anyway, once again, thank you very much. Thank you, Mary, for the invitation. It's great to touch base again, and I'm looking forward to the possibility of connecting with you in the future. Thank you, Tom. I do remember a DRB hearing you dragged me to in 2000. I didn't know what you were doing to me then. That's right. Absolutely. And well, you know, exactly. That was history, Mary. That was history. You made history. Thank you very much. We greatly appreciate your willingness to contribute to this college base of the DRB. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Take care. So with that, we have nothing else done on our agenda to deliberate and we're adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Thank you, everyone. Take care.