 I'm going to call the meeting to order because we are expecting two more commissioners to come. And Karen will be here, but we do have a quorum and we have our first applicant is present. So we have two new applications before we go on to the public hearing that's continuing. And I should add that the public hearing I'll state this again later. The public hearing on the Amherst media application is continuing from August 15th, not from March as the Daily Gazette, Hampshire Gazette article said. They were denied a certificate of appropriateness at the March meeting and then submitted a new application that came before the board for the first, the commission for the first time on August 15th. Okay, so our first applicant and again, both the both of the items on the the first two items on the agenda are properties that we have previously given a certificate of appropriateness to that have some changes, they modifications they're bringing before the commission. So with that, I'll invite the representative from 84 Sunset Avenue. And yeah, you can just pull up a chair. Or yes. Sure. So, and just say, yes, say who you are. My name is Jesse. So, okay. I'm Jennifer Tao. Hi, Jennifer. Nice to meet you. Hi. I'm Jennifer Tao. Hi, Jennifer. Nice to meet you. Hi. I'm Jennifer Tao. Hi. I am familiar with Mr. Colbert. So, during the design process and pricing and working with our builder, there's a couple things that have changed. Some of them are a step back, right, things that would maybe require less review. But we wanted to, in the event that you came to the property after it was built, that's not what we approved. Right. We appreciate that. Yeah. So the easy ones are the roof. It is possible. We're looking at it, potentially doing asphalt for the roof, which wouldn't require approval, I believe, just for a cost-saving measure. We're still hoping to do metal, but I wanted to just let you know that could happen, not to be surprised. And then you'll be in touch with the town in terms of whatever material you prove if it needs to come before us. Oh, yeah. Yeah. The porch and deck to the south, which we were originally going to remove and rebuild slightly larger. We are just going to refurbish it, so it's going to have the same hip roof, the same shape. And we're looking at some other window manufacturers that would be, the windows would appear the same, but it might be a different manufacturer, but it would have the same mulling pattern and simulated divided lights, but going to a true double-hung, as opposed to a tilt turn. More in keeping with the standards than less. And then the only other one is there's two windows on the east elevation that are higher windows. This is how it appears now. Yes. And we're proposing that the new windows, rather than be the exact size and shape of those, match the pair to the south. Yeah. And we're kind of presenting that these are, I guess, called de minimis changes. Right. And that we would continue on and I would send Nate the updated elevations to reflect what I just told you. Oh, okay. Thank you. Yes. You have a question? Yeah. Maybe this is for Nate. I guess it's not for the building commission to make the decision about de minimis changes, is that correct? It's for us to make that decision? Right. Or why can't the building commission make that decision? He wanted to have on the commission. So the question would be, is this de minimis enough so it doesn't need a new application in public hearing and move forward or would it require a new application? So that's our job. That's a job you have at work deliberating. Do you have a question? Yeah. It seems de minimis to me. Yes. I agree. And I really appreciate your bringing in such clear representations of what you had proposed and what you're now proposing. Yeah. And my personal opinion is that I think it actually lends a nicer appearance having it match the windows on the other side. Yeah. Right. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So if there are... I don't know if I would use the package. I mean, I'm just saying that there are other circumstances. Yeah. This is not... All of this? I think the roof... Yeah. Just to think about it. I think that was the size of the porch. Yeah. So that sort of changes. Right. Because it's more keeping it... If it was that way to begin with, they might not have had to come here in the first place. I think you should acknowledge that the change in the size of the windows... Is this yours, too? ...threatens not to be... Oh, yeah. I agree. It's not... So we should be... I think it's a preferable change. Yes. Right. But I think it should come before the commission. Absolutely. I do. But I'm... So I just want to be clear here... Right. ...about wanting to get my head too stuck into any legal protocol or anything because I don't like that part of the world. We are choosing not a de minimis change but what we think is a preferable change. Now, can we do that? Yes. So I think that this would always come before us. I think if they were doing anything else, but we're changing the windows, it would have to come before the commission. But the other changes would not. Yes. But we can do this without a public hearing. Right. So we're saying it's... They've already had an apply for a certificate. That we've granted. Right. And so the question is, can this be de minimis and not credit? They don't have to reapply. In the context of all the other changes. Right. I mean, I agree, but I just want to make sure that I'm not... I don't think it sets a precedent. I don't think it sets a precedent because we... Change things in the forward direction as opposed to the back. No, I agree. I mean, my thought would be if they were coming and they're changing all the windows. Right. We're going to change all the windows, won't be proved. That's one thing. But to make them match what is existing... And has been approved. I think I've done enough here to make sure we're paying the thing. I just have one question. So the larger windows are the ones here? On the... Yes. Yes. See the original ones up here? Yes, I see them. And they're going to go to match the ones on the other side of the doorway. Oh, yes. And I think that's an improvement. Yeah, actually. Oh. Yeah. And since I sent that to Nate, we've put together a little elevation for record. And we'll send that in. Oh, that's very helpful. Thank you. For... Yes, good. To show that. Yes. And that's an improvement. I like that. Yes. Thank you. So with that, can we move to close the... I think we'll do just a motion to... We'll just... We don't have to arrange that. Just to continue. Okay. Yeah. And so... We've got the changes as submitted by the architect as the minimum changes to the already approved certificate of appropriateness. Second motion. All in favor? Yes. Yes. So approved. Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you very much. You guys have a lot to do. Okay. Yeah. Best of luck. And you want to get out of here. Yes. As you should. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. And do we have the next app? Also, again, this is... Is your certificate of appropriateness for the refurbishments at 148 Lincoln Avenue? But their representative... Is the representative for 148 Lincoln here? You know, I haven't emailed... Earlier today, I haven't heard anything. Huh. So do you think maybe they decided not to make the changes? Because I know there was... Yeah, I said that even if you weren't going to make the changes to let me know, just so we could... Well, the next item is not on the agenda until four o'clock. So we... I think... It's three minutes off. Yeah. Well, even without the app, again, for 148 Lincoln... You can make the presentation? Yeah. Okay. You know, the homeowners, you know, they came to update the appearance of 148 Lincoln, right? So they're going to replace the gutters, extend the back porch, and do some changes. And... It was this... Actually, I don't know if you remember. Yes. Oh, you have it there? Yes. You know, Jeff and Al is requesting that they may need to not reuse or replicate the porch posts and all the detailing, but, you know, replace the posts and the new posts and the balacers with something that's different. And, you know, I told them that. In the discussion, we talked about this a lot, about that detail was important, and we even say it in the certificate will reuse or match. And so, you know, they're before you to see, is this the minimists that offer? Is this much of a... You know, such a big change that even if they're going to make this, we'd ask them to submit a new application. So, you know, without the applicant here, the commission couldn't say, well, if they're supposed to make these change, right? So this picture shows the contrast... Right. ...between old and new. Yes. Yeah. And remember... Wait, is this the new one? ...the motion? That's the motion. The next page. The next page. This is the old one. That's the old one. And this is the new one. Oh, I see. Yeah. This is the old one. Am I listening okay? No, no, no. It's that. There you are. Oh, I said new one. There you are. Yes. Yes. Karen. I recall when I made the motion, or again the motion, to grant a certificate of appropriateness here, I had the word exactly matched. Yeah. And we decided to take exactly out. But I think you could tell from that, that I was pleased that they were heading towards an exact match. And the contrast between these two here, I personally find rather significant. I would. And I would need to be convinced that this was matched enough for the intent of that. I agree. Okay. So they have the Christian things that's, you know, enough of a change that we would say that, and we would ask, you know, if there were to do this to file a new application, we'd have to go through a hearing process again. It's a real style change. I think it's a real style change. I agree. It's because this really is a historic thing. And this is something from. Home Depot or whatever. Well, you know that, I mean, it's a, it's a, it's a modern replication of this style, but it's not original. And it's not as, it's not as, it's not as chunky a term. This is, this is a square post that's had a little bit of whittling out of it. Yes. This guy really has been a, is a turned post with character that you can see from 40 or 50 feet. You can see the difference between these two. Yeah. I drive by this house several times a day and that's what lends it. It really lends it character and charm. It would look like a very different facade without that. So can they replicate the other one? Why, why did they go for a change? I guess they were finding it, the conductor kind of difficult or didn't want to or maybe costly. So, you know, what I need you to tell the applicant is that it can look like it, but it doesn't have to be an exact replication. So, you know, the original ones may be notched and made in a way where now you could make some of the detail and you could attach some, you know, mechanically fasten it, but it doesn't have to be one piece of wood, for instance, that's been carved up. So there's ways to replicate the appearance and not replicate the construction method. Right. Which is probably not prohibited. Right. Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes. So, I mean, for the record as we provide feedback to them for why we think that we can't go forward with their application. We request that they submit a new application. Application. Okay. So that's the language. But I have several pieces of feedback. One is that we would want something that does closely enough resemble the existing that it is in that style. And what they're proposing is a very, very different style. And the second thing I would want to see would be whatever, if the replacement was visually different enough from what they have here, they would need to replace all of them. They would need to have them matched. Okay, yeah. I mean, they're not here, but a question that would be asked if they were, I think, is have they trolled the salvage places to find something that is... Of that period, yes. Equally dramatic in return. I mean, it may not have the central piece here, but if these are... The molding is clearly distinguishable. The profile of the molding is clearly distinguishable from quite a distance. And I think that would be the standard that we apply. Right. I would also have the question. Do you see where there's dry rock going across here? Yes. You can't tell from the picture that the post, particularly the decorative part, is actually damaged. I mean, it may or may not be. But if it's not, could it be used? Yes. Right. The dry rock going across the beam can be replaced without doing away with the hole. Yeah, they were really here with us another craftsman this weekend. So maybe they are trying, they're still trying to find a way to do it, but I think, you know, I think that the commission has an opinion we can make a motion and... Yeah. Okay. Is there a motion? Bruce is so much better at wording than I am. Well, why don't we... I mean, the... Move to resolve the question asked by the applicant of 148 Lincoln Street that the proposed change to the... which post is not... is not regarded by the commission as a diminished change. Second? Second. And that we have some suggestions as you've noted. All in favor? Aye. Good to me. Thank you. Maybe that they're not here being safe. We'll have to go ahead with that. I'm not too far behind. All of our members that have been requested today here. Okay. And so with that, we will move on to, you know, our continuation of considering the application for this certificate at 14B-251 and 14B-250 Main Street, Amherst Media application. And I did... I mentioned this at the beginning of the meeting, but everyone wasn't here. I just did want to voice or note a correction to the Daily Hampshire Gazette article that came out a couple of days after our last meeting that actually this public hearing, this hasn't been continued since March that Amherst Media submitted an application in March and the certificate of appropriateness was not granted. So they submitted a new application and we opened up that hearing on August 15th. So it's being continued from August 15th, not from March. And I want to acknowledge the receipt of the letters that King voicing support and both born against granting the certificate of appropriateness that we read all those letters and, you know, consider them with, you know, take them very seriously. And so I did want to reiterate, because I came up, you know, several times last week for everyone that's here as well as for the commission. I don't really need to, you know, restate this for the commission, but I just wanted on the record that the commission, you know, certainly acknowledges that we are not permitted to take into consideration the mission of the applicant, that the local historic district commission is only authorized to determine, quote, the appropriateness of the scale, shape, and proportions of the proposed building or structure, both in relation to the land upon which it is situated and in relation to the buildings and structures in the vicinity, that the bylaw also states that the commission that we can consider, quote, the historic and architectural value and significance of the site, building, or structure, the general design, proportions, detailing, mass, arrangement, texture, and material of the exterior architectural features involved and the relation of these exterior architectural features to similar buildings and structures in the surrounding area and then how it supports the overall integrity of the, in this case, would be the Dickinson Local Historic District. And we really, we cannot take any other factors into consideration or make any exception, so to speak, because we support the mission of the organization that's submitting the application if what's not our mandate and we, you know, acknowledge that the building will exist on the site long after a particular occupant does. And so I think for the meeting today, we would like to ask the applicant if they have any new information that they, you know, want to present to the commission and then we will ask questions and then we'll deliberate amongst ourselves and one of the items we'll be deliberating is whether we feel that we're ready to take a vote, you know, on the certificate or if we want to request additional changes. But that we, you know, we might want to vote today, we might decide not to, but that's, and we would like to, we can. Six. Yeah. But you're in the meeting at six. Thank you. So is there, would Amherst Media like to present any additional information? I think I'll give you that. It's here. I'm Bill Gillan. I'm the architect. Okay. If you want to sit. You can use the microphone if you'd like to. There were an issue of the mound which was greatly concerning and our civil engineer reported to me today that he can, he can do the drainage with a one foot rise in the surface of the slope. Not a level, but just simply a one foot rise will, he can, he can do it. So that's one piece of information. I suspect the mound question, I hope it's gone away. Point of clarification because I want to make sure we all understand what Bill said. So I think whereas the slope was like this and the mound was a horizontal out, hitting the slope there, coming out four or five feet down here before it went like that. So Bill, what you're talking about, one foot is a one foot difference like that. Is that what you're talking about? That's true. So if it's slope up as long, just won't exceed a foot? Right. Okay. But it would then slope into the actual rise of the hillside? It would blend in. But as the hillside slopes more than a foot at some point, it would essentially meet the rise of the natural rise of the hillside or would it drop down again? I'm trying to visualize that. It would probably be a level-ish area there. Okay. Maybe it would be less than a foot up. So wouldn't go up and down? It would just go up and down. Instead of being a horizontal platform like this, it would be a oblique platform to follow the contour. That's all that's what I understood. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Now the other thing was that you, Nate reported that several of you wanted to see a drawing which would show the building in the site. So I immediately got on a phone and looked up 3D companies that do this. This is a specialty, special business. And I grabbed one that had a 617 phone number. However, when I talked to the very articulate woman on the other side, she said she was in the Netherlands. And it was all perfectly doable. She sent me a proposal of $580 to do, to set this building in the landscape, but there's no way she could have it by today. So we did one. Probably cost several thousand dollars, but we'll eat that. And so here's one that we have. You have done? Yes, sir. And there's a copy for everyone, I think. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And then while we're at it, Carol, who was working on the program, she decided to spin it around and come up with a, just to compare that with another scheme. Yeah, we didn't get these done until late today. Thank you. But here's another scheme, which we do by, once we have the building in 3D, it was fairly easy for Carol to flip it around 180 degrees and say, I think we could do this. And I agree with her. With the higher end on Gray Street. Yeah, yeah. Changing them. Because we had recommended that as a possibility. Yeah. You must have put it, Master, she heard you. Thank you. So yes, we have copies. Thank you so much. So then you have different windows facing west. Yes, you do. Yes. Yeah. Don't see the windows on the east, with the windows on the eastern side be these, the ones that are currently there? That's all I know at the moment. All right. You'd have to go into that, too. I would, you know, if we had some kind of a straw vote again, that gave us an indication that you were supporting us and we would have liked the copy a little bit more. Yes. So we've said that before. Yes. Yeah. But I don't know that letter from the lawyer was pretty horrible. Just reiterating the regulations. Anyway, that was my impression. I like it better. So just to talk further about this. I just want to clarify though, but we don't have any new, I mean this would just be it, right? So we don't have any plan or anything showing this change. Same plan. Oh, really? You just flip the thing from that way to that way. But there's no more detail on, you know, in terms of like other drawings. We don't have a drawing. We just hand came up with the idea about an hour ago. So yeah, I took pictures of it and I'm going to try to email myself and throw them up on the screen for the audience. So is it, are the two wings still recessed in the same way? No. With this, with this scheme, the big one is down the corner and the smaller one, the office building section is on the west end. And as being in the west end, in order to fit the parking, it has to, it can't give it, we can't give it a 26 feet setback which we had and it has to come out because we've got a block of 14 cars hidden behind all of that. So how far setback is it? This is the, this is the part of the five feet. So we've lost the fact that it was recessed but we've turned it around. Yeah. Questions? Yes. I'm sorry, I'm just, I'm sorry. That's all right. Yes. I have a process question and a substantive question. Well, so I guess first of the process, I wanted to let you present your full presentation. But that's relevant I think to what Bill is saying because Mr. Gillin is saying because I think, that's I know, but we try to be formal here. We try. There was a little cross talk with Mr. Gillin and myself about the point at which we'd come in with detail of windows and the frames and the kind of windows and a lot of detail. I would like to propose that we understand it's my hope that we're talking right now about the big picture about the actual, the mass, the location, all the issues that are not yet in detail. And my proposal would be that we need to deal with those before possibly in a subsequent meeting if things do go forward. We talk about the detail of the windows and I don't know if Mr. Malloy thinks that's appropriate, but I find I get confused when I go back and forth between the detail and the bigger picture. Yeah, I guess, and we're getting off, we're getting into a discussion here. Okay. Because to me they kind of fuse. All right. It's hard for me to separate one from the other but I'll get into that later. But go on. Yes. But do you have any other? I forgot. No. So this is what you wanted to present today. This is the new information which we really appreciate. But we just got the idea. I could have talked for hours about the other scheme. Right. No, but I just wanted to just procedurally, we should let you make the presentation and then we ask questions. So I didn't, but we don't like to ask you questions before you finish your presentation. And Marianne was saying this is the big picture. This is the mass, massing, which we, we would like to get that established so that we can get into the detail. We'd love to get into the detail, but it's inappropriate. Right. Just as the civil engineer didn't get into great detail over that range thing until he's been told, yeah, we're going to do it. Then he'll do the full-blown engineering. Right. Can we now ask questions of Mr. Gill? Yes. Okay. So my first question we'll have to do with, I did not think that the three small windows that one saw from Triangle Street were a useful facade for people driving along Triangle Street looking back. So I would want to know what your plan was. This is question number one about now that you flipped them, if we think that's a good idea, what the facade along Gray Street would be. So that's one question. A second question is that you said that once the two buildings are flipped, that you can't set back what it now becomes the West Wing. And I would like to question that because I have not appreciated a flat facade along Main Street. Oh, it's still... Okay, but the drawing doesn't represent that, so that I think that we would need to see... No, you're right. The drawing does make it look like a flat facade. It's also... What is it? It's not that one wing is set back for the other, so the whole facade is now five feet from the sidewalk. It's not like this. Yes, exactly. This guy has come forward. Yes, so I would want to ask the architects if they could consider going back to the idea of a recessed West Wing. And that also then means that what you had had before, as an entrance, a Main Street entrance that had some interest, but that needed more work as it was set back. Now there's a whole new set of stairs leading down to the sidewalk and the accessibility of the sloped entrance that you had previously has lost. So I find that... Previously what? That you had had previously. Does that mean the same? Okay. I noticed that when she flips it, you had the perfect sidewalk. We didn't get a chance to... Yes. And then my final question... Yes. My final question for the engineer is I would still like to see the septic system move closer to the east. I don't like sitting, even though it may just be a one-foot entrance, I would get right in the front of the view up to the Hills House. And so I would like a consideration of what the drainage implications would be if he would move it closer to the east, if he would move it closer to that very attractive tree line so that it might even be incorporated into the tree line and would not interrupt the vista to the Hills House. Vista here. Yes. Those are some of my initial concerns about this, some of which might be substantive. The trees are not on our property, so I can't move it up here. I'm not concerned about the trees. I'm concerned about the septic system. Or the drainage system. Infiltration systems. Infiltration systems. What I think you're saying is move it to the east as far as you can. Yes. Right. No problem. We'd have to talk about that. Yes. So, Bill, you're saying there's no way to push the building back further because of the parking. You have to get those parking, but there's no way to make it. Yeah. The parking is 60 feet, 20 feet, 20 feet, 20 feet, and that locks us in if we're going to get the 14 cars. Excuse me. If I may speak to my co-commissioner. It's not a matter of law that they have all of those parking slots. It is possible to get a waiver from the planning board that have fewer parking slots. And my argument there would be that since there is accessible bus service that fewer parking slots would make it possible to move the entire structure to the east. I would add that. No, no. Wouldn't that be repeated the house to the north to the north. So that it was set back. Okay. Okay. And I mean, okay. So maybe the question is how many spaces would have to be sacrificed to move it, let's say 20 feet from the sidewalk? Maybe not be able to answer that off the top of your head. I think it might be six, but I don't know who has the authority. I don't know whether that. Planning board. The planning board. Planning board has. Is that public hearing? I think it's a little both. I think if the historic district commission says that we want a certain setback, the, you know, the bylaw says the commission has ability to impose setbacks and then, you know, becomes a discussion between the planning board and local sort of districts in terms of what, you know, what works. So the plane work can issue a waiver too. And so if the commission says we're not going to approve it unless it has a setback, then the planning board will say, okay, well, how does that work with the rest of, you know, their review? I don't, I mean, it hasn't come up that. You know, there's been, you know, something like this where there's a disagreement over setback. Is there? But who's disagreeing? Well, I'm saying like if the, for instance, if the, if the commission says we want you to get rid of six parking spaces and move the building back and then you go to the planning board, if you're approved in the planning board says, well, you required 14 spaces, we're not going to let you have less than 10. Then, you know, there's a conundrum that what's the right path forward. So I'm just saying that, you know, there could be something if the commission is like, we really need this setback. We don't want a five feet from the street. That's not appropriate. Then you have to come up with what's a solution in terms of, you know, is there off-site parking that would work if you went to the planning board? Is there, you know, like Morgan said, public transportation, what are our alternatives that you could bring that would, you know, work with the planning board, you know, local sort of district wouldn't approve it otherwise. And I think we'll have public comment. One of the two boards is much more agreeable to waiting in the parking. I think the planning board is actually... He has a request. I mean, how about the history of getting them to agree? Is it common for them to do that? Do you want the microphone? They often... One moment. We have a request from the public. I'd like to request that the images be circulated so that the people can do it. I was trying to bring them up online. And can you hear what's being said? My comment is can you... I'll stand there for you. Yes, we only have the images that we were provided with, so we'll need to give you our images. Thank you. Yeah, we didn't... Wait, we didn't receive these before I had to... Then what both images? If I took a photograph of these and emailed them to you, would you be able to... I've already done that to myself, but I'm having trouble accessing my account right now. Could you do it without yours for the moment? Sure, absolutely. Okay, so... Wait, these are the old... An old and a new. Which is... This is the... I can't tell. They're old. How about the windows? These are the old with the small, that's the new. Okay. Yes. This is old. Sorry. We'll just have to remember them. Here you go. We've got a queue here. This will be okay. Yeah, but I've talked with my... Our clients about the parking, and our parking was totally driven by the bylaw. And they could... It wasn't an issue. They were pretty flexible about that. Okay. That's good to know. And so there would be... Excuse me. In that case, there would be a memorandum from us to the planning board suggesting why we were making this recommendation. Oh, we don't want them up on there. Yeah, it's just... Right. There would be a discussion with the planning board of why there was a certain setback or why the rationale between before that. And that conversation would happen before we would... It might happen before we could issue a certificate. No, I think we could... No, we could offer the certificate. But say the condition is the setback has to be X or Y. Yes. Okay. Yes. Okay. Are there any other questions of the applicant? I don't know how to ask this question. We had suggested the idea of flipping several meetings ago and it seems an interesting one. But I... Not but. And I would want myself to go back to Gray Street to imagine what impact the increased height of the roof would have in that stately progression of houses down Gray Street because... It's lower than all of them. Okay, thank you. All right. But what about the mass of that... of the studio that is required by the studio? That still is only a store-and-a-half at 26 feet. Okay. And the building next door is like 32. Okay. Thank you. And it's further up the hill. Because they're two-storey buildings. Yes. We're only a store-and-a-half. Yes, I know, but store-and-a-half could be as big at some times as a two-storey building. Yeah. So 50 foot across, not 28. Yeah. Are there any other questions? Yes. Excuse me. I think we're just saying that the details about the facade, windows, et cetera, we would be getting to today or we would be coming to... What were... Pardon? What I thought is we would, you know, after we go into our deliberation, then we would each have a chance to say what, you know, our concern is where we stand. Thank you. And that would be probably the time. Okay. Thank you. Because I know for myself, this is maybe out of wonder, I should say this when we're deliberating, but I couldn't vote to approve without knowing. Yes. The details. Yes. But we would have said... Get into that one later. We would have sensed if we agreed, either with what Mr. Gillan has presented or with his assuring us that the things we say we're still concerned with, he will be able to address, then we could presumably authorize him to go forward. We could go forward, but we wouldn't have voted yet. And we would not have voted at final authorization yet or appropriateness yet. That's right. I have a question. When you were considering the whole thing, did you also consider the possibility of matching Gray Street in height, moving it that way, and then doing two floors and making less of a... Two floors is a half million dollar elevator project. So we actually can't put an elevator in. I see. Now that the public is invited for a non-profit, everybody's the public. Everyone follows here, it's just the public. And you can't do a ramp that would be. The elevator has gone up substantially since I stopped practicing. Billy, are you serious about that number? I know it's a big number. It's a big number when... And it's a continuing expense. Yes, and yes. It's a service contract and inspections and it's a nightmare. Well, I mean, I think the commission, I think if you say no to an elevator, I would request that we have more information in terms of what is the cost and is it required. If there are private offices upstairs and the public's not allowed, then you don't have to have an elevator. I'd want to verify with the building commissioner what is required in terms of access. I mean, it is... You're wrong. Well, it's the best practice, but I just would want to verify... The only way, because I've been there, the only way you can have offices upstairs without an elevator is if there is no and no means zero, visit public visitation in the course of the year. So that would have to be the standard. Just want to be clear about that. It's been done before with other buildings where they'll say they have to set aside a conference room on the first floor and everyone has to be downstairs. No, it's federal. That's not a 521 state. There are much more strict... I want to verify just to make sure... So that we could build two floors. Does anyone else want it? It was asked, so I just want to make sure that we... From my point of view, it would not remove the Gray Street symmetry and it would achieve a smaller west wing which I have always been in favor of. Certainly it wouldn't be good for their operation to have some of their folks upstairs and downstairs. They really need to be all on one level to do their... I think we'll build the position that the commission is taking here. We need to project so that people in the back row can hear us. It's going to be hard for me to project tonight. I'm sorry, I would be in bed. If you want to hear me and you can't, you've got to come closer, because I'm only here instead of lying in my bed because of this damn application, I would have stayed at home for any of the other applications that we've had in the past two years. I'll be addressing a second floor. It's important that we understand that what's convenient and good for the applicant is not our priority. If that was important to the applicant that they had to have a large footprint covering, they might have wanted to be a little more careful about the site they choose, perhaps. I'm just suggesting that's a potential consideration. I think one of the problems of this proposal is the volume. You've heard me on this last week. I think the volume is the problem. It translates to scale. Wherever we are here on our 8.2, we have to consider the appropriateness of the scale and there's a whole bunch of other things, but I just come to grief with scale because it's not appropriate as a scale. It might be more appropriate as a scale if it were consolidated, locked up, and pushed to the back so that it was further up Gray Street, but we would have to see that. And I did also ask Nate, I think that we should make sure that if we have these kind of projects in the future that there has to be three-dimensional modeling involved so you can automatically project fly-arounds or multiple views very quickly of what the thing looks because you can see that we're a commission that is greatly challenged by being able to see things, visualize things three-dimensionally in relation to the side slopes and adjacent buildings. And there is architectural software that's routinely used nowadays that does model. That's what you do, you model it. You don't draft it, you model it. And then what flows from that is an automatic, well, it's not, well, theoretically automatic capability to project three-dimensionally from any aspect. And then we would be able to make judgments about the visual impact of this building from various aspects as we would be able to compare it with what it might look like if it had a flat roof or if it was two-story and pushed to the back. And I think that that's what we need. And I'm going to, at some point, I will move to deny based on the finding that scale is inappropriate. But I would, before we do that, I would invite the applicants to submit some alternative propositions in terms of scale and form. You mean scaled drawings. No, I mean more visual studies of some sort. I can visualize this fairly easily, but I think I know from our last meeting that most of the rest of you can't. And that's a problem. That's a real problem. I also know that current technology, which has been available for more than 30 years, my office has been using it for more than 30 years, so I know what I'm talking about, is to generate this kind of three-dimensional projection that would make our job so much easier. And it frustrates me that we aren't there. I would, because I'd like to, if we don't have any more questions of the applicant, to close the public portion of the meeting so that we can deliberate. Well, if we close the public hearing, we can't accept. No, we can't ask questions. If the commission thinks they want to go this route and request more information then we can keep the public hearing open and continue it again. I mean, at some point, we're going to have to make a determination either are we going to continue the conversation and run the same application for a long time or say here are the reasons why we like it or don't like it and either issue us or to get or deny it. And so, you know, I provided a memo to the commission. There's copies on the back table and it offered a lot of suggestions and recommendations to the commission in terms of how to approach it. So, you know, I think, you know, what I'd like to hear is, hearing some of it today, you know, an explanation of how this does or doesn't meet the criteria and I just, you know, we've asked the applicant now a few times to come back with different concepts and more information and so the question is, are we going to continue to do that and keep it as the same application or make a determination on what's been presented? And so, you know, I just want to make sure that, you know, Bruce, you know, do we have multiple concepts and if the answer is like, well, you're just going to refine the one that's been submitted. The new one, is that enough for the commission to say, yes, are we going to ask Bill to go ahead and do architectural drawings and go through the whole effort or do we still want to have backup even more and have, you know, different concepts presented which was asked, you know, at the first hearing. Do we still want to have a discussion about what's appropriate in terms of mass scale and volume? So I just want to make sure that commission, I mean, I kind of agree with Moran that let's take that step back and say, okay, are we ready to even go down until we've got the details of this design or are we not there yet? So that's something I want the commission to discuss. Because otherwise, we're not providing guidance to the applicant right now. You know, we've offered some, I think some information, some guidance, but we're not clear on is this enough to say, yes, move forward. We'd like where you're going or are we still at the question of do we have any different types of massing proportion? But I think some of it is, we kind of go in circles because now, okay, so we have a different variation on the design, which was, we had expressed concern about the west wing, so now the building could be flipped and so we'd have less mass on the west side. But then we get back to, we lose the setback and I know, like for me, that was a deal breaker having it five feet from the sidewalk. If it's always, sometimes there's a feeling of, you know, one foot forward, two feet back. We could do that. I suspect we could do it. And then, you know, part of my concern and this gets to be the whole style of the building, so it's not just the details, but when I see, you know, like this, this is what we had before today, this was the most details drawing that we had. And as I've been driving around the last week and I had said, you know, last week I expressed my concern that the devil and the details that, you know, that really is what makes the building. Is it, in terms of this, you know, in relation to the bylaw, is it that have the style and the sophistication and the charm and there's a lot of buildings like this. I even sent something to Nate. I don't know if they can be flashed up. But I feel like without having any detail, we don't know that when it goes up, it's not going to look like this. I sent Nate several that, you know, this is in Amherst and yeah, group nine that they're kind of the shape of a house. But if it's all, you know, if it's all planks, you know, horizontal planks and going across the facade is all the same, you know, with the plank. You know, there's not a point at which, you know, maybe you have contrasting with a bay and when the bay comes out, it's got shingles smaller going in a different direction. I mean, just there's there's many buildings around. That one's in Northampton. This one's really dark. Yeah, that's how I look at that in Northampton. I was like, God, could it look like that? This is on route nine almost in Amherst and Hadley, you know, where they do have the break where the kind of roofline starts, but it's still just kind of has this kit like look that is not is just not appropriate in I guess the style comes in the details and that bay, I just took a picture of it's a department building going up in Northampton. Not that that's what we want, but at the bay windows they actually have shingles, small shingles that are going vertically in contrast to the long horizontal planks and then there's all that trim. So at least, you know, it lends a certain charm kind of Cape Cod look but I feel like one of the bay itself is a different angle from the flat is one of these just, you know, kind of the lack of, you know, kit like which kit likes is allowed. Point of information, at the last several meetings there was a discussion about the perspective from the corner of Gray and Main Street. This new picture conveniently takes a picture across the street and to the west. So you're not going to get any perspective at all if there's any obstruction of that vista, which is something that was discussed at length at the last three meetings. No one here seems to have mentioned that. Well, we haven't mentioned everything starting yet. I understand that, but again, it seems like getting, you know, can't see the force through the trees. I just want to make sure since it was something that was brought up and discussed at length, we don't have a picture here even though we've got something new to look at it is not discussing the point that the picture that should be offered should be from the corner of Main and Gray as you enter the historic district and look up northwest, not north, but northwest to the view of the two Hills Houses at the Triangle Street and the Dickson Park. I think that's what Bruce is saying, that we need to be able to see it from... But this picture... If we're holding a public comment, I think it's only fair that we hold a public comment, please. Thank you. What I want to encourage that we do is to dispose of this question of scale first. I know, and I don't want to be disrespectful here, I just want to observe what I've seen throughout my life with folks who are less familiar in discussing these subjects and that is that we'll go for the details. That we'll go for the details. That you will concentrate on the details. I think the first question to resolve is are we satisfied that there is an appropriateness of scale? Are we satisfied that there is an appropriateness of scale? And if we are, then we can continue to discuss the windows, boards, cupolas, whatever we want. I agree, I agree. So are you really talking about the square footage? Or just... I'm talking about the body. I think it's too big. I think it can be made smaller. There's lots of ways in which it could be made smaller. That's massive and set back. But still have the square footage? Are you getting to reducing the square footage? I don't care. Because they will take care of the square footage. They want to fit their program in the building. I'm assuming that they will maintain it. But if they think that there is a way in which they can greatly influence by changing something in relation to the area and they don't do that, then that's their business and that's their challenge and that's their... Because it's square footage, it's not larger than the structures around it. I think what Bruce is saying... Oh, I don't agree. It's 4,400. That's a pretty damn big house. I don't think there are too many houses that big around it. But I think... I think, Bruce, to your point, you were talking about the scale and the massing. The important thing there is, if the applicant says we're not going to go below a certain square footage, so the question is, are they going to make their design work with what the commission thinks is appropriate? So, you know, it's not whether or not if, for instance, they came in and said we want 10,000 square feet, nothing less, you'd say that's too big. But we don't know yet if they're willing to put their program into a smaller mass or volume. That's what you're asking. That's the point. That's not our concern. I do think when you're thinking of this and that point made that this building here much longer than the single occupant. Single occupant. What is built there is going to be on the skate for a long time. It has to fit in. That's our whole mission. It has to fit in. And that's why I think if you could be in the line of Gray Street, have about the same setback and not block the view coming from the other side, you'd have a much better chance of getting the commission to say yes, it's appropriate than at the moment when you're dealing with so many needs and trying to fit it in in some ways. That's my feeling. I think the setback on Gray Street is probably appropriate in terms of how the other houses are. Yes. It's too called mainstream. But you could have that same setback as Gray Street has somewhat or a little bit and then you would still not completely obliterate the view from this side but it doesn't seem to work with the needs. That's a dilemma. You'll help with the procedure. Is there a point at which we might go around the table with the commission and say whether there are specific things that we see that could be changed that would make it a building that enhances and improves the historic district at that point. Because that's our language as well as appropriate and compatible. There are a lot of terms that we're working with. In terms of mass, location viewscape, etc. And simply itemize what we think might be needed. Yes. I guess that I get that too. We have articulated that before and what we keep also getting is we accommodated this and then we had to go back and then that erases a request that was made previously. I agree. But that's why I think that's the most effective way to go around, which is what we did last time. What is the square footage? Is it 36 or 44? 44. I've seen it written different ways. Yes. I would like to not have public comment until the end or we'll never get back to having our... Right. We've been in a difficult position because there's been a new design presented right now. That's why I like the idea of looking at some of the other criteria and seeing if we can provide guidance as Bruce has suggested and something back and saying do we like the massing, the proportion and not get down to the detail at this point because otherwise they might go through the effort of really working this design and then we don't know yet whether or not the work bill for you just to have the commission have another discussion on this if we can talk about it now in terms of the mass and design. That's where I'm hoping we can talk to you. I think the treatment of Main Street and by memo I mentioned a number of things and so again it's like does the commission think the massing is appropriate the way it is in this now? Is the roof too high? Are the facade treatments appropriate? We could talk about generally to provide guidance in that way the applicant knows okay I can work with this design or it doesn't sound like it's going to work at all I don't need to go back and try to make a 3D model with everything in here because I know the commission wants these different things. Do we each take three minutes to Yeah, I think so. If people are there, if we're comfortable enough saying Bruce and Mariana have kind of talked a little bit about that. We can't Wait, do we I'm just saying if we start letting people speak from then we have to really do I feel like we let somebody speak from the public then we have to have everybody speak. I'm not necessarily but I think so the room we have to leave a little after six and so I think knowing we have an hour and say 15 hour and 20 minutes 25 minutes we can say how much time we have now for the commission we could have a certain amount of time for public comment so if we think we can the commission can go around and have a conversation for the next 15 minutes and then see where we are. There's a point of order from the audience. I'm confused now about the structure of the meeting. There was a presentation now I'm listening to the deliberation of the commission and to assume that when you are finished deliberating then the public will have an opportunity to speak why would you deliberate before you hear from the people who have something to say? We've been hearing what people I mean that's why I asked if I had to close the public portion. We don't have public comment at every meeting last time was like the first time we really got to deliberate after three meetings I think the commission was presented with a new design the hearing is still open I think the commission is still at a point of trying to determine what they think is appropriate for the site and with this new design how to provide guidance to the applicant so if the commission takes a certain amount of time to do that we're leaving the hearing open so that they still can hear public comment there still can be changes to the design but they haven't had that time to deliberate the public is not speaking the presentation is finished we're speaking but we haven't closed the meeting to the public that's what Nate was suggesting we're not closing we're trying to understand right yes and that's what we so if we want to take I don't have a timer but three minutes no more than three minutes what thoughts or concerns or how you feel about the current design which we're just seeing for the first time but it's not that different than what we've seen in terms of concerns you had before if you would just like to share that why don't we hear from Peggy Jimmins we should start with Karen one of the things I really didn't like about the last about this this one of last week is that try as I could this seems like from the facade of Main Street a hodgepodge to me even though I know your design of the New England barn and stuff still to me this I think this addresses that and I like it better still I have reservations if I like the grey street design I think it fits in with grey street the main street to me the mass this spreading out and the fact that you're it's there and it's just it's not in line with grey street and then it stops it's just very much too close to the front the view is completely gone coming up here and I wish really I mean it's clear to me that why you can't have the true story but I agree with Bruce that if the mass the spread of it were somehow more condensed and fitting and appropriate I could be enthusiastic about it and as it is right now I would like to see it in the seat go there see it and then see is it really going to be as detrimental as I don't want it to be so that's my opinion would I say put the details on it now I would say not yet Jim well I like the proposed changes almost down to get the large section over near the grey street that helps keep the mass down so that Chris poor visually able to see the hills house and around the corner also I think I complained at the last one about the berm and now it's gotten down to close to ground level I think that's a great help I'm very fond of Greek revival I think that's being kept of course that helps give it some kind of unifying sense throughout the whole building having it set back having the new section in reverse if it could set back from the road even though it may miss a parking space as others have brought up here I think it's a good idea I think to look at detail and everything we need to probably see another set of plans another session I know one session after another but like Karen says it's going to be here for a long time and we want something that's appropriate for that area thank you getting closer I woke up last night and wrote a letter to my fellow commissioners and our community and I wasn't sure I would read it but given that you're asking us to speak it's easier for me to do that than to try to improvise so dear fellow commissioners and neighbors since the distressing meeting this past Monday the conflicting needs of members of the Amherst community have had me up at night across the street from the women's center Hills House I walk under a drive past the property in question several times a day in my heart of hearts I would like to see it undisturbed by construction of any sort but what are the possibilities legalities and my obligations that a parcel of the property was purchased in good faith by the Amherst media cannot be questioned but intent to build was not deliberated at the time by the Dickinson Historic Commission had the commission been involved initially its views and those of the surrounding neighbors and townspeople might have affected the Amherst media's decision to purchase and build on that site as things stand however our commission has asked to respond to a project already given a form of town approval my dilemma I want to be as supportive as possible of Amherst media their mission is an important one but I also want to hold firm to the reason for the commission which is to support changes in the historic district consistent with its mandate to honor and preserve what we can of the past while moving into the future the two historic houses on the property along with the Dickinson homestead define the essence of the Dickinson Historic District much as the town's common town commons the Jones library represent the Amherst town center to significantly alter the exterior of either of the existing buildings i.e. the two mansions or to significantly impinge on the viewscape by adding a building which detracts from the landscape architecture or only makes a nod to that history defeats the historic nature of the area and the commission's mandate that a reasonable and generous offer has been proposal has been offered by the owners of the abutting property to purchase the property under discussion and to create a park which they will fund maintenance seems an incredibly generous offer which I would hope the Amherst media board could accept that seems to me a win-win for the Amherst media organization and the town of Amherst to my mind the only other alternative would be to drastically alter the currently proposed design so that a new building would be clearly and visibly compatible with the two historic structures and the surrounding landscape and this does not do that to me I mean the historicity of those mansions is so distinctive while I am in full support of the work of the Amherst media I feel that my first obligation as a member of this commission is to protect the historic nature of the area in question and my second is to be of whatever service I can as the Amherst media would seek a different property upon which to build this decision in my park comes after sleepless nights I'm going to cry trying to imagine a solution which will serve both my obligation to the commission on which I serve as well as an obligation as an Amherst resident who wants to support the important work of the Amherst media organization as well as just a neighbor and friend to many people in this room and the larger community of Amherst sincerely Peggy Schwartz member Dickinson local historic commission Thank you Thank you Thank you Did you want to add anything to? No, just that I hope we can get through this in a way that's constructive and that will work for everybody I just pray that we can find a way through and I don't feel like we're there quite yet Thank you Maureen First I really wanted to thank you Peggy for expressing what may not be visible as we meet as commissioners but the conflict, the anguish of the situation that has been created by others who came before us who subdivided the land with different owners, votes to build, decisions not to sell to the town there's a lot of back story to this Different zoning There's a lot of back backstory to this which we know which cannot affect our decision as commissioners but is burdensome in ways that no other situation that we've dealt with has so I want to thank you for the affect I also want to remind us that even though I was not on the commission at the time my understanding was that in the renovations of the Hills House conducted by Mr. Gerald Gidera there were at least four hearings and two site visits so this is not so extraordinary but we're going through here given the tremendous importance of that part of the local historic district that said here are the things that are a number of deal breakers for me I am glad that the berm will be one foot I want to see it moved as much to the east as possible and I would like to see that on the next presentation where it is on the open plot of land I am glad to see that the west wing of the last presentation has been flipped but I would like to see elevation drawings to get the impact of that as one comes down Grey Street and as one drives from the east to the west and is seeing that now larger building I am interested in seeing what would now be the larger east wing on Grey Street I would like to see an exploration of that as two stories picking up on Nate's request that we have some cost estimates because it may indeed be a hardship that would forbid that but I think we need to factor that into our conversation I want to see fewer parking spots and I think that we can write a letter supporting that to the planning board in order to provide more space to move the new west wing further to the east and away and therefore preserve as much as the viewscape to both but particularly to the Hills House as possible because I think that the old west wing and even the new west wing and the berm all impinge on that I want to see the work not lots of detail but the work on the facade I want to be able to see that setback and how that lobby entrance attractively and convincingly connects the two wings of the building and I do want to see the new west wing setback so I know that the parking lots pose a problem there and so that's something that I suggest to that effect I'm going to come back to another point in just a moment I want to see the window treatment or the windows the plan for the windows is viewed from triangle which may now be more attractive with the flipping of the two buildings but I will want to see the windows as seen from Green Street now as well okay let me just see I am very concerned still about the main street facade about it's being attractive I think the setback is important eventually we will need to see the materials so that they are high quality but it's premature for that now the last thing I'm going to suggest this is not an ask this is not a deal breaker for me but I have to say I have made many personal site visits and taken lots and lots of pictures that try to remember what hillside looks like where the trees are etc and what did strike me this time is that if you stand and look from your office building Mr. Gillan which is quite a lovely building it's modest compared to the hills house but there is an interesting visual up and down the hillside from your building across the street and the hills house on the top of the hill and so I did have the wild thought that I'm not requiring that you pursue is there a way to get some visual of those two buildings in the west building which is an intermediary spot between your office on the south side the hills house and so it would interrupt what is a fairly tiresome stretch I mean I also love farmhouses and barns but I think not on the entrance to town in that particular spot so I had the interesting idea of having a different kind of architecture on the new west wing smaller I have to share the concern about the mass but that might somehow echo your building on the south side and the hills house up on the north but on a small scale so that's just a thought whereas my thought about the parking spaces is an ask you've heard me but I'll repeat it because I want to be very clear I have not gotten past the scale of this building I think in so far as we're asked to consider a preparedness scale I think this is too big in this location and I particularly think it's and I think that it can be done differently so I would like the applicant to come to us with at least two substantial massing variations at least two substantial massing variations I think the exploration of a two-story structure might be one of them I've already indicated that I think that some elegant resolution of a more horizontal more modern building or simple let's say I would use the word modern I think they circulated to us the images of the church up in town the where Peter Pan bus lines is the old Baptist church I think and then what was done behind it very different but it's back it's not on the road it's very much on the road all the way down from route nine it's very prominent the point you're making is that they're different not that that would be what you might see because I think that I cannot support this from a point of I mean it's a nice design in any other place and without this requirement staring me in the face I'd sure be able to go for it and if it were if I was on the design review board the planning board or the zoning board I would probably have no trouble at all in supporting this building but you know we've got this thing here I don't see how we can we can represent that this is appropriate scale if we do we've shot ourselves in the foot forever after because when anyone comes up and says if we try to get some denial or some leverage on the basis of something is inappropriately scaled everybody is going to point to this and say well you didn't seem to mind there and I think we will do ourselves as a commission damage that we won't easily be able to or ever be able to recover from so I think and we absolutely cannot I don't think give a certificate of appropriateness to this without at least without at least looking for two or three or more massing variations and I would very much like these to be done in a some kind of BIM I could always do this myself I don't know I can't but I have the capacity on my computer at home I still do what I used to do and I know it's not too difficult to do this and you don't have to go to the Netherlands it's just a matter of a piece of software and and Bill I don't think it has to be it doesn't even need the windows or the cornerboards or anything because all I think it's the scale that I'm talking about so massing models like the model that we saw is just a cardboard model that's a massing model what we want though is A to be able to compare massing models one to another and B to be able to fly around it and have contextual photographs with the massing of others and we can verify that from time to time as we did last week by going out with poles and strings and then super imposing from specific aspects that we want those white line drawings that will give scale but initially we want to have volumetric studies of multiple options that would reduce the volume of this building it may or may not reduce the footprint as I said that's up to the applicant but I know that I know it can be done less imposingly you know it can be done less imposingly and we haven't seen or tried just to do that yet we've been focused on details way too much to my eternal frustration I'm glad we're having this conversation as a commission because we spent way too long listening to well-intentioned and passionate and thoughtful comments from everybody but it was getting in the way of us we were being dumped on essentially in the nicest possible way by endless amounts of information crascading down on us for two whole meetings and then we're trying to figure out where we are as a group so now at least we're talking together about this and I want to I want to implore you because I think if we don't we're in deep trouble to consider appropriateness of scale and to really ask ourselves whether not whether this could be made less bad by some detail amelioration which it could I could put a lot of effort into that too but I don't want to yet be discussing particularly with some combination of flat roofs or two stories or pushing back there's lots of ways and this can be done and we haven't seen any of them yet Thank you and I'll be brief but echoing what was said but my focus on not just the details it's the style I guess so I would not when you're taking these requests there's suggestions and requests into account if it comes back and it's smaller and it's set back and it has fewer parking spaces and this style still looks like what I call kind of from a kit that's going to be a deal breaker for me so it's not just the details of what kind of trim you're going to have around the window but the quality of the materials and the general look and feel if it looks like one of those buildings that just goes up on Route 9 or somewhere on the UMass campus that's all part of the bylaw of being appropriate to the style and the scale and the look of the neighborhood but what I said two meetings ago when we everybody I think after the meeting we sent to Nate what were our requirements that we wanted to see that you came back with last time and for me this setback is a real issue that having the building be five feet from the sidewalk just there's no building that's anywhere close to that going from main street from town actually all the way to like southeast street so I realize any building there on that particular part of main street between triangle and gray on the north side on the north side it's not it's going to be closer to the street than the other buildings but five feet is just I don't really see that almost anywhere that just doesn't work for me I would like to see if we could do fewer parking spaces and move the building back and then I had a concern and I don't know how again this is when you turn it around and but I that when you're on gray street are you seeing like a wall that keeps you from seeing anything behind it like when it was flipped before so that you had it was so high on the west side now it's going to be on the east side but but I guess you said it's going to be shorter than the other buildings it's not going to be this tall yeah and I do you know when I look at this one of the members it looks like this is very far from the hill house but when we did the site visit it was really to there which I guess is why we need to actually see how it's placed on the lot because when you look here you think oh it's way down the hill but when we're when we made the site visit the building was not locking the hill house but it came very close so this is giving me a appearance that it's pretty far away so that's that's why I think you know if we could see it really placed on the lot I mean this is more helpful than what we've had before but you know really in relation to the other buildings yeah so again you know I I know it's a give and take but if we need a certain setback and then we also want less mass and that to get less mass we lose the setback that doesn't really get us closer to where we need to go just add one thing and that is I think I might have alluded on this but of course when you had the larger building to the west as I drove down triangle up and down triangle visualizing it it was a big blank wall that just blanked out everything and was not attractive and not suitable so that's why I would like you to really look at the visual from Triangle and read now that you flipped the buildings I also have a call in to Jim at the Amherst media and see if there's any way that a studio could have windows in it but there could be blackout curtains I'm thinking and so that's why you see this big blank is because we have this mindset of a window as do but maybe that's not cast of stone I'll find out because I thought of that there is the needs from interior but there are blackout curtains that do that but there are the needs from the exterior which is how does the building look and indeed sometimes it's nice to have windows to use the studio as a conference room so it could be a win-win so I think we feel we've given you enough input and this you know will all be written down and presented you know I mean I think I feel like the commission has been discussing providing some feedback I'm not sure I just want to know that do we want the applicant to proceed with what do we want the applicant to proceed with so I've heard a number of comments and I'm not sure there's consensus right now about what we want from the applicant so is it to work on this one design is it to come back with different massing models what exactly are we asking I just want to make sure we are clear on that I think we provided guidance but I'm not sure we I think we've asked for what we would like to see proceeding with this design and then when we look back through our minutes from each of the meetings there was a request as Bruce articulated for some different some totally different approaches is that for the west wing mainly I think it was for the entire Billson architect this is a design problem we haven't really explored it to this level of satisfaction that is driven by this statement here one way to resolve this or to at least give a little more clarity to see who would vote to deny this application based on a feeling that it is inappropriate from the point of view of scale if four of us feel that, that would be a pretty strong indication to the applicant as to what the way forward might be I mean you have to admit that would be a pretty good clear piece of feedback but the scale would not necessarily speak against that particular design so there really are two different issues because at least I have been trying to argue ways to scale back using that design that basic concept and you have been asking for other concepts I will rephrase my question based on the premise that I don't think that this set of volumes no matter how they are organized could be provable could be deemed to be appropriate in terms of scale you could flip them around all over the place what if you reduced the square footage but it was the same as the basic well it would need to be pretty substantial but let's see that I am not able to, I can't see myself being able to support this application as it stands from the point of view of the volumetric presence, its volumetric presence is too great, no matter what you did to us if you requested that you had a specific request and if we all support that request that there be some alternative designs well it's different from saying yes it's a good idea to saying without it it's no deal otherwise if Bill goes away thinking that one person believes that this proposal is unsupportable and should be denied as it stands and the rest of you think it would be a good idea to do some massing studies he's not going to do any massing studies and I wouldn't in his position I would feel happier having and I would ask that last time too I would like to see a different concept and an amazing job at making this fit so many things that we've asked and now if you could get it back and smaller but I do think that on this site something it still doesn't make me very happy I agree with you it would be nice to have a couple of different you don't agree with me? I know she does you said it would be nice, that's not what I'm saying I'm saying it is imperative there's a difference between nice and imperative that's true there's a difference I'm so much more timid but I agree with you we have to be clear otherwise we're not doing anybody a favor you're absolutely right months to be clear to me this just doesn't even if it's smaller and set back it does not to me fit there where it is good I become an amazing fundraiser for Amherst media and give you 20 million dollars to do what you want in a beautiful place because your requirements are just really hard to fit in with making this a beautiful asset to this site I think that's well said that whatever if anything ever gets built on that property it has to really enhance the property and not simply kind of try to finesse it in terms of the details there's an overall gestalt to this property but this doesn't lend itself at all if there was a consensus on the majority of the commissioners or that this design even set back more parking spaces reduced that this design did not meet the criteria then wouldn't we be advised to vote on that I mean I heard the town council saying that rather than just saying we'll leave the media open and come back with a whole other design that then we vote then do an up and down vote on this and then they come back I mean that's the question can the commission provide enough constructive criticism based on the criteria that an applicant if this is denied know what that needs to come forward with that could be approved that's really the question is there enough articulation and explanation of the criteria of why this design doesn't work the applicant says okay we'll hear the things I can change to come back and maybe it won't be approved but at least I'm getting closer so the question is do we keep the hearing open or do we take a position and say okay like Karin just said this style no matter what if it's small or whatever it's just not going to work the commission takes a vote and then the applicant can submit a new design or we keep it open and say okay we want to have this conversation we want to see three new concepts we want to see different concepts we think we can make it work but let's keep it going I think that's really the commission can make that decision I don't have an opinion either way it is going to become a drawn out process and it's kind of the only way to operate in a public setting we can't have high closed doors so I don't really have a recommendation on that right now with the commission if we feel like the applicant can come back and have those different volumes and the different masses in a format that can be viewed by the commission I agree that software there's no sketch up and there's free software you could implement that drop in terrain at the low level entry level but it's fine we might be able to get through what is the appropriate volume and mass and proportion for this site if we want that then let's keep the hearing open and set a new date if we don't think we're going to move that way then I would say okay let's present it because we can't keep going around definitely which is good if that's where we've gone from this is how we'd like to see this design be different to well maybe we want a whole different design and then I think that maybe yes several mentions of it's too big and that the volume is too great so we've been told from day one this is the rooms this is the spaces that we need and I don't know if they can live with because we've been coming back iteratively and hearing that it's too large we've been trying to narrow making it smaller making it look smaller but if you are serious about a a serious reduction in the volume I don't think the building the client in a way could live with it it just won't be because it won't fit it'll fit it's a huge site it's amazing we've got something this big and we're only using a little corner of it for good reasons for good reasons but I think right now for instance the west no matter what mass you're looking at why structure so your gable end is very wide and big to have an appropriate pitch on that roof you have a high roof the question is is there other ways to structure the building so you don't have to have a 15 foot high ridgeline on a one story building those are the things to me we don't know yet as a commission in the staff memo it's a really wide gable to try to fit on what is a big mass we don't know what are the different iterations of how that could take shape we did reduce but not in what I'm hearing today not enough even the interior layout of the program so even if the client needs a certain square footage we don't know that it's been the layout and the program of the space considered in different ways that the floor plan is radically altered so we've been presented that there's a studio wing and an office wing but we don't know why does there have to be a central lobby why could the lobby be linear along one whole side of the building in a way that other spaces are arranged differently so you're not having two masses with an atrium but you have one building that has different layout so to me that's going to Bruce's idea of having different concepts so I Bruce said a small volume but I think volume for example I don't know how big your building is that we like so much where your office is if that building I don't know what the volume is we're a design here I would say wow it fits in from all sides it's just that your needs are with your needs does volume have to be square footage or like you're saying you could have a square footage but it doesn't have to have it was a different design it would have less of a volume you could have a flat roof I mean the Italian Nade style that was popular through various poets of the Victorian era had essentially flat roofs and even if you wanted to echo a Victorian era you could do a flat roof by going in that direction you could also go in the direction that we discussed a moment ago with the variation in styles and so forth of the building further uptown and you've heard me on the topic which I know we have explored and I haven't convinced you but maybe if it was the only way to resolve satisfactorily the scale could basically have a simple elegant flat roof building I think we'd like to see that that's the direction I would go in and I would expect to be able to convince you all that was the best way to go because I think I mean as I said this is a fine design it just doesn't fit what we're obligated to judge it by so we have to find some other alternative and my other alternative would include flattening those roofs by whatever stylistic means the architect thought was appropriate Marianne I see ways and I've suggested ways of reducing the volume of what's been presented to us I would not want to lose an expert I would not want to lose a drawing that reflected those ideas in the efforts to look elsewhere for other ideas I concur in that because I do not share my colleagues feeling on this as he knows so I would like to see more work on this design in line with what I at least tried to specify I do think there is real virtue in I'm not an architect I can't even draw but something that gave a suggestion of other options not developed not lots of time and money invested in them and it may be I did realize this until today that when I had the straight line view from your building up to the hills let a small scale is it Italian is that what that style is what is your style of your building is that queen Anne that's what our report stated that we did for the district well thank you very much queen Anne so a modified okay okay all right but that would be interesting and it would be visually consistent from main street so that might be an option one option I think since we seem to be three three in the way that we're tilting my view is not to lose how far we've advanced in discussing this option while spending one more meeting looking at what you've been able to do following our suggestions reducing the number of parking slots etc etc well see I think I would like to see both it's not either or I just wanted to be sure that we were not making a decision that was either or but that I think we do need to commit ourselves to make an either or decision at our next meeting I think we if we possibly can if this all comes in so that we can really so you're saying is to request along these lines well we made specific suggestions on that yes specific suggestions into this general design as well as to see maybe two possibilities yeah different approaches one of which might be Queen Anne because it's consistent or the single story single story that might be the second option I think if we don't do that I agree that we negged on our responsibility we should have some comment now just one question for the media people representing is it under any consideration that maybe you would look at another site or other sites that's really beyond our that's beyond our that's their decision not ours we can only deal with the architecture and how it's appropriate to the community so we really can't so let's we have 25 minutes of public comment and then we can have an hour or should we have the public comment before we wrap up exactly we've got public comment now how many people would like to make public comment okay let's start can I make a suggestion if Nate could bring up Google Earth we can look at the site we can see all the views I have it on my phone we've got a pretty good view with Google Earth sure I mean I think I think that would be helpful right now the commission they're still trying to look at a proposed design so we're asking that the design be implanted in that so we can have the contextual model yes I think Tom Tom Lut wait wait you said you were going to public comment we haven't called on you yet no no did you come and talk I haven't come up in front and say who you want to come and your name is can you say again Tom Lut 175 Amity Street I think you're doing a terrific job I think Nate has prepared an excellent outline of a design but then I discover when I arrived today the design has changed that's the way it is based with a sudden new design without the backup documentation and I think it's a tough job a tough place you're in good luck okay Ms. Greenbaum I'm speaking as in a butter now not as a reporter oh Hilda Greenbaum 298 Montague Road and I own 351 Main Street my biggest problem with this building is that it's totally unbalanced classical buildings the left and the right parallel each other in some way and here you've got two totally different things with different different masses different slopes of the roof I was taken the other day to visit libraries and I happen to be taken to the Granby Library which is a new building and it took its central structure from the original library which was a cute little Doric building in the historic common of Granby so it has a one-story with Doric columns in the center connecting two wings with a parallel of course it's not a much bigger lot but it's a classic building and it looks classical and it's balanced which I think the breaks will be very happy with so that my thing is that you can have two things I think that barn is just totally out of proportion with relation to the east side of the building I'm wondering in terms of the berm has anybody thought about maybe just a detention pond that might even have some nice water flowers that go around the edge of it and a sitting area that might be a nice place to react rather than a bump in the grass I had Is that a question for the that's an idea, go look at that I'm really bothered by the fact that these buildings that are so totally different the west structure is too large for the site it doesn't look like the east side I would like to see two parallel balanced structures and not look like somebody sitting on a seesaw and waiting down one end well thank you I'm serious about looking at the new Granby Library we probably find a picture online it's much bigger than this but it's balanced wings on a door I could say thank you Dr. Shabazz did you so again thank you I know your job is difficult however we keep getting the goalpost moved within the suggestions and so as we particularly Bill Gillan and associates attempt to create something that is appropriate and that will be appropriate pertaining to the bylaws and how you all are obligated as you put it to serve the community you know I really do again ask you that are you serving all of Amherst because we definitely have a history and we record and document the history and we are trying very hard to have a constructed building a new bill which is obviously new for you all as well and to regard it with respect and to change every time as you can imagine is really very difficult for us each time we're trying to take your suggestions in and incorporate it once again we have something and we've changed it as this gentleman pointed out and it's not that we are averse to changing it but I can remember two meetings ago when you said directly I'm glad it's not two stories we don't want a two story building and now we're back to that suggestion so your job is difficult definitely Bill Gillan and associates job is difficult all of our job is difficult to consider what is historically appropriate something that is subjective what is historically appropriate for a community that everyone calls home okay so that's what I'd like to say and again I do understand that it is difficult and I hope we can get some clarity for the next meeting thank you Matt Basingale I represent Harmsway and also I'm an Amherst resident I think one thing that could be useful for the board is instead of just saying we're going to have another meeting in a month and the Amherst meeting has to go to all the things they have to do is somehow arrange it to where they have sufficient amount of time to produce the documents that everybody can see days in advance instead of the day of which I can understand because you only had a week I got to get here in a week and present a new set of plans for but to coordinate it so maybe it's not you don't put it on the schedule for next month you put it on for two or three months down the road to give a sufficient amount of time and build in a requirement that all submissions to the board need to be advanced a week before so people have enough time to comment on it instead of being surprised at the meeting thank you are there any other comments? John Hornick, a resident of Amherst I have a user of Amherst media and so I am concerned about this and observing this discussion I think the greatest obstacle honestly is that the commission itself has not reached the consensus about what it would like to see in listening to each of the individual comments what I hear are really quite different concerns that have been raised by different people one person doesn't want anything at all on that site another person is concerned about the mass again, I won't go through it but my concern is that it's very hard for the architect to respond without having a sense of what the priorities are of the commission of what the consensus is around what could be done as Bruce Coltham said well do we or do we not think that the current massing is a deal breaker and you never reach consensus in response to that question and is it an important question or isn't it I don't know having listened to you other people talked about the style of a building across the street that's Mr. Gillens is that if it's not that style or something like that is that a deal breaker for everybody I don't know I don't know how a building point can walk away from here and say well what I should do is A, B, C, D and then I'll have something that the historic commission can all agree upon unless you have a consensus then you'll be iterating through this and he'll be iterating through this for months so I do really believe at this point the obligation on the commission not for individuals to keep making suggestions which of course is productive in one way but for you to reach some agreement around among those suggestions what it is you really would like to see the architect come back with thank you and I do feel I need to respond to a couple of points that and then we'll usually wait till the end of public comments but I feel I need to respond I do want to say this is these are from the minutes and this is what went out after the it's dated August 15th so we've had the same list of concerns and a number of these are also the planning department you know planning staff concerns and commission concerns since this application was first presented on August 15th so I know just so you know we're not dreaming up new requirements or requests at every meeting this has been consistent since the first meeting where the application was presented and where the commission doesn't have to every one of us don't have to be in agreement it doesn't have to be a unanimous we don't have to have a unanimous vote and to some extent you do want your commissions to reflect the community as a whole and not have us appointed because we all have the same point of view and we're going to come down the same way on you know every application that comes before us and we what we're grappling with today I think we all agree and we've said it since the beginning that we need to have a certain setback and so part of this I've said it before but we make a suggestion then you come back then you know come back with a different plan and then we may push back on that and that's if you know at one meeting we said we need it to be setback further and we think that the west wing is not in scale or volume appropriate for the setting which it's in so you come back with a smaller west wing but then we're back up to five feet from the sidewalk again we haven't one of our major concerns about the setback has then been reversed and that's you know so we we have we have articulated some consistent requirements but they seem to go back and forth as one is a common one request is a common eight then another one gets bumped out and I think we are all in agreement although we may you know want to see different you know we may be articulating different smaller requests but we are all saying that we don't think that the um that the position that where it's situated on a lot on the lot that the volume of the building whether it's bare footage or just the actual massing of the we are all in agreement that the massing and the way this style looks right now and its placement on the lot and the berm was a concern that those are major items that have been a concern and they've been addressed in part but they all haven't been addressed to everyone's to kind of satisfaction or in keeping with the bylaw you know as we see being appropriate to the bylaw in one iteration um and it's not so much that we're looking for a historically appropriate building is it has to be a building that in scale and style and detail and setting on the property is consistent with the surrounding and an area if I could make a comment to John's point because I think it'll be helpful John your observation is correct um and it has a lot to do with what Jennifer said at the beginning of the meeting that we were going to spend more time talking amongst ourselves and holding public comment um because it's been very difficult for us to know who we are even I said last week but not everybody was here and I don't think you were um three two well three of the seven of us two of the six of us this is the first application essentially that they've dealt with so difficult first difficult one well new building yes yes Karen and Peggy have very recently joined and so for the point of view of trying to figure out who we are as a as a six people on the commission we've had to invest time in doing that and at the same time we've had a very active public engagement so the first two meetings we had virtually no conversation amongst ourselves we even organized ourselves tonight a little differently so we can do this more effectively so you're right the the there is a um perhaps a disturbing variance of thought and process amongst the six of us we're better tonight I think by a long shot than we were last week um because we've had more time together so I think we have to acknowledge John's point in conjunction with the process that we have which we can only do as you know full well John in public we can't do it any other way so we're we're trying our best to marry public input and the various others with this process of getting to know each other and I should say also we shouldn't confuse what we call an iterative process with moving the goalposts right and then that's I guess in terms of moving the goalpost where I sort of got to this because this has been consistent since since the first meeting right and I do my sense is where we are all in agreement now that the proposed building as currently proposed we would not be comfortable we don't issue a certificate of appropriateness or that and we've stipulated things that we would like to see changed with that approach but we didn't see that approach until today and I believe yeah Jessica Wilkerson I'm at 20 Gray Street and I think you all have a letter that a bunch of neighbors submitted I believe it was 14 neighbors including 17 members of the Women's Women's Club so we shared a little bit of information that we sent to you yesterday and I wanted to first just commend the town for doing such a great job of summarizing and directing the commission and keeping with the bylaws I was really happy to see that down on paper and to remind the commission about its role and its mission and I think everyone here is part of the is a great value to this community but important for the commission to keep in mind that as the town put it it was not this commission's role to comment on the purpose of the building and the use vision or program of the applicant and I heard a great shift today in the commission and its comments and keeping them within the constraints of the bylaws and the criteria that it set forth today I personally really was happy with that I hope that again there is an opportunity for the community to comment on the project with a little bit of lead time knowing in this room that even copies of this visual and there is just not enough detail and no time for the community really to process it and to decide what should be so that would be a strong request on at least my part is that the commission asked that the applicant and the future give a little lead time and the community will be able to review those and move forward I will be about that but I want to thank you all for your seriousness with which you are taking these operations thank you so there is sir have we quick please just that's possible Chris, I'm in a but 14 grey street and 446 main street and I live on 219 just that I would request two things one is that drawings similar to this are going to be presented I'm not sure in my mind that this is anywhere near possibly 4500 square feet right there scale wise and that if they're going to be drawings if they could be, it's been asked before from different angles and that they sort of cycle as possible during instead of sitting on one picture that's all I want to request one other question is if Bruce could please say something to the effect of the differences between square footage and volumetric mass because I'm not sure that all of us here are clear on that and I think they're very different and I think some people might not see that are they? how are they I should say there are three dimensions the x axis the y axis the z axis the x and y axis are the horizontal axis and the building is 20 feet wide by 50 feet long there's a 100 square feet or 1000 square feet I should say and then volumetrically if you build a 20 foot high building it's obviously far more volumetrically if you build a 5 foot high building and I think that's all I'm saying I don't think it should be taken to be too complicated but my question was just could you have could you keep the square footage in terms of the perimeter and have it be less high because when you say mass it's not clear to me volume is not clear to me let's say for the purposes of this conversation are identical words we use massing for massing models we use volumetric for the inside massing is volume to you yes they're the same and in this case it has everything to do with whether there's a gable roof on it or not and I think as you've heard me but I'll say it again a little differently I think the historic the appropriateness of this building is improved in aggregate by taking off the gable roof you lose some of the connection perhaps to the gable roofs of the buildings around but you gain by reducing the volumetric and massing presence and then your job is to make the flat roof look well and I think that's what architects do you know I wouldn't be afraid of doing that and I know Bill well and I know that he's well incapable of doing that we have to push him to do it and if we don't push him to do it he won't do it as I've said because I understand these things if I wouldn't either I want to say too that you know the local historic district within appropriateness is also the square footage so you know to me I'm not convinced that they can't have a smaller square footage as well as a different massing so we haven't been shown more the better are told that there can't be some I'm not saying it's cut in half but there's some variation that might work better with a different concept so volume and square foot do go hand in hand in terms of how they play out in a three-dimension but I agree that if it's cut so much that the applicant can't make a building then that's a problem that we have to encounter at that time but we haven't had that issue yet so we don't know if there are small changes but we made that change the footprint and the volume and when it said that we haven't really told the applicant what we want I mean I think we have but we're not architects so we can't say this is we communicated what our concern is in terms of size and setback and appropriateness and structure and then it's for I guess the architect or the applicant to present different ideas because that's not we're architects we can't tell you exactly what we want that's not our role but I I'm hearing the justice who said he doesn't know what pornography is but he knows it when he sees it no we're not like that I would be the first one to say that because I know that was probably running through everybody's head but what I'm hearing is that some members of the commission would like we want maybe three things can this be modified to meet our requirements and to be in appropriate to the bylaws and in addition could we see some new and different approaches so that this we're not just funneled into that you know that this isn't the whole universe and we could you know we could give the applicant until December or even after the new year yeah I mean I think so nobody's building in the winter I think what you just said was can the curbside be modified to get an approval and then different approaches I mean if we think that's the way the commission wants to go then that can be agreed upon and then we can try to set another date we would be meeting again the first Monday in November but I think that's soon I'm just saying that that's too soon and I don't think we have any other application so we don't have to so that it could be the first Monday in December the first Monday in January and that that would rest with the applicant and the architect so possibly Mr. Malloy could negotiate with them to see we have to continue hearing to it to date sir so to the applicant would do what they made for you would the first would our regularly scheduled meeting which would be the first Monday in December be enough time or would you like until the first our meeting in January the first Monday after the holiday in January December it would be all right it would be great if we could expect that at that time we would know whether we should produce our construction documents and get ready because even though nobody's building in the winter this is the time when the drawings are done and the bidding is done in January and February construction starts the next month in March so this is not a time to sit around and waste time if we're going to get it done this year or in any years if the last week in November better Thanksgiving Thanksgiving we do want a week in advance if we say we want to meet December 2nd which is a Monday we want the drawings by November 25th which doesn't that gives you really just three weeks you're really part of the team at this point our team when we do a project it meets weekly every Monday we meet with the St. John's Church and together we work it out you've got to move it along but we have to respond to your drawings we have to respond we could probably if we could all go to a cafe and talk to each other we could make maybe more progress but we have to do it like this we also have to post the meeting I mean I like Bruce's idea so we have to say do we want to give you now the direction do you doctor this do you just keep working on this and I want to emphasize that besides that I would really welcome a whole a concept of of reducing it as he said I think I would be more enthusiastic in going in that direction I think there is agreement that we would like to see I'd say three things a a continual you know another iteration of this general concept taking into consideration the suggestions that we have today as well as seeing let's say two very different approaches that would as Bruce had articulated that would also reflect the same criteria but in a different approach so we can see maybe a single-story building of flats right and if you could produce that faster and want us to respond to it faster I'm open to meeting faster we could do that as soon as you can but when you say do it a week before and send it out we don't just sit around for a week we continue on so that's why you see more that's why you came in with it we're still working on it so we can't stop we're sorry about that but as soon as you can meet we'd like to meet but maybe we could do it in a format that then we can have everybody that's here be able to see it we'll be happy to invite you into the process and show sketches and plans but they won't be a great quality caliber but they would be talking points because we can't show specific chimney detail we've agreed that that waits until we take the decision we've all agreed on that I think Bill I think a big one is having a 3D model that has the ability to have various perspectives with a quick fly around because like we're seeing here with this static image it's really hard to say what's the perspective then of looking up Main Street from Gray Street whereas if it were in some software where you could easily maneuver around the model you could get down to eye level and have a rough perspective of is this working or not because you can come up with some great floor plans and some sketches but really if the commission wants to know what's least impactful for the view or the contextual element we really need that model and so I think until we have that I would not want to meet again and have a few images or sketches I'd really like to have the concepts in a model that we can have on the screen and we can maneuver around and say okay what does it look like again from Triangle Street let's look at the next one just so we can say yes or no my hope is that after that the commission would have consensus about what is appropriate so then we can say okay we think this is the better approach and we can go that route we could do it without information I'm sure yes I'm not sure we can do it without it that's the issue that we can do without it is it fair to say however that regardless of whether regardless of the modifications on this plan and being able to visualize other plans that fewer parking spaces would move the whole thing eastward and be a useful common thread through the different designs to move it north to move it north and also the one foot berm moved as far east as possible there are some common threads in our feedback today I think with the parking some of it is the site design and now that informs the parking so I think what we said is we want the building to have certain setbacks so now the challenge is how do you design the parking to work so I'm not saying less parking what I'm hearing is we want the building to be a certain way let's make the rest of the site design work but we don't want the thing moved westward in order to accommodate the more parking well I think that's been said so I'm not parking at certain dimensions so there's different ways to configure parking I'm not saying we want reduced parking but if the site design the goal is to reduce parking the goal is setback we don't want to be told that it can't be setback further because of the parking but we want the parking to be driving the location so with that then we don't close the meeting we have to set a date so I guess the question is whether it's November or December what I think November well I heard Mr. Gillins saying ASAP let's make sure oh the posting let's make sure that ASAP included delivering a three-dimensional model in advance well it doesn't have to be in advance yes it does for the audience for the public there's a three-dimensional model the point of that is that people could quickly digest it there would be no point in sending that out because most people wouldn't have the capacity to be able to look at it and they wouldn't look at it the right way and they would jump to the wrong conclusions and Bill would spend the rest of the afternoon disabusing people of all sorts of conclusions they jumped to which would be unfortunate no I think let's make sure that Bill can get any substantial the substantial differential with three-dimensional modeling to support them and then just bring it and we'll be ready good whatever that date is someone tell me a date we were talking about first Monday Monday in December which is December 2nd so what is October 2nd you saved it so just leave it still do you want it in November then I'll back I'll travel backwards on that because I have never done what Bruce says is so easy to do so I don't know what I'm walking into I may be calling Netherlands again or somewhere to figure out how to do to do that but if it's easy as Bruce indicates yeah I'll have it in November but I doubt it I think we should look at December let's continue to Monday November 2nd so this is a week earlier with the holiday I don't want to just be pushing ourselves to no end so if we say the second we can always continue it we can always continue it again right we don't have to do anything on that date but if we think the second is good and we can make it work Bill will be ready now we'll be ready let's just set that as a date I like to keep that because it's our standard meeting time and we've arranged our books after the holiday I think if we do it to do it the Monday Thanksgiving is that 3.40? 4 o'clock we'll be close to Monday December 2nd at 4 we'll let us know okay so then we don't close the meeting we don't close the moving we move to continue to continue to date certain to Monday December 2nd at 4pm so is there a motion? second on favor? passed okay thank you very much