 This meeting is being recorded. Hey, Welcome to the Emerson historical commission public hearing and public meeting on Wednesday, April 20, 2022. My name is Jane Walden is chair of the Emerson historical commission I'm calling this meeting to order at 638pm pursuant The meeting of the acts of 2021. This meeting is being conducted by remote means, as no in person attendance is permitted every effort is being made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time by a technological means. In addition, this meet this meeting is being recorded. If you wish to access the meeting may do so by opening the town's homepage on an internet browser, navigate to the town calendar at the bottom of that page. Click on the historical meeting, historical commission meeting link, zoom and telephone connections and the meeting agenda can be found there. So now we'll take roll call attendance. Patricia off present. Catherine Davis. Not present. And he's not able to attend. Robin Fordham. Becky Lockwood. President. Janet Markward. Any startup is not present and unable to attend. And Jane walled I'm, I'm present. So from members of the public. There will be opportunities for public comment. If you wish to make a comment, please click the raise hand button. When public comment is solicited. And if you've joined the zoom meeting using a telephone, please indicate you wish to make a comment by pressing star nine on the phone. When called on, please identify yourself by stating your full name and address. And then put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the commission chair. So moving on to the public hearing. Moving on to the public hearing. In accordance with the provisions of Massachusetts general law chapter 40 a and article 13 demolition delay of the Amherst zoning bylaw, this public hearing has been duly advertised. The public hearing bylaw has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. The Amherst historical commission is holding this public hearing to provide an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding the following application request. On 37 North Pleasant Street parcel 14 a 49. The owner is Barry Roberts who requests the full demolition of a circa 1900 wood frame two story commercial building. As you may know the previously issued demolition permit has expired. So this is a new demolition permit application with a public hearing according to article 13 of the zoning bylaw. So I will say that at the request of the applicants of public hearing on this demolition permit will be continued to May 18 at 635pm, which is the date of the historical commissions next meeting. So, having done that will go to the next demolition permit request. And this is for 285 Main Street parcel 14 be 29 requested by owner Patrick Kammons for the full demolition of the rear detached garage. And I say, I'm unknown. This application and other historical information on the property in question is available at the document center on the town website. So the public hearing is now open. Just a couple of minutes to explain the goals and procedure for the public hearing so I hope you'll bear with me for just a few minutes. So section 13 of the Amherst zoning bylaw governs demolition delay for structures of historical or architectural significance. Its policy is that the economic cultural and aesthetic standing of the town of Amherst can best be maintained and enhanced by due regard for the historical and architectural heritage of the town by striving to discourage the destruction of such cultural assets, and the protection enhancement perpetuation and use of structures of historical and architectural significance located within the town of Amherst is a public necessity, and is required in the interest of the prosperity civic pride and general welfare of the people. So that's just its general laws and the town of Amherst zoning bylaw, it's the historical commission that's responsible for enacting the purposes and procedures of this policy. So what we'll do is take any comments from the applicant applicant in addition to the application itself and supporting materials submitted with that. Then for any additional information that he may have then we as commission will have a chance to ask questions with the applicant's response. Then there'll be a public comment period. And, and then we'll act on the on emotion brought forward by a member of the historical commission. So why don't we proceed and ask Mr Kamens to, if there's anything you would like to add to what you've submitted with the application. I don't need to add very much, I think it's pretty clear is what we're looking to do our mind, the group that this is a building that was renovated. A couple years ago, we were unfortunate that some students took upon themselves to light fireworks on the inside of the building and pretty much level the entire building. So on our behalf to the restoration company came through met with a person got the permits and pretty much has built us to 2020 code. So last piece was after that was to take care of the exterior and there's like a retaining wall and then the paving, and then there's the dilapidated garage in the back that really serves no purpose we don't use it for parking we don't use it for storage there's, and it's not really readily visible from the street. So we're asking to remove it to add parking to make it easier for the students to park around the back so there's less students cars on the front. And, you know, pretty much that's the last piece of the renovations for this property. Okay, thank you. Do you have other comments or information. No, I don't have too much more to add I wasn't really able to ascertain the age of the structure, you know in the property card I think it's listed that 1960 but then I've you know seem there does seem to be a structure there in some of the aerial imagery from, you know, previous earlier from 1960 so it's really hard to tell what. When this garage as we see it now was actually constructed. And, you know, definitely, you know couldn't really find anything in terms of historical significance or importance to the property itself nor the garage individually. I'm happy just to while I have have them up to share a few pictures so everyone's on the same page what we're talking about. This is the garage and green here. Mr Kamens was referring to the building to the right next to it and just there with me here a little bit I think it should be a few other pictures. Oh yeah sorry. Just in terms of the condition. Yeah, and there's a one picture yeah this is really what you see from the street so you can seal it a little bit peeking out from the back you know this is certainly zoomed in a little bit. So you might not it might not really appear that big per se but that's how it would look from the sidewalk what you would see. And does everyone know where in town we're talking about. Okay. Okay. Okay, thank you, Ben. So members of the Commission do you have questions or comments that you would like to make. Chan. I was looking on the packet and I didn't see the actual application it's not terribly important in this case but I don't think then that application itself is here just the photos. Yeah I guess that's a good point actually since we've moved into the open gov this online permitting system. There's no longer like a paper application submitted. Um, but that's a good point actually I think so they did submit an application through the online system in the past I think I've downloaded the online application and as a PDF and put it in the packet but I don't. I guess I didn't do that for this one. I apologize. It would be nice to have formula. Yeah. Yeah, even just for the, you know, for the record. Okay, thanks. Okay. Pat or Becky or Robin anything that you'd like to know anything additional. I don't think so. It's pretty straightforward. Okay. Okay. Then let us see if there's any public comment. Seeing seeing no hands. Let's see. I think we can then go to a review of the standards or simply a motion. Okay, I suggest we don't need to go through all those questions. I just move that we allow demolition of this building. Okay, I would just work. I would just word it as if, you know, that the building is found to be not significant and therefore, demolition can proceed. I move that we think we have found the building to be not significant. I don't know we haven't talked about it but I'm assuming that everybody that's what they're feeling. And that we permit demolition. Okay, all in favor of the motion. Yeah. Yeah, let's take a roll call. Sorry. Okay, so let's see. Becky Lockwood, but Becky. Sorry. In favor. Thank you. Robin Fordham. Hi. Janet Marquardt. Yes. Patricia off. In favor, yes. And Jane Walde in favor. Okay, so it is unanimous and let's see, then you'll follow up with next steps. Yeah, I will. So because this garage is in the local historic district as well. So, Mr. Kamens will be coming to the local historic district commission on May 9 for their approval for the demolition. But as far as the historical commission is concerned of your, you this demolition can proceed and then I'll make that note in the open gov system. One step closer to getting your permit. So thanks for, thanks for coming today. I appreciate it. Thank you Ben and thank everybody else appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. So at this time, I'm going to be absent for a little bit and I'll be joining you probably again around maybe around 730. Thank you, Jan. Yep, got this. Yeah. Okay, getting back to the agenda. Find it. Have it up. I can bring it up as well. I pulled up too many documents and now I can do it from the email again though. There we go. Okay, great. So the other one is continued. So we're now finished with the public hearings. I need to have someone move that we close the public hearings. Yes. We don't want to, I guess we can close the 285 one, but we want to keep. We're going to make a motion to continue the. For this meeting. We're no longer in public hearing. We're going to public meeting. So usually that requires. Agreement from the commission. Yeah, I guess. Yeah, I guess you can make a motion to continue the. 37 North pleasant street hearing, but to close the 285 main street and move on to the public meeting portion. Okay. Okay. Okay. Second. Second. Everyone in favor. I think we can do this with a hand vote. Yeah. Bye-bye. Okay, great. Okay. So now we're on to the bylaw. And the suggestions from the staff based upon recent review. By various committees around town. So we're going to move on to the bylaw. Okay. Full screen here. So if you all have it or Ben, you could pull up. I think just the staff recommendations. If you want to refer to the whole thing, perhaps you all can open it from the document. Yeah. Okay. There we go. Okay. Here's what. We put together. So I can. I don't have the exact dates in front of me, but I think it was towards the end of. February that we. Present first referred to or presented to the full town council. That's like step one. The full town council, you know, heard a short presentation on the preservation bylaw. And then they refer. The bylaw to their subcommittees. The subcommittee for subcommittees, the CRC is the community resources committee. The subcommittees then hold a series of public hearings to kind of hear public input on the bylaw for the. Subcommittee members to deliberate and discuss. And then ultimately they. Develop a recommendation to then send on to the full town council for their approval. So where we are now is that the CRC held their first public hearing. Last week. There were some suggested changes. There was question. There are some questions. And, and then they're kind of, they knew the commission, historical commission was meeting today on April 20th. So they held their public hearing open. Knowing that, you know, we were going to discuss the bylaw. And then wanting to. Resume their public hearing, I think May 4th or 5th. And so they'll take whatever comes from this meeting and. You know, they might, they could vote. They might actually vote on the. Recommendation. At that May meeting, it could take another meeting, but I think. They're definitely eager to hear. What the. Commission thinks so. Okay. Thank you, Ben. So the staff has made five, has gone over five points and made four recommendations. One of them is to stay to leave it without a change. But maybe we can go one through five. Yeah. And I'd say too, I think the, what this memo I put together reflects like conversations I've had with my colleagues, the built, you know, the building commissioner, the planning director, I think they're not new. We've seen these before. Yeah. And I think the, the CR. I didn't share this memo with the CRC, you know, it's in our packet now. So they might see it at their next meeting. But I think some of these concerns are, you know, where arose independently of what staff things kind of were brought up by CRC members as well. And I should say too, I think just stepping back, like. The bylaws draft is very much improved altogether. I think that we really like this. The two step process for determining significance, the, the, this new like permitting process where we have an authorization and a preservation order. I think that's a big improvement. I think there's just some concern about. Some of the finer details of like how demolition is defined and, and what that means for potential increase in, in our workload. And we're not looking for more work. I can tell you that. But no, I think, I think obviously we don't want to, we want to preserve the intent of the bylaw, but just kind of recommend, we recommended some tweaks to, I think make it operate better. So. Okay. So I assume everyone's read the first introductory page. Everybody comfortable with that? Do we need to go over it? I'm not seeing that response. Does anybody need to go over that first page? No. No. Okay, great. So let's move to the recommendations then. So the first one is something that we've talked about. We began this process in 2015. It has certainly spilled a lot of ink in terms of discussion. And I guess I was one of the biggest proponents that we keep it at 50s. So, you know, whatever. Now the suggestion is 75. There's, we've, you know, there's been 50 70 and 75. There's been 50 and 75. And different towns have different numbers. How do people feel about the recommendation to increase it to 75 and use the preservation plan to identify the buildings between 50 and 75. In order to just pick out a few that are. Particularly. Evocative. Yeah. I think we've talked about every one of them that has worked on to, I think this is the plan. Right, Ben. Yeah. Yeah. I think. I was just thinking about like. We have a process coming up with the preservation plan where we hopefully will, you know, work very closely with smart people at PVPC to help us better understand our historic resources in town. And so, you know, I think that the preservation by-law is just one tool in our toolkit for preservation. But it's also the one that kind of the most active one that we're doing on a day-to-day basis, receiving applications, reviewing them. And so I just, I guess for me and for, you know, looking at our work in town hall, I want to make sure that we're spending our time, you know, reviewing and looking at the demolitions of the most. And I just, I guess my sense is there's a lot, you know, there's a lot of towns that are ventured against the majority of houses and Amherst are over reaching, approaching that 50 year threshold. And just what does that mean for, you know, especially if we're defining that demolition as 25% or more of a, of a facade, I think it could just open up the floodgates to a lot of applications that, you know, again, we're not going to, you know, not all of them will reach the commission, but even just to review them for significance, you know, I want to make sure I do a good job and then thorough and then not just letting them, you know, rubber stamping or whatever. So I guess, yeah, I guess I just would recommend, I was recommending, you know, seven, we were recommending 75 years as just a way to cut down on the number of applications reviewed and the, you know, just focusing our efforts on ones that are, I guess in this case it would be pre-1947. Yeah. Anyone have specific comments about that? Jan, would you just speak a little bit to your preference for 50 years? I mean, I think I, I think I'm more in line with you, but I also hear what Ben's saying. Yeah, I appreciate what Ben's saying. And I understand the staff as well as the commission time is precious. However, I have a couple of points I could make. One is that in a way this is just kicking the can down the road because there is a huge number of, there are a huge number of housing estates filled with houses from the 50s and 60s that are sooner or later, you can't just keep pushing that date. Yeah. No, to 100 and then 125. I mean, these are, many of them are now classic mid-modern homes. Many of them are not, and many of them already been modified. But I think I would be willing to agree with what you're saying. If we put a caveat on one is that we write a definition of what we mean by highly significant for mid-modern, because I think a lot of people discount them as cheap tract homes. And a lot of them are not, they're custom. And the other is that we, we figure out how the preservation plan is exactly going to do this, because it's nice to say we're going to do something, but I've been on the commission too long to know that things don't just happen. Or they might get started and they're never completed, right? And it has to do with our time as volunteers, staff time pulled in many directions. So I think that would somehow need to be in there. And then there needs to be some sort of public awareness program, whether we do it through the newspaper or letters to homeowners or whatever that lets people know that we are concerned and do take this seriously. And that you might own a home. But I think that would be something that was built in 1960. And believe it or not. It's now considered historic. You know, or 65 or whatever. It could be even from the 70s. If it's a classic of a type. People need to start thinking this way. Because I think people think Victorian 19th century, maybe some colonial, and that's all that's historic. And I would, I, that's where I really agree with you, Jan, is the sense that it's, it makes me nervous because it feels like it's trying to fix, fix a point in time where, where historic resources are significant. And it really does have that sense of trying to pull the preservation into the mid-century modern era. And so I share your concern and I appreciate your comments. Thank you. Anybody else? Yeah, I, I agree, Jan with you and Robin. I think if we change the threshold to 75 years, we're going to lose the ability to, to evaluate request to change how homes that were built. 50 years ago. And, and, and there are, there are many examples, as you said, custom made, you know, that are an example of a particular period of time in the architecture. And we might, we might not weigh in, in terms of opposing demolition or changes, but at least I think that ought to come to the commission. I'm not saying that we shouldn't increase the threshold because I think in terms of the workload, it's a valid request. I'm just saying that we need to know how to use this preservation plan to identify and make it clear as well. To homeowners that this is a, this is an issue. I'm, I'm not entirely opposed to changing it to 75 years, but we also have as part of this. So, I'm just going to add a little bit of, a revision of the, the, the, the, the guidelines that there would be a small committee of. Together with the planning department that would weigh in on whether it should go to the historical commission. And that doesn't seem to add a lot of work. To have that happen. Yeah. I don't have any other recommendation for her down, but. Okay. I agree with you all about the age and the concerns. But I really, I think, I think that there are serious concerns about how to manage this. How's, how, how will this happen? If we can figure out a way to manage it. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what time wise and leave it at 50. Great. But if not, it may be that. We have to at least phase it in and maybe down the road, change it if the management can change. I don't know. Yeah. I mean, one option could be that. The. The total demolition only applies to buildings, 50 years or older, 70 years or older. Partial demolition projects or removal of features could only apply to building 75 years or older. It could be a way to. That's going to be really hard to parse, particularly as another recommendation is about that. Yeah. Features. Right. How do you see the preservation plan proceeding in terms of identifying significant examples of that era? Part of the preservation part of the scope of work is to make recommendations to the inventory. To, to both. It's to both. Essentially in a way of inventory, the inventory kind of give us a status of the update on, on where we are with the macros updates, but also. To highlight some parts of town that are missing or some. You know, some areas that are, you know, underrepresented in the inventory. So yeah, I guess I was just imagining. Getting some clarity from the preservation plan about where. Both specific properties, but also generally kind of where there are gaps in the inventory and how. I think that's where the best. Carry out. The recommendations would come from the PVVC from us from others. Where, where. Yeah, they will come from. PVPC is the consultant, you know, working essentially for the planning department and for the commission. So they'll be working closely with. Cause I mean, they don't know every property in town. Right. There's a vast number of. Yeah. No. I mean. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not, I don't think it's in the scope of work for. PVPC to actually be. Filling out the form of ease and submitting inventories. I think actually Shannon, while she's, she's actually doing that right now for East Amherst, I think on a separate grant. But I think they, the preservation plan, while at least set the ground framework, I guess, for. Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to hire another consultant to, to fill out the inventories. And actually, I mean, we do have some money remaining for, for inventory work. So if we could even do it in tangent potentially, but. I guess I would like to see the staff recommendation. Text include more specifics. Yeah. How that would work. And. That it's specifically identify. Yeah. Mid-modern as a, you know, very. Provolent style. I mean, things like Echo Hill, which wasn't at the first planned. The community and I don't know, Massachusetts. There's the first, like, yeah, like ecological, you plan. Yeah. I mean, there's all sorts of things that. Send up red flags in terms of what's important. Yeah. Yeah. I guess I'm drawing the distinction between like. There's, in my mind, there's just other tools and I don't. I think it's. I do agree that Echo Hill and, you know, some mid-modern homes and Amherst are. Architecturally significant and, and, you know, Don't want to see them all vanish, but. You know, I think I'm also just thinking practically too about like. The amount of building permits that come through town hall for all sorts of projects and. No, we get that. That's yeah. Yeah. And it's just, I'm trying to find a balance, I guess. I understand that. And I'd say we just need more, more information in the recommendation. I think before I'd be willing to vote on, I mean, maybe everybody else is happy with it as it is. And I think it should include something about public information about this issue so that, because we've talked about people who have barns wanting to find a way to let people know that barns are significant and shouldn't be taken down and should be cared for and not, you know, demolition through neglect, you know, something we're concerned about. And I mean, the same thing, same thing applies to these, these houses, people don't realize that they're becoming. Architecturally. You know, interesting. Be the word, right? How does everybody feel? I think the idea of more clarity is, is important. If we were to consider the 75 years. And I think there's an addendum here about. Structures wouldn't be included in this, but somehow they have to be addressed. You think about the fences that we've, you know, taken a look at in town and. Well, that's a separate, that's a separate. Yeah, but there is, you know, that, that fences and stone walls, the gazebos, et cetera, wouldn't be, they'd be excluded from structures. So that doesn't mean that we wouldn't take a look at them and, and, and weigh in on a decision. But, but you can't just remove them without having a category of. Well, but we need to get to the second one. Talk about that. That's number two. Right. My only other comment is that. So even if we move to 75 years and. Use the preservation plan for the. The gap between 1575 years. That also changes every year. So. Yeah. You know, the scope of identifying buildings would be older than 15 and do it in five year increments or something so that. However, that would be addressed because otherwise every year. You might have buildings slipping by that are. Not being recognized. Yeah, there'd have to be something in place to regularly update. And so. Yeah, I mean, some, some communities use 50, some use 75 years. Other communities used just pick a point in time. Like pre-World War II or pre. 1900. Either way, it's going to move. And if we're going to make a list of ones that don't come under demolition delay, we need to have a method. Yeah. Today. Yeah. I would say I'd like to put that one on hold. And maybe before their meeting, if everybody's comfortable with it, you could run language bias. If that's the only one and we need to look at the others. And if we all agree, maybe. I don't know. I guess it's not a public meeting. If we do a vote by email. So can't really do that, but. Yeah. Let's see where we get with some of the other recommendations. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Speaking of which Pat brought up number two when we were talking about number one. It's a. Yeah. Hey, hey. And this is we, we have. We talked about this a quite a bit when we were writing it. And that's why we took the word structures out and put the word building everywhere. So I'm surprised even that this came up. Because we were very careful about that. Yeah. So we. Oh wait, refresh my memory. I thought, sorry, maybe I worded this weirdly, but I, I'm, I'm proposing that we continue to. Review fences and stone walls and gazebos. That that's how I see what you're saying. Yeah. I would say. I would. I would say that we're putting it back. Yeah. It's hard to read that way. Okay. Yeah. I saw it as being excluded. And then where would we weigh in on it? So. I misread it, Ben. Yeah. Where it structures back in and to the definition. Yeah. In the current by law proposal. It's the. I'll show you actually the. Yeah. We try to be really consistent all the way throughout too. But if you look at the definition of building. The word building shall include the word structure. And then if you go down to structure. It's any edifice object or building of any kind that has constructed or erected and requires more or less permanent location on the ground. Or attachment to an object. So that would include your fences, stone walls, gazebos, that of the like. So without my, yeah, I guess I worded it weirdly. I meant to say, you know, if we did want to reduce the number of applications, we could exclude structures from the definition of building. However, I don't think we actually get that many applications anyway. So I think it's fine to just keep that as is. Yeah. A few times we have gotten fences and things. They really were a significant. Yeah. Brick and iron and, you know, very historic. So. Okay. So that takes care of that. Pat, are you happy with. I'm happy with that. I misread it. Yeah, I did too. Yeah, I'm happy with it. Thank you for clarifying Ben. And as long as we're asking you for more detail on number one, maybe you could clarify that in the memo is when we're voting. We have the, everybody's clear what you mean. Okay. Okay. For three. The demolition. Part that talks about how much of it is considered demolition. Sorry, my cat is settling in against the monitor. So this is something we've talked about at nauseam. How much, whether it's a percentage, whether it's specific features, whether it includes more than the front. And you're suggesting that these things. Should or should not be. And again, it's a little hard to read what you mean. So the. Proposed by law includes the definition of demolition. That's, you know, total complete demolition. Partial demolition, which is 25% or more of anyone facade. And then. This part, part C, which is the removal or modification of important architectural features. So obviously currently the bylaw, it's really mostly focused on total demolition. We do look at some like, I would say major partial demolitions, which, you know, like, you know, large re-orditions, for example, that are being taken down. So I guess my first point is I think even this 25% or more. Definition would add, you know, a good amount of work to just application. It would apply to more projects because, you know, 25%. I think it's a lot of other communities use that. And I think it's a good way to capture some major, you know, demolition projects. My concern is mostly about the important architectural features, which is part C of the definition. And really, you know, I think, you know, you know, just thinking about the, you know, again, because we're, you know, if we're keeping the age of the threshold at 50 years, that's suddenly, you know, I don't know, 80% of the homes in Amherst, anytime they are, you know, removing trim windows, siding, roofing, chimney work, that kind of stuff, it would at least get to my desk. And I think it's just, you know, a lot of work to be flagged by the permit administrator, which is, you know, added work for them. And then it would get to my desk to determine significance in conjunction with, you know, the chairperson of the commission. And just wanting to be cautious just about the amount of. Added work that could cause and really is it accomplishing the amount of work that's being done. Because it. Yeah, it just seems like it would. There's maybe better tools for, for really focusing on the preservation of these finer details for some homes that, that rise to that level. Because in a way it's really, it's, you know, turning the whole town into a local historic district in some, in some respects. So the way that you have it worded, I think what's confusing is it makes it sound like. A is total B is partial and C is all. It sounds like adding partial. And that is the 25%. It's the same thing as what you just said above. 25% or more. So you're saying that you would leave, but you would take away just see the. Yeah, I'll go. Yeah. So here are the three parts. So total destruction of entire building. Obviously that makes sense. And any act of pulling down destroying 25% of any facade. I think that's fine. I think that'll be effective in capturing a lot. Of projects and then it's really see that. And so I guess. Again, your paragraph needs. Needs explanation, because you just say adding would add, would add to the number of applications. And then again, adding this would add to the number of activations, but you're not saying which one is okay and which one isn't. You see what I mean. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So we have concerns specifically over part C, the, the important architectural features. Okay. Okay. So a recommendation. Say part C. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I guess that's what we meant by important details. But yeah, I can clarify that. But the important architectural features are modified by being on. The inventory, right? We went back. Yeah. So it's not. It's not for every single building. In town, it would be only for those that we identify as particularly significant base. I would argue that. Important architectural features or what, you know, I keep getting drilled into my head and classes. They're, they're character defining. They're what, you know, they're, they're, they're essential elements to their historical integrity. So I'm. Given that there's that modifier that we've already identified the building. In the inventory is one that we have particular eyes on. I'd be uncomfortable with. Removing that. Since it's really linked to. The very reason they're on that list to begin with. But there is a good point that we don't really have much teeth. With a delay. Right. Which is part of what they're saying. Right. So the preservation plan, if we use it, right, I'm just not sure. That's why I was asking for clarification. I'm not sure exactly how this preservation plan is going to work to deter. These changes. Right. Or taking down a 1960s house for that matter. Yeah. So obviously I kind of split apart recommendations three and four. And I'm just not sure what that is. I'm just not sure what that is. Because one is just. In general, this idea of looking at important architectural features. And then number four is more about. The emers inventory and kind of what that might look like. And, and yes, that could be used as a filter, but I just, I guess I just have concerns that if we're. So we've gone back and forth. The emers inventory might just be what's on Macris. But even so, I think. Macris has 1400 properties on it. Not all of which are. Significant. To be honest, you know, there's a lot of just. You know, homes that have been inventoried and no one's really taken a close look at whether they're. Actually historically significant or have architectural significance. So I guess I just thought a tool. All that is, is a resource. It doesn't actually create any kind of process by which anybody consults Macris or uses. Yeah. Limit people's activities. Yeah. So I guess my concern was like just putting the cart before the horse a little bit like. Where we don't have an inverse inventory yet. But if we're using that as a modifier for this part C. And I guess. Then I would just prefer to see the inventory developed first and then decide if. Part C is worth adding in. Or put it in and then it's worth taking out. It would be easier to take it out later if we have the inventory to replace it. And see how it goes. How many of those are we going to get? I mean, I really think it's easier to start with too much and then lighten it than to go back and add more. Limitations. In terms of getting people to vote a man. You know. Unless you think it won't pass because of that. Yeah, I mean, there was definitely a concern about at the CRC meeting about how this plays with the 75 to 50 year threshold. Just. You know, they're looking at these two levers and. Just the amount of, of work load. So. I don't know that there could like ultimately, you know, the CRC and the town council, they're the elected body and they, they get to make the final. I mean, say, I guess if you will, so they can always make changes right up to the last second and then, and then vote a final bylaw. So. The. I do think there was some concerns in there. You know, there's a. A good chance at least some, some of this could be modified or wouldn't be modified. But. Yeah, I mean, you know, I think. I think the preservation plan would definitely. A strong focus of that work that the consultants doing for us will be looking at the, you know, inventory of historic buildings in town and also recommending other tools for how to more effectively. Preserve those structures. And. Write something into the bylaw that says that. That's something like this. So. Option could be. Could eventually be removed once the preservation plan is written and. Implemented with. No tools. Put it right into the bylaw so that then it would be easy to go back and say, okay, we have a functioning preservation plan. We have a process by which it can. Help us keep things from being. You know, demolished or modified. So we're now going to. You know, strike. Say, you know, section C. And it could literally still be on the books with a, you know, a vote to line right through it. Or something. But it would still be there if we needed it. Yeah. I have a question about that part. If it remains in the bylaw, is there an obligation then to carry out what it says? Yeah. Until we decided to remove it. So if we say that eventually be, then we would go back before all these bodies, however many you need to just modify. A paragraph in a bylaw. Maybe it's not as many. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. If we. Prepared for. In the original writing. We're now at the point where this. Can be removed. And we no longer will. You know. Yeah. I understand that. But what I'm, I guess what I'm asking is if, if I have a house. That was built in 1950. And I want to replace the windows. Is this bylaw going to require me to go before that. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know how to process. My understanding is right now. You'd have to submit. Your application. And then the. Staff. And what the one. Member would look and decide whether it needs to be reviewed. Okay. Okay. Yeah, thank you. I just wanted to understand the. How this will work if we leave it in. As long as it looks just like the other windows or doesn't change. It's not going to change. It's not going to change. It's not going to change. And they don't need the whole commission to make that decision. Is that your understanding then. Yeah. So basically. Any small change like that would. First need to be, they, you know, a building permit is required for that. So you'd submit a building or your contractor would submit a building permit. And then that would be flagged by someone in town hall, the permit administrator. So that would be a, you know, the property and see if it's historically significant or if the. Window change would, you know, it's considered removal of important architectural feature. And. Either then decide to send it to the commission or then to just approve it. But again, you know, you multiply that by potentially, you know, five a week or something. And it's. That's like potentially three or four hours of work right there. So. I'm sorry. Right. I, I am, I'm thinking as Jan is that we don't remove that now. It's easier to remove something. If we find that it is, it's not no longer necessary than it is to put back in, you know, it looks like it's a change that's. It's a change that's being made. It's a change that's being moved as opposed to returning. So I, I. I would like to see it continue to be part of the. Plan. How do y'all feel about wording within the by-law that says that this could be removed in the future. Do we need to word that in the by-law? Jim. I don't know. It's just a thought. I don't know that we say that it could be removed, but I don't know that it could be removed in the future. I'm just saying that to, to, to suggest that the preservation plan. Could replace the function with that, whatever is going to go with the preservation plan as an actual function. Whatever that's going to be, could replace this. It could replace some other things too. But until it's up and running. We need to, you know, protect. And I'm just saying that this is something that may eventually. Replace it. Then we see that coming, but, but we haven't taken it out of the by-law for the time being. Right. But I, I, I would. If we say anything at all, I would say that this. This section will be reviewed. In the future. So it's a whole essay. I'm just suggesting that the preservation. To be bulked up before we. Right. Right. And I, I'm of that mind because. The whole point is to preserve. What is and be rational and reasonable about it. And so if we start removing aspects of review. We've already put in things into this new revision that. We'll allow just one member of the historical commission. And, and. The planning department to review it and to see where it goes. So I think we've, we've streamed by doing that. We've already streamlined it a little bit. Well, that's the fifth point we have to still consider. Cause that's not allowed apparently. Oh. Wait till we get there. Sorry about that. I'll keep jumping ahead. No, it's okay. I mean, it just goes to show you how interconnected all this is. So it is, it's very. Yeah. I mean, I guess can I just pose a question? Like, in what circumstances would you actually get to the point of putting a demolition delay on someone. Replacing their windows or putting, you know, the demolition delay. I mean, I think it's a good thing to have a new trim on like a mid century house. And like, I guess I just the amount of, I guess I just the amount of time and effort it takes to get. To that point potentially. I guess I'm just, I don't know. I guess I'm just curious. Generally. I've seen a lot of buildings that are. Have like large. You know, I mean, just with double hung vinyl clad windows. Yeah. And I mean, just changing the shape, sometimes recutting the shape happens or, you know, cheap things that don't have the same kind of pains or whatever. Okay. I mean, I think it's a good thing to be significant to matter obviously. I have a friend right now who lives in a. Old. They're beautifully taken care of old. Just what we even call it. Probably a great revival farmhouse. And they're looking at replacing their windows. And the cost of. Good window replacement is. Exorbitant. And. You know, I mean, I talked to her, I said, you know, I said, if you take old windows out, stick them in the basement, at least. Because, you know, they, they could be restored, but I mean, it really got me thinking about like, you know. There really is this question of, of, you know, the difference between the district and, you know, these scattered houses all over the place. I mean, their house, because of the exceptional way that they take care of their house, it makes it, if you looked at it, you'd say, Oh yeah, that's actually pretty significant. I mean, they have the original, or, you know, semi-original wood storms. And I mean, they're beautiful old windows. And what they really need is CPA money. You know, to, if they were to, you know, want to restore them and, and then they were, they could be made highly functional and well insulated with, you know, but it was like $1,000 a window. So it is considered a personal. Property and CPA money. We're arguing about whether that can even go to it. Oh, well, I mean, we determined that it can. That's, that's clear. But, I mean, that, you know, that, that becomes this kind of proactive. I mean, would it, would a demolition delay? Would a demolition hearing allow for us to let them know about this resource or is it just the whole point of the delay or, or is it two owners, both for homeowners and staff. To have this kind of, and that, you know, I'm really kind of stuck between the two because I'm heartbroken that they're going to take these windows out. And at the same time, you know, what are, what are the choices for a homeowner and, and then, you know, that makes the point about just the volume across town. I mean, it really is more, you know, I mean, in that, in that case, I think we should just work towards, you know, having an outbuilding of, you know, window restoration and something like that, you know, fund or promotion of CPA funds for that purpose. If that's what we want to see happen. Is, is there another way to protect these architectural features? I don't know enough about this to know. So that's why I'm asking the question. I mean, there's, there's a limited number of tools in our arsenal, but if you will, the demo, this bylaw is one of them. But the, again, that can only be a delay of one year. I think, if there are cluster of homes, and actually that's not true, there can be a single building local historic district. So local historic district is, you know, I guess, you know, like the Dickinson Museum is in a local historic district. And there's a whole different commission, the local historic district commission that reviews in excruciating detail every exterior architectural change to homes that are in the local historic district. So you can put a local historic district around one building, for example, like the conky house, for example, or a cluster of buildings, like what we have in the Lincoln sunset neighborhood. And then every architectural change made to those buildings would be reviewed and needed approval of the local historic district commission. So again, I mean, that was my suggestion rather than casting this net town wide and reviewing every architectural change on the entire town. To be more proactive and identify which properties are, really we don't want to see lose those architectural details and put those in the local historic district. Because I think we already have the infrastructure set up for that with the local historic district commission. And again, they can completely outright reject the someone removing their architectural features if they were to strip a house of historic windows or it's not just a one way. But the commission that the local district has to be approved by the council, right? Yep. Yeah, you can't just snap your fingers. Well, the whole story. And it takes a lot of work. So, you know, on the one hand, you've got a demolition delay that maybe doesn't stop anything, but, you know, gives you a chance for a conversation. Whereas the local historic district takes a lot of effort to to kind of get the impetus behind actually seeing that one is valid and then going through the process and getting approved. So they're, they're, they're different kind of tools, but I mean, you know, I think, you know, like in the case of my friend's house, you know, you don't really see the having you do who see it from the road when you drive by, but, you know, is that, is that enough, you know, to put that burden on, on, on the town staff and on, on homeowners across town to. And then that also raises. How would the preservation plan provide another tool that could be used? So, there's no clear way that that's going to actually contribute to this solution. Right. Well, I think that's the focus of the preservation plan is really kind of inventor, you know, looking backwards at what, you know, all the efforts of preservation efforts to date and then kind of looking at where we're at now and where we go and providing tools and recommendations and, you know, projects and implementation guidelines for really how we can, you know, improve preservation efforts in town. So, but it's all still pie in the sky is what I'm saying. It's not there yet. So that's why I guess we've all been saying all these things sound good, but none of them can replace section C yet. Right. Yeah, I just don't think part C is. Without the Amherst inventory in place, it's hard to know. I don't really understand what part C is, I guess, and. Yeah, great. Because it. I mean, ultimately, I think. Reading I'm going to go to the bio for a second. When you look at how this is worded for buildings listed on the Amherst inventory of historic buildings accepted by vote of the commission and updated periodically. I think part C actually wouldn't come into effect until there is an Amherst inventory that's accepted by a vote of the commission. Right. And that's cool. That's what I'm saying is the inventory doesn't provide the tool. The bylaw provides a tool how to use the inventory. It's the other way around. And this is where the inventory. Has teeth. Otherwise it just sits there. It's like that Chris. Yeah. You see what I mean? Yeah, I guess I just. My concern is that the inventory grows to. You know, thousands of properties or something. Well, but it doesn't have to. It doesn't have to. Yeah. Your house isn't on it. So you wouldn't have to worry about your windows. Right. Unless it's. Unless it's going to be the 75 year thing, but even then it's not listed on the inventory. So that. Partial features, the architectural features aren't part of that concern. So, okay. So I just want to make sure I understand this because this is different when I read part C. If I've got a house that's. 80 years old. Okay. And I'm going to replace the windows and. And maybe a back porch that's rotten. I'm going to replace the windows. I'm going to replace the windows. And for some reason it's not on the inventory. Does this not apply to me then. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, not for the modifying of the architecture. Okay. Okay. Okay. That's, I didn't. Thank you. Yeah. That's helpful. And that's why I think personally. I think it's needed in order to make the inventory function. So Jane, did you want to take that? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know what it says. Well. Why don't I do that after we finish this item? Cause I. I don't want to. I don't want to undo something that. I've already covered. I don't know. We totally balled it up so much that you can't. We're on number five of the recommendations. And then we'll talk about those and then maybe we can figure out what exactly we want to do. So the last one. Can I use the problem with having the two people make this determination, both staff and commission member. Right. Do you mind? I'm sorry. I just said I didn't want to, but I would like to actually make a comment on, on this last one. If there is. No Amherst inventory right now of historic buildings. We've got a couple of, we've got. At least three ways that I can think of. To. To start one. According to the provision of section C, where we, where we approve it and update it periodically. So we could. Go to macros and select. You know, 200 buildings or, you know, 500 buildings that we are certain where we are certain that. They are identified correctly in macros. There's also a list. At the back of the original preservation plan. And then third is. We could have a reasonable inventory. That would make. Part C. Implementable. So. So that we wouldn't. I mean, I guess I'm a little. Uncertain that a gradual. That approval. That gradual approval of. Different pieces of a bylaw is. You know, the best way to go. I mean, in a way, I'd rather have an inventory to start with so that we can. Activate the mechanism and see how it functions. Yeah. Well, what we've been talking about is that there is no. Activation yet. And we don't exactly know how it's going to work. And so we were just being cautious about taking something out of the bylaw. Right. Because the proposal is basically to remove that whole section C. Before we know what's going to replace that. Or what's how that's going to work. You know, to actually. Say take away the whole question of architectural features. But if, if we were to do an inventory and, and Jane, your suggestions about how to organize that. And in an immediate way. Are well said. Then. We, I don't know whether you were here as part of the discussion, but part C actually. Gives us. If there is an inventory. Gives gives us. An opportunity to act on those properties. Specifically. So. Maybe at another meeting, we need to talk about how we can implement. Organizing the inventory. And I think that could be done through our committee. I think it could be done through CPA money to hire someone to do that, to review the macros. And, and, and select those properties that are most historic. And that's, that's for another discussion, but I'm, I'm opposed to removing. See right now. So that's where we stand at the moment. So let's talk about five and then. Yeah. All of the other sort of hanging in the balance at the moment, since they're all interconnected, and then maybe we'll decide where we want to come down. Everybody good with that? Yep. Yeah. So the. A little more straightforward. Because it's a legal problem. Yeah. Do you want me to explain this one? Yeah, go ahead. Yeah. So basically. I think what I want to do is to have. A smaller group, whether it's, you know, staff and a commission member to commission members. Some smaller group. Make this determination of significance. They'd be authorized by the commission to do that. In talking with our town's attorney. We've determined that the, or he confirmed that. The commission would then be considered a subcommittee of the historical commission. And would there therefore be subject to open meeting law, which means they would have to, you know, post their meeting, you know, Take minutes. It'll be open to the public. And so the whole idea was to be able to kind of make a quick determination of significance and. Not need to convene. The commission. And in this case, it would be, it wouldn't be convening the full commission, but it would be. Convening. You know, at least one other member potentially. So. And it would require 48 hours notice. It would kind of, you know, there's just steps to take that, you know, to post it in the town's calendar. It all, it seems simple, but, you know, it becomes complicated and. With open meeting law. So. That was a surprise and definitely kind of put some, a wrench in some of our plans. Cause again, cause if this is to be. A subcommittee, then these. What I'm still going to call a lot of more applications that are coming through the pipeline. Are. Now required to convene a meeting posted on the town's calendar. And. As opposed to just, you know, someone like myself or the chair of the commission just quickly researching it and, and making a determination. So. It kind of just exacerbate some of the other. Issues. That increased the workload. So. Our recommendation was that. The authority to make this determination of significance is not necessarily vested in either one staff person or one commission member. But the town's attorney said it's okay for that. Designee to then consult with other people. One other person. To make the determination. But ultimately, if it's, if it's the. That one individual. Who has the authority to make the decision rather than a group who has the authority to make the decision. It's okay for the. For that person to. To not need to hold the public meeting for them to make that decision. So. But again, I think that creates some issues because. I liked the idea of it being a group of staff and commission members. Rather than. Just really investing that power into one. Person. And I know folks on the CRC and the planning board also appreciated having more collaboration. So. Yeah, it's just, again, we, this news came to us just like early last week. So we're still kind of like scratching our heads like, oh geez. Wrapping our heads around what it, what the implications are, but. Yeah, I think. Yeah. Yeah. I just wanted to say that perhaps one could set up a standing meeting. At a regular interval. That's always. That's no, you know, publicly announced. There will be every two weeks at this time on this day. This meeting between these two people. And then. The minutes are literally like what each one, this, this place, this address, sort of like the note. Was not sent for review. This address was sent for review. And that's it. Because we have to record anyway of each one. And. It's open to the public, but I mean. If somebody has, you know, skin in the game, I mean, because it's their places. I mean, yeah, they could possibly. Ask that they could be included in that meeting, but they're not. We're gonna have to do it in a week or two. It's just. It's just, it's gonna take an hour or whatever it is. Notification. But that work. You still have to do the 48 hour notice and the posting and all. I mean, I, I haven't been on, on the staff side of that. Still, it's still a lot of work. But I mean, it would just always be the case. It would always. You know, I understand. But you still have to do it for eight hour thing. You know, you know, you know, meetings happen every month in Greenfield, but you always had to, you know, post the notice for them. That's just part of the process. So it doesn't really eliminate that, that aspect. It would just roll over. Yeah. I mean, it definitely, it would make the scheduling easier just to know that it's, we're going to have that. Where is it published? It's published in the paper and online. Right. Yeah. I guess this is a public meeting. Yeah. So that would really just be in the town's calendar. Yeah. So that would just be, you know, whoever does the calendar would know that always. On these days, this time that needs to be put in, you know, I don't know. I just thought that would maybe make it easier because I'm not comfortable with either one staff member or one commissioner making all the decisions either. I think that's, it's onerous and it also puts us, but so much responsibility that. You know, I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would be a good idea. I think that would end up getting a lot of heat if they, if something came up. Yeah. Well, I consulted with the others and then people say, oh, but she broke the open meeting law or whatever. Yeah. Yeah. I did. I did also suggest a provision that the. Designee could request that the full commission. Take on the responsibility of making that determination. If it's a. And doing all along. Yeah. But for, I think, if it's a commission, then they could kick it on to the, kick it back to the full commission to. Yeah. Well, that was agreed to, you know, anytime somebody felt like they, either the two people didn't agree or there was. Yeah. You wanted the other members, but it doesn't really protect whoever it is from something they thought was no problem. And it comes out later. The neighbors go ballistic, you know. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. At the. At the CRC meeting. My, and at the. Plan board meeting also. My impression was that. Both. Bodies. Really preferred to have more people involved. And I. So I don't. I don't know that this. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. That the council would approve this particular. Proposal. But, you know, if we can't do something like this, then we're kind of back where we started with. Our current. Our current procedures. I think. If. If we tried to. I suppose the designee should be. The chair to address. The kind of citizen input. Piece of this. On the other hand. Well here, tell me if this would work then. If the designee is the staff person and the staff person consults with. The chair or another member of the commission. Or would that person also consult individually with. Another member of the commission. Yeah, I was thinking that some of this parsing of what staff and what's commission and therefore what's public meeting. It's really big. Yeah, I think. So like almost the game of telephone. Kind of. Yeah. There would not like the staff person would be the point. Yeah. I mean, I think. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I think. There are sometimes instances where I'll email out, you know, does this require a public hearing? Yeah. I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, I mean, there are some instances where I'll email out, you know, does this require a public hearing? And then I said, don't respond. Don't reply at all. Just let me know. So it's not like a deliberation. So I guess. Something like that could work. But again, I guess I just caution, you know, we're talking. Without any of the changes recommended, like. I think like, you know, I think we're going to be able to make quicker decisions. You know, maybe three, four or five, maybe more applications per week, just for all these things. So it's like, you know, the idea was to be able to just be able to make quicker decisions for the really straightforward ones and then. Convene. A group as needed, I think, for maybe more complicated projects. But. I want to be able to do. My homework and look into these and make sure it's, I'm not missing something. So. I guess they're not as quick as I might make them out to be, but. Well, I mean, it could be both. We could say, okay, the staff member consulting with individual commission members as needed. And then if it doesn't work out, maybe we could try the thing of the regular meeting. You know, where we do have a designated commission member. So. So the. Will this ultimately be decided by the council? Yeah, I think the CRC will probably make a. Recommendations. That their next meeting or the one after that. And then the town council will. You know, would. You know, I think that the CRC recommends and then they can always make amendments to the. By-law at their final meeting. Okay. But I think, yeah, I feel like something like this last section is. It would be good to iron out. Cause I don't know if the CRC. They're not as involved in the mechanics of like the. By-law. And so they'd probably look to the commission to. Yeah. Well, I think. I sort of think our position should be. What is most functional? Yeah. I mean, because a lot of this. By-law rewrite is, is. Is to create efficiency. And we can. We can, you know, our position can be. Like this because it is most efficient and most functional. And then if there's. You know, significant concern about that, then. That has to be opposed to us, I guess. So you're saying that you would. Go ahead with the recommendation is listed there. And what, if they don't think it will work, let them come up with an alternative. Yeah. And, you know, I think, you know, Ben, it's right, but this, this news is all. Brand new. So there's hasn't, there hasn't been a lot of time to. Think about alternatives. And. There may be other. There may be other committees and commissions that have to deal with something. That are similar and it hasn't. Gone to them yet. So that. You know, if they have a. If, if, if somebody's going to have a better idea, we don't have the, quite the benefit of. Just copying them. Quite yet. Maybe I'm then changed the wording on the second line. When it says to encourage the designee to consult with the other person. The commission members as needed. Maybe instead of that and the parent, parenthetical phrase after to say to consult with the commission members as needed. Individual commission members as needed. Does that make. Clear maybe. Yeah. And that way we are stating, I mean, I think everybody pretty much agrees that the staff member should be the one. Who's the hub, right? I don't know. I don't agree with that. I think if it's a member of the. Well, this is sort of a two-part thing. Yeah. If it's a member of the commission, we consult with another member, then we're getting into the. Issue. Yeah. Got it. Okay. Yeah, I guess I, in other towns. I think in North Hampton, for example, they wrote, they, they're by a lot. They have the option. They can do all three essentially they can determine significance of a person. They can do it. They can do it as a subcommittee at a public meeting. Or they can designate. Authority to one person to make that determination. And so they. But I think in talking to Sarah, my. Colleague over there, she. She said that they almost always just do it out of public hearing because they, one, they don't get as many applications because they just know that there's, there would be, they would get flack if they weren't doing it in a public. For them. So. Again, I think because we have. More applications coming. A public hearing wouldn't be. Practical. Even meeting. Yeah. Public meeting. It would be, you know, almost meeting every other week or something. So. Okay. Well, is everybody comfortable with five bits rewritten that way? I think if it's rewritten that way and if, and if it's. Legally appropriate. Yes. Okay. Hey, we got one. Yeah. Okay. So, um, Jane, just to bring you up today on number one, um, changing the threshold from 50 to 75. Um, we talked about it a long time and we'd like more. More information in the recommendation. More. Specific steps to take that would. Help the preservation plan. Function. To ensure preservation. So. I can't remember what the points were anymore. It was, um, I'm not sure that there's public information that goes out that lets people know that they're there. The age of their house is at or over the threshold. That, um, We come up with some sort of. Signifiers of what is significant about making mid modern architecture so that we can start to identify them with some definitions rather than just higgledy-piggledy. So, um, We talked about the fact, or at least I talked about the fact that everybody agreed that this is pushing. This is just going to keep pushing. If every time you change it to a longer time, it's going to just keep pushing the problem forward. Um, and that at some point, you can't just go to a hundred twenty five hundred fifty hundred seventy five. We need to draw a line. Um, I don't know how the recommendation would actually function. I guess. I'm trying to remember. It was a half an hour ago. And, and was there, uh, Agreement to increase the age threshold or. Where is that pending? It's pending seeing exactly how this would work. How the preservation plan would ensure preservation. It's kind of vague, you know, using that process. What is the process and how would it help ensure their preservation? That's what's unclear. I think the preservation plan would recommend tools to implement. To. To accomplish those goals. I guess we need to see that before we could approve the recommendation. We did agree on number two, though. So actually. We only have three outstanding at this point and number three. For our link. So we're not doing. Um, and then three and four was what, you know, what, when you came in talking about section C. And, um, how the Amherst inventory could. Help deal with these important architectural features. And again, it was unclear exactly how we're going to get that inventory up and running and how it's going to become a tool. Okay. So thank you. The only thing I'll say about. Number one, the age threshold is, um, nearly everyone who spoke at the CRC meeting. Uh, was concerned about that. Um, and I think this bylaw is likely to. Go to the council for action before the preservation plan is. Um, I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. I think it's a good question. It is in place. So the people who spoke, you're saying like public comment, people of homeowners who had houses that are that old or the people who were members of the. Members of the. Of the CRC. Okay. And. Um, So I did discuss the, the. Mid-century architecture piece and sort of brought on. It's a sort of a, it's a sort of a, a, a sort of a sort of a sort of a mass, which of course we wouldn't review anyway, but, um, But, you know, when push comes to show about the 50 year threshold. And I, I looked this up recently in historic preservation literature and maybe. Maybe Robin, you. Have more information about this. Um, basically it is. Historic preservation tradition. Yeah, 50 years. Yeah, and it's not. Unfortunately, there's not a whole lot of underpinning specific rationale underpinning for the 50 years. Well, there are towns that have gone to 75 because we've been talking about this for seven years and we looked at the list of those that had. But I still think we're kicking the can down the road because, you know, just keep it eventually we're going to pick up this building boom in Amherst, with the houses that come under the definition of modern and they aren't all track terms there are significant ones and if we could put them into a list. As you were, you know, mentioning, then, then that could become a tool but at the moment it's not a tool it's an idea and I just have had too much experience on the commission to see this actually happening quickly and being useful. You know what I, and Ben is aware of this. We had a conversation about North Pleasant Street months back and how many of those buildings homes are historically significant. And so, Hedy and I were appointed a subcommittee, which we just found out that we were unnecessary because of the the sunset Lincoln. So I'm going to go to South Whitney local historic district. Yeah, commission, thank you. And, and, and so, but what I did was to inventory all of the homes along North Pleasant Street from CBS to the end of Kendra Park. So, and most of those homes have a name. They have an architecture listed a macros. I pulled macros and I pulled the assessor's cards. And so that would be a place to, I mean that's an easy place to start in terms of inventorying historic buildings. Those are older that's 50 years. Excuse me. Those are older than 50 years though. They're older than 50 years. They're, they're, they go back to the late, you know, 1700s 1800s. What I'm saying is they, they don't, that's not the concern. Those are going to be covered anyway. The concern is with things that were built in the 60s and 70s. I don't understand what you're saying, Jim, but you know what it, I'm, I'm reverting back to the idea of an inventory. I'm not a macros, but they're not on, they're not on an Amherst inventory. And, and, and Ben was very kind after I got all of this and I had trouble transmitting it digitally to copy all of my hard copy because I downloaded it. So, you know, that, that in and of itself would be a core to an Amherst inventory. And I know that that local historic district did some of the houses on the side streets. I think I'm at now. And so, so, you know, and I would imagine that the Dickinson, Dickinson, whatever that historic district has called, I would imagine that there are macros properties on those properties. And so if, if those were all to be pulled, that could be the beginning of, of the Amherst inventory that that would go back to Part C or whatever we're talking about. Yeah, yeah. Well, isn't that in that list that's attached to the preservation plan. I don't know. I didn't start with that. I just, when, when, when I offered to assist the sunset Lincoln, South Whitney local historic district, I decided that the best way to do that was to go on macros and to go on the assessment, the assessments card for all of those properties on, on, on my pleasant. And, and so I would imagine that we could do that for the Dickinson we could do that for East Amherst we could do that for, for the Lincoln sunset, South Whitney, and, and immediately have an inventory. Great. Yeah, I'm trying to say something. So I was just going to try to see if I could summarize what I think is the issue here, which is that we have this that essentially moving to 75 years threshold is a way of managing volume. And that we do have, I'm thinking of. As Jan mentioned to echo Hill there's the, the neighborhoods on East Pleasant Street into the small branch communities out there and you've got or Churchill I think that's another big one. This is this is the concern. Obviously those that we have this volume of, of properties that are historic, but aren't necessarily significant like that's, that's the issue and how we develop this process to not overwhelm both the commission and the town. So, well said. Yeah, so. And then the other piece of this is that we have a preservation consultant to presumably could be advising us on is going to be advising us on, on how to best develop our inventory. So that'll be, we'll get the direction from them. And so I'm still stuck on this 50 to 75 years because I agree with, with Jane that 50 years seems to be the historic preservation standard. But, Jan I was going to ask you for the communities that had 75% did they move from a fixed date to 75. I'm wondering if it's unusual to, to move backwards from 50 to 75. To go from something that's a little more restrictive to less restrictive. You mean from 75 to 50. Now that would be more restrictive right. Going from 75 to 50 would create more properties that you have to deal with so that would be more. Yeah, and they've, I think that move among those was to go from 50 to 75. And that just took just to make management. Exactly what we're talking about. Yeah, I think Robin captured it well kind of the crux of the issue and I don't think we need to do this. I think this will be problematic. I think I had Rob and someone in my office like crunch the numbers on how many permits this would capture just in a given month we went back to, I think somewhere pre pandemic just to get a sense. And it was, you know, it was it was hard to really calculate because not everything requires a building permit but you know it was definitely like, you know, a handful a week that would be captured and that's, you know, a significant increase then, and what we have now and the goal was to make this a bit more streamlined so that's why I was offering some tweaks that could cut filter out that volume whether it's 50 to 75 or looking at this part C of demolition. Because, again, I mean I did. I just want to be able to implement this effectively not just be swamped by applications and dread dread. 10 years or even in five years are you going to change it again because 75 in what three years is going to be 1950. And then are you going to push it to 80. Or are you going to hire more staff. You know, we're not going to hire more. Yeah, I don't think we'll hire more staff I mean that's I'm also suggesting we could just pick a point in time and say, say before that and not have to change it every few years. That's defining historic as a style and not allowing that modern to be considered significant. This is where I just. I mean it's maybe not a problem to change it every five years it's easier to change a general bylaw than it's only changing it five years is doing the same thing it's continually trying to keep those houses from being considered significant. I mean, I think that I mean I think I with an effective review I think I would be comfortable with the idea that the 50 to five 50 to 75. The year, you know, town inventory is is reviewed for sick for significance. I mean if you can do that. You determine which properties are significant you're kind of done. Right, that we've determined that for everything, then don't just have a list of properties then right. I mean if you're going to do it for the things that are between 50 and 75 years old why not everything that's older than 50 that's a smaller and they're probably already on the preservation plan and macros or whatever. Why have the years that you're going to have an inventory. It's two separate tools but there, there's really no reason to divide things by year that I'm guessing because getting a fully functioning inventory at all times would be challenging but getting a functioning inventory for those 25 years might be more possible and manageable. And the older, you know the older, you get the more. I don't know the more significant something might attain less. You might have, you know, examples of it within within the landscape. I mean I'm just trying to find, you know, the, like the town's sweet spot for being able to manage. I agree with you. The manage and that. I just think we're working with a double standard as well. I mean it's a little bit like identifying whether 50 years or less I mean that exists on the national level that you can, I think you can nominate something for the register. That's outside of the guidelines if you can establish, you know, it's significant so if you've got, you know, a Frank Erie building and it's 49 years old. If somebody wants to tear down or you know whatever. I mean that there is a precedent for that kind of model. So I guess I'm more comfortable with it in that regard if that's what town needs to do in order to make this manageable for for all of us. I mean, the question is really, it's really comes down to this matter of significance I think sometimes we get stuck on historic, and if you put a lot more weight on the significance of something. It really eliminates, you know, a lot of the properties that are in town, you know, they're historic, but they're, you know, significant they might not have a heavy argument for their significance. Right. Well, we need to wrap this up. So, are we. So we've decided that the final one. We know how to deal with that. The second one, we're okay with no change this this three and four, we're wanting to leave part C for the moment. Is that what I got from the general discussion. Right. Wow. Number one, we have no, no real agreement. I don't think I guess to clarify for number three and four it's, it's leaving it as it is, but I guess committing to developing this Amherst inventory and part C will only come into effect once the inventory is adopted and accepted. Yeah, it's already, I think, risky enough as it stands, because it assumed. Sorry. And, and I, I go in record. I'm thinking 50 years is, is the right threshold. And, and I don't know whether that hits the sweet spot as we call it been for, for the town staff, but, but there are significant architectural and interesting structures that have been built. So in the 50 years ago, and it's, if to us to, to some of us on this, on this commission, it's, it's in our lifetime to you it's not, but, but to some of us it is in, and we can't not pay attention to that. Well, again, it depends upon the, it either depends upon the development of the inventory, or we leave it at 50. And maybe once the inventories develop the staff pressure will lessen. I think developing the inventory needs the Amherst inventory needs to be a high priority for us. I think it has to be in a sense it has to be the highest priority because I don't, I don't think this town is going to accept 50 years. Really, I mean, if they're going to have a chance to review it and choose between 50 years and something else. I really don't think that the council is going to approve 50 years. So I think that, and besides that, I mean, so let's think for a moment about the threshold, but also about the way this bylaws written the threshold and the inventory are two different things, right. So, and they serve to in, at least in the bylaw as it's written they serve two different purposes, however, the inventory can certainly be used to include buildings younger than 75 years younger than 50 years and even younger than 20 years. But I don't think we can do without an inventory. We've got to get started on that. I mean, we need an inventory. It's my opinion that is the highest priority right now. We have to do to get this passed. We can start with that list that's appended to the preservation plan. Right. I went through that and compared it with MACRAS remember when I was years ago I was doing that and it's not that far off there. Obviously there's a lot on MACRAS, but it's a pretty good list. So, I think we can start with that and then worked it up and then add to it and then add to it but I think it has to be a high priority because it's essential to this whole preservation plan. Okay, so if you think they aren't going to go for 50 what are we going to do. I think, well, my opinion is that I, I feel like the sweet spot is 75 years plus an inventory. 75 years we can point to the inventory and say we don't keep changing the years. I think you can, I think the inventory only applies to part C. So, that doesn't really affect the threshold which is, you know, really for, for all demolition types. Well, we can, we can. Maybe we need it and either or for 75 years. Or appears on the Amherst inventory. Yeah, your recommendation preservation plan to process process to identify well that's, that would be the inventory. Right. Jane I think in either or or in either and make sense. Because if, if we, you know, there was a conversation earlier about Echo Hill, and there's some noted architects who who designed some of those homes there. And, and I think they probably fall in the 75 or don't. But, but the fact of the matter is, you know, doing some research on who the architects were there. I think there are lots of pockets in town that would be yield houses for the inventory that might not yield for the age. Right. Right. And then so, yes, so we can have an either or as the like the, the, the basic threshold, but then it's the inventory that's operational for part C. Right. Right. You've been. Yeah, so basically you have an invent inventories operational for part C, but then the first threshold is 75 years old, or if it's on the Amherst inventory and the Amherst inventory could capture properties that are less than 50 years. Yeah. Right. I can see that. I just felt that without that existing, we're creating a period of however long it takes to get it in place as a loophole, but. But, but I think we can, if, if creating an inventory is our priority, I think we have lots of resources already in place to do that. We need people who are actually going to do it though. I mean saying that's my question. Yeah, who will do it. Who does that. I, I, we can use some CPA monies, but, but I, I pulled all the, the form B's for, for the sunset, Lincoln, South Whitney, and, and it's, it's easy to, if you have an address. Yeah, but that's a really small, small section. And if you were to go street by street and check MACRAS to see what's there. It's possible to do. But most of these houses aren't on MACRAS. Question of identifying which one should be on MACRAS. Right. And that's where we need CPA money for a consultant to do that. That's what I was going to say that we should focus on CPA fund. That's exactly one of the things. Is allowable for is developing inventories that help the town manage its historic inventory. I mean, it's, it's historic resources. It's right there. So that, that is something that we can focus on so that it's not a question of the town doing it or having the time or the volunteers on the commission that it is paid for. We pay for a consultant with a defined timeline. In October, we get the money next year. And then we hire somebody. So it's going to be over a year before this even get started. I think that what I think that we actually do. I mean, we put it within two months, we could, we could approve entries on an Amherst inventory of structures. We can do that right away with, with at least a portion of the list that's in the appendix of the preservation plan or a certain number of structures we pull from MACRAS just like Pat is saying, there is a starting point. We can start the inventory. Some of the finer points can be covered by CPA funding for a consultant. I think that's one of the things that are older. I mean newer for newer or, or for things that have not been identified correctly. But I, I don't think it's all or nothing. I think, I think we can start. That'll give us some. That'll give us a tool, especially for the significant structures. Well, especially for the older structures that we already know are significant. And then I don't know just chop off, you know, we're going to with our consultant. We'll take we'll identify and add to the inventory. Another, what 500 or X number of structures in a six months period, and then, and then keep, keep that rolling until then tells us until Ben tells us that that's too many things on the inventory. Yeah. To recreate a subcommittee to work on this. We have to have people to do this is what. Yeah. Yeah, I would, I would help with that and me too. I would. Even even when I, even when my term ends, I would, I would continue to help with it. Yeah, and, and I, I be, I had a beginning with that particular district, but I think then they that that local historic district was doing form B's and other properties in in the district. And so that that could be a beginning core of the inventory. Yep. Yeah, certainly. Those were in the ones in the local historic district. Yeah, where I guess in the expansion in the proposed expansion area. Yeah, I guess I have two questions one is part of the bylaws that in order to add, just so you know to add properties to the, this Amherst inventory. You have that we're recommending or part of the bylaws that you have to hold the public hearing and notify the homeowners of their addition to this Amherst inventory. And then also, yeah, I guess I would just caution against just assuming everything on macros is should be included on the Amherst inventory I think I want to, I want to get away from just assuming macros is the holy grail for all things historic because incomplete forms and just, you know, outdated stuff on there and I guess my I just, I feel conflicted because I want there to be a robust, you know, complete Amherst inventory of historic resources that includes you know that's that is complete and includes you know, potentially thousands of properties, but I also have serious concerns about what that would do for this Part C of demolition which I think the Amherst inventory should really only have like 50 to 100 properties on it to really make that manageable. And if they're all going to be older than 75 years, they're not helping us because that's already going to come or 50 is already going to come before us automatically. Well, not for the, not for the Part C removal. Yeah, but if we're trying to use this inventory as a tool to identify things that are newer. Right, we can't just use the form B's and macros and the list that's attached to the preservation plan we have to develop new properties and that's why I said we need a public awareness. Information dissemination somehow so that people know this is coming along because I mean I can think of a house that's really significant right now. The friends who own it, if I say they just add in an addition if I send them you know from now on you do something like that. Your house is not just yours anymore it's the town's you know so we have to explain to people ahead how this is going to work because they are going to all find out they're being listed. It's a bigger deal. There must be some legal guidance about town inventory been that you can investigate for us before we go willy nilly doing this but but I think it's possible for us to do in a short period of time. And, you know, particularly accessing macros, but there are properties that are 50 years, I mean 50 years brings us to 1947. So, so they're, yeah, so there, there are properties that are might not be a macros at all. That's what I'm trying to say. Yeah, yeah, we're talking about 77 not 47. Oh, you're right. 7577 is 50. One thing I'd like to just put out on the table for further conversation at some point is that I'm afraid that I have a very different idea of an inventory. Right, you do Ben. I don't see a 50 building inventory is going to do us. Well no that's what I'm saying Jane is I want there to be like a complete robust full inventory but I worry what that does to part C of demolition. Okay, yeah, I understand. Yeah, yeah. What do you think. Do you think we, you think we need more time to iron this out before CRC goes ahead. Um, yeah I mean I, it depends yeah I don't know what if you guys think more time would help you process it more and come to a conclusion or you know we can just I've been taking meeting minutes or if you guys wanted to write a memo you can share your thoughts with CRC and then let you know ultimately it's their decision I guess but another option might be to limit the list of things in section C that we call a partner architectural elements or take out something like stoopes and windows. Yes. Yeah, agree. I would agree with that too. Yeah. And then it wouldn't, it wouldn't cause so many advocate or so many flagged buildings we could have a robust inventory, but there'd be fewer times that the building inspector or the building commissioner, the staff. Ben would have to send it over for consideration under C. I think windows are important stoopes are less so. I think chimneys fences I would take out stone wall, I don't know, and similar elements, you know, and walls. I don't know what you mean by walls is that the same thing as stone walls because other the walls of the structure are part of the 25%. Yeah, but, walls, yeah walls roof structures doors windows stoopes porches chimneys here I'll bring it up. Yeah, similar elements, except for replication reconstruction. I mean you could even say something like, including roof structure doors, porches and chimneys and similar elements and then it would be completely your discretion with whether you even put it under C, or just not even consider it. Yeah. Is there a way to make that more general. Because 25% is is be, and if C could be just more general not included somehow in the 25%. Does that make sense, so that we don't have to sit here and say each element. Well, yeah, but then it becomes our job I guess to determine what. But I think this is in addition in addition to the 25% of the facade, etc. And if somebody doesn't affect 25% of a building but it has a gabled roof and they just take it off and make a flat roof on a building that should have a gable because it's a Greek revival or something. We want a roof for that because it's a significant architectural feature but it's not 25% of the elevation. So I wouldn't, I wouldn't limit that I would leave that as it's written. I think you could take some of those words out and it would help help you narrow better that they're there, then, then trying to quibble about something that isn't there. But if it's, if it's written in this demolitions part C, then either you address it or you, or you don't have to. Then it takes us right back to the same problem that we're trying. Well, I don't know that that's a problem. Quite honestly. Well for staff it is but you know what. We're trying to preserve. And these are all the elements that that are characteristic of a structure. And so back a few years ago before you were on the commission we used to meet almost every week for three or four hours I mean, there were so many things for us before the building commissioner was given. And so we had the authorization to make the decision to not bring it to us, or we were quickly going through, I mean, it's going to add up if you're, I think right then has a bad point. The difference Jan is that that we're talking I mean that the preamble to this is for buildings listed on the Amherst inventory. We're not talking about every every application. And so it's incumbent upon us to get an Amherst inventory. Right, which is reasonable. And then it narrows it down right away. Yeah. Well, okay. Maybe ask, I think I saw this somewhere. Sorry, I'm changing the subject, but it's still about the bylaw. Did I see somewhere that we wanted to remove the word structure. No, that was miswritten and we all misunderstood what he meant. He said that it should stay as it is. Rather than he's saying if we did, it would, this would happen, blah, blah, blah. Okay, thank you. Okay, back to the thorny issue. Relief there for a second. Do you know when the CRC might return? Oh, they're going to return to this what next week or Yeah, I think it's as soon as let me check my calendar, maybe May. Week. Do you think there is a. So if we had a subgroup to. Try and sort of tweak all of this to make it mesh and line up. Is that, can we do that? Or is that an open meeting law thing. If it's a, if it's a posted meeting or just, you know, Not in a posted meeting, not in a posted meeting. I mean, what I'm, I guess what I'm trying to get out is. If CRC is meeting on May 4th, that's not much time for us to, to try and sort of consolidate this discussion. And, and kind of iron out the inventory. Yeah, I think that's a good question. Question and, and a. Something that resembles a plan to kind of develop the inventory. We had a bylaw subcommittee that worked on the bylaws. I mean, we can maybe working. Yeah. That's valid. I think it's actually May 12th. Oh, even better. Okay. Or actually wait, sorry. April 28th is actually before that. Oh, that's in a few days. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. So I do remember at the CRC meeting. Mandy said April 28th is the next meeting, but if you feel like you guys need more time. They could do May 12th. As the next discussion. Okay. Let's. Let's take it. Yeah. Yes. And I'd be happy to work on this with someone. I'm going to be away. So I will, I won't be here for a week. And this weekend I'm dealing with a death in the family. So I'm not available. I'm sorry. So what you want to do is just make it clearer. Yeah, I want what I'd like to do is. Better to find the purpose of an inventory. And how it can function. So I'm going to be, I'm going to be, I'm going to be, maybe clean up that section C. Introduce the idea of either. 75 years or. On the inventory. So that we have a clear recommendation. That would be. Put into the dialogue. All the wording ready to go. Yeah. Because I think, I think that. That. That there's this kind of negotiation with that. I like the way you described this earlier. Then with the levers. And I think adjusted making these little adjustments to these levers. Could make. This bylaw. More. Understandable or more. Acceptable to a broader. A broader town audience, including those that. Ultimately. Pass the bylaw. It's more efficient. For the staff. Yeah. And so that's another reason to take a little bit more time. And that is to. You know, have. Involve you been in, in. You know, understanding what the impact is on the staff. So that's what we're doing. And we're trying to achieve what we're trying to achieve. Robin, would you have time to work with Jane on that? Since you understand a lot of this stuff pretty well. I am in the last two weeks of my semester. So. I have some availability, but after the second of May, I'm not available at all for two weeks. So just, you know, I'm not available at all. I'm not available at all. Let me know if I can be helpful. Okay. So perhaps I can get in touch with you, Pat and you, Becky. If you, if you can look at some. I would be willing. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So next. End of next week. I don't get to talk for five days. So. I'll send you some, I'll send you some email and. Okay. We'll, we'll figure it out. And I, I'm sorry that Jan's going to be away and, and sympathy is to you with the death and your family. Jan. And Robin, good luck with the end of your semester and your career. And I mean, you've got a lot of, a lot of spokes on your wheel. It sounds like. Thank you. Okay. We need to go back to the agenda. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Because. This item is sort of being. Tabled. I've lost the agenda again. Got too many open windows. The agenda was just to. Brief update on the preservation plan. And then the less cemetery headstone project. Oh, great. Yeah. So the contract is set to start on May 1st. So, and it's going to be a 12 month. Process. So. Technically, I think the PVPC like executive board, which meets once a month still needs to approve the contract. And they're meeting. On the 25th. So next week, but. You know, they, it's been approved by all the, you know, the executive director at PVPC. So. We expect Shannon to get underway on May, I guess Monday, May 2nd. And then. She's coming in. For a meeting with town staff. On May 12th. And then I think. She's a little bit. Was on, on available in the evenings towards the end of May, but she's going to come to the commission meeting, the commission meeting in June. To meet, have a kind of kickoff meeting. So whenever that date is. And then we'll have Shannon Walsh from PVPC joining us. Right. Ben does. With all this discussion of inventory and how. This can be. Partially managed through the preservation plan update is that. I'm not. Not clear. I don't have the RFP in front of me, but is that, or. Is that in addition to their work or is that already included in there? It's included in the scope of work, but maybe, you know, we can place a. Stronger emphasis on it. I mean, I don't want to lose sight of all the other tools in that we have available and, and, you know, the important, like educational and outreach, you know, work that we want to do and. More proactive, you know, management of historic resources in town, but I think the. Inventory is also an important part. So. Yeah, that it's, it's included in the RFP. So, yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Um, yeah. Is there any other questions about the preservation plan? One other Shannon asked me to ask. The first task in the preservation plan is to have her. You know, look review some other towns preservation plans to kind of get a sense of, you know, in the past five years, what plans have been developed and. There's any tidbits to take from those plans. Or either just the approach. And she asked me. If, if there are any towns they'd recommend. We'd recommend her looking at. Kind of at a similar scale and, you know, I think Janet recommended conquered. To me over email and unfortunately conquered. Doesn't really have a preservation plan. They have a historic resource, like. Inventory with some management plans. And they have a like 19, like literally 19, like 80, like preservation plan that's really outdated. But. Yeah, it was interesting. I was like, even conquered doesn't really have. I had also said to Ben that we've used Newton a lot in the past. And now I'm. I have to say it's not a bit like. Yeah, yeah. Huge and it's multimillion dollar houses and it's, and it's slum apartments. It's everything. And it's two sides of, it's. Yeah, two sides of a interstate. I mean, it's just not. It doesn't seem comparable. And I'm sure some of the things along route two might be better. You know, some of those towns or. Yeah. Hey, Robin, do you happen to know if. Preservation Massachusetts. Kind of keeps up with. Communities that are doing preservation plans. Oh, you're muted. I don't know that off the top of my head. But what about. I was just trying to think of something in the Berkshires would. Great bearing, great bearing. Yeah. We can look westward. Yeah, or north of Cambridge, you know, up in like. I'm thinking of like Harvard, Massachusetts, some of those little towns up in there. I was thinking that great Barrington has the same kind of. You know, it's, it's a community with some, some money. So it's similar size and well, a little bit larger downtown, but. Lee. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I'll see what, not all of these places necessarily have preservation plans, but I can look to see what's available. Gloucester. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Great. Jane, are you ready to meeting or am not sure. Okay. What about the West cemetery? Quick. You have one second. One second. It's happening. I want that. Great. Comment out there. Do we have anybody waiting to talk this interminable meeting? Hilda's been with us. Oh, poor thing. I will say for the, for West cemetery, the, I know what the consultants today, they've been out there. And they're going to, they've been kind of surveying and recording kind of which headstones they're going to approach and, and, and how they're going to fix them. And. They, they're going to start with the African-American section to hopefully have that cleaned up by the Juneteenth holidays. Celebrations and. And then they'll shift their focus to the 1870s section. So that's, that's what we're going to do. But yeah, I'll definitely keep you posted on, on their work. There's a lot to do. We walked through there. They're left and right. There's headstones either crumbling or falling off. So. So is Hilda. There. No. So we don't have anybody waiting. No public comment. Yeah. Okay. Any anticipated items. Okay. Looks like we have a hand here. From Hilda. I'm here, but I have nothing to say. I'm trying to figure out what I'm going to put in the ending from this long conversation. When you figure it out, could you let us know? Cause maybe it'll help us decide what we decided. The one thing that's on my brain is the article that was in the newspaper today by Scott. And I just hope that you will. Be. As interested in as. Profound deeply thinking about preserving our. 1928 library because a lot of us are very worried about. Another edition of lost Amherst devoted to Jones library. If you don't know lost Amherst, it's still being. Printed at Hastings. I'm told it's still there. It was done by the historical commission on the seventies when they founded the East Amherst historic district. Anyway, we don't want another volume. Of all the photos. From the interior of the Jones, because that's all there is that's left. So I'm counting on you guys to help us. And apparently it's going to be on your agenda very shortly. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. And we have a meeting date. Yeah. Yes. The next meeting will be on May 18th. I guess I can. Give a sneak preview of that. We'll be, we'll look at the 37 North pleasant street demolition. As a reminder, I think. I guess it was only Becky who wasn't on the commission at that point, but we did look at that in March, 2021. So, you know, I encourage you to read the meeting minutes and watch the recording. If you need a refresher. And, but obviously we do have new commission members. So, you know, Could always, you know, be a different conversation, I guess. And then. The, so the Jones library preservation restriction. Has been signed. It's off at MHC right now, but it's still on the commission side. So that's still on the commission side. It has to start commission for their. Approval and signatures. Still, I think we're kind of operating as if it's in place, which I think makes sense. And the trustees agree with that as well. So the. Proposal will review at the May 18th meeting is for the relocation of the garden, the Kinsey garden, renovation project, they're proactively like moving the plants from the garden to the Kestrel Land Trust property. And so the garden, that removal of the garden is considered a major landscaping change, which does fall into the preservation restriction. So we can get more into how that review will take place, but essentially you'll need to give your approval for that project kind of basing the decision on how it impacts the historic 1928 facade exterior portion. So again, it's not, I guess to discern it's not the garden, I guess that is the historic resource, but it's the how it impacts the property overall. So that'll be the focus of the next meeting. And then maybe add an agenda item for the outcome of the subcommittee and the CRC meeting and what we've been talking about tonight. Yeah, that makes sense. Jane, this is your chance to move to adjourn. You never get to do that. I never do. All right. All right. For some reason, I think I'm not supposed to, but I know I've seen other committees work where the chair does. Well, we stopped roles tonight. So you get to be me. Okay. Well, I moved to adjourn. Anyone second? The motion passes, I think, unless anybody's going to fight it. Okay. Thanks, everyone. Thanks to adjourn are not available. Have a good night. Good night, everybody. See you next month. Take care. Bye.