 I just made you co host in case you need to do anything. Okay. Thanks. Do you. You could just kick it off then. Yeah, I mean, we'll wait one more minute. I just only have one attendee right now. Oh yeah, sure. And maybe that's all we'll get. Yeah, I'm supposed to be at two meetings at once right now. So I'm just going to check one other thing. Let me know how you do that. Yeah, so you can actually, if you, if your zoom license allows it, you can, but I don't think mine does. So I have another staff person starting meeting for me and I've just been checking because. Just make sure it's, yeah. Yeah, it looks like it started all right. I know I previously actually had done that and I was, I had two different, I had a laptop and my computer set up to start two different meetings and then, you know, muted one and went to the other and it just. I could handle the transitions technically let alone in my head. Yeah. I didn't want to risk losing this one as a public hearing. So it looks like we only have one attendee. I think that's maybe all we'll have for right now. So I think we could get started. You all set to take attendance. Right. Yeah. Okay. So I will. Take attendance. Let's see. Pat oath. Present. How do you start up? Present. Antonia Brillenberg. Present. And I am present. Okay. I'm going to read the preamble. Okay. So we have a hearing of the town's historical commission, which is being pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 extended by chapter two of the acts of 2023. This public hearing and meeting of the town's historical commission is being conducted via remote participation. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so via Zoom or by telephone. No in-person attendance of members of the public will be permitted, but every effort will be made to ensure that the public can to the hearing will be as has been posted on the town's online calendar. In accordance with the provisions of Article 3.60 of Amherst General Bylaws Preservation of Historically Significant Buildings, this public hearing has been duly advertised and noticed there has been posted and mailed to parties of interest. The Amherst Historical Commission is holding this public hearing to provide an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding the following demolition application request. 29 Milaine, 17 C174, um for Brian, uh, Brian Frank. And this is a request to demolish a shed attached to the eastern end of a circa 19th century barn. So first we're going to hear the report from the applicant and I believe Brian Frank is here in attendance. Yeah, Brian you're going to be asked to join us as a panelist and that way you can just speak freely. I'm here, yes. Great. Okay, so you want to hear exactly the scope of work that we're looking to do. Sharon, I have the documents and images pulled up Brian. Can you see us actually? I can see the five of you, yes. Yeah, so if you need to share the screen or something, let me know if you'd like me to and then you can explain the pictures or anything. So I don't know. I'm a novice with Zoom, so if you don't mind. No, that's not a problem. Maybe I'll get pulled the plans up. Yeah, that would be good. Put the pictures after. Let me just get. So this would be the proposed plan. And at the end of the existing barn, which is the diagonal lined area shaded, there's currently a shed, a gabled end shed facing east, which is to the right, that looks to be constructed somewhere. Yeah, so it's sharing that same direction. And there's some pictures that that was done in 1986, where they added this and the end of the barn for what was most recently goat pen. And this is the roof is all conventionally framed and they added a cinder block foundation there. So that's the section that we'd like to remove, not touching the existing barn in the back and then construct a new building. For the building code, we would have to have a fire separation. So the buildings aren't actually framed as one. There's a separation in between, but they would be flashed. So there's no gap. You wouldn't see a division between the two of them. And that's about it. It would follow new building code and everything. Also, I don't know if it is a piece of mind, but this is not viewable from the road. You can't see it from Mill Lane because the whole property that's at the back of the property facing fields, which Amherst College owns. Do we have a, can we see the fire separation design? Yeah. So sorry, I was going to jump in. This is showing the proposed foundation plan. So there'll be a, I can maybe make that a little larger. There'll be a new foundation poured adjacent to the existing barn and then poured around. So there's no, it's not as if they're excavating out that one end wall and adding, removing it. Correct. And then I was just going to just, here's the first floor. See the fire rated section? Yeah. Yeah. It's a whole new wall, a two by six wall. And that would have five eighths sheet rock on either side, which actually gives it a two hour rating. This says one hour there, but it's actually two, is one hour from either side. So it's a two hour rating in the end. And I'll just keep going down. Here's what it'll look like as a here's, you know, the existing barn. So just, all right, Brian, this is nice. So just quickly, on this edge here, I mean, it'll just be. Yeah, it'll be a trim board that would, you know, basically that's all reverse board and batten on the existing barn. And we'll just maintain that trim line of the old barn to the new building, which then is proposed to be a hardy plank board and batten. So it'll still have, maybe it'll look a little more contemporary, but it'll still have a barn look to it. Here they went with a vertical siding just as a siding choice. But it'd be a hardy plank james hardy siding board and batten. I was just going to do a new share to show the images. Yeah, so this is the existing structure. It's, it's not safe. It's recycled materials that, you know, whoever built it used the only thing to do construction materials was the roof, which has plywood, dimensional, regular lumber and asphalt shingles, which asphalt shingles will go back on the new structure. You can see the timbers. And then just quickly, I'm going to show you, here's just a, you know, how they join, joinery. There's the east wall and roof. And then here's an image just showing how it's joined to the existing barn. So they, you know, they left the exterior wall and then just tied right into it. So looking at the old barn at the front here and that little shed roof on the left. Is that coming down to? No, that's staying. That's actually part of the larger structure of the barn. And the, the board, the timber, the new timber for the new addition. Is that hardy board? The framing will be a conventional lumber. And the siding would be the James hardy panel siding. It's a cementous material. Right. Sort of a synthetic, isn't it? But yeah, it's not September. Yeah. Got it. Let's see now. So do we have any additional information from staff? No, I had, you know, as we were opening this, Brian, before we started told the commission that it meets the definition in the bylaw in terms of removal of 25% or more of a facade, but, you know, you're not actually taking much down in terms of the original structure or the older parts of the barn. Right. And then covering them up with a new building. So, you know, that does meet the definition, but it's not as if it's, you know, you're removing anything. So I don't, I don't have anything to add. I do think that, you know, it's nice that they're keeping the remaining barn. The rest of the barn assemblage is, you know, really part of the dairy, what was dairy and, you know, older dates back to the 19th century in terms of some of the building. Okay. Do we have any questions from commission members? I think the explanation and drawings are sufficient to consider a decision. Right. Yeah. Yeah, I think these drawings are just really clearly show the new building, how it has sort of a sympathetic roofline and cladding that's in keeping with the, with the historic barn. So I don't think I have any questions either. So I guess we can move it over to public testimony. If there is anybody present, let's see. I don't think we have any attendees. There are no attendees right now. Okay. Well, let's see. Then I will, I'm going to close the hearing. Brian, this is, I'm subbing in for the our chair today. So that's why I'm reading from my prompt sheet, but we're going to close the hearing and we'll have testimony and discussion. So do we have any discussion further? No. I don't think so. I think this one's pretty clear. Do I hear a move to close the public hearing? Is that what? Yeah. So moved. Is there a second at all? Second. And then we can take a roll call vote just to close the hearing. Okay. I'll take a roll call vote. So Pat. Oh, yay. Close the hearing. Close the hearing. Patty. Yay. Antonia. Yay. And I also yay. Hand it off to you, Nate. Yeah. I mean, I guess, you know, the discussion can be, you know, it's so this building was found to be significant, but is allowing demolition detrimental. And so, you know, if the commission doesn't find that we can just have a motion to allow the demolition to proceed. And then it can move forward. So I mean, that's the discussion for you to have. So I make a motion to allow the demolition to proceed. I think based on what we've heard and the age of the addition and the plans for recycling as much as possible, the timbers that are okay from the addition that I don't really see any reason why this demolition shouldn't proceed. So I agree with Pat. I will take that as a second. Sorry, being wordy. I'll third it. Yay. That'll be a vote. So I guess if we have a second, then we can call the vote. Okay. So I'll call a vote. Pat. I'm in agreement with the demolition. Eddie. I'm agreed to the demolition. Antonia. I agree. And I agree as well. Great. So, yeah, so Brian, we can, I can let the building commissioner know and that can allow the building permit to be issued. Okay. Perfect. We also today they agreed and passed everything else. So it should commence. I appreciate your time. Thanks for coming in. Thank you. Great. Thanks. And now we can move on to the public meeting portion and share my screen. I don't have any announcements. I don't know if anyone else does. No. No, I, I'm not, I'm not sure if I'll be available in September because I'm going on maternity leave. And so that's one less commission member. But I believe you'll be able to meet, make a quorum without me. And so, yeah, if you're, Matt, I don't even, you can't attend a meeting. You could, you know, if we send, you know, I can say there could be some demolition applications we're reviewing, you still could provide comments, you know, email and then I can present those and send them to the commission. So if you send them to me even like two days before the hearing, we can email those out and get them as part of the record. So you can do that at your own time. Okay. Thanks. And I do live near Jones Library. So maybe I would attend a site visit potentially. Yeah. And does everyone else, I mean, I emailed so we can, we can do that, I guess, later on we decide next meeting dates, but it'd be great to figure out like two meetings, two times in September when we could meet just because, you know, we have to hold hearings within so many days of an application being completed and received. And the Jones Library is already submitted in there. It's completed. And then there's, you know, three more possibly that'll be submitted next week. And so we're going to have to review those. You want to do that now, Nate? Or should we just follow the agenda? You can follow the agenda and just do it at the end just to let you know. Okay. Let's see. So, right, our last meeting, we, there was maybe two people who were interested in potentially serving as representatives at the design review board. Is that right? Wait, Pat said she might be interested in Hedy at one point. I thought previously you said you might be interested. And so I just want to. I'm all set, Nate, actually, I'm going on. I just want to give you the chance because you weren't at the last meeting, Hedy, to have. That's right. Yeah. I would be happy to be the designee as long as it's on Zoom. It is. And they used to, I mean, I'm not sure they meet as needed. And I think they just met recently and, you know, sometimes it's in the afternoon at three or three 30 and sometimes is at five or five 30. Sure. And, you know, you'll get the packets electronically. They, and then it's, you know, pretty similar to the format here. Sure. Well, I'll step up to the plate for this one. Thank you. Is that good for everyone? All right. I guess we could have a vote. If someone wants to make a motion that way, we can just, I can convey that to the, to the DRB. Yeah. I motion to appoint Pat to the, as our representative to the design review board. Do you want to second it, Antonia? Yeah, I'll second it. Right. Okay. So then, do we take a vote then, Nate? Is that right? Yeah. Yeah. Is there any discussion? Okay. Pat, would you like to vote? I agree that I agreed. Okay. Hedy? I agree. Antonia? I agree. And I agree as well. So, okay. Thanks, Pat. Yeah. I'll share, I'll send an email to staff tomorrow and copy you and we can just get you, I'm not sure if there's any officials swearing in or what have to, has to happen actually as a representative, but we'll get it working. Okay. Thank you. Congrats. Yeah. And then historic bars and outbuilding. I don't have much of an update. I just, I have it on here and said, do you think we have to, you know, continue talking about it? There, there is, I guess, some funding, CPA funding that became available in July. And so we just have to make sure we get that moving. Okay. Right. So we should probably discuss kind of how to promote this program a little bit. Unless we would like to just reserve it for any sort of demo requests that come down the pipeline to us. Yeah. And that's a good, yeah. It's a good idea, you know, or decision point. Like, do we just save this for demolition requests or do we identify a number of structures ahead of time and see if they're worth, you know, approaching the owners and seeing if they are worth documenting or inventorying? And it could be a little of both. You just never know what kind of demolition requests we'll get. Yeah. Well, maybe we could just have, right, maybe one of us could just write up sort of a brief kind of summary of the program so that we can, each of us can understand it a little bit better and we can, if we're speaking with anybody who maybe have interest. Because I think it would be good to just promote it a little bit rather than just wait for somebody who's at the last kind of moment of trying to save a structure. Right. Yeah, I can write something in the, India, I've been writing about historic preservation. So I'm happy to take whatever there is in written form based on how much funding there is and whether, you know, talk about outreach and education and meeting with people or documentation. I think all of those things would qualify under the way it was worded. Right. So how much, how much, how much funding did we, were we ultimately granted per year? I think it was, I think it was 25,000. Okay. And Antonia, you may not be familiar with the program. We got CPA community preservation action grants to a grant to pilot this program that would provide owners of kind of farm outbuildings like barns just a little bit of money so that they could get a structural assessment to understand sort of what may be required to kind of preserve a building. Just because so many of these structures, it seems as though it's, it's hard to just know where to start with, with rehabilitation. And so this just kind of gives people an opportunity to just be able to assess and kind of know what the upfront cost would be to just rehab the building, just structurally kind of keep it together for all these barn buildings that we have in Amherst. So because I guess we, that was sort of a recurring issue in the last few years of owners of barns really not knowing where to start. Okay. So that would be great if we just had, maybe we'll just have the basics written down and we can share that with Hetty. Yeah. As you're talking about, I was thinking, yeah, Hetty, I'll send an email with you and Robin and we can get a summary and then it might make more sense. We've talked about this in town with other kind of similar things. If we haven't identified kind of a scope, would we then shop it to architects and say, okay, we, you know, for this amount of money, I think it might only be 15 or 20, but for this amount of money, would you, could you survey 10 structures and that way it might be, you know, an economies of scale where they could do more than just having, you know, one off every time, we could try to get someone under contract for the full amount so many structures. So, yeah, I was just, I hadn't thought about that until you're speaking Madeline. I was like, oh, maybe it would make more sense to do it that way, which we've done before with some, sometimes, you know, kind of similar programs. So I don't know what you think about that. You know, like, for instance, like I'm not saying Cune Riddle would be the one, but you know, they're local or say there's another timber framer or someone we like, and we had asked them, could you assess so many structures that way they, you know, we, they kind of be on retainer for a bit. Yeah, right. And they would just be a kind of repeated form of how they would provide the information and just, that would help. Yeah, so I think we could work on that. Hedy, if you don't mind, you know, we can do it with Robin over email and come up with kind of a. Yeah, I think she's, I don't know when her return date is from vacation but I think we can, we can work something out. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, we don't have, you know, the money's available. We don't, it's not like it's not going to be pulled away, but it'd be great to get the program moving, you know, this fall just to. And announced, definitely. Yeah, so I just have a question. Are we waiting for owners to come to us to ask for this review or have we identified barns that we would offer the review to the owners? I don't think we've identified any specific barns, Pat, except to say that there are barns, you know, in the town that have Form B listings. And that would be, that would be my, you know, that would be my sort of way of determining, you know, what, what the group is. A place to start. This is to consider. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, a few years ago, PVPC did, you know, kind of identified properties. I could send the list out, but then we haven't really prioritized that. And then I think after that might be a little of both maybe reaching out to some property owners and then figuring out how we want the program to be administrated. Would it be contacting someone to get under contract for the full funding? And that way maybe they could do more than just kind of hire someone every time. Ideally, it'd be great to have the property owners. You know, it'd be nice if they would allow the public then to even get on there. You know, we could even have one, you know, one or two dates where they could have like an open house or, you know, when, when PVPC had done this for a few properties, they found that property owners were actually more than willing to share information. They actually were really excited to talk about the history of the property, especially they've been longtime owners. And so it was kind of like, wow, okay, there's maybe more information that's privately held just not, it's not, you know, they just don't know that they could share it or for how to share it. And so the hope was this program could find a way to do that. I'd be interested to see in that survey list or the... Yeah, I can think of that. Did you send that to all of us, Nate? Yeah, yeah. Thank you. I don't think, I don't have much more to say about that. We guys go to the next agenda, I don't have people unless people have some questions or... No. No. So it was discussion of commission's one in five year goals and we don't have to talk about it tonight. I left it on there. It was their last meeting, but sometime in September at probably, you know, the second September meeting, PVPC has been updating the town's preservation plan for us and they'd like to come and give a presentation. And so they've, you know, I think they've had about 150 responses to the community survey and they're going to start holding some, you know, finishing the stakeholder meetings. And so they'd like to present the findings to the commission and they've also been working on kind of priority preservation strategies for the town or different action strategies. And so it would be the first time the commission would have a discussion about that. I think that would dovetail with the five year goals. So I don't, you know, I think I guess just, you know, in preparation for that just Robin had sent something around and I can send this again, you know, have that just, you know, as part of what you're thinking about when the PVPC comes, you know, what do we think would be, you know, short term one year goals and what would be more moderate five year goals, moderate term, just to make things that are actually actionable and achievable. So it's okay to have things that won't happen, but it'd be nice to have some action items that are the commission can work on. Okay, great. And when are they, when do you think they'll be coming to present those? Hopefully September. So I'd ask if they could make it today and they said they'd like to wait till September. They're hoping to have wrapped up all the, you know, public input and have compiled it and maybe generated themes and things. So, you know, my guess is we'd have if we have two meetings September would be the latter one, or it could be early October, but haven't come then. Even how long the hearings take for demolition delay issues, and it seems to me that October would be a better time to bring them in. I just feel like we're going to have enough on our plates to deal with the library and anything else that's come up. Yeah. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, it's probably not worth overloading a meeting. I think October makes sense if it's more manageable then, because we'd like to give our attention to it and not be pressed with time issues or a large agenda. Yeah, that makes sense. I'm sure they won't mind. They might not be ready till then. Right, yeah. Yeah, we've already extended the contract a bit, and I think they want to end at least this calendar year. I mean, I'm not concerned about the end time necessarily. I just, I actually haven't seen an update for a little bit myself, so I think they're trying to wait to get all the public input before they start prioritizing things in the plan. So, the plan will be completed at the end of the calendar year? I think they're hoping to, yeah. So, we asked them to really focus on highlighting what areas in town weren't really identified in the 2000 Preservation Plan and then coming up with nice action steps and kind of an approach to that as opposed to writing about the whole history of the town. So, they may, I think they filled in some of the history in terms of what groups or areas weren't, you know, maybe geographic areas that weren't studied as much. And then, you know, some of their, what they might recommend is that some of those areas deserve more study. I'm not sure how exhaustive of a study they did, but you know, we have between the 2005 Preservation Plan and then even the Open Space and Recreation Plan, we have a pretty thorough summary of the settlement of the town, and then we have the MHC, you know, Reconnaissance Survey Report. So, we didn't ask them to kind of rewrite the history of the town, which sometimes in a Preservation Plan, that's like half the work. And so, I think the hope was that they would come up with a really nice approach for the next five years. Yeah, and I guess I would encourage us all to look at the 2005 plan prior to that meeting just to kind of get some ideas and see how we think Amherst has changed. It's online. A big document, but it's online. Yeah, I can also send a reminder. I guess we go to the next topic. So, the CPA, we had a, the CPA actually, I guess I didn't, someone said it, it's actually true, but the CPA committees decided or, you know, the, they're going to have their proposals available soon and then end September 30th. So, if the commission wants to submit a proposal this year to the CPA committee, they're due at the end of September. And we had an idea of doing soft costs as a proposal. And so, Robin and I have talked about this a little bit. You know, the CPA committee is a little reluctant to provide funding, say for a property assessment or, you know, some other studies, but, you know, we're often hamstrung a little bit if an applicant comes in for demolition or there's a project and we'd say, oh, it'd be great to, you know, this barn assessment program is somewhat similar where we're hoping to get a jumpstart on a few properties, but, you know, Robin, I said it'd be great to have, you know, 15 or 20,000 available for assessments that might come up with things that are unanticipated. And we had this in the past and the CPA committee, once we spent it, we haven't had it in a few years, but it's something that Robin, you know, we talked about a few times and she's, she'd like to put a proposal in for that. So, you know, for instance, the property owner on 261 River Road wanted to tear the house down. And then, you know, we put a delay on it and he's actually now working through some plans. But when staff met with him out on site, we said, oh, you might need to get a wetland civilization and hire an architect. And he said, oh, are there any funds in the town that could help with some of this due diligence? And we said, no. But, you know, for instance, like this, this funding could help with that, right? We could say, okay, well, we have a few thousand dollars we could provide for someone to do an assessment of moving the structure. So what does it mean to move the house on the, you know, one option he's considering is moving the house just, you know, 200 feet further south or something on the property. And it'd be great if we had some funding to then hire someone to, you know, see if that's possible. And so that's what this kind of CPA money would be for. So if the commission thinks it's worthwhile, I can talk to Robin and we could start formulating something. I think it's really worthwhile. And it really, when we were discussing the North Amherst Zion Church project, because they were looking for CPA funds, it was that project in particular that made me realize that resources come in many forms, you know, their list of things, people or materials or their small amounts of money that could be really valuable for organizations like that small community church to deal with a quite complex list of things that are going on with a very old building. So, you know, I think that it's, it was with that particular project in mind that I think I kind of got persuaded that this would be a good idea. And it might not need to be a lot of money. And it might just, I don't know whether what the finances are of it, but maybe it could sit somewhere that it could revolve, you know, as somebody used the money, you know, it could be replenished. I don't really know any of that in detail of how that all would work. But what it suggests to me is a kind of small revolving fund that would allow people to really be our partners in preserving a lot of important structures in town. I agree with what Eddie just shared. I think to have a fund like that, I know a few years back there was a barn that had a demolition request and I believe they ended up demolishing the barn, but we were able to hire a timber expert to identify reusable timber from the barn in hopes that the owner would do that. And so we were able to pay for that as a historical commission. And so I don't know whether it was from a fund like this or grant, you know, grant requests from the historical commission, but I think it would be very useful if we had a fund that we could support homeowners or property owners to get the information they need to avoid demolition. Yeah, I agree. I will say that the CPA committee, you know, sometimes things like, you know, the funds are really appropriate for more bricks and mortar, you know, preservation rehabilitation. So if any members have any articles or you see anything where, you know, sometimes, you know, we'll say that even education can be preservation. But I think if there's a nice article or some place where, you know, even a web link where we could help provide that information in our proposal, it would be helpful, you know, because I just think that some members don't understand preservation as well as the other CPA categories. And so it sometimes needs a little help. But I agree, we had had this for a while. You know, it's not quite a revolving fund, I agree. The commission can accept gifts or donations, but this would be, you know, say we said it was $20,000, maybe it's good for three years. And then if, you know, depending on how that money spent down, the commission would ask for it again. So, you know, it could, you know, it is a similar to a revolving fund, except that we're not, there's not an automatic replenishment, and we're not asking for necessarily repayment at all from the owners. But it could be something where we, it could be described that way. And then I was writing that we, you know, we could also ask that, or part of the CPA proposal could be that we'd ask the applicants or the homeowners or the other institutions receiving the funding that they also provide some type of match. And that, you know, the properties would have to be at least historically significant to the town. So it wouldn't be any old structure or property. So it would be something that the commission would agree to first or vote on. And so, you know, I'm just trying to think of things that would add assurances when presenting to the CPA committee. So they're not worried that the money is being spent. You're kind of frivolously, but. Right, or we could sort of create as an educational opportunity. And if we provide an owner with information, we could share that more publicly with, you know, as a resource for other owners who may have come across the same type of issue. And maybe compile kind of a library of handy tips. You know, I think that's great. I mean, we could, we could, you know, start posting whatever reports or summaries, or we could have this right link to our webpage would have it become a public resource. Right. So we have a little bit of time, but I can, we can get that proposal, hopefully, and maybe in a draft form for the next meeting. Great. What else do we have on the agenda? Yeah. So for old business, we had policy for preservation restrictions. And, you know, we've talked about this on and off. I know Bennett even talked about it a while ago, you know, with CPA funding, sometimes we had required a permanent restriction every time, and that would have to be approved by mass historic and it is permanent and it's pretty cumbersome, but it's not required. And so, you know, I've asked the town attorney to draft a restriction. We have, we have a, have it almost done. That would be a local restriction. And we could write it as if it's 99 years, I mean, would, but it would just be with the, with just with the Amherst Historical Commission, and we could use that for projects. And so I think, you know, something to consider is as we're moving forward, is there a threshold above the current one? Is there a threshold above which we'd want to be permanent? So for instance, the, you know, the South Congregational Church has funding to fix their steeple, you know, the funding is now available. And, you know, their property is much bigger than, say, what it was historically, and they have a educational way, you know, a second, basically a second building that they use for classes. And they're concerned that if it was a permanent restriction through mass historic, that if they, you know, if they had to make any changes to not even just the historic part of the property, but any proper, any part on the property would have to go through review and approval by this commission and then, and then it encumbers the entire property. And so I, you know, staff doesn't think it's necessary to have a permanent restriction or have that beyond the entire property. So, you know, mass historic doesn't budge at all. So the only way, you know, and it's not required as part of the CPA legislation, the statute. So, you know, I'm okay with having something be even like a 30-year restriction depending on the amount of funding. And I think, you know, we could come up with a some, some document. I know I think there's a draft that we can resurrect, but I don't know if it's, you know, the commissioner want to vote on it this year or present it to the CPA committee, but, you know, I think it is important because applicants, you know, we have, you know, as there's a new funding ground starting, we should be upfront with what we expect of applicants, right? So if a private property owner or a nonprofit comes in and wants funding for their structure, you know, is it a permanent restriction that there's a, you know, 50 years or 99 years, or do we say that we're working on something that may, it may not be permanent. So the Ifmar Conkey house, you know, down on Main Street, they thought they might accept the funds. It was going to be permanent. They voted, their condo association, I think, declined it. And I've, you know, the Moila going said, actually, we could do a, you know, maybe a 99 year, but it wouldn't be a permanent and it wouldn't encumber the whole property because the property is also the cut, you know, it's the, it's the whole thing now. And so I don't know if they're reconsidering it, but, you know, they are starting to work on the house. And so, you know, sometimes actually having a permanent restriction that encumbers all properties actually a deterrent from people using it. And so I think it sometimes gets in the way of itself. So we need to resolve this for Amherst. We do. Right. And in addition to the permanence and then the property, you know, whether it's a whole property or not, would we also reconsider just the level of restriction for any alterations or, you know, or would we just take MHC's type of, I'm not super familiar with this, but so MHC has their certain restrictions and we would just copy that, but maybe tweak it to in terms of permanence and the sort of size of the parcel. Yeah. I mean, they have guidelines for what's considered a minor alteration or major in which, you know, what comes back before the commission. And so we could incorporate that. The language would be pretty similar. And then, you know, yeah, I mean, I think that's a good question. So, you know, for instance, someone's fixing something on the front of a building. Do we, you know, the restriction can be on the whole structure. It could just be on like a front facade, if that's what's being improved, you know, and then what house, you know, right? Is that kind of going Madeline? So does it mean if the restriction is triggered, it comes before us? Yeah. Yeah. I think we'd write conditions in that, you know, certain changes are allowed and others are, you know, need to come back before the commission for review. Okay. That's what I'm, I write. Yeah. I wouldn't, yeah. I think that we'd still want to have some, some, some of those conditions in control. But, you know, like right now, for instance, you know, in mass historic, they say if you're removing gardens or certain landscaping, it's supposed to come back before the commission. And, you know, I don't know how important that is on every property. Right. So we may want to tweak some of that language. Okay. Well, I think it makes sense to sort of limit it to just the, the sort of significant building that we have actually funded. Although you want to do, you do want to protect just the context and the setting of that, of the property from any like major intrusions that might be built right next to it or on the property, you know, nearby that would change the character of the building of the property. Yeah. I mean, we've done before where we've actually just had like an assessor's map and we draw a project area or, or a restriction area. So it may not be the whole property, but it can be something that's delineated. And then that is under the restriction. It includes the structure of building and then, you know, some land area around it. Right. But that's visible from the right away. Kind of. Yeah. Yeah. Does anyone have any thoughts about permanence, whether it should be 30 years or permanent for these restrictions? I think it depends upon what the funds were used for to, to how much of the property were, was altered and, and to the amount of CPA funds given to the project. I think, I think there are, are steps in my opinion in this process. So maybe tears of permanence, tears of, tears of permanence, depending upon what percentage of the structure was, was changed with the CPA funds, how much the CPA funds were attributed to the change. And I don't know, Nate, whether that's doable, but it seems more fair to someone who gets CPA funds for a small piece of a project to someone who is getting major funds for restoration. Yeah. I mean, I don't, yeah, I think having some thresholds like that is, it's fine. I mean, it could be, you know, a percent based on assessed value, right? Cost of project and, you know, actual work done in terms of amount of structure that's rehabilitated or preserved. And so, yeah, I think it's just something to, you know, have some, you know, to me, there'd be guidance, thresholds and tears that, you know, if it's some, there's something in question, we can always bring it back to the commission, but at least we'd have some, something, you know, so, yeah, I mean, I agree. I mean, sometimes when the Women's Club years ago came before the commission, they wanted, you know, $15,000 or $10,000 to paint their carriage house. And we said, well, that'll be a permanent restriction on the entire property. And they said, whoa, on everything, like we're not even touching the house. And so, you know, seeing that the level of restriction was really not commensurate to the funding that they were getting. Right. And that's just more sort of on our end as well to oversee all of that. It's more of a burden. Yeah. I mean, I've often thought, too, depending on what level of work they're doing, you don't want necessarily them to keep coming back, but say it's even a 30 year restriction. The idea is that probably within 30 years, the institution might come back and get more CPA funding. And in my mind then, if say they're in year 20 of the restriction, well, they just had it another 30 years on. Right. So just the restriction itself is not as if we keep the same restriction with the same deadline. If they had more funding in a new project, we'd add on to the years. And so, you know, if someone were under a, you know, a term limited restriction, but they receive more funding for different projects, the length of the restriction is extended. And so it's not as if that initial deadline would remain. And so that way, I think we'd capture, you know, I think we, I think to me that's why I'm thinking it would work. Right. I think it's just important to encourage people to use these funds. So just to be conservative with how much we want to, how much of a burden we want to place on owners. Yeah, I think that makes sense. So 30 years rather than a permanent restriction would be my gut reaction. I don't really know very much about this topic. So yeah, I mean, for instance, Northampton, the way the language is written in the law is that only if you acquire a property for historic purposes, do you get a restriction? So that's, you know, literally that means if you buy it. So Northampton and a lot of communities don't require restrictions at all, even if you get $200,000 to preserve, fix a structure because it's really not, you're not really acquiring it. And so I think across the state, it's, it's, you know, interpreted or applied differently across communities, whereas, you know, if you use CPA funding for housing, the statute says very clearly you need a restriction, you know, you need a permanent affordable housing restriction. And so every housing project gets one, no matter the amount of funding, but for historic purposes, it doesn't, it's not very clear. And so I think it's really kind of, unfortunately, it's almost like a town-by-town decision. So in Northampton, there's no, it's only if you acquire a building? Yeah, that's what they had said last year. Yeah. And you know, some communities follow it, you know, differently, right? But yeah, it's just interesting how they, you know, how people interpret it or use, you know, what they think is best. So I could work on, I think I said there's a draft policy, but let me, that's something I would be great to also this fall or by the end of the year have something that we think is, is reasonable and could be presented or, you know, we could share with staff or the CPA committee just so we know, you know, what, you know, they know what we're thinking with the current round of funding. As I have another Zoom at eight o'clock, I, I'm going to have to kind of bug out. I, I don't know whether we need decisions reached. Um, no, I was looking at the, I think we can get there for eight o'clock. Yeah. Yeah, there's national register nominations and barn tours, but I don't have any updates on either of those. I don't know if anyone else does. And then 140 Southeast Street, you know, there's the three properties that are being taken down. And so they actually have tenants in one of the buildings that we wanted to document. I think they're moving out the first week in September. So I've been, I've been in contact with the owner and contractor and I'll just email everyone when there's a date certain. So I think they've been really busy and they said, you know, let's just, we'll do it in, you know, early mid September. They're not going to do anything until they contact us. So, you know, I thought, I thought, I had heard that they want, you know, that the project was moving faster. And so I was worried that they were going to start doing something before we could take photographs or document it. So I think we're fine there. Right. Yeah, that would be good to wait until the tenants are out. Yeah. Agreed. And there's no public attending. So I guess we could just talk about next meeting dates. Did you get enough responses, Nate, to the idea of sort of splitting up September into two meetings, sort of a big chunk for the Jones topics. And then another one for the other demolition delays. I didn't, but I guess we could talk about it now. And then I could always get just email too, but I mean, I don't know if Monday, September 11th works. Just we could say that, you know, for the Jones Library or, you know, some, some day that week, and that way we could at least I could try to get that confirmed and then let the Jones Library folks know that sounds good for people. I can't do Monday the 11th, but any other day that week would work for me. What about you? So how do you can't do Tuesdays? But I could do Wednesday. That works for me. Wednesday the 13th. The 13th, yes. So, Nate, I think I can do it, but I have a monthly meeting that somehow is movable on Wednesdays. And so I'll say yes, but that's a previous commitment. If it happens to fall on that, I'll do my best to make sure it doesn't, if I can have influence, but it's not as secure a date as Mondays would be. All right. And then if you need it, when do we need to have this meeting by? You know, sometime in by the end of September. So I was going to suggest, you know, would Thursday the 14th work? If the 13th doesn't, I was just going to email everyone tomorrow and just put both those two dates out there. Thursday would probably be safer for me because it's not, it's not this meeting that revolves. Rarely meets on Thursday. All right. So we could do Wednesday or Thursday. And then once we confirm, I'll just let the Jones Library know. Right. And then for the next meeting, you know, the week of the 25th, is there any Monday that actually would Monday the 25th work for people? Eddie, I think you said it doesn't work for you. My meeting is from five to six 30. So I can, I might be a little bit late, but I think, I think you should go ahead. Yeah, I could meet on the 25th. I could too. Antonia, do you know your schedule for the fall yet? I don't yet, but I think it should be. Should be okay. Yeah. All right. Yeah. So let's keep. So yeah, I'll, I'll email everyone then for the 13th or 14th and then the 25th too. And then if we can, I'll see if we can confirm that next week. And you'll check in with Robin in the meantime with the email. Yeah, I know I'll email everyone just to confirm that, you know, Becky and Robin and Becky, but Robin and McKayla. Yeah. Yeah, that'd be good because 25th is, like I said, we don't have the demolition applications yet, but, you know, that would give us enough time to advertise the other ones that come in. Okay, great. Okay, great. And are there any other comments or questions? No. Maybe, yeah, maybe we can circulate these goals, the one to five year goals and if anybody has any more input on those or wants to get started on some of those projects we had discussed, like the survey of modernist buildings or yeah, I'd like to get going on some of those things too. Yeah, and for the Jones Library, I'll send around the preservation restriction, the historic structures report that was done and then a link to the plans and what I have so far. And then, you know, let me know if you have any questions and whoever can, if you can attend on 13th or 14th, you know, like I was saying earlier, you can always submit comments and writing beforehand. So if you have a chance to review things or if you have questions, even if you're not there, we can still, I can read them on your behalf and then put them, get them into the records that way. So we already have the proposed plan. We have all the documents to review. I think they submitted them. They're on in our permitting software and all, I can get those distributed and they might be on the Jones Library website. Actually, they have been maintaining a project webpage, but I haven't checked that in a while. Okay. And if any of us wanted to just meet up at the library to informally take a look, is that, I guess, we aren't supposed to do that, right? No, I can ask. I mean, if you happen to run into a member, that's fine. Or I think we could also schedule a site visit. Site visits, you know, really, I think that'd be great to do with staff from the library and then just having a walkthrough. And we could, in my email about dates, I'll see what's a good, I'll throw some site visit dates out there. And we could plan for like an hour or just walking around or, you know, whatever time, just so we understand what they're, you know, what's being proposed. Okay. Yeah, I mean, you know, I don't know who's been following it, but I mean, I think that, you know, details, parts of the project have changed, but in general, it's still the same, right? They're removing the atrium and 93 edition, they're putting, you know, a mass on the back, you know, they changed the roof a little bit. But I think in terms of what they're doing out front in terms of the entryway, that, you know, pergola structure we talked about and a few things, I don't think any of that's changing. I think maybe some of the siding materials of the new edition might be changing. You know, that can relate and that's something that commission can talk about in terms of both the demolition review and the preservation restriction. So the preservation restriction would have the commission ask, could ask more of those questions. You know, the demolition reviews also about how does the demolition impact the structure and how does a new edition impact it? The restriction is actually down to the materials and, you know, some of that more fine grain stuff that the commission can review that the demolition procedure doesn't. But I think it's all one. So that's why we kind of have both those happen at the same time. And like I said, they emailed some stuff. I haven't looked at it too closely, just so I wanted to get a hearing date scheduled and then I'll spend some time looking at it. I'll send it to you. I can get that going. If not tomorrow or early next week, just so you have plenty of time to look at everything. Great. Okay. Thank you. All right. Great. I guess that's it, everyone. Thanks. Yeah, thank you. Do we need a motion to adjourn? I guess we could have one. Okay. I move we adjourn the meeting. All right. Thanks, everyone. Thank you, everybody. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.