 Okay, so welcome to the Amherst Historical Commission public hearing and public meeting on Wednesday, February 10 2021. Based on Governor Baker's executive order spending suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law signed Thursday, March 12 2020. This meeting is being held virtually using the zoom platform. The best way to find instructions about joining the meeting by zoom or by phone is to visit the town website at amherstma.gov. Navigate to the town calendar for this day, locate the historical commission entry and click on the link, or access the telephone number. My name is Jane Wald and as chair of the Amherst Historical Commission I'm calling this meeting to order at 633pm. This meeting is being recorded and minutes are being taken as normal. We'll begin with a roll call of commissioners in attendance and as you hear your name called please answer affirmatively and then place yourselves back on mute. Pat off. Present. Robin Fordham. Present. Janet Markward. Present. Jane Scheffler. Present. And Jane Wald. I'm present too. Commission members please indicate when you'd like to speak by using the raise hand function or whatever seems to be working. And if the chair doesn't recognize you just jump in. Thank you for speaking. Please remember to mute yourself. Opportunity for public comment will be provided during the general comment, the general public comment period, later in the agenda. Please be aware that commissioners need not respond to comments during the general public comment period. If you wish to make a comment during that time when called on please identify yourself by stating your full name and address and put yourself back into mute when finished speaking. Residents are welcome to express their views for up to three minutes and at the discretion of the chair. The historical commission is holding this public hearing, provide an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding a demolition application for 99 Dana Street parcel 14 a 134. Catherine Trost and Michael Ross and property owners, a request to demolish an outbuilding at the rear of the property. The procedure for this hearing is that I'll invite the owners or the representative to present any information if they're in attendance. That they would like to share about their request in addition to the application information we've already received. I'll ask town planning department staff to add information to add additional information as well. So the historical commission may ask questions to better understand the request. I'll then close the public hearing at which point members of the historical commission will deliberate on the criteria set out in article 13 of the Amherst zoning bylaw. At that point, a commission will take a vote on the disposition of the demolition application. Thank you. So with that, are the applicants are representative. Yeah, Kate just joined the meeting so I'm going to add her in as a panelist here. Panelist. And I'm happy to share the screen. Welcome Kate, you are currently on mute. There you go. Hi. Hi, thanks for joining us. I was watching the news. Okay. Hard to pull away, you know. Yeah, sometimes is. I'm gonna turn the light off. Yeah. Okay. All right, well I can pull up the start with the demolition application itself. Thank you. You all should have received a, you know, an email some of the information, but the, the application concerns a single car garage at 99 Dana Street. And Kate, do you want to share anything about kind of the condition of the garage the purpose for the demolition and kind of just a overview of what you're proposing. It's very, very poor condition. If you have any of the photographs of the back of it where you can like the wind goes in. Yeah, yeah, it's a, it's a bad very bad shape. It's not an historical structure it's built in the 50s. I mean, is it. Okay. I'm a historical structure I was from the 50s to, but you see the back part there. That's all open. And it's just a crummy single car garage. And I'd like to rebuild it so that it's in better condition because you know I use it for storage and I'd like to continue to be able to use it, but it's in bad such bad condition. So, you can pull up the front of the garage here. Kind of this is what you would see from the back of the house. And then lastly, one more. This is a similar. And I want to be, and I'll be perfectly honest with you all. Okay, you can see the back of my house. So, I have this big backyard. I have this. Oh, and I, I'm a landscape architect and planner originally and right now I'm helping with my husband's business but the way the driveway comes around behind my house. It's really cuts off the backyard. The backyard had a bunch of is a nice beautiful Japanese maple in it, but it has had a lot of depression. So I just recently started to fill in those depressions, because I had a little extra money to do that and now I want to fix up this structure. And I have no intention of it being a building anyone would live in, to be real honest about that. But I do see it as a destination as a place to go to, and have access to my backyard because do you see how the driveway goes around here. And I have this whole backyard, and the whole time I've lived in my house I've thought I felt like so frustrating, like the way that the way that previous owner did this. So anyway, I'd like to fix the building to make it more useful. And I actually can see actually having like a little, not change the size, nothing about the size, but make it so that it's attractive. I can have a door from it to my backyard, and make it kind of like a place. Oh, it's a nice place to go. I'll do some, you know, I'll use it still for storage like I do now and maybe pop some plants in there and go out into my yard. Because I don't have a terrace, I use my front yard extensively I planted a lot of trees there, and it's become a real place I feel really good about it, you know it's. And I'm excited about doing plantings in my backyard and I don't expect to make it ornate at all just to do some really nice flowering tree plantings in my backyard, so that it's, because it's pretty large. And I, and, and just to note, I want to point something else out to you. Look at this look at that look at the neighbor did this property line. The neighbor from the previous and then I'm oh I'm getting over it but right before we purchased this when we moved here, right before we purchased it I found out that this previous owner had done this quick claim. He had a piece of our yard, gave us a piece in their yard which they have a fence so we can't go in, so that they could build a very large building. So they have the right setbacks and I'm not talking about doing anything like that I'm just talking about improving my simple structure, so it's attractive. So in making it keeping the functionality and keeping it simple. That's all. Great thanks Kate and I will say in terms of the, what my research dug up was not much in terms of the historical significance of the property or the structure itself. The property card says that the garage is from 1966. I did find a 1950s 56 aerial of the house and it you know there's like a shadow of a structure there so you know whether it's the same. The same one or not it's hard to say but you know there does there does seem to be that there was a structure there at least in 1956 that's that's pretty much as far back as the town's aerial photography goes. Do you think those are planted fields in the back. It looks almost agricultural yeah, I'm not quite sure but I think it was I believe that this what there are on Dana Street there are some really architecturally significant structures so I think that there were some larger properties with with you know architecturally significant structures, and then, you know, smaller, a few, you know maybe initially just those and then these, I think this was a square, and they came later, but there was, you know, this is a farming area. That's what I think. Okay, thank you, and thanks Ben for sharing the information that you've pulled together. Do commissioners have questions. I have a question. It's, it's a very superficial question but that distinctive paint job that it has as a shed the white is it green trim. I wonder if you're keeping that or, or whether you change it or whether, and I, I, I'm not sure that we have any say in the matter but it's just, it's curious to me because it, it sort of defines an era for me somehow that Well, the house, the house has vinyl siding, white vinyl siding with green vinyl trim, and this you'll get a real kick out of so I bought the house and I, I, it's not an aesthetic that I share. And if I had a lot of money, I would take it off and I reside the house with the, and look and restore some details, honestly, on the, on the house on the original house, and I already have in the front a little bit but I think the green and the white on the little shed on the single driveway, single garage work to match that. But the funny story is that the neighbor to below me. I saw people's painting that house like eight years ago and I go. Oh what colors are they going to paint it and they said, they're going to paint it, just like your house, because they like your house so much. Laugh because it's like, I would never have chosen these colors I mean I would love to be able to paint my house, but it's just fun. It's just funny things go so there's two white houses with green detail and mine is the vinyl siding and there's this is my, there's a pain to match mine. The vinyl siding issue is really interesting. I, when I first moved to this country, my husband and I bought a house that had vinyl siding on it and like you I was terribly shocked and didn't like it and people said to me in the preservation field at the time well, don't worry too much because it's actually protecting the wood underneath so eventually when you get to that point you can know that there's a good chance that the vinyl siding dubious as it might be long term is actually quite a good protective. So it's, it's, it's minimized our maintenance costs in that regard we have put a new roof on the house, we've lived there 16 years. And we're doing, we're doing things slowly because that's what we can afford, you know, in terms of improvements we're not really planning to move. And honestly, the backyard is the biggest issue for me my whole property, in terms of liking the property because in my best of all possible worlds, I could just walk out my door in the back to the backyard, but I can't because of the way the driveway goes around. I've kind of thought through this and I think that this little building and making it more attractive. In the footprint that it is going to be kind of a move towards making and filling those depressions in the backyard I'm really looking forward to it because I do really like to plant trees. I want you to know, I planted all the trees in my front yard, and I know a lot about plants, and it just, it just took a while to get her kids through college, and have the time to be able to even think about this. Yeah. So we move on with emotion. We, we need to close the public hearing. If there are more questions. Are there any other questions. No, then we will close the public hearing and then move to the commission deliberation and that can indeed start with emotion. Okay, well I move that we grant a demolition permit for the single garage single car garage at 99 games Street. And I second. Thank you. Is there any discussion. Any other commission members. I just have a general question, not in relationship to this particular property but at what point might a detached garage becomes something historically significant. Just curious. It's all the criteria for our historically significant buildings if it's. It's a particular style architectural style, a famous architect if it matches the house that is that is the era of detached garages does that fit into, you know, a particular style that's I'm just curious about whether you know we could ever decide to put a demo July on the basis of the garage being part of a, an era where you know houses didn't come with garages. So they were added. Victorian carriage houses that have been turned into garages. Yeah, right. There was a few times actually. There's a case about a garage on I think it was on Lincoln that had a presumed yet unproven and false association crossed. And so there was a, there was a kind of a controversy about whether to And there was one on that was a former carriage house that we also deliberated a long time on so I think it does come up. There's one by Amherst college, I'm going down. You can see one of the structures and also on by boltwood down that little street past the end and you go turn down there there's a couple of structures and pretty attractive that were structures, and then there are a couple. There are a lot on my street. There are a couple people have turned them into things. Yeah. Yeah. In general, this is just a kind of a response I think Jen's right that yes, there are circumstances under which I think we could. Can I go now. Are you done with me. We vote first. We're almost there. Is there any other discussion. All right, all in favor of the motion to grant the demolition application. You have to do. I'm doing a roll call. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, all in favor of supporting the motion to grant a demolition app, approving the demolition application, please signify when I call your name. We're doing a roll call vote. So, Patricia off. I'm in favor. Robin Fordham in favor. Janet Markler. Yes. Jane Schiffler. Sorry, lost the mute button. I'm in favor. Any startup. Yes. Jane Walde. Yes. So that's a unanimous vote to approve the demolition application. Thank you for bringing your information. And I'll be in touch with you about next steps for processing the demolition application. Yeah, good. Thank you very much. It's nice to meet you all. It's actually kind of fun. Yeah. Nice to meet you. Let's have some interesting things to consider. It's nice. Okay. Thank you. Bye. Bye bye. Bye. Bye. See you in town. Okay. So public hearing is taken care of. So we can move on into the public meeting. Beginning with announcements if there are any. Okay. And I think does he do you have to head out shortly. I do. I'll hopefully join you. It's about quarter of eight eight o'clock. Thanks. Okay. Thank you. Am I still sharing my screen? I can't know. I can put up the agenda here. Great. So, yeah, we got the. Public hearing over with now we're on to. Public meeting with any announcements. Um, Nothing that I guess isn't already. Planned to be talk. I've talked about here. Oh, I guess the, uh, for, for the writer's walk, um, we, they've begun. Um, Fabricating the posts themselves. Uh, they, they pointed out a few missed periods on the, um, On the signs themselves. So I just sent it back to Seth quickly. And he's going to make those changes, but it hasn't really delayed the process too much because they were always going to do the posts first. And then the, uh, sign panels themselves. But, um, I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. Um, I think that's a good point. And thankful that they did a final, final, final review of the. Signs themselves. Thank you. Um, Civil War tablets update. Yeah. So I'm happy to provide an update about that project. Um, it's been. It's been definitely a little bit difficult moving the process in North Amherst and into the bank center. Where they can be, you know, more, one, they can be inspected and, you know, open to members of some members of the public, but also just in better store, storage conditions. Um, the, we were originally, as you guys know, we were planning to contract with a DX transportation. And that's been difficult. There's, um, a lack of communication, not, not always responding to our emails about getting contracts underway. It was hard to gauge whether I think because of COVID, their office isn't fully staffed right now. Um, it was hard to know, but eventually we kind of decided to go in a different direction. Um, and, but that did waste, not wasted. It used up a lot of time trying to, um, go with that company. And so, um, what we're working on now is kind of piecing together a few different companies to carry out the move. So we have, um, Amherst welding fabricated A frame structures for us because the, uh, when the tablets are moved and they need to be taken out of their crates, they're going to be placed in these A frame easel like structures essentially so they can have a really solid foundation to rest upon. Um, and then we're working on finding a company who can carry out the move. We're looking at, um, a moving, an actual, like, you know, moving company and then a company that works on doing, uh, granite countertops because that moving granite countertops because they have the necessary lifts and, um, even like a crane like structure that can bring the tablets safely and kept, kept vertical onto a moving truck. And so our goal now is to kind of, this project has become a priority, um, hit, hit, uh, moved into overdrive. We're going to try to move them by early March. Um, the A frames are completed and they've been moved into banks, the bank center. We have to actually reinforce the floor a little bit because these things are so heavy and we're worried about buckling on the floor. Um, But the goal is to have them moved by early to mid March. Um, Have, uh, members of the, it's hard to know exactly because of COVID who, who can, who can come through, but certainly a lot of documentation of the tablets just for, um, because this is the first time they've been opened up and they've been available for a very long time. Um, and then probably working with, uh, Monument Conservation Collaborative to inspect and do any restoration work that's necessary. Um, so that, yeah, that's, that's the update on the Civil War tablets. Um, you know, we're still thinking long about long-term options for an outdoor display. Um, the more I've done research and continued to verify, confirm that, um, An outdoor display is going to be a very difficult, um, Proposal because of the cost involved, um, for actually building a structure that can keep them climate controlled, keep them safe from vandalism and it's going to look really nice. So we're looking into, again, working with the Jones library to have them displayed as part of that renovation project. And then one thing I'm looking into, and this is maybe where the historical commission can be involved is looking into actually, um, making replicas of the tablets themselves, like out of us, out of a stone or, um, even artificial material. I forget Corian comes to mind, something that can replicate the marble tablets, but have them be displayed outdoors and safe, safely while the, um, tablets themselves are in an indoor location. So that's that, that idea floated around like in early, early 2000s because this project has had so many starts and stops. Um, so we're kind of picking up that idea again and thinking about what options there are. So. Yeah, that's, that's what's new in the Civil War tablets world. And I'm happy to answer any questions or, you know, discuss anything further if you guys would like. And replicas could even be reduced in scale. If it made it easier. Right. Somewhere. Right, exactly. Read the names. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Yeah, they don't necessarily need to be the full size. I mean. The tablets are like. Six or seven feet by five feet tall. So. They're very large. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, of course. That's really nice to hear that's moving. Moving smartly. Um, next on the agenda is, uh, Massachusetts Historical Commission preservation projects grant. Yeah. So, um, I've looked into this a little bit. The grant is again, yeah, from MHC it, uh, covers, you know, rehabilitation historic preservation costs for. Um, Buildings, I think. Listed on the national register or maybe contributing to national. Register districts. Um, And I'm happy to, you know, discuss further any projects. Um, I, I was contacted by the, um, Kendrick property management and who, uh, maintains and, um, The sale in place and the conky house, which is a listed on the national register. They, they are interested in finally addressing some of the, the, um, issues with the conky house as some, some of us, many of us saw, uh, some of us saw the conky house. Um, Um, So, um, Um, Jesus, when was that in the spring? Maybe, um, there's a lot of deferred maintenance and rehabilitation work to be done there. Um, so. Uh, Scott is in this name. Yeah. Scott recently got in touch with me asking. Well, first he was just wondering in general, what is the process for him to do this work? As far as the historical commission is concerned. Um, you know, Um, Um, Like the whole gamut really. Um, and so I told him, you know, as soon as you. Finalize your scope of work. Um, you know that. It would need to be reviewed by the historical commission and, um, Approved at a public hearing. So we will, that'll come to us eventually. Um, But I did let him know about this grant opportunity, you know, For what they need to do, um, as the grant is due. March 19th. Um, so. That's one option and I offered to help out with the application. Um, but there are also the town projects that. We, um, we're working on that, uh, CPA money was applied for that those being the town town hall steps. Um, The roof at Munson and town hall. And believe those are the two at this point. So. Happy to kind of open up. The town hall roof too, right? Yeah. So the roof at town hall, this late roof at town hall and months. Um, Is the town applying for those and does the town, I guess my question was, does the town. Regularly seek out additional historic preservation funding for. Projects for which they've come to. The CPA for funds. Question mark. Yeah. Um, I think that's the town for over about a year now. Um, I. I, uh, looking at the grant itself, you know, it's, there's the pool of the pot. The total pot of money is $800,000. And, you know, that's for statewide. Um, and the grants vary from the range of 7,500 to 100,000. So, um, I think. Robin, I, um, the, the main, uh, example that I can think of is, um, the North common project where. I believe the town applied for part grants. Um, You know, I can't remember what the acronym. Yeah. Um, For the historic preservation category. I think for SC, I think, um, Um, and for CPA funds from both. I think both in the historic preservation category and. Uh, Is that right. Jan. Yes. It's like open spaces or something. Yeah. Yeah. I, in a way that that example seems to me to be the opposite of, of looking for additional historic preservation funds for, for a proposal that's already gone through, through CPA. In this case, I think it just seemed like the town was assembling different sources of funding, knowing that no one source was going to be able to cover it. Except that with the, I think with the North Common we started with CPA and then realized the project got bigger and bigger and bigger and we added the parking lot and everything but it seems to me because the historical commission is the one who originally put in the application for a CPA grant for North Common and then it was decided that it was so big we would ask, what is it, open spaces and ledger or whatever it's called to, to join with us but it was originally just supposed to be CPA funded but then it just got so big. I think unless that was for the planning, you know, the overview project thing, so I'm not sure. I guess my question relating is just related specifically to why, why would, so I, you know, we have, I realized that 800,000 is not a lot of money but why would the town not seek some aspect of funding any of the projects that came before us this year? I mean is it just that the competition is so tight it's not a grant that's worth going after or it's more a question for the, you know, as I'm sitting on the CPA whether to, you know, transmit to the group that, you know, there are other funds available and we'd like to see the town looking for them or do not. Ben, does the conky house just seem more attractive for the kind of grant that is there? Is it more likely to get funded? Um, I'm not, I'm not that familiar with this grant opportunity so I'm not sure. I mean the, oh, Nate's raising his hand. Nate, you can talk. Sure, thanks. The, hey everyone. Maybe I'll start my video. I don't know if you can see me. Yeah, this is a preservation projects fund grant. I actually think that the town has received them in the past. It's been a few years but I've worked on two of them and there are a lot of work and for right now for very little money in my mind. So $100,000 is not that it's anything to scoff at but you have to have 75% of the project costs already allocated and in hand at time of application. So, you know, even if we think a project is a certain amount, we'd have to have 75% already allocated which, you know, if we'd have to plan for that. So during this grant cycle we're not, you know, most of the projects probably don't have that money up front. They also won't reimburse for architects costs or soft costs and they require you if you get this grant to hire an architect and do existing conditions documentation, you know, full set of plans, a preservation restriction and any of those costs are not included in the project cost or reimbursable. So I think that if, you know, as a final gap in funding I think this could be a good project but I think really then as a 50-50 match, I think it's a lot of work and time for what really isn't a lot of money. You know, a preservation restriction sometimes takes a year to get passed through mass historic and then depending on what you need, I think for an outside organization too, they want the preservation restriction on the entire property. They no longer allow it to be say on a portion of property or building so you'd encumber the whole property. I think for the town that's not a big deal but I do think for a private entity it is a lot. So, you know, Amherst Cinema did receive something, some funding through this in the past. It was a little more flexible and then the funding pot was much bigger so that, you know, you'd receive more money and it wasn't as competitive. Now I think it's quite competitive and a fair amount of work. So, you know, my thought is that we think if one of these projects that the town's applied for for CPA funding, you know, if it's not recommended this year but we think it's eligible, you know, we should recommend to the town to get money, you know, in the budget now and then plan for next year just because the way this grant cycle aligns with the town budget, you need money at hand, you know, are available when you apply. So, if we think a project needs, you know, 150,000 local dollars, you know, and we need 75% of that at the time of application, we would need that in the budget, you know, next year at this time. So, I'm not sure any of the projects that the town applied for actually has that, you know, that budget ratio available. And can you explain for the layperson what that means? So, when I know that when we, you know, we've approved the CPA has recommended these projects but they haven't been approved by council yet, right? So, that means they're not in the budget and that's the problem. So, we know essentially that they're going to go forward at that dollar amount and that the money will be there but it's not official. Is that what I, is that a good way? Right. So, I mean, we could maybe apply and then say that the money would be available contingent on a town council approval and the funds would be available July 1, but I don't know if, I don't know if Mass Historic, you know, I think they really want them at the time of application. And I think what they're worried about is cash flow. So, because it's a reimbursement grant, I think it's reading the, their notice of funding. It sounds like in the past, some communities might have said that they would get a match they didn't and then they don't actually have enough money to pay for the project cost and then, you know, have to ask Mass Historic maybe to reimburse, a partial reimbursement when they don't like to do that. So, although it's in the end a 50-50 match, a community has to pay all the costs upfront and then request reimbursement on half of it and they like to see at the time of application that 75% of the total project cost has already been allocated and in hand. And I think that's their way of seeing that the community has the ability to, you know, manage cash flow on a project. Right, right. Can you give an example of a project that this would be a good grant to go after for? Well, it's interesting the, you know, I thought the Civil War tablets too, but then it's really about property and so I don't know if, for instance, like the tablets would be eligible. They really want, like a building. Yeah. Didn't we hear, was it Jeremiah that presented the roofs and everything that steps to us? Didn't he say that there was money in the town budget that could be applied to those, but he wanted to apply for a CPA funding in addition? Was it like $80,000 or something? Right, like the outside steps on bolt would have, for instance, or the, you know, on the south side of town hall, you know, then I think that that would be eligible. For instance, what Jeremiah was saying is that in, you know, for facilities, buildings and facilities, the town has different line item accounts. So for town hall, there might be like seven accounts and some of them might, one might be for windows, one might be for exterior maintenance, whether that's doing brick work or something, one might be for the steps, some might be for like just lawn care and maintenance and he could potentially pool all those accounts and put them toward the steps, but then he would drain any, you know, any and all accounts that could be related to the town, to the town hall exterior. And so, you know, he, you know, I kind of, I hear what he's saying, he doesn't want to take money from every possible account because what if then during the year, you know, a tree, the tree falls down outside town hall and it's a pay for someone to remove it or a window is broken, then there's no money left to, to deal with that. So, yeah, you'd say there's a, you know, I thought, right. Right, and that get reimbursed the portion, right? I mean, wouldn't that be the kind of fund that might work that way where we pay it all and then get some back? It would. It would. I mean, we would have to then just, but then at some point, we'd have to be able to vote the total project cost by the time or have that money by the time this could be awarded. So So that seems like the tricky part, right? Is that the CPA, the timeline for CPA gets, you know, something gets awarded funds by the CPA and then we could ask, you know, for reimbursement of any other grants that are received, but the CPA money isn't final until after the grant period. Is that, is it like a misalignment there? No, it's almost like, you know, you'd, you could have a town council vote or, you know, I think what would happen is, you know, if, for instance, some of the CPA money is voted this year and what, you know, and the project wasn't going to get done this summer or this next construction season, you know, and we sat on it, then it would be eligible for next year. But yeah, I think that the timing, the sequencing is really difficult because you know, then most communities, I don't know what most communities, you know, I thought most communities did their CPA in the fall. So maybe the idea is that MHC thinks that most communities will have already voted their CPA by the spring or by the time this application is due so they know if the money is available. But, you know, it's just that, that timing sequence. And I also do think it does a lot of work. So Mass Historic has a pretty rigorous requirement for using an architect, right, and going through a big process and, you know, following all these steps. And so not that we, not that the town wouldn't, but, you know, you have to use their RFP template and you have to go through this review criteria for proposals, which, you know, maybe depending on what product we're doing, maybe the town, Jeremiah wasn't planning on doing that type of RFP process, maybe he was going to use another bid process. So I think we'd have to explore, you know, what's a good project and then how do we get, how would we line up all the funding and get everything ready for this type of, you know, I almost think we'd have to honestly get CPA money this spring and then just save it for next year's cycle. You know, it's almost like we'd have, you know, we'd almost have to have that overlap. Unless Mass Historic is, you know, I don't know if they're, I don't think we could apply and say, oh, but our town council is going to vote soon. And we may have it. Okay. Yeah. Another option is in thinking of his work projects, the Massachusetts Cultural Facilities Fund, it's not nearly as difficult and time-consuming as the Preservation Projects Fund. I mean, that's the one that Emerson Sinema received. I think they've received maybe both or that one, but they're right. Yeah, I've gotten both of them before also and I agree that the Preservation Projects Fund is very, very difficult and that's how the Evergreens came to have a Preservation Deed restriction because of that quid pro quo. And I've got, I guess, three Cultural Facilities Fund grants and they are, they're easier. I think the library is planning on applying for a Cultural Facilities Fund grant, but, you know, it seems like, you know, if we could figure out the location for the Civil War tablets, we, that, that might be a possibility, especially if, you know, if they're to go in the Jones Library. It could be that would be an application after the Jones application. Right. I do think that the steps of Town Hall and possibly the roof on the North Amherst School would also be eligible. We would just have to make sure that, you know, we'd have all the funding and then just, you know, all the other stop costs that are required, engineering drawings and, you know, architects drawings ready and, you know, if it's, I don't, sometimes I'm not sure, right, Jane. I don't know if it, depending on the project, is it worth the extra effort and cost to go after this for, you know, a certain project. So, yeah, I think it depends on either how small or how large the organization is, you know, a small organization may be willing to do a lot of work for a $7,500 grant, but I think, I think that's kind of a waste of time because it is so hard. You know, the town, I guess the town would need to decide, you know, where the cost benefit is. You know, is it at $50,000 or is it at $70,000? But, yeah, no matter how much you get, the amount of work is the same. And what does it mean for the conky house if Scott was interested in pursuing this? Obviously, they would need to put a preservation restriction on the property and kind of, I don't know if he was planning on working with an architect or engineer, probably not. So, I guess that might be difficult for them as well in this short timeframe. Right, I don't know if it would trigger, you know, any prevailing wage or either, yeah. I think the preservation restriction for a private entity might be off-putting. So, you know, I don't know if a condo association there would agree to a restriction on the property, but, you know, that's why, for instance, depending on what town property, whether it's Town Hall or the Northammer School, that's to me a restriction, at least on Town Hall is not a big deal because I mean the Town Hall did have one. I don't know if it meets the current standards of the MHC's restriction, but, you know, So, usually it's that that keeps private entities away from that grant category just because it's the restrictions, they feel onerous if, you know, if you're not already committed to preservation for whatever project it is, then restrictions feel like there could be problems in the future with having to have the state review activities that it, you know, you just might not think would qualify. Is that one sense of crisis for all time? Maybe we should encourage our owners to apply for these funds. But I think, you know, I mean, I guess the incentive benefit for the conchhouse would be, I'd say that if they apply, and if they're willing to agree to a preservation restriction, then, you know, we could also say then the town of CPA funds that could be used too. And, you know, I've, you know, I spoke with the previous representative from the condo association, you know, a number of years ago, and I think Jonathan did too, and we really encouraged them to apply to the CPA for funding, and they seemed interested, but they never did. So I don't, you know, I don't know what turned them off about that or if it was just seemed too hard. I mean, we said we'd even help them complete the application that, you know, the preservation projects fund is much more rigorous than applying to the town for CPA. So if they're willing to do that, then I think we should encourage them also to seek CPA funds because... Yeah, because remind me, CPA funds require a preservation restriction too. They do, and it used to be that we could, I think we might still be able to get away with a local preservation restriction, but more recently, they're really saying that it should be a restriction also reviewed by Mass Historic. So, but, you know, we used to just do a local preservation restriction with CPA funds. Is that helpful, Robin? Yeah, thank you. That was very informative. You know, back to the Marconchi house, it would be nice if they did. I mean, we, you know, their fence was removed, and I had, you know, we communicated about that a while ago, and I encouraged CPA funds for that and gave them the name of the a few foundries that possibly had information about, you know, whether it was, you know, any remaining pieces of similar fences, or if they can make a mold from something, if they had a pattern, but, you know, just didn't seem like they could, they could get it together. And I don't know, you know, if it was internal discussions where it fell apart, or if it's just, you know, it does take a lot of work to get these things done. I don't, I don't know, you know, whatever reason they just never seem to move forward with some of the things they reached out about. Any other discussion of preservation projects grants? Is there anything anybody can think that the, well, all right, we've just talked about how difficult the preservation restriction is, and how difficult the application is. So I don't know if there's anything you all think we should be thinking about for a historical commission project. Well, I was thinking about it in terms of the projects that just came up this year, but also just in the, in a sense of, you know, how, how on the CPA, we asked the appropriate questions about, you know, when and, and how the town seeks outside funds. That's really, you know, being able to ask, you know, whether it's been considered or, I mean, that I didn't realize the timing thing was an issue. That makes a lot of sense. But for, I mean, for the North Amherst School, like that would be a big project. Would that be something that would be a good choice, Nate? Yeah, I mean, I think the, if not for this year, you know, would be a discussion with the town. You know, what would we, you know, we've used block grant funding on the building, but that restricts it for, it's only, you know, five to 15 years, and it has to then be used for a certain use, but we're not restricting the property and perpetuity in terms of how the building needs to be maintained or look, you know, how it, what it needs to look like. So, you know, I think, that's why I said town hall, you know, already, we've already had a restriction on the building. So that, you know, that, the town hall property, you know, going through that, you know, it'd be great if mass historic said, oh, there's already something on the town hall. You don't need to do a new one, but the restriction, I don't think is very good. So I think they would make us file a new one, but I don't, you know, I don't see town hall changing use. You know, I could see where in the North Amherst school, the town might say, do we want a preservation restriction on the property? What if, you know, what if we want to demolish the back part of the building at some point and do an addition or not that it precludes that, but I just, you know, but I do think the North, to me, the North Amherst school is a good one, honestly, just because the slate roof is original, probably original or old, and the building itself has been maintained pretty well. And so. So that would be a case where CPA funds could be awarded, but then held until preservation projects grant organized. Is that how that would work? Yeah, I mean, more than likely that this, the timing of this year doesn't work out because we don't have the funding, you know, any funding or any, you know, plans drawn up. So I think we'd have to, you know, if we were, if we wanted to go after this type of this grant, we'd have to then plan for next year and say, okay, what are the steps to apply and make it competitive? You know, and, you know, and, you know, we have the town has to go through public procurement, but, you know, was Jeremiah going to hire an architect to draft up the plans or were we just going to have a slate roof or come and just re-roof it because, you know, there were no changes. So, you know, they require an architect if you get these grants to create plans. And so you know, we had plans for the steps because they're going to be taken down, but, you know, the roofing project almost seemed like it could be done with a scope of work and not necessarily plans. So, you know, like, is that added cost worth it? You know, if it costs us 20,000 for an architect, but we get this much as, you know, we still would make money, you know, we'd still receive more money from the grant, but is all that extra effort, you know, worth it for that project? Right. That's why I still think the steps on Main Street or on Boltwood from Town Hall would be good because we need an architect. You know, it's a pretty discreet project. You know, the roofs were so expensive. Yeah, yeah, they really were. Kind of shocking. Not that we couldn't use a grant for that, but, you know, the steps are pretty disc, you know, they're, we can say, okay, it's a $150,000 project. We want Mass Historic to give us 75. We have 100,000 already allocated and we apply and it's a pretty, you know, small, you know, it's a, to me, it's a something you could bundle or make it, you know, make it feasible. Yeah. And I think, I mean, there are already architect drawings from, for the Town Hall steps, which is a major bonus for that. Yeah, I don't know about the funding. I emailed Ben Robin before your email to me the other week or a few weeks ago and I just said the funding is kind of the tricky part. We don't have that 75% project cost already allocated. Great. Well, thank you. That was very interesting and informative. So that part of the conversation was helpful in advancing the CPA end of the conversation about looking for matching funds, right, Robin? Yep. Yep. And then, so is there anything we want to do or recommend about preservation projects fund application for the, for the steps? So we can recommend it, but the Town would have to participate and agree. The Town would have to do all the work pretty much. So what you're feeling is that this is a potential, a project that potentially could garner a grant? Well, I was just thinking that, you know, the steps are a pretty discrete project, right, you know, so that it could work. Whereas, you know, like the roof on the North Amherst School is, you know, the mass preservation products fund will fund up to 100,000. That's the ceiling. So, you know, maybe it's 75,000 is their average award. But I think for the, for the steps, you know, that might be half the project cost. So to me, it's worthwhile. And then also putting a restriction on the Town Hall property, you know, encumbering it with a preservation restriction is not an issue. But for other Town properties, it may be because, you know, would the Town want to keep the building in that historic form for in perpetuity? You know, there's probably maybe a few other properties in Town that the Town would be willing to do that with. But, you know, I can't say that every, you know, Town property, we'd want to have a hundred, you know, 99 year or, you know, a preservation restriction on in perpetuity. So what is our role here then recommending that that would be a viable project to seek mass preservation projects grant? Well, I, so the question of the preservation restriction, I kind of think that's out of our hands. I think that's, wouldn't that be more of a Town manager or Town council decision? It would. Yeah. You know, maybe the commission would say that, you know, really encourage the Town to look at this for some of the projects that are going through CPA now as, you know, possible matching funds. Yeah. That would be for next year, though, right? Because we would need the funds in hand. Right, right. I'm just, yeah, I'm trying to quickly read through mass historic's information just to see. And, Nate, if we were to get one of the grants, would that restore funds to the CPA? Only if, you know, it all depends right. Yeah. So we always say that if a project comes in under budget, then, you know, we spend the grant first and then whatever is left gets put back to CPA. So. Okay. Yeah. I mean, you know, ostensibly if, if, you know, we receive, say $75,000 and, you know, from this grant for a project and we had put, you know, all the CPA, you know, it's basically going to be funded all by CPA, then, yeah, $75,000, you know, could be potentially given back to CPA. Okay. And then, but would it, it would go back into a general CPA fund? Oh, yeah, it just goes back to the general fund. It doesn't go back to historic preservation specifically. It just goes back to the general fund and then, you know, next, the next grant year, it just gets, you know, as part of the total revenue that the CPA committee has. It doesn't, it's not earmarked for historic preservation. So I think, I mean, I guess to me, my, I guess I'm thinking that the historical commission's interest in that would be to stretch historic preservation dollars from CPA or that's, or enable the town to do additional historic preservation work. And I'm not sure how that shakes down in this particular city. Well, it would still be, I mean, and if there was a grant, it would still be, it would have a positive impact on CPA overall, which would trickle down to historic preservation. I mean, it would mean that, you know, in that case, that there would what be $75,000 more, I mean, allocated, so that might end up going to historical preservation, depending on the grants for that year. It's not, you know, it's not fixed, but it's still a positive outcome. So perhaps our, so sort of getting this in the proper sequence with what CPA is doing. I mean, could the historical commission could recommend to as Nate, I think you were saying recommend a town council entertaining the possibility of grant applications to offset historic preservation costs in general, just as a general recommendation, or we could let the CPA committee run through its kind of practice, its sort of policy about looking for matching funds in each of the funding areas and then make a recommendation. Yeah, I mean, I'm not sure what I was, you know, I think, I guess my thought would be, you know, it could be a recommendation for the CPA committee to remind the town and others that there was this, you know, different outside funding sources, and this is one of them. I was just trying to read quickly on the mass historic website, though, I do think you have to have the money voted by the time of application. So, you know, our timing, our cycle almost every year then wouldn't, you know, unless council vote CPA recommendations, you know, earlier than, you know, or if it's really later in the season, we may, if they are going to do like a two cycle request, we apply in the fall, but right now the timing doesn't seem to match up. So, you know, it's just the question of if there are other, if this funding source is available, you know, is it okay then for the town, the town or another applicant to sit on CPA money to apply for this, you know, six months, eight months after getting the CPA funding. I will say once again, one thing on the mass historic website and FAQs for this grant, they did say that a preservation restriction, they say an MPPF, a mass preservation products fund restriction covers both the interior and exterior of the structure as well as the property. So, I think again, for the town for some properties, not a big deal, but like, you know, the Ithmar conky house, I could see that they would not want a preservation restriction, especially on the interior of the property. If that meant, you know, they're going to end up having to ask mass historic if they're changing the interior, that just seems like the wording used to be for major changes in the interior. And it so there was a list of what it considered major changes and a list of what it considered minor changes. Yeah, they still might I just, you know, I haven't read through the document closely enough if that's still the case, right? Yeah. But still, that's, I think, one of the most off-putting things about it is governing interior changes. Yeah, I know the women. Do they have a list of what they consider exterior major and minor changes? It might be useful for our bylaw. Actually, let me, I downloaded their PDF. Let me see if they have a. We were trying and how specific to be, you know, right? So for a project like the steps, I mean, is it something that the town keeps in mind that I will, you know, if it's not a rush and the CPA funds have been allocated for it, then it's something that you could hold until the funds are in hand for the next round. And it's you just have to think strategically, right, for any project that gets approved by CPA, you'd want to consider whether you'd want to come around. But I see your point about the, the preservation restriction too that makes it even more limiting. Well, we all know it's possible to hang on to CPA funds for a long time. Yeah, I was going to mention that too. That it doesn't seem to be a problem. Yeah, there, I can send you the restriction guidelines. They actually don't, they define minor major exterior changes, but they don't, you know, they have their categories are paint, windows and doors. They don't, they don't, you know, differentiate between like interior exterior doors, then they have exterior landscape outbuildings, walls, partitions, and then HVAC, but they don't have an interior category. Those are major? Those are the main, those are their category. So for instance, for exterior, a minor change, which they would allow would be spot repair of existing cladding, roofing, including in-kind replacement of cloudboards, shingles, slates, etc. Major is a large-scale repair or replacement of cladding or roofing, change involving inappropriate removal or addition of materials or building elements, such as removal of chimneys or cornice detailing, installation of architectural detail, which does not have a historical basis, altering or demolishing building additions, spot repointing of masonry, structural stabilization of the premises is also considered a major alteration. So wouldn't partitions be interior? Is there any more under that? So partitions, they just say walls partitions. Minor is making fully reversible changes, such as ceiling off doors and sit to leaving doors and door openings fully exposed to the spatial arrangement of a non-significant portion of the building. Major alteration under walls or partitions is creating new openings in walls or permanently sealing off existing openings, adding permanent partitions, which obscure a significant original room arrangement, demolishing existing walls, removing or altering stylistic features, altering primary staircases. There is some useful language in there for our bylaw, the way that they talk about major changes for the exterior. We might be able to sneak a bit. I do think that, again, for like the town hall, you know, went through a major renovation, we didn't move the staircase, you know, we didn't try not to change the major hallways, but we did change room layout. So it's kind of interesting, you know, if this preservation restriction were on town hall and they decided, well, we just did it on the first floor to add an office and then have a private, you know, another room that's private for, say, HR to have, you know, doors that are closed because it was all open, you know, essentially, we'd almost have to go to Mass Historic and ask for their review and approval to do that. That's a lot for a private organization. Yeah, it is. But that's an important point that these major minor changes are what needs to be reviewed by Mass Historic. In other words, minor changes don't need to be reviewed. Right, they don't. The major change. And they may approve the major changes or not. Right. Right. Kind of time consuming. So have we sort of talked ourselves around to what? Suggesting that we empower Robin to carry our recommendation that applicants or successful applicants look for alternate sources of funding. And this being one of them. Additional. Additional. So yeah, sorry. Looking for matching funds or something. Yeah. Is that for me? Have I got this? Have I got the sense of the conclusion correct there? Yeah, I think so. Okay. Okay. Well, since we've discovered helpful language for the demarcation delay by law, why don't we move to that? And thank you, Nate. Thank you, Nate. I think we can let the town know that this is a possibility. I just I'm looking through the document. It is really, they do ask a lot. We have to have an existing conditions assessment to apply and not that the town wouldn't do that for certain historic projects, but I think the cost applying for this for certain projects would add to the cost. And you have to have an architect. You can't, you know, someone, one of the FAQs was like, well, can I just, it's a really simple project. Do I need an architect? And they're like, yes. And you need engineered plans and stamp drawings. And it's just, you know, they almost get in the way of themselves if they require that. Are you going to stick around for the bylaw thing, or do you want to send us that language? Oh, no, I cannot. I'll stick around. Great. I'll send it to Ben. All right. Great. Okay. Well, thanks for the cleaned up version, Ben. And let's see. Where are we at the bylaws? Where did we get to here in the bylaw? Are we at the point of reviewing the whole thing after? We needed a few definitions. Okay. Okay. I think especially the one about, you know, what is demolition? Yeah. Yeah. So basically, I have it open here now. Sorry. I think, yeah, looking closely at definitions would be a good place to start and then reviewing the kind of overall process and see if we can clean that up at all. And then addressing the, there's also the kind of clarifying the significance criteria would also be good. Let me, let me share my screen now. Yeah. I think I was here because, you know, staff planning staff and the building commissioner reviewed the, the bylaw and, you know, I think, you know, staff had a number of questions. You know, I think the thought was too, we'd like to work together with the commission to present a bylaw that when it goes to council, both, you know, the community resource committee and town council, something that, you know, staff and the historical commission agree on and support, because I think, you know, maybe a question of who's supporting this, who's sponsoring it, but it'd be nice to say that, you know, it, there's agreement at least on the, on the draft that's being reviewed by these different boards and committees. Because I think, you know, they're, you know, they're going to take a hard look at it too. And then they're going to ask staff, like, how, what do we think of it? You know, what is, how does the building commissioner interpret this and how is it going to work functionally? And so I think, you know, I think Ben had presented last meeting, you know, was like questions and concerns of staff or suggestions or I'm not sure what it's titled, but, you know, I think, yeah, I think there was, I think there were a few pieces, some of it were, right, the definitions of certain things, you know, of demolition and building, you know, then with the procedure, I think the change of going to a two-step process was staff felt that the, having staff determined significance wasn't necessarily, you know, it was feasible, it's just that they thought there was not enough time. And then there was a question about, well, how much research is expected? You know, is it borne all by staff? And then they thought that in terms of the public hearing, you know, if you're looking at a properly preserved designation, they really needed to be clear criteria in the bylaw because the concern was that a lot of criteria was put under significance, but that's being done by staff and not really being done at a public hearing. So some of it was, you know, could some of those criteria or others be used also during the determination or could they be, you know, what's more appropriate in terms of criteria? So some staff thought that some of the criteria for determining significance could actually work for determining perfectly preserved and then there's simpler criteria for determining significance, you know, so that it's not a big point of deliberation between staff and the Historical Commission designee. You know, I think those were, you know, those were like the big pieces, you know, there's some questions about the length of the delay, you know, the change of ownership piece and different ways to address some of the, you know, pieces of the bylaw, but in one thing I said, which I liked, which I think wasn't under consideration was that the Commission would actually be issuing their own, you know, permit with this review. So if this is moved to the general bylaw that this is no longer, the Commission's action is no longer a recommendation to the building department to issue a building permit to demolish. It's actually the Commission would be issuing whatever we want to call it, like a certificate to demolish or a permit to demolish. And you know, what that does is it really takes, it really takes it out of zoning and it really takes it out of, what it does right now is it kind of confuses the way even in this revised bylaw. It confuses it that, you know, it's not a zoning piece we're doing, but then all of a sudden it's a zoning action that the building commissioner does to issuing a permit and the historical commission's decision isn't really appealable. And so an applicant or a butter has to wait for the building permit to be issued. And to me, it's kind of confusing because right now when an application comes in, we actually are having them fill out a building permit application to demolish as part of the demolition application. And so it's, you know, we have them pay a building permit, a building permit fee as part of this and it's somewhat confusing. So we would actually just separate out that completely and just say you're applying first step is to apply for a demolition, whatever we want to call it certificate certificate or, you know, and it's really clear that they're not even submitting a building permit application. And, you know, then the commission's process is a standalone process with a decision at the end and, you know, whatever we want to call it. But I think that to me that, you know, really makes it a clear process and doesn't confuse, you know, is it who's issuing this? Is it the building permit and then that's appealable to the zoning board of appeals? Like we're not, you know, my thought is we just take it all out of zoning and it's in the general bylaw. So we're going to have to completely rework this whole thing if we do that. I don't think so. I think I actually think the process and everything, the timeline, all that is all fine. I think what we would do is we'd have to just change a definition or two and then have a few sentences in the narrative in different sections explaining what's happening. And honestly, it really reads like the local historic district bylaw, you know, we can take some of that language and use it. I don't think we have to, I think the bylaw itself wouldn't have to be reworked very much to make that happen. It's really centered around what the building commissioner does, though, and that would go and be dropped out, right? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So the role of the building commissioner would be minimized or he still could be in there. But I think the difference is we're no longer relying on the building commissioner as the zoning enforcement officer to make interpretations or things. That could be staff. It could be the chair of the commission with staff. And so we may want to clarify those roles, but we still could have the building commissioner in there. I think some of it is that we use the draft that was probably a little bit from zoning. So we're kind of, we have kind of these relic phrases and language that is actually pulled from like what would be a zoning, you know, a piece that's in a zoning bylaw. Well, for instance, in the first paragraph, our purpose paragraph, we say to achieve these purposes, the historical commission is authorized to advise the building commissioner with respect to demolition permit applications. Would that still be true? No. We'd be saying to achieve these purposes, the historical commission is authorized to grant demolition permit applications, right? Right. Yeah. Okay. So it would be much more direct then. Right. Right. And then maybe that's just a question for the commission. I just think that you know, we can make it, we could, you know, either one works, but it's just, you know, if someone's applying now, they'd be applying, say for the, you know, I would say we don't even use the word demolition and we call it, you know, instead of a demolition permit, we call it something else because that, I think, confuses it with a building permit. You know, we could call it a, I don't know what we call it, but. I think you're talking about the whole thing being, being preservation. Right. And so what, if, what, what would we call the demolition permit then? Maybe, maybe just call it a demolition permit. But I mean, it could be like a historic certificate or something or Well, for allowing them to take something down, then it's not preserved. So it's the opposite of preserved. It's like, so it's like, Well, the local districts have certificates. And what are they called? I'm trying to remember. Certificate of appropriateness. Right. Right. And our certificate of inappropriateness. That's awkward. Well, I think if, if, if everyone's okay with the, this overarching concept, I think Nate and I can rework the bylaw to meet those, that goal. And we can work on taking some language from local historic district bylaw and anything new that we have to do, we can rework the bylaw to meet that goal. But maybe as a, tonight we should focus on kind of the, the meat of the bylaw being the, I guess, kind of some of the issues Nate raised and that staff raised worthy. Yeah, kind of, I don't want to repeat exactly what Nate said, but essentially the, you know, significance criteria versus preferably preserved criteria, the length of the delay and the demolition definition, I think is worth discussing tonight. Okay. But at some point we still have to do a really careful fine tooth combing because I've, I went through it this afternoon. There are some very awkward sentences that came out of our working in a committee. Okay. You know, they're just, they don't make a lot of sense or they're, they're all twisted. So I've been trying to clean these up and have a much more direct. And that can be done separately. I can send you, I can just do it and send it to you, or we can have another meeting where we go through it line by line, but that still has to be done too. Won't be done. Yeah, I mean, yeah, I think we could, if that were sent to Ben, he could just, you know, put it in track changes and then that just becomes easier to review. But yeah, I mean, when you set up there, Jan, about the purpose, you know, we could make that change or make it right more direct. The commission is authorized to issue or deny a, you know, a demolition permit and that's it, you know, and that's, and that's very clear. And that's not using the word demolition there doesn't, it seems appropriate to me, because that's what the request is. Yeah, that's what we're calling it. I think that's how we define it. Yeah, we could call it something else. Yep. So I think in terms of clarity, I think when we, when I joined the process of doing this, it was to make it add clarity and transparency for the public and the applicant. And so we should call a spade a spade. Demolition is demolition. If we, if we give it a fancy name, it's going to, it's going to obfuscate what they're asking for, my opinion. Well, maybe demolition request is, I mean, we don't even have to settle on what the, what the final document is. It can just be a demolition. No, it's a, it's a request for demolition. And we can just say, we can, we can approve or deny demolition period. No permit needed. Right. Yeah. So I think, you know, once question staff had been related, if we go into definitions, one is the building definition. So, you know, we had tried to come up with a commission had a pretty simple definition. The building commissioner seemed like that was could be easily interpreted, you know, it wasn't, but then the other question became, you know, like fences or other structure. So, you know, at one point we had, there was a definition for structure and then for building. But if you eliminate the definition for structure and it's only a building, you know, then the question becomes, you know, what is it okay if other things are then just excluded from review because it's not a building. And so. But under demolition, we live, we, we, we extend that out, Nate. But that's, but I think that's, so that's, but that becomes an inconsistency in the bylaw then. So I think, you know, I think, so then, right, so then there was, we had a big discussion about what, what the definition of demolition was. And so, you know, one question was, we have a two part definition for demolition, you know, did you, would you have a two part definition for building or have another? How about we work on a one at a time? Right. So you just want building to allow for, for fences, right? Right now the bylaw, you know, really, I mean, it can be anything, you know, they describe it as like any edifice or structure that's basically attached to the ground. So it could be public art, it could be tables, it could be, you know, if you, if you're going to interpret it as it's written, it's basically, you know, almost anything. I don't necessarily want that, but, you know, we were saying, well, you know, there are, there are things other than buildings, you know, it could be, you know, fences was one that is a structure that is, can be significant or visually significant to a property. You know, we're looking at that, you know, the Clark House, the one that Amherst College took down on, you know, on, so is, you know, for instance, would we want, you know, some homes might have this, you know, I don't know, I can't think of anything else, but. Didn't we, didn't we already discuss this? And yeah, I think last meeting we decided if there was a fence or some other piece of a structure besides that's not covered by this, then, you know, the, we could look at doing this like some sort of local historic district to cover that, you know, or, you know, it might have just been something that that we could compromise on and say. There's also a discussion about meeting, yeah, meeting a different tool, like a local historic district, but I think there was a suggestion of another bylaw that could cover walls, fences, and subterranean features. And right now I can't remember if that was the suggestion of Chris Skelly. For instance, would we want to just put walls and fences in here as a, you know, a, you know, as part of the definition of building, or do we call it a structure and then we, you know, I mean, I just think that the way it's written now, if this bylaw were in place, the removal of any fence would not be subject to review by this bylaw. What about using the word enclosure instead of structure that includes fences? When I asked, so in Ted, when I first came on the commission and Ted was working on this and he found the demolition delay bylaw guy from the mass historic commission and in there, they suggest not including things like fences in the demolition delay bylaw. And when I saw Chris Skelly at a training, I asked him about that because it was just referenced to other, other tools are better suited for that. And the answer to the other tools was historic districts that for some reason, just that was the information that I got, that the mass historic commission doesn't recommend putting fences and structures like they, they prefer the word building, they recommend building, and that if you want to protect things like fences, you use local historic districts might have been spoken there. I don't know quite the logic for that, but that's, those are the pieces that I know. Yeah. I mean, the other thing too is for a fence, not everyone, it's not obvious to people, to most people that they would need to submit a demolition application, I wouldn't think. So it'd be hard to even catch a lot of those. Right. So it's more of a proactive identifying a historic fences ahead of time, protecting them and historic and going from there. So I think if the commission is, if everyone's okay with this definition as it is, I think, you know, looking at other towns bylaws, this is kind of the standard language for defining a building. I wouldn't want to get too hung up on this. I think the, I think we as staff, we were just trying to think about, is there a way to broaden it because of, you know, think about historic fences, but if it's not a major concern, and if it's going to cause more confusion and complication, then maybe we could just leave it as it is. Then we do, this includes architectural detail on the property of fences, you know, whatever. And there are other architectural details on properties that are historic. But just to add to that, this includes historic fences, trying to think of what else you want to say. I feel like it really is just fences. Yeah, maybe, you know, right if they were like verandas or pergolas or other, I mean, you know, I don't know. Right. Right. There could be gateways. Right. Stone gates and things. Yeah. The pergolas is that, you know, that could be a historic feature on a property in addition to a fence. But it's a, it's a shelter. It comes under the definition. Some could argue that though, Jan, don't you think? Maybe. It's not really a shelter. It's, it's, it's architectural feature, but it's just separate from the building. So it's very much driven, though, by what kind of architectural styles and movements you're, you're really considering, because for some people, you know, they're thinking about a kind of integration of architecture and landscape. And it may be that this, what we're trying to impose here is something that will work, but it totally depends on how, how the nature of the landscape, the land itself, you know, is shaped by, by design. And maybe for that reason, the word building is a little bit more straightforward or transparent to use Pat's word. It's just, it just is clearer, you know, that it's either this or it's that, you know, and not something that's more sort of integrated for want of a better word. Because we've eliminated the term structure from definitions, could we use it here for persons and animals or property, including structures such as fences, stone walls, turtles, that's, Follies. Follies. So I'm not trying to, No, no, no, I'm just in the word structure just popped into mind again. And I think, I think that the shelter for persons, animals or property is, is too concrete for some to understand that we mean these other things as well. My opinion is better to state them. Again, including structures, but not limited to such as fences, stone walls. So as garages, in this category two, one would think forms a shelter. Especially detached ones. A shelter for property. I mean, it is interesting, there was a house, you know, North Amherst, a number of years ago that had a number of outbuildings, you know, like a corn crib, you know, these other structures that maybe you could argue that it was forming shelter for animals or property, but they, you know, maybe they'd say there are nothing. But as an assemblage of structures, you know, it showed what, you know, was an older farm, farm buildings. And so, yeah, I don't know. It's interesting. I agree. I think it's really difficult to say in this, in this context, you know, maybe only certain fences or stone walls will, will, you know, apply, right? Because you have to, you have to write it pretty generically. And how do you make that decision? How do you define variables, heading to your point? You know, I agree. Some fences, people might just be like, oh, that's not a big deal, but then there are these fences that really contribute to the property and to the architecture, but it's hard to capture that in language, in the definition. But at least by saying it, Nate, you get an opportunity to evaluate. Right. Fence. And do we want to add outbuildings then to, to this? But not limited to that. Whether you have a building or like a whole, what do you, what would you call a whole assemblage of buildings, you know, because you might have, like you said, a corn crib, an ice house, a smoke house, all these things, chicken coop, you know, that might be historically important in terms of the larger context. So building for historically important outbuildings. Well, you would say you or estate structures. But I can't think of many places like that in MS. I mean, I think, I think we need to kind of, my feeling is we need to sort of remember where we are. And sort of, you know, what is the scope? What is, what are the outer limits of the kinds of structures and buildings that we have and sort of work from there? You know, we're not talking about an Edward, an Edwin Luchin's estate. We're not talking about McKim, Mead and White. You know, I think, I think some of this is, is, you know, it's a bit more. Yeah. But there would be nothing lost if we took the end out from before Pergola's and added historic outbuildings. Yeah, that's, I like that a lot. I think that actually is a sort of, that captures a lot of whether the, whether the people, you know, dealing with the what by law feel that way. I don't know. But yeah, well, I mean, I think outbuildings are already covered, you know, they routinely come to the commission, but but they're not stated anywhere in here. This list isn't stated anywhere in here. And then there's, there's no confusion that if someone looks at the demolition by law, what they need a permit for. And my people might think that a lot of people don't think their barns count. It's clear here a barn does, but maybe if we said something like including asserted outbuildings or something, they'd know that it went beyond just the main barn. You know, I'm just, I've been reading that book, big house, little house, back house barn, you know, and there's all those little buildings in between the barn and the house that we might want to preserve, especially if it's a classic example of that. And it doesn't, they don't really have specific names anymore, because they aren't being used to their original purpose. But if we said something like assorted or whatever word you come up with, it would let people know that we don't just mean their barn or their garage. I mean, I think outbuildings right now, you want to qualify it maybe, but to me, I think if, you know, if a staff person were to interpret that, they would just say, okay, it's an outbuilding, you know, any outbuilding then is at least right. We need to say including any outbuildings. We're making it plural. So it's, you know, it's inclusive of any outbuilding that would be on any property that they're seeking demolition for. Any type of outbuilding, you want to say something like that or just say any outbuilding, period. I think just saying outbuilding says it. Well, but you're going from singular for the definition to plural. But we have fences, walls. We're saying all those things. I thought we were just saying these other, okay. No. I think, I think we could remove pergola. Oh, I see you're doing it. But I do consider that an outbuilding. Are we avoiding using the word shed or shack? Love shacks, love shacks, that kind of thing, you know. That's an outbuilding. Yeah, okay. It's also a shelter for property. Yeah, but yeah, I was thinking that, you know, outbuildings can be other things too, right, that some people may argue are not. I don't, you know, I think if we keep these changes, whether we keep pergola or not, you know, again, we can bring it back to staff and the building commissioner and ask for the opinion, okay, how do they, how is this interpreted? So what sleep pergola is in? Oh, greenhouses. I would take them both out and let outbuilding cover them. Yeah, just outbuildings, right? Yeah, that's all you need. I mean, it's getting a bit much because you can think of 25 other things if you start really going into that much detail, you know, and outbuildings. Or outbuildings. Maybe it should say or. Well, but it's including, it doesn't. Okay. Shall we tackle the next difficulty? Under application, I just wanted to say that it's weird the way we say a form created by the building commissioner for the demolition of, it'd be a form to request a permit for demolition. The form doesn't make a demolition. It's just an awkward definition, I think. Okay. Yeah, that might end up changing when Nate and I might just be a form to request a permit for demolition. Yeah, I like that. I like that. Yeah, again, and if we're changing this to be a commission process, we would just get rid of the building commissioner altogether. So, yeah. And I wouldn't have to say a demolition of a building. It should just say for demolition, because it could be for any number of things, but it doesn't really matter, right? So do we need to say where it's, where it's retrieved? If not from the building commissioner from whom? Well, we say that elsewhere. This is just the definition of what an application is. We say above that we're authorizing this, so. So then with the definition of demolition, I think, particularly the building commissioner, because there's, again, with building and then demolition, there's differences between building code and what we're interpreting, but there are a lot of questions about how do you determine or measure a 25% or any threshold. And so just more about, you know, the commission can come up with its own. Is it 25% of the exterior envelope? Is it 25% of the footprint? And they all have different implications, but it was really about how to qualify some of the terms in this demolition definition, just so that, you know, there isn't, you know, right now the way this was, you know, if someone was reading this, we could say, you know, two different staff people could have different interpretations of what 25% mean. And so. Ben, you sent us some good examples. Yeah. Yeah, I do. I have those up right now. If we want to look at those, I found three other towns that consider partial demolition. And I found there bylaws a sample language. Let me see here. So what we have now is removing or raising 25% or more of any facade of a building visible from the public right of way. So those are the changes we made last meeting. And I think facade is misleading because that's only one side. I would say any side of a building visible from the public right of way. Right. So let me, with that in mind, let me, how do I get this back? So I'll share my, so we have Arlington, Pittsfield, and I forget the third, but this is Arlington, their bylaw. So when they do demolition, same thing as us, active pulling down, destroying or removing or raising a building commencing the work of total substantial destruction. They talk about failure to maintain a watertight and secure structure. And then finally, they say a structure shall also be considered to be demolished if more than 25% of the front or side elevations are removed or covered. Each elevation shall be calculated separately. So that's good. Yeah, that's essentially what we say. We don't but I believe because when we talked with Rob, Ben, right, I mean, I think they would take the 25% from the total. If we did it the way we read the historical draft was almost 25% of the entire side, right, you know, we're aggregating it, but this is really clear. To me, an elevation up front side elevation and then each elevation is calculated separately is really clear. So that means if it's, you know, I like, I like the term elevation also. Yeah. Most aside, because there can be, you know, slightly different elevations on a side. Mm hmm. Yeah. What else do you have, Ben? Yeah, let's see. We also have, this is Dartmouth, that's what it is. Let's see, a substantial portion. Okay, wait, so that, okay, they have the total demolition up here or intent of doing the same or removal of the building from its site with the intent to relocate it to another site. That's interesting. They say a substantial portion or substantial destruction of a building is defined as either half the volume of the building or half of its value as determined by the building commissioner. A building shall be considered to be demolished if more than 25% of the front, back, or side elevations are removed or covered. So as to substantially obliterate the original design, each elevation shall be calculated separately. So this is, yeah, so they're essentially defining a substantial portion, which they use up here. And then this paragraph is almost its own thing. It's a clarification that demolition means 25% of the elevations. They don't say what are, that are visible. They just say back or front, back or side, so they don't care whether they're visible or not. We've always said it had to be visible from the street. Yep. That's a big difference. Yeah. And I mean, our first Arlington case, they only said front and front or side. Here they're saying front, back or side, so. That could come in if it's a building that you can see a lot of the back of. Right. If you don't say that then, you know, even, you know, because we define the front and side, you know, that's pretty clear. But, you know, building as visible from the back, like, you know, say houses on Cosby Street could be visible from fearing. But if, you know, you're not defining the rear of the structure, identifying that the back of the structure is under review, then, you know, they could put a big addition on or something. We say any side of a building, that means any of the four sides. Do you think that's not clear and you'd have to say front, back or side? I don't think they're one, the one. Oh, yeah, what else Ben, what are the other towns? I mean, I do like the idea of saying an elevation in each side. Elevation of any side of a building. Yeah. Yeah, so then Pittsfield, any act of pulling down, destroying, removing, dismantling or raising or commencing the work of total or substantial destruction with the intent of completing the same substantial herein show mean either half of the volume of the structure or half of its assessed value as determined by the building inspector. So that means it's volume based or value based. It seems so vague and it's all subjective on what the building inspector says. Yeah, the value is really hard to because the assessor too doesn't do a full evaluation every year. And so that actually came into play with an Amherst College property a few years ago because of the way it's assessed on a campus. And actually, I think they complained because we had to assess that very little. And then their insurance company, I think has some questions, but it's just, you know, it's so interesting. The value. I'm surprised that they can get away with saying it's value. And that's very hard to judge. So all right, let's maybe not use Pittsfield as our example, but Dartmouth and Arlington definitely have some interesting ideas. So are we all in favor of maybe repurposing this line about each elevation shall be calculated separately? Yeah. Okay. So and you can say 25% or more of the elevation of any side of a building visible from the public right away with each elevation be calculated separately. I think this could be our opportunity to delete visible from the public way. You think? Yeah. As if we're saying any of them, I guess, yeah. It doesn't need to be visible. I would be in favor of that. That sounds good. Gives us a little more control. Okay. Here, I'm going to see how this works. So you start with the elevation. Oh, you're trying to put something in. Yes. So of 25% or more of the front, back or side elevations. Whoops. So as to that building comma with each elevation to be calculated separately. We're not doing the substantially obliterate the original design. Are we? I wasn't thinking that, but I was just coming off of somebody else's stuff. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, we don't have to. What is what did Arlington say? Did they say that? No, they don't really say that. They say removed or covered. What does that mean by covered? Does that mean if they put an addition on that? Yeah, they can put vinyl siding over anything or if you enclose a porch maybe you put a porch on over the side of the front of the building. What's wrong with obliterating the original design? Because that covers all of the things you just mentioned, Nate. But I think, but we, the difference is that this definition begins, any act of pulling down, destroying, removing or raising. So those definitions didn't have those. Do you want to add or covering? Yeah, or covering or covering. Yeah, I like that. So covering should probably go before raising. Yeah, okay. So covering. So I think we still, sorry, this is getting complicated with the list here, but we, I think we still need this clause or the, or to initiate the work of total destruction. But the intent of completing the same. So after calculated separately should be your semicolon because you're making kind of a list here. Yeah. And then after side elevations, the with each elevation to be calculated, but you need a comma there. Yeah. Because it's a sub cat, a sub clause. Okay. I don't think you need front or back, but whatever anybody thinks. Okay. What do you mean? No, I like, I like this. Maybe some people might say, what is front side or back? But to me, it gives some clarity. Any part of the structure shouldn't be changed. Okay. Great. Okay. So we still need to incorporate this. Are you, are you proposing just having this be something? Well, if you want to do that, or you can just, you can go back and add it after the semicolon. Oh, but your semicolon is between letters. Right. Take the semicolon out, yeah, and make it a comma there. You can. Okay. Sorry. Okay. I don't know if it's separate. Okay. And then I might, I might make that a, right. That seems what other definitions did, like full demolition is considered is kind of like their first. And then B would be initiating the work of total destruction. That makes sense. Yeah. Yeah. And then 25%. And then it's almost like the, a hierarchy of. Okay. So you're saying this should now be B. No, I think that any active point down, remove your raising, we're saying 25% or more. To me, that would be B and A would be the total destruction. You know, it's like severity of demolition. It's total destruction is 25% or more. Is B and C. And then just change your modify. Good point. Modify. Yeah. Okay. Here I'm going to add. And it would be initiating. Yeah. Yeah. I turned track changes off. I'm doing it too. So I can send it to you if you get mixed up, because I'm picking out what we're saying on my copy. So I think, you know, yeah, we kind of, again, staff look at this, but I think the way we just worked on the 25% or more is really clear for staff to, you know, in the future for someone to say, okay, what, how do we calculate the 25% and, you know, it can be, to me, that's clear. So we're just initiating the work of total destruction. Go. That's a right. That's what I thought. Yeah. I, you're, you're getting it kind of cut up here, Ben. So initiating is A. Which could be colon any act of pulling down, destroying, recovering, raising whatever that's being. Yeah. And then B is any act of pulling down the 25% with each elevation calculate separate and C is the act of changing or modifying. Okay. Yeah. I am getting confused. So any act of pulling down. I think I just sent an email to you. Okay. And then you can just. So the any act of pulling down, destroying, raising 25% or more, this is, that first sentence is part of B. And then A begins with initiating the work of total destruction. Okay. I just sent it to you. There we go. It's always easy for the edit than to be the one making all this. Real time, Ben. All right. So that can maybe be lower. And then after calculated separately comma or semicolon. Yeah, exactly. Okay. And I guess, you know, if we're moving on to C, you know, staff has some questions about again, how, you know, how, how would staff interpret important architectural elements? And then, you know, I think there's a question here, who decides, you know, this historic integrity of the design. So I think, you know, just, it becomes something that, you know, if we were trying to make it clearer to an applicant, I think the first two right now are pretty good. This one becomes, you know, you're taking off the shutters of a building or you're taking off some, you know, some fascia detail. Is that subject to a demolition application? If it's, if it's architectural elements that are historic, I would say so. If it comes under less than 25% though. What if there's two chimneys and they're super historic in style and they take those two chimneys down, but that's not 25% of any side. Right. They take all the casings off the windows. Right. That's, that's why we need to see, and maybe it needs to be clearer. But it's why we need to see because it's a subgroup. Yeah. I mean, you know, I think Chris Kelly had said that mass historic wouldn't even consider like doing what Jen, you just mentioned, or I mentioned would not be considered, would not be, would not be applicable to the demolition review by law. It'll let it go. Well, we're tougher. I would add chimneys as our examples, if we're just going to list examples to make it clearer. But those are exemptions, right? Oh, except for exemptions. That's, but not limp. Wait. Oh, they aren't. I think this is awkward. I don't think that's what we meant. No, I don't think so either. No. So this is what I, this is a, I found a bylaw draft from who knows when 2019 or something. Uh, that in which the commission developed just this short list of historic or architectural features. And I added this in like last week. Yeah, but you're, you're adding it to the list of exemptions. It's the opposite. Well, it says except for exemptions. It's found. Okay. So I just need to switch the order here. Switch the order. Yeah. And, and let's add chimneys. Okay. So XYZ, that was just you were just saying if there's anything else, right? Yeah. Okay. And then I guess we have to see what the exemptions are. We'll get there. So I guess that's interesting. So I guess one question is right. So if they're removing these elements, but it's not 25% or more, they'd still need to submit an application. Right. Yes. Yeah. That's how we can maintain a little control over specific things. Yeah. If they're important architectural or key architectural elements, I, I agree. I think they should be. But is that something that the building commissioner, town staff, how do we decide what gets submitted to review? Is that part of what the designee? Yeah. I mean, it's no longer necessarily the building commissioner. And I think Rob was saying that if this becomes kind of a commission process that, you know, it would be the staff to the commission and maybe the historical commission designee, but you know, it would be, I think it would be really on staff. So it better be you, for instance, in your position or, you know, it was with me, with me. It wouldn't be, we can ask Rob for his interpretation, but it wouldn't be, we wouldn't be relying on the building commissioner as the one making that decision. If there was a house that had all the accoutrements of gingerbread, et cetera, et cetera, Victorian, and they decided to make it look modern, that would be destroying historical aspect of architecture. Kind of a simplistic example. So can we, can we move to the next item and then we can get to exemptions later? But yeah, absolutely. Then you sent us a chart showing the percentages of communities that had various length of bylaws and about 37, 39% had 12 months. The same percentage had six months. So majority had either six months or 12 months. Yeah. So yeah, I think 154 communities have demolition delay bylaws and of those communities only, I think 8% had more than 18 months. So. But 37, 39%, I don't have it in front of me anymore, but had at least a 12-month delay. And there's an advantage to an 18-month and that may be some restoration or some repurposing could take place because there'd be enough time to have that happen. But I don't have an opinion on whether it should be 18 months or 12 months. I don't think it should be less than 12 months. Nate, we had thought that there would be points that the council would argue on this and we wanted to have some things that we were putting in that we'd be willing to be flexible on in order to give them a sense of power. And this was one of the things we thought we'd start with 18. If they really were upset and wanted to go to 12, we'd say, okay, we gave you that, but then you can't do this. Yeah, I think the council and CRC would say 18 months is too long and staff even felt like it was too long. It's hard to say that there's, if they were, perhaps maybe the town had a revolving fund that was successful in helping property owners or we had some other programs that are already in place, then maybe 18 months. But with the absence of those 18 months just seems really long. And I know what you're saying, the commission is putting forward its best. It's what it would want to be as an ideal bylaw. But I think that this 18 months is definitely going to be one point that is going to be contentious. And so. But it's a bargaining chip. And I should tell us that Mass Historical is recommending 18 months to everybody now. So we're on the cutting edge here. Yeah, but we could back out of that if it was contentious. I think Jen is right. And we were thinking to put it out there because it's being recommended, but it's nothing that we're wedded to. Right. I just, yeah, I think the, for instance, if the CRC or town council asked some staff what they think they would say 18 months is too long. So, you know, it would just be, you know, I think staff would say 12 months is fine. That's what we have. I just think the 18 months becomes a lightning rod for opposition. So it's not a bargaining chip near opinion. It just sets us up negatively to begin with, you think? Yeah, and also I, maybe Nate, you know better than I, but my sense is I don't actually know how much like, you know, bargaining there is once we get to town council, I know it goes through CRC review, but my sense is, you know, we have to, we present the bylaw as in its finished state, essentially. And I don't know, do we work with CRC to like edit it? Or is it more just like they review it and then recommend or don't recommend to town council? I think actually, oh, I don't, yeah, I just don't know. And we don't want to put anything radical out. Yeah, I think the CRC might spend a meeting or two looking at this, but I don't know right if there's going to be like, oh, let's invite the commission to a working meeting where we discuss points. They might just say, well, we don't like this, let's strike it. And then, you know, I'm assuming the commission would respond, but yeah, I don't know. You know, I feel like it hasn't really been done. Actually, this is, you know, this is kind of new ground for the CRC and even the planning board and town councils, you know, they just met the other week to discuss how zoning amendments go through. You know, I think the whole process is kind of in question, but yeah. Why don't we turn it around and say, make it a 12 month delay, but in the presentation, make a big point of saying that mass historical is recommending 18 months, but because we're so reasonable. Yeah, I think Ben, your chart is interesting too to have just to say that 18 months, and even 24 months, I mean, you know, communities are doing that just. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it is interesting, you know, the, you know, the housing trust often CPA funds often ask for half a million dollars. And I'm always like, that's just, you know, there's no way we're going to have the CPA money and the chair is like, well, why don't we ask for it? Then every other CPA committee says, Oh, we'll give you 200. And so I'm like, I don't, you know, it's like asking for 200 to me. I don't think they say, well, we're just going to give you 100. I think we could really make the case that a year, like the commission in the town will really go no shorter than 12 months. And if they want to consider more, we could put that in a letter as part of the presentation. You know, we're, we think 12 months is the minimum we would recommend or we, you know, longer, but or something, but 12 months is the minimum we'd, we'd stay, you know, we may come back later and ask for more or something. But maybe a comment about how long this has been the standard in Amherst. And so we're, we're keeping, we're keeping consistent with that. Right. Yeah, I just read an article about like, you know, if you don't answer spam phone calls, do you get less? And it was actually a really big survey and they found that it doesn't matter. I used to think that, yeah, maybe if you just don't answer or hang up at no cock, you get less, but I get the same spam phone calls at the same time every day on my land. Tries me crazy. I don't, I look and I don't answer. So you're right, Nate. It doesn't change the answer. You don't answer. They just keep on coming. On the other hand, sometimes if you answer, you can push a button to never be contacted again. So maybe here, the thing is, we talk right to the point instead of hoping they just skip past it. Right. I would prefer not to have red flags. If it's not a bargaining chip, let's not have a red flag, but we can address it in that cover letter. Right. Yeah. And I'm serious about saying to them, you know, I think it's an educational moment that, you know, that this is what the trend is in our state. But we understand that that our 12 month delay has been effective. So yeah, I know, I know. Or we could say, we know your hand in hand with the contractors who won't let you make this kind of decision. So it could be really awful. Okay. So, so 12, it will be needs to the rest of this needs to be altered because of our new procedure. And I mean, does the commission like the idea of this being, you know, a commission, a commission's, you know, you know, staff in the commission reviewing it, we can always ask the building commissioner, but, you know, we're no longer relying on the building commissioner as say, like the interpreter of the bylaw becomes staff in the commission. And then it's the commission issuing a permit at the end or something, not guidance to the building commissioner. Would it still state that it was under the state building? Okay. So it'd be a building permit issued. No, it wouldn't be a building permit. It'd be a demolition permit by the historical commission. It'd be a permit issued for demolition. Yeah. But that isn't, that needs to be changed in your demolition permit to take out a building. It would. But I mean, the historical commission, the, the building commissioner, Rob still needs to issue a demolition permit eventually, right? That that's still essentially, if the commission, you know, if this, if we kind of change the process and the commission issue to delay on a building, the commission issues a demolition, a delays, I don't know, whatever we say, the building, you know, Rob would could not issue a building permit to demolish until after that delays expired. And so essentially, the applicant can't even, you know, they can't even apply for a building permit to demolish. So that definition stands then. I mean, I just, you know, I mean, I guess when I, when I was thinking about this moving to the general bylaw, it was setting up a process for the commission without having to have a building permit issued in some respect. So that way, to me, it just, it reduces confusion. But so you're saying if we, if we don't do a delay and we issue a permit, there still has to then be a building permit for demolition? Yes. I think we would be issued, we wouldn't be issuing a permit per se. We would be issuing a certificate and then Rob, Rob can't, Rob can't, Rob will then need that certificate to issue the demolition permit. Right. It'd be a prerequisite and either way, either one. So we'd have two things. We'd have demolition permit, which is the building commissioner. And then we'd have a certificate or authorization to demolish, which comes from us. Yeah. Another definition. So that, yeah. And somehow that, that's out of out of order alphabetically, but it's somehow connected to the demolition delay. And so maybe in that, it needs to say if, if a demolition delay is not imposed, a certificate to demolish will be issued. And are we delaying a demolition permit? Are we delaying the authorization to demolish? We're delaying the authorization to demolish, but if we don't delay the, the, the demolition, then we, we have a certificate of authorization to demolish. Right. The commission would, right, would actually be issuing something in the affirmative. Right. So that somehow isn't alphabetically here, but it should be part of maybe demolition certificate or demolition delay, demolition certificate. I really hate the word certificate. I think it's about local historic district, but I do think. I mean, what are we, what are we doing? We're authorizing demolition. Right. Right. So demolition authorization. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, then we can, oops, what am I doing? Insert. Cells below, rows below. Demolition authorization. But that should probably go before demolition. Oh no. Yeah, you're right. You're right. Well, demolition delay, they're all connected, but demolition delay and demolition authorization. So demolition, demolition authorization should probably come after demolition. Yeah, exactly. Right. So for instance, right now, if someone comes to the commission, like just this evening and the commission voted to allow the demolition, we just transmit that to staff, but there's nothing ever recorded. You know, it's just like, okay, the demolition can perceive, but now the commission would actually be issuing, you know, a form or something that would be given to the applicant that they would use then to apply for a building permit to demolish. So, right. And so this would be, if a demolition is deemed not necessary to be delayed or something to that effect, then authorization is issued. And then if the delay, if it's delayed and then eventually demolition permit, is that the right order? Well, you guys can go in and kind of straighten up. Yeah, yeah. That part of it. Because it's going to be woven into almost everything in here. Exactly. All right. So yeah, I do think Nate and I can, with Rob's help, do these definitions. Then, yeah, like Jan said, weave it into the rest of the bylaw. I really like the idea though, Nate. Well, quickly. Well, what about the appeals process? Can you, Nate, I haven't been through it, but how does it work in local historic district? And would we want to do something similar here? Yeah, I think if we went, yeah, I think, you know, one, if we're looking at the owner, you know, Rob thought that nowhere else in the, in any bylaws, we really concern ourselves, the town with the change of ownership, you know, because it, you know, it gets into some, some legal complexity, you know, who exactly is an owner, if it's an LLC, if there's partners, and it just, it can get really complicated. And so, you know, we ask that an owner, if they're not the applicant sign an application, so we actually, you know, that's required by state law that there'd be an owner signature, but to define an owner, then to use it to say that a permit is no longer valid after change of ownership, that's really not done. It just gets really complicated. Can we just make an owner out of there since we have applicants? But the owners, the owner is the, the legal entity on record as owner. Right. It can be an LLC, it can be an individual, it can be an organization. But I think a defined term was because later in the bylaw, it said that upon change of ownership, the permit would expire. And so staff's recommendation is to take out that clause that it would expire upon change of ownership, and then you could delete the definition here because Sounds good. So I'd like to do a time check. It's about 10, 12 minutes to nine. Do you think you all want to stay around till nine or, or later, or shall we try to address any other definition questions in the next 10, 12 minutes and then, and then conclude for tonight. Faf didn't really have any other questions really about the definitions. No. So what if, what if we can work on whatever the next thing is, but and the rest of the agenda, which seems to have taken care of itself and, and adjourn at nine and leave Nate and Ben to clean up some of this stuff that we, we seem to be right on the verge of getting right. Yeah. And come back to talk about the making a distinction between preferably preserved and significant, didn't you? Exactly. Yeah. Well, I think, yeah, I think the, you know, what staff felt was that there was really good criteria about how to determine something to be significant, but it was almost as if that criteria could or should be used to determine if it's perfectly preserved. And maybe to determine if it's significant, you just have like some really simple ones. You know, it's 50 years or older. It's listed. Yeah. You know, because I think, you know, for instance, like the two, three and four, I mean, those, those pieces, they fit within the statement of the designation of preferably preserved. You're right. Right. Yeah. And so, you know, to me, it was almost like take two, three and four and make it as part of the review of it being preferably preserved and just come up with one or two simple parameters for being significant. I think some of it was too staff felt that the way it's written now under preferably preserved, it gave a lot of deference to the, what's, what's happening on the property, what's the future plans. And the question is, well, what if an applicant doesn't have any future plans and they might not. And so there has to be some pretty clear criteria for the commission to determine preferably preserved because, you know, an applicant after the first, if this was passed and you know, people are paying attention, they might not, they might come to commission without any plans because they might think that that would jeopardize the review. And so they're just going to play dumb. Right. But if there's some pretty good criteria here. But isn't it okay to, I mean, isn't a, isn't a future plan, isn't to have no plan, isn't that a kind of future plan in itself? Well, it's a concern. And I think we should know that and weigh that because if somebody's just demolishing it and leaving an empty lot, that's a problem. Yeah, I think that can be one of the review pieces for preferably preserved, but it shouldn't be like the major one because, you know, for instance, someone, someone may think, well, the commission isn't going to like what I'm presenting and they just don't present it, but they may in their back pocket have their plans. Okay. Well, that could maybe be number five, maybe two, three, four, five. Right. Right. No, I agree. I think the future plans of a property can be part of the review for our building being preferably preserved. And that's actually one of the reasons why we're doing this two step process to begin with. Right. But I think, yeah. Yeah, I'd like to go back to the criteria for significance for a moment. If, if the only ones we're going to use are the age of the strap of the building and or whether or not it's a contributing structure or listed, that's going to give us everything thousands of significant structures. And that's, we don't want that. No, what's the whole points was that it would all be done by staff and the building commissioner and not come to us. And now it's all going to come again. No, no, it wasn't, no, it wasn't actually, but I think when we're meeting with staff, they, it seemed to make sense because I think, you know, the idea was if we determined something significant and we have these clearly laid out criteria when you get to how to determine to designate preferably preserved, there just isn't a lot there. And so staff was saying, isn't, even if it's just repeated, because are you, you might even look at what's been the research that's already been done to determine if it's properly preserved. You might want to know. Yeah, we have that. We say that we say, including criteria in section E1 before. Yeah, I think staff just felt it was more, I mean, maybe, maybe he's already said, maybe we just have to point that out again. Yeah, well, we, we just added this last meeting. So, like Robin, Chris, didn't see that, didn't see that. Okay, so yeah, so maybe that, maybe that covers it then. Yeah, because I, looking at other bylaws, I mean, it's pretty interesting. And also it's what Chris Skelly, there's really no criteria for preferably preserved, except that it's in the public interest to preserve or rehabilitate the structure. That's, that's like the standard language. Yeah, everything you're seeing there, I'm made up. Just working on it. Right, yeah, yeah, exactly. So, Not taken from anybody else's document. It was just talking to Chris Skelly and then just kind of, I don't know, weaving words together. Yeah, and I mean, you don't directly say public interest, but you talk about environmental, economic, educational, social advantages, historic identities and possible public interest. I say the historical commission in the Oh, there you go, perfect. And I think if anything, you're just expanding on what the, what that public interest is, all these things. So I think we're consistent with what other towns you're doing. And then we clarify that it's, you know, we consider all of these things above here, plus the future plans for you reuse, reconstruction or restoration. Right, so I think. Can I make a suggestion about just to, just to strengthen the including criteria above? Could we say including additional review of criteria? That's a good idea, yeah, yeah. So I think if, if, if the criteria above for significance remains, you know, there was a concern that it could take some time with staff, right? Staff would have to dedicate a little bit of time. And so the thought was to increase the review time when an application is received. Right, but I think then there wasn't there the idea that maybe out of, out of like a week, could just, you know, because staff may have to work with special collections or just do a little more research to determine some of these, to really review some of these criteria to determine. Yeah, you mean for designation is significant. Right, for significance, right, right. My thought here is that if we say additional review or more intensive review or something like that, that means that up in E, that can be based on somewhat less research. That it's just a matter of proportion in a sense, so that it, but it depends on whether we're, you know, we have to balance the speed of the review and responsiveness to the owner with amount of work that needs to be done. Also, I remember we're saying if it needs one or more, so it could only have to meet one for significance, right? So that doesn't mean quite as much research. Does it say one or more? Yeah, it does. It says if it's one or more, it's one or more of the following. All right, yeah, and I like the insertion, Jane, of additional review or something down below that really kind of reinforces that that information can be brought and it will be brought into the public hearing. So it's not as if it's, you know, left with staff. I do think I'm just speaking for me as the staff person who might be looking at this later on is the number four would give me trouble. I mean, I think I know the intent, but it's still a little vague in my mind. Like these three are all very clear. It's listed, it's associated with a historic person or event, that stuff you can look up, you know, it has high craftsmanship or style. Architecturally, that's, you know, something that can be determined. But then this one, I guess I'm still a little bit confused about, like obviously the single car garage we looked at is set back from the street. It's not really part of the view shed, but like, Well, maybe once we write the definition, that'll be easier. I don't think it's any less subjective than three. But I guess what is it, what's the intent is that, you know, if a house has been on a street for 50 years, does that automatically make it significant? Like what, I just, I guess. Well, it would have to be, well, it's one or more. So you're right, Ben. It's confusing. It could be making it significant, but it doesn't mean we won't agree. This could be the one demolition. Right. But this could be the one thing where I don't, I can't, I'm not coming up with a good example. But well, the house on Pleasant Street that's being moved, we determined that it was a familiar landscape feature, a street, you know, streetscape feature, but then we said it could still be moved. It could still be demolished. So that's the moment that Jane was talking about, where you say, yes, it is, but then you have additional review of that criteria under preferably preserved and you determine it's significant, but it does not properly preserve. I do think that this, but to Ben's point, this number four, I think if you read this as it's written, a visual, you know, it's taken from the current by a lot to me, it's really vague and anything then could be captured by this. So that makes it really difficult. I think that anything, anything that's been there for 50 years is now a familiar part of the viewshed. And so what is the, to me, I would have, I would like to add a little bit more. Maybe we should add something of like the word historic in there. Classy. Well, I mean, I think the, the Emirates cockpit. Unique location or appearance. You know, how many times do we drive down the street and we don't take note of many of the buildings on the street? Hey, you know, this is the Bank of America building. Right. We all notice that. We all notice that. So do we want to preserve a chair? Well, I would not vote for it being preferably preserved, but it definitely is significant. But is this really about its relationship to the streetscape and buildings? And you know, not, I mean, is there a way to, to write this so that it's a little. It's what Jan just said. It's like something that every, I mean, I always think of this, this one is, it's tough, but I think of it as like something that everybody knows, you know, that it's, it's so unique. It's not just that it's been on, you know, Dana Street for 50 years. I mean, I think the Bank of America building is a really great example of the building across street. Everybody knows it because it's such an obvious part of town. Or I also think of it as like, you know, I always think, for some reason, I always think of the Bob's big boy statue. Like it's so unique. Everyone would know what it is. But it is, I mean, you know, how you, how you define that in clear terms. And you laugh, but people who grow up in this town in 30 years, they're going to be horrified if you talk about taking down that Bank of America building. That's right. So how would, you know, so if I was staff reading number four and someone came in, they said, Oh, I'm tearing down 79 Logtown Road. And it's over 50 years. I think staff would say, Oh, well, it's a, it's, it's familiar. It means this criteria. So I feel like it's just not. It's a unique location or presumably unique appearance. I mean, Logtown Road is an unique location. I can't imagine that the houses, I mean, I know the houses there, they don't have a unique appearance. That's what I think of is that it's either stands out so much because of where it's located or stands out so much because of what it looks like. You want to say you think we're historic? But when I look at number two and three, the way it's written, you can really understand what, how you would do some research and apply it to the application here. I feel like it's pretty, four is pretty vague to me. Maybe four fits into two. You know, it has value in association with a specific location. Maybe that's good enough. But I see, I mean, I guess I was thinking about this, like, is it, you know, is it advice? If I was thinking about this, like, you know, I'd say, is it a, is it, does it contribute to or enhance the streetscape? Or, you know, are there other ways to say what we, what, you know, rather than just saying it's familiar? Right. Going beyond that. Yeah. We could say familiar and valued, if you should. But to tell the truth, I, Jan, I kind of agree with you that the first clause in number two covers it. Maybe we can buff up number two a little bit and get rid of four. I mean, the way this is written, it will always be vague and subjective. But if we throw in some more words that we've used elsewhere, like value, that might help. But I think the real question is, do we, do we need this? Does it say something that is not said up in number two? Maybe something like in number two, where we say the broad architectural, social, political, economic, or cultural heritage. You're saying very visual heritage, visual appearance of the town of Amherst. And then drop four. But there could be, there could be a building that doesn't satisfy any of those things. But every time you pass it, you notice it. Like the Bank of America. What about, what about the more, you know, I don't know if they're 1960s or 1970s, modern houses that are up on Redgate Road. I mean, that's something that I think it has a unique appearance. Like if one of those came up for demolition, that would be. I think it would come under two. The broad architectural economic heritage. I mean, that period, that was a big expansive time. And that's an architectural style that's very important in the town. Or number three, right? Number three, right? Yeah. Yeah, or three. Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, I always argue this on those two. And then we get to four. I mean, we have this similar list and it's almost redundant. I know that some of the counselors have, you know, with the current bylaw, you know, as relates to number four, they're going to have a lot of questions about how that is interpreted and applied to an application. So I know they've already said like, what, something that's familiar, doesn't that mean everything? So they have the same kind of question about, you know, how do you... I appreciate that, too. So what if in number three, we were to talk about the view shed? A owner in the context of a group of buildings has historical architectural value, a significance to the view shed, as a period stuck, but we're talking about significance here. Right. So I would see it more incorporating it in three than in two, because we talk about alone or in the context as historical or architectural value as to period style craftsmanship, method, or significance in enhancing the establishing and enhancing the familiar view shed. It doesn't clarify it that much more, but it puts it in with the fact that it's a building you notice. Could just slip view shed in after a group of buildings alone or in the context of a group of buildings or view shed? That's a good idea. Yeah, that would work, Jane. We would then have to... It's always a notice. Nate, does that clarify it for you? Yeah, I just want to think about how does a building... How is a building significant to a view shed? But I think putting it in here, I mean, it kind of describes what you're looking for then. Right, and more so than the one and two. Right, and then how does its location have public value? So when we apply for CPA funds to restore the barn down on West Street, which it didn't work out, but one of the arguments was that it became... You know, because it was so... It became a visual feature of the landscape or the historic landscape. And so I think it would meet some of these other criteria, but I was just trying to think of how do we write that, but maybe inserting it the way you did. It just... And I think you just did that wrong. Right, excuse the wrong part. The building alone or in context of a group of buildings. Okay, I just didn't want it to be like a group of view sheds or something, but... Yeah, the view shed or a group of buildings or a view shed. Okay. Yeah, I think that... I think staff would be able to... I think that makes it a lot easier to say, okay, well, how... Right, what's the value in relationship to the view shed or buildings? And so you're applying the rest of that... Right. There's something about that building in the view shed and this is the criteria for it. Right. Well... I still think it's awkward. Alone or in the context of a group of buildings or as part of a view shed? Right. Right, I mean... Yeah, precisely. Okay. Yeah. So I think we've solved... It sounds to me like we've done a lot of problem-solving with the criteria and it is all 9.09. Oh my God, this is like my one night out a week here. I'm ready to stay out. Who and I can stay out? I don't know why I'm in the back room here. If the kids are being taken care of, let's open a bottle and keep going. Let's go back to... Is there any member of the public who wishes to make a comment? It hasn't fallen asleep yet. I take that as an example. Yeah. Unless you... We'll allow Hilda to talk. Oh, is Hilda still there? Is she? She is, yeah. Yeah, I just want to make you a one thing. Hilda, you're amazing. That line about visible from the street is deleted forever. It is, yes. Okay, because I was going to say that I got four bounds here and I don't think you can see any of them from the street unless more trees come down. And one of them, Mrs. Rand said, was Robert Frost's favorite bond. And she's no longer around to document that, but you can't see them... Can't see them from the street. So I just want to make sure that that's gone. That was my only guess. Yeah, that's been taken out. They might be significant now, even if we can't see them, but I want to come see them now that they sound interesting. Anytime you've got pictures of them. Do we? They actually look better when they apple bloat. The apple blossoms. Crava will surround them. Nice. It's nice in the snow too, Jen. Great. I'm ready for a field trip. Thank you. You held it. So have you got this thing almost done already? It's pretty boring. You've been exploring from your point of view. We've been working on this thing for four years. I've been listening to one of the four years. I think that probably Louie worked on the tool. How many years ago was that? That was when Jim was chair. Well, that would have been the version that we're revising. I think that was the poet's walk tool. Definitely was. The writer's walk was underway. Writer's walk has been around for so long. I can't wait to see it. It's going to be finished this year. Right, babe? It is. It's promising. I can say goodbye now. I just want to make sure, because there are a lot of historical things that you can't see. And the whole thing about Robin Frost and Warren Brown was a true story. My husband knew that, and he would tell them that, and nobody would listen. And then it was documented somewhere, because Louie used to see them walking around town all the time. Back in the 50s. Okay, well, thanks a lot, Hilda. Yeah, all right. Well, I'll try to find something here that would be of interest to put in the ending. I'll show a picture of the garage with the murals, because that looks like everything people want to put on their walls now. I call it pot art. Next to last is unanticipated items. Are there any? Then let's have our next meeting date. Yeah, so I know we had talked about possibly doing March 22. I have a conflict that night, unfortunately. So I was going to say. I'm leaving. Goodbye. Okay, thanks, Hilda. Bye, Hilda. Bye, Hilda. Good night. I was just going to see if folks could meet March 24th, possibly. Sometimes we do Wednesday meetings. The 24th works for me. Works for me. Me too. Okay. I have to make and get the night out. I think I'm always around. Maybe. Great. And so March 24th, and then I'll transmit that to who did we lose? Jane Schaeffler. And Heady, right? Heady. Yeah. Exactly. Okay. Do we want to set an April? Okay. 6.30, Ben, is the time? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. Did we want to set like a tentative April date? I have a feeling I might, I might get applications maybe from the conky house in March. So it'd be nice to kind of set, have a date for them in mind. We could do an April date where we launch the Rider's Walk signs. Hopefully that would be great. So I actually have on my calendar the 21st. Yeah, I need to. For a meeting in April. Did we set that already? Oh, maybe. Maybe we did. Oh, I do have that written down. Nice. Okay. But I, but I had the 17th of March. So that is, that is off the record. Yeah. The 24th. Yeah, March 24th. Okay. And then April is the 21st. Yeah, we did have the 17th of March. We weren't on the 22nd. Oh. No. Yeah. We were on the 17th. We had already made this adjustment because it's the third Wednesday. Can we keep the 17th? Is that, will that work for you then? Um, it might. I might be in actually in California that day. I'm actually traveling. But I was thinking about actually working the 16th and 17th. So it'd be at, that'd be at 330. I mean, I guess I would rather do the 24th. Okay. That's fine. That's fine. It's fine with me. But then the, then the 21st of April. Yeah. It's just the third Wednesday. Right. And then I marked the 19th of May, which is the third Wednesday. Can we try to stick to the third Wednesday? Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. That sounds good. And actually I've been meaning to update our website. And I was thinking of having like a, like a future meetings date on, on there as well. So it'd be nice to start kind of thinking about setting those dates, like a few months in advance. So yeah, because we never show on the town calendar, if somebody wanted to know when we were meeting, I mean, I don't know if I want them to, but they would not see it by looking at the town. But you have to post the meetings, Ben, right? 48 hours in advance. Yep. Yeah. 48. Yeah. For public hearings. Yeah. For public hearings. Yep. Yeah. Exactly. Okay. So shall I make a motion that we adjourn the meeting? Yes, please. I make a motion. We adjourn the meeting. Second. Second. Third. Thank you. Good night, all. Good night, everyone. See you next month. Be safe. Bye bye. Be well. Thank you. Ben, I'll, I'll go over it with the fine two's comb after you guys adjust it for the new system. Yeah. Save what I've already done. Okay. Okay. I've done a few, like at the very beginning, there was an awkward line. I've done a few things. Yeah. And I'll just wait because it'll be like a final, a kind of roofing and editing. Okay. That sounds good. Yeah. Oh, and as far as the other thing you and I need to talk about is the, where is it? You know, the, oh, the historical Amherst, historic Amherst website before the signs go in. I guess I should just go through and mark some of the stuff because you're going to get the codes and be making the changes now, right? He's going to give you the codes. I have, I have to log in now. Yeah. Log in. Okay. So then I guess I just need to find a time to sit down and go through them because there's, you know, there's some tweaking definitely that needs to be done. Okay. I guess we should do some sort of disclaimer or something because there's, you know, there's larger pockets of information for each of the buildings that was written by the students and I don't want to hurt his feelings by taking a lot of that out, but some of it is really either slightly inaccurate or biased and I don't know if there's a way for us to kind of have like official town information. And then this was also available through a seminar at, you know, students from a seminar at UMass. We can do that. Like label it as additional, additional information. Yeah. So that we don't get in trouble. I could see somebody like Hillary getting in there and really telling us, wait, and I mean, I feel uncomfortable. That's why I rewrote a lot of them. You know, right. Right. Okay. Well, let's let's think about that and I'll try and find time to go through each page. Okay. I'm happy to share the login and kind of it seemed pretty straightforward how to edit text. What does he use? What's his program? I don't really remember. It's like a blogging platform. I forget the name of it. It doesn't use HTML. I mean, I can do it. No, no, I don't think so. No. Okay. Well, let's see how much is necessary and we can work on it together. We could even like, I could go rough lifts and then we could open it and work on it together. Right. Yeah. That sounds good. So, okay. Great. Thank you. All right. Awesome. Take care. Bye. Bye-bye.