 Good. Hi everyone we started a bit late there was some technical difficulties. We're now starting. And it's being recorded just so that those in attendance know. Okay. So, Nate, I've got my preamble here are they going to show I saw today that they assume the. Virtual meeting. So it's been extended to 2025. Right. Yeah, effective immediately. And so the town, you know, we can, you know, the town manager said we'll continue meeting remotely and then they're working on. Whether it's a policy or some guidelines or, you know, if, if a border committee would want to meet in person, the idea is that it might be a hybrid format where people can still be remote because the ideas we would, you don't want to provide the same level of service and meeting with them. So, you know, I don't know if we're going to be able to do that, but I think we're going to be able to do some recordings as we. Yeah, absolutely. I was just wondering if the preamble was going to get shortened. No, I think tonight we can just do the normal one. Sorry. That was really my only question. Okay. So, and I misplaced my document that shows me all the things that I'm supposed to do in order. So you correct me whenever I'm going wrong, but I'm not going to do that. Okay. So, I'm going to go back to the meeting of the historical commission. March 30th, 2023. And pursuant to. Governor Baker's March 12th, 2020 order suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law GL. C 30 a section 18. And pursuant to chapter 20 of the acts of 2021 and extended by chapter 22 of the acts of 2022 and extended again. By chapter 22 and signed into law on July 16th, 2022. This public hearing and public meeting of the town of Amherst historical commission is being conducted via remote participation. Members of the public who wish to access the meeting may do so by zoom or by telephone. No in person, person attendance of members of the public will be permitted. But every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings in real time. So that means a hyperlink to this here, to this meeting and hearing has been posted on the town's online calendar. I think maybe now we go to a roll call attendance. Okay. So roll call attendance vote. Pat off. Present. Maddie Helmer. Maddie Helmer, are you present? Oh, you're muted. Thank you. Becky Lockwood. So I have to remember everybody's last name is Becky Lockwood. Present. Any startup. Present. And Robin Ford. I am present. It really helps when the last names are in the windows there, Nate. They're not there for my cheat sheet today. So I believe that we're going to start. Okay. Nate, I did not see an agenda in my. In my emails or in the packet. And I know that we have three separate properties. Are we convening? Want to just suggest how we should go about convening these hearings. I mean, we should open to public hearing for all three properties. Go through significance first. Then. Preferably preserved for. Right. Yeah. So I think the, because they're owned. By the same owner. I think we can open the hearing for all three. And then, you know, we can walk, we can hear our presentation or look at documentation for all three of them, but then, you know, we could take votes individually. But I think it would make sense to open the hearing for all three. Yep. Okay. And do we need a vote to open the hearing? I can't remember. No, no, you can just read the, you know, the, there's no other than the legal notice is just because it is just the hearing. So it's just that. All right. I think I'm using a previous version with the new addresses. So hopefully this is right. So in accordance with the provisions of MGL chapter, master general law chapter 40 a and article 3.6 of Amherst general bylaws, preservation of historically significant buildings, this public hearing has been duly advertised and notice thereof has been posted and mailed to parties at interest. The Amherst historical commission is holding this public hearing to provide an opportunity for interested citizens to be heard regarding the following demolition demolition application requests. They are 126 southeast street salumi construction, a request to demolish a circuit, excuse me, 1920 single family home on property and any attached structures. 140 southeast street salumi construction request to demolish a circuit 1900 two family home on property and any attached structures. And 148 southeast street salumi construction request to just demolish a circuit 1927 single family home. On property and any attached structures. So with that, do we go to town information first, or do we go to our applicant presentation first? I think we can ask the applicants if they're here to raise their hands and they can make the presentation and then staff support. John, we're going to ask you to become a panelist that way you can just speak and make it easier. Okay, hello everyone. Hello. Hello. Two seconds. And there we are. Okay. So the three properties in that, that we've applied for all on southeast street. The. Of the houses that we're looking at are in pretty rough shape. They've been, they've had multiple renovations done throughout the years. And I think the, the oldest structure has had. Several renovations at some point. Which I'm not sure if Nate, were you able to get my email that I sent late this afternoon? Yeah, I was just getting those. Opened up. Okay. So I'm not sure if you'd like to start. Just speaking in general, and that, you know, we were looking to demolish the three houses to make room for. Some more housing. That could be similar to what is across what we're building across the street. Is there, is there any preference or would, would someone like to hear about any of them individually or. I mean, there's not a lot to say this. I could not find a whole lot of history on, on many. I know that. The information came back with one of them that's posted or could be posted on the eight 18. I can't recall the top of my head. I'm sorry, but the map that was, that was associated with it. Yeah, that, that was, I did the research earlier this week. That was the Edwards house, Simeon Edwards. That was where you can see the title chain ties back to him. And you can see him on the, I think it was the 1860 map. Okay. And then sorry, John, just quickly, if you want to share your screen, you can, if not, I can, I could, you know, share my screen. You know, as a panelist, you're able to do that. So if you have anything you wanted to do or. I'm just, I'm kind of limited as to what I can do with my tablet. And it, and I've kind of locked myself away from where my emails and pictures are. And I'm just fearful that I'll lose you all. Sure. Let me, I'm going to share my screen. I was just going to do the. Google street view to start and then we can get to the pictures, but at least that way we have, you know, we can walk through the property. So. Okay. So this is a 127. And this has a board form foundation board form concrete foundation. It's had multiple additions and renovations. Everything to the right is an addition. The interior is. Is definitely seen. Definitely seen a fair amount of use. The electrical in here is definitely due for another upgrade. And it has been resided and there are some windows in it, but it's, this is probably the best of the three houses. And it's still, I don't have any pictures of the interior. There's other than I do. I think I believe I, I believe I sent some to, to Nate that have the, the basement. Yeah, we can look at those after the street view if you'd like. Yeah. This is the 140. This is the house that has is the oldest, I guess. So what I found today was that at some point, I believe this house was either rebuilt or, or redone. There's about. If you could pull back on that kind of go. Yep. To the left a little bit so you can see the edge of it. Yeah. Go that way a little bit more. Look sideways. So that everything from that corner back is, is a, is an addition. And everything in the front of the house was actually raised at one point because underneath the underneath that stone. There's probably a foot, foot and a half of red brick on top of the rubble foundation that's underneath. The floor joists in there are standard. Rough sans floor joists. They don't appear to be older than the 1900s. So I'm not sure if the floor was taken out when the. When the addition was put on, but it does not. It doesn't seem to match. I currently live. In a. House that's was finished in 1789. So I do have a little bit of experience with older looking houses and. And what we've gotten into in, in our trade as to what, as far as renovations and things like that. So. The house is, the house is in pretty rough shape. It's being held up by some, some four by fours and. And some posts. And it is, it is, and it is not. It's going to require. It would require a ton of work just to get it done. Something decent. It also has new siding that was probably. Put on in the 40s or 50s, which was, which is that. It's kind of like a ribbed. Panelized. Siding. And the windows were, were put in. Some years ago, and they don't really fit the openings. It's going to require. It would require a ton of work just to get it back to. And they don't really fit the openings and there's some. Photos of that that I, that I picked up on today. One 48 is. Definitely of the. 1930s foundation. And the addition in the back was sometime after that. So that's a, that's just a regular. The, the, the, the, the CMU block foundation in the back, the front is what I assume was the original part of the house. I didn't see, I didn't see inside of this one. But I can tell you as the same siding as the other, the other house next door. All right. Great. And I was going to do the new share or maybe I'll stop this. I'll go to the emails just so we can. Talk through the images, John, if you want to, maybe the same thing, but we can just, if there's something you see that's different. Right. This one, this one is the same. This is the one 48. It shows the, the 1930s block with the, with the more modern straight block behind. Yeah, kind of a little odd intersection. Yeah. And then this is the back of the house. You can see how the windows are. They don't fit in. Or not. So this is the back of the back of one 48. Correct. This is one 40. And it has the same, same siding as one 48. Is this, is it, sorry, I just see the meter. Is this a two family? Is this considered a two family? I believe so. Yeah. Yeah. I think you're right. And you'll see, so if you look at those stones there, you'll see that that's what the house has supported on. Once we go in the basement, if I can, those are clear, which are, they're tipped and pitched. As the, the rubble foundation underneath has kind of fallen apart. So this is the framing from underneath. It's a full two by six. With a, with a, you know, a little bit of a roughs on two by six with, with planking on top. I think the next picture shows it a little bit better. Nope. But this is a, so to the right is, is a pier that's been hollowed out. I don't know if it was an original chimney, but it's definitely holding a beam or trying to hold a beam. And there's not much left of it. And this is where the brick and the rubble foundation come in the back. So this is where the back addition is. So the correct. So the, this stone is probably under the front facing part of the house. And this is under the rear. Yes. Yep. And that's on the other side, the brick as it comes up to the front towards the front of the house. So there's, there's a, that's the back wall. I believe that there was one more. I thought there was one more photo of the underside, but yeah, I'll keep scrolling down and I printed it as a PDF. Okay. So there's, there's kind of the transition there. It's on the, to the left of what was a door opening there. That's where the, where the transition from rubble foundation to, to brick. And so there you can see that the, the, it was, it was either pushed up or, or rebuilt. I'm not exactly sure, but you have the rubble foundation and then you have the brick, the brick on top and then on top of that, you have the, the flat stone that everything kind of sits on. Yeah. I used to own a house on Halleck street that has the same, same kind of configuration and stone and then, and then a brick level. Okay. And it was built in 1860, that one. Okay. All right. More pictures of the foundation. This is all, this is all 140, right? Yes, it is. Yes. I thought you had sent a. Yeah, there's the, that last one is the one where it shows from the outside. You can see that the stone is sitting on top of the, the brick and then the other picture shows it that way. Okay. And then there's also another email. Just. Make sure that's. This is what happened. What is this 127. This is 127. All right. So it has vinyl siding. That's the board form finished concrete foundation. And then this is the, the basement. Basement area framing. And is this for, is this 127 as well still? Yes, it is. And is that a true to buy or is that just dimensional lumber? It is. It is more closely to, to dimensional lumber. I did not measure it, but I'm not sure what I was looking at was had been replaced. But it has been some work that's been done on the. On this home as well. And then here's just the electrical panel. Yeah, there's some. There's an older electrical panel and some older, what looks to be knob and tube or some sort of. Equipment that's tied in up there as well. I think those are the images. Yeah. That's pretty much everything that I had. I wasn't sure exactly what. I was just wondering what it would look like. I don't know what it would look like. I don't know what this would need to kind of make a determination, but it just was. Was out there today and just wanted to get a few additional photos. To kind of give it, give an idea on, on what it was, what it's sitting on and how it was built from underneath. Thank you. Nate, do we have more information from the town? Yeah, I think the. Well. Hold on one second. The. You know, I uploaded some information to the online packet. And I'll share that in a minute. I think the, there's, there's not a lot of research. So, you know, Robin, as chair, did the title chain back. To try to determine, you know, the age of the homes or, you know, who lived there. In terms of the town's research, you know, the, the homes are outside of a national register of the East Amherst Village Center. They weren't part of a proposed expansion. They've never been inventoried. You know, back in the 60s and 70s, the town in 80s, the town started inventorying properties, whether it was just with photographs or, you know, any history that was, you know, the town engineer at the time could find it on these properties. I think it was in the 70s all that there was is just a picture. And there's no information about anything in terms of what used to be there. So sometimes if the, if, you know, if the home was say related to a certain family or have been part of a certain use, they may have made, you know, there had been some handwritten notes actually saying, oh, this was part of an old farmstead or something. And honestly, I couldn't find it. I went through special collections and it really wasn't a lot. And so I was just going to share my screen again. I think, you know, what, what is, here's this 1873 map. If this is visible. And so, you know, Robin was saying is that it's going to zoom in a little bit. You know, the Watson farm here and there's the Watson house here. And then Nick, can you let's say, can you center that area at all? Or is that Yeah, I was trying to There we go. That's a little bit. I'm going to zoom in a little bit and then also bring it into focus into the view. So, you know, this is this is part of the right now. Here's the school building, the East school. And this is the town common East, the East bill, you know, the East town common. And so here's, you know, where we're, here's essentially root nine is somewhere here. And then there's a house here. And then the Cutler house here. And again, this is 1873. And, you know, although we can trace back some families, I can't say definitively that these two squares here represent the homes that are there. Right. That's right. So Claire's the color is definitely on that for the, was it 140 is the center one close. And it's the house that sticks out to be the most visually as like, you know, one of these is not like the others. Yeah. So. Yeah. And so I think, you know, it's just hard to say exactly, you know, for instance, you, Johnny said the home may have been moved or raised. And perhaps that was the case. I mean, this is, was historically a really wet area. I mean, the Fort River is just off the screen to the right here. And, you know, this is the water that comes down here. You can see the stream here. You know, this is all wetland here. And I, you know, I feel like the water just would have just moved right down through where those homes were. You know, here are the images that were associated with the application. They're small, but just to walk through them. And, you know, the application forms themselves, you know, the dates of the homes. The legal notice. So I think, you know, I mentioned that the dates of the homes are interesting. The assessors records were updated a few points in history where, you know, there were a major update of assessors records. And I mentioned this to the applicant that 1900 is a date that is a default date that when they were transcribing from handwritten records and maybe going into digital, if something wasn't legible or there was a mistake, 1900 is a date that just populated a lot of property cards. And as does 1966, you know, I don't know why those two days, but if you look at certain properties, you'll see 1900 a lot. And so I think that's, that number may not be as accurate. The 1920 and 1927, interestingly enough, may be accurate just because it's, you know, it's a specific year. I, you know, it's hard to, it's hard to tie it back. But, you know, I think that's the only, I mean, that's really the only research I have, you know, these homes were here in 1956. They're part of a little neighborhood here. And, you know, but I don't, you know, I couldn't find any, anything that really tied them back. When, when you were looking in special collections, Nate, I know I got that information too late. Were you able to look under Simeon Edwards or Flores of Color to? No, I just did some quick searches. I didn't see anything. And so, So it's possible there by, I mean, I'm just curious if it's possible there might be a little bit of more information just cause I ran out of, I ran out of time. Yeah. I mean, yeah. So the research that we do is try to find the names and then find out if it's the same house and it's just hard to make that connection right now. Yep. Yeah, it's not, yeah, it's not clear. Okay. Do you have questions from commissioners for either the applicant or Nate? Raise your hand or just go ahead and speak freely. Or shake your head. No. Howdy has a question. Yeah, I want to ask you a little bit, John, about ownership, you know, when did you acquire these houses? You know, do you know anything about whether they were rented or empty or do you know much about say the last 10, 15 years of what's been going on in these buildings, not just in terms of the physical, what we can physically do, but, you know, what kind of rentals have they been? I don't have the specifics as to what they were as far as rentals. Yes, they are rentals. And, and I believe their student rentals and they were purchased a few years back and I don't have the date exactly, but I did run across it when I, when I put the application through when the owner had bought each property. Were they bought when the new apartment block was under construction or when the foundations were going in across the street? No, these, this was purchased a few years back. So that would have been, it was prior to the start of the, of the, of the other, of the other project. Okay. Thank you. I want to say it was more than five years ago or somewhere in the neighborhood, if I had to recall. So with the three houses that we're looking at for tonight, are we looking at six rentals or four rentals or eight rentals? How many, how many units are there? Just, I'm just curious. I believe one of them is listed as a duplex. The other, the other is just a single family. And I'm not sure of 148. That's three, I believe it's total of three, three rentals, but one of them is split. Okay. Into a duplex. Yeah, but it is student housing. And then the one with the gambrel roof, 148. That's the one you're not sure about how it was rented. They're all, they're all student rentals. Yeah. Okay. And that's a single rental on 148. Got it. Got it. I mean, just, this is just a comment rather than a question, but that house is. Looks to me like, you know, it's the most viable. Am I wrong about that? I just want to jump in heading. Yeah. Unfortunately, viability really isn't. Isn't a question. Right. So, okay. Good point. Yep. Yep. I'm going to, I'm going to be hand raised. Okay. It's fine. Okay. Go ahead, Pat. Nope, you're muted. Sorry about that. My question is before you filed the demolition request. Was any. Attempt made to see if. If the buildings were sold to be moved, that that is a possibility. And I guess structurally. Could they be moved? Of the two that I was underneath today, I would say no. And I can't imagine that the 148 is in that good a shape. Just because of the way the addition was put on on the back. Could they be moved? I don't know. I'm not a house mover. But, but I know that looking at the two that I was underneath, I, I don't believe I would attempt to move them. There wouldn't be anything left. Thank you. Nate, go ahead. You're muted, Nate. Yeah, I realize that. Sorry. I was looking on mine. The property cards indicate that the current owner bought these in 2003. So they've been owned for, you know, 20 years. And going back on some of the, on to the properties that looks like, I mean, it's really hard to say some of the older property cards. I don't know if you can indicate whether they were rented or owner occupied or not owner occupied. But looking at the property cards, it looks like the, you know, 148 and 127 were possibly, you know, rented prior and one, the middle one maybe wasn't just based on the owner's names, but that's tricky, right? So, you know, it looks at, you know, at least for the last 20 years, possibly more, these were all rentals. And, you know, I was just going to share my screen again, just so we see it. You know, this is, this is 148 right here. The further south one. Here's, here's the other one that has, you know, the addition in the back. So this is 140. And then here's the, the other one, which. Yeah, which, you know, it appears to be in really good shape. But, you know, it's hard to say, but at least for, you know, quite a bit of time they have been rented. Or, you know, the owner has owned them. I don't, you know, I can't say that they've always been rented, but the owners own them for 20 years. So it's not, it's not as if they bought them necessarily six months ago when the other building was being built. I think that was asked, but I think they've, they've been owned prior to that. And they've always been a rental since he's owned them. Okay. Any other questions. From the commissioners before we move to deliberation. Oh, how do you ask your hand up? It looks like some trees have been removed. Is that something that the current owner has done. Between the first and the second building. I think that must have been a few years back. I think that the Google maps as a little, as a little, as a little dated. Okay. Seeing no other hands. Nate, you want to help me structure this next part. So we have three properties in front of us. For which we need to determine significance. Should we just go ahead with 120. Can't remember the number. The 120, whatever it is. 127. 127. Yeah, I've got 126 on my chart here. That's correct. Okay. Yeah, we have not done a significance review in. A while. And actually, I think maybe Madeleine. Review on the commission. When we would review a property for six and significance first. Are you familiar with that process? Or actually show of hands to who is familiar with the process. I'm raising mine, but. I know Pat has been here. Yeah. Okay. All right. Well, I'm looking at the by-law and I can see the sort of three criteria. Yeah. That we consider. Do you want to put that on the screen, Nate? Yeah, I guess you're the screen. I can. Is that legible? Or is it should be a little bigger. That's legible to me. Sure. So, you know, the, this is, you know, section F in the by-law standards for designations. As a significant building. You know, so it meets the aid requirement. And then there's these numbered ones. One is the building is individually listed on, or is contributing structure within an area listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Or as the subject of appending application. And it is not, right? So I mentioned that we had. Look at expanding the East Village National Register District, but I didn't include these. So. So I think at this point, maybe the best thing to do would be to ask commission members if they, if any of them believe that 126. Southeast Street warrants a discussion for significance. As opposed to. Getting into why or why it might not be. Is there anyone who has an argument. In favor of significance? I do not. I don't think I understand. You're saying. Oh, go ahead. So typically, you know, the way the Bala work staff is the commission's designee. To determine significance. And if staff determines it's significant, then it, that's usually when it gets to the public hearing process with the commission. But there's also a provision where as if the designee. The commission, the commission has to first determine the. The commission has to. To. Me. Me. Can't make that determination. I refer it to the commission and then the commission has to then first determine significance and then determine whether or not it should be. Preferably preserved or allowed demolition. And so the hearing really right now is. You know, the significance hasn't been determined. Right. Going through for each, you know, each. Each structure. But Robin, what do you mean? Are you saying. And then in the past we used to go through each criteria and take votes around whether commission members felt that it was or wasn't significant. And then after going through all the criteria, in that case, it was there were like about, you know, eight or 10 different areas for different votes. We determine significance. But if no one on the commission thinks that this building meets the mark of significance, we could shortcut that process by essentially dispensing with any deliberation if there's nobody in favor of the idea that it is historically significant. They can't make an argument that it's significant for, I mean it was, I guess I don't even know if this was an agricultural area it seems like, you know, but for this particular building and the information that I was able to gather, I don't see anything about it being in the context of a group of buildings or as part of a view shed or historical architectural value. So that's why I was asking commission members, if anyone felt there was an argument to be made for significance, if somebody said, for example, that yes, I think that the craftsmanship warrants significance, then we would vote on the basis of that. That makes sense. Yeah, I just couldn't tell if you were which way you were going. Okay, do you think it's not significant? Yes, right. I don't think it's significant under any of the characteristics here. I agree with you. I will say the same, I agree. I also agree. And that's significant. I agree. I have a kind of follow-up weird question, Robin, which is that based on that 1873 map which shows southeast street, are we reasonably confident that the three buildings under discussion tonight are on that map? Based on the title research that I did, and that was distributed to the commission, the only lot that I was confident there was a good chance that the building in question corresponded with the building on the map would be the next property over. Okay. That's really helpful. Right. I did not look like this building did not look to come up on the map around that time period from what I was looking at. And the title chain, when you reviewed, as I've been learning to do this, when you review the title chain process, each deed should reference the deed before it. And sometimes you get to an ending point because there's no deed before it. And sometimes you just get to an ending point because somebody has left that information off. And then you need to go and look in the index and see if you can pick up the trail again. So that's what I'm looking at. The importance of this building. And the fact that the title chain ended around the 20s, I think. And the fact that it didn't correspond particularly well to the maps that I look at. That's what I'm basing my opinion on. Okay. So we've taken care of. The first building. We actually, so, so I think at this point, we need to. We need to make sure that this building has. Significant or not significant. So I need a motion. And then when I can ask for further discussion, then we can vote. Becky. I'll motion. I motion that we vote that this building is not historically significant. Okay. Do the second. Second. And any further discussion. Hearing none. Seeing none. I'll go with a roll call vote. Starting with heady. Agreed. Not significant. Okay. Becky. Agreed. Not significant. Pat. Agreed. Not significant. And Madeline. Agreed. And I agree as well. So that's a vote. Five to zero. In favor of determining that this building is not significant or not significant. I'm not going to call the demolition delay by law anymore. According to the by law. So. One dam two to go. Okay. So the next property is one 40 southeast street. And. I'm going to see if any commission members have. Comments before I make my comments. Okay. So I'm going to go ahead and make my comments. Feel free to raise your hand. I've got you guys. Oh, wait. There. Do you have anyone that wants comment on 140 southeast street? I'm trying to get all of you in my screen here. Madeline has disappeared now. I can stop sharing if you'd like for now. Okay. Okay. So no comments from anybody. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for the research that I did for this building. Now, of course, I don't have the language in front of me. I would say my concern. At this point. When we look at a building and approve or. Reject a request for demolition. In terms of preservation. Well, along with. Imposing a demolition delay. The objective for the demolition delay would to have an outcome. Either to rehabilitate the building and preserve it. Move it. Salute it. Or document it. And. I think my concern right now is that I. If, if this building is the building that appears on the 1860 map. I think it's going to be. Some. And I'd like Nate to weigh on this, whether it warrants further documentation before demolition. Just to the age and the fact that we are, I know that it's not within the. Within the historic district. Area, but the fact that we're. Trying to. Well, we've hadn't had a cop, a number now of buildings come in. That would have been more characteristic of early Amherst. I think it's easy to overlook. These smaller buildings as. Not particularly impressive. And I would just hate to see this one taken down before. Maybe a more professional. I had a view of it. And we maybe got some more pictures or made a few more connections. But I don't think it's going to be. My one hesitation. Is just documentation before demolition. Does anyone want to weigh in? And actually, you know, I realize I'm getting. It's a little bit challenging to. Organize these discussions, but I'm putting the cart before the horse a little bit, because I'm really talking about preservation, but. I. I feel like. It's a potential for this building to be. Significant on the basis of the social context, depending what we find out about. If we're able to find anything out about Simeon Edwards in that particular area. I sense that there might be a story there to be told, which would tip this building into the significant. Camp and. I'm trying to think in the past, I think in circumstances like this, we have. A lot of time to get information. We have a lot of time to get information. So I think that we're a little bit more tabled or Nate can help me with this table to delayed. A vote. To allow time for a little bit more information to connect. Not a lot of time, but a little bit more time to. Pursue that path a little bit further. So that might be what I'm suggesting here. Is that we, we table and. The significance vote on this particular structure to get more information between now and. Our next ability to meet. We have a lot of time to get information to connect with. The building. That's what I'm trying to do. So I see that pot has her hand up. Robin, I'm, I'm agreeing with you that I think if indeed it is the structure that's on that map. That it does have a history. That that needs to be documented. It doesn't necessarily mean. That demolition can't proceed once that's done. It can't be done once that's done. The history taken into account. Even though for the last 20 some odd years, it's been a rental that hasn't been cared for. The history is still important to document. Thank you. Becky. I'm just, it seems to me. You've done a lot of research, Nate's tried that. I'm not sure about that. But then you've said that it wasn't clear to me. You're not sure this is the same house. That's on the map. And it isn't clear to me what more there is to find out, I guess is. Is my question and who will do that. Okay. I mean, my response, that was my earlier question tonight regarding whether or not, because I got to. that having when you're when you're doing research on on houses you kind of do this back and forth between you know you go to the title chain you go to the map once you get the name Simeon Edwards like I tried to do a newspaper search and there were so many I wasn't expecting so many Simeon Edwards to pop up sometimes you can get information there with the name the special collection search might be different and they can tell me if that's true or not but that that would be especially in terms of special collections and somebody has a stronger grasp of the history of Amherst and it's you know the kind of the players of that era that's what I would be looking for so I don't know if you want to jump in they give your yeah yeah I guess I'm you know I guess I would say if for instance the Commission found this billing to be significant the next step is you know is the impact of its loss enough to have it be perfectly preserved or allow the demolition to proceed and so you know I almost want to take it to that next question because you know we could I mean we could ask the applicant to have photo documentation you know do we what I guess I guess I'm miscarious what other are we would we want that documentation to help whether it should be perfectly preserved or are we you know are we concerned enough that if it's that if it's not there that the loss of of it is is you know detrimental somehow to the character and history of you know space you know of Amherst and specifically that neighborhood and so I'm um yeah I don't know I mean I guess I could go either way we could continue the hearing it has to be to a date certain I will say I have limited time to research you know and then I will really want to make sure we are clear with the applicant what kind of documentation we would want and if it's photo documentation I think that could happen pretty easily is it you know additional photographs on the interior they might have to give notice to tenants but I guess I just would want to make sure you know what kind of documentation Robin are you looking for that could or couldn't happen with the building there for instance we can always look at the history unless we think that's really important in terms of weighing its significance or its preferably reserve status yeah I think yeah it's it is a confusing decision tree right because you you we weigh on them we should have relatively straightforward discussion about whether it's significant or not and I think you're getting stuck on that because I feel like I don't have quite enough information to definitively claim that it is in which point I would argue for a request to for further documentation photographs and I don't know enough at this point about documenting internal structures and what value that has I guess I'm trying to figure out what's the value to the town is creating a form B for a building that's going to be demolished an important part of our inventorying if it is you know it's such an early part of the town's history these are all these are all questions but I have so I don't think that we've had anybody do a like a structural reporter and maybe it doesn't it doesn't rise to that that level there's just something about there's like for me there's something when I get to that point where I'm researching it and I see the title name and I see it on the map and I think oh you know this is so is there can you give any guidance in terms of what the town how much effort the town is concerned about in terms of getting something inventory that's going to be demolished yeah I mean I guess it would it would be a little like part of parcel with doing that research right so if we were to complete an inventory form now you know we could list the architecture we'd have a questionable age in history and so we have to kind of continue to do that research you know we could describe the architecture now we could but we wouldn't be able to you know this inventory form has you know kind of two narrative sections ones on the architectural description ones on kind of the social ownership you know political history of it and so we'd have to just continue that anyways as part of that inventory okay I feel like architecturally it does look old but I'm not sure it's you know right so I didn't even significant because I'm not sure it met the criteria in the bylaw in terms of it's right is it an exemplary style is it right certain craftsmanship is it even if it's a part of the say Edwards family or Watson farm family is that enough to make it significant I just I just couldn't say yes yep yep and I will say that it certainly any of my commissioners are free to suggest to make a motion to deem it not significant and we can take a vote if we feel like discussion is done that's you know that's the other option and I'm assuming that that the applicant is amenable if we want to have any more pictures taken we could but can we come come is it possible to come back and let the brain cogitate a little bit come back to this decision once we've looked at the third building sure sure let me just I know that's a bit backwards but I just feel like I don't want to yeah yeah Becky has your hand up oh I was just going to make a motion to suggest it's not significant but if he wants to I mean it's fine to if you want to pause a few minutes yes okay why don't we do that so that's 148 is that right 148 southeast street no it's 140 I think it's 140 so the middle house was 140 now we move on to 148 yes right so we just paused on 140 and we're moving forward to 148 the gambrel roof 1927 circa house and again we can I can ask the commissioners if anybody feels they have an argument for voting this property being historically significant based on the criteria in the bylaw okay so then I could ask commissioners if anybody would be interested in making a motion related to 148 southeast street in terms of its historical significance I would make a motion that the building at 148 southeast street is not significant okay and do we have a second to that motion I can second that Becky seconds so any other further discussion on 148 south street in terms of historical significance no okay so we will go to a vote so we are voting the motion before us is to affirm that 148 southeast street is not historically significant according to the bylaw Madeline your vote right yeah I agree okay Becky I voted is not significant okay Pat I agree it's not significant right and heady not significant and I also vote in the affirmative not significant so that was a five zero vote for 148 southeast street not significant according to the conditions of the bylaw so now we're back to 148 that was quick 148 that was quick so with the um the house in the middle yep 148 I mean 140 sorry yep that is possibly older and possibly related to the name of a building the name associated with a building on the 1873 Hampshire map I would like to see a little bit more information gathered for a form B listing I do know that under discussion in the town for the central fire station that they are looking for to complete a form B for the central fire station even though the town needs a new fire station and in you know so it's just a kind of another layer of documentation maybe some more pictures of the interior okay I don't know how long that process would take or whether we need to specify that so the the issue before us is whether so given that that at least two of us are interested in a little bit more information but as Nate has pointed out most of that probably doesn't require the building being standing um does anybody want to make a motion regarding the building status status is significant or not significant Becky well I would like to make a motion um stating that it is not significant um but I think we can we also add if people want more documentation that they can do so I think yeah I think that we can we can vote on the status of its significance and handle the issue of documentation separately okay um and I so I think also so we have a motion from Becky to have a second I second Pat seconds okay and I just want to add to that is that I think Heddy's suggestion that the documentation take the the form of a form B um and so that the house will be recorded with whatever history we know and that you've you've delved into Robin I I have a tendency to agree with Nate that there probably isn't a whole lot more than that but that's enough to to make claim to its history so that that would be my suggestion in addition to the second okay on Nate here I was going to um just share my screen again the um you know this is you know my guess is this this is visible correct yes here's the house so here's the front of the house you know this would be the older section the Mansard roof is um still could be an old addition but possibly not original and I was going to say that it just on College Street there's a few homes here um that are of similar style you know tucked in here and you know they're listed as being built in 1900 um and they're not on the 1873 map so 1900 you know it could be late 19th century but um anyways I was going to say that it looks that they're similar to these um there was three at one point um but now two homes and so you know it could be that they're you know that whether it was the same family or that they were a type of worker housing I mean we had said that these homes I haven't researched it but that they were they were owned by workers and also maybe by African-American families and so there is some history here I but again there's not a lot of research uh sometimes on some of some of the homes that are outside districts or things that haven't been inventoried but you know I do think that we could do a little bit more research I guess the question still goes back to you know let's just say for devil's advocate we have our discussion that we say they're significant the next question is are the is it worth being perfectly preserved I guess that's where you know I don't want to I don't want to belabor it but you know if we find them not significant yeah I guess we maybe want to say it with the condition that it still be researched I don't know I just want to make sure we're you know we have we have a good process after that after the vote yeah I agree and I'm good I was going to backtrack myself a little bit we're in the just we have a motion before us uh to uh that the that the property is not historically significantly the second we're in the um additional discussion section and I was going to backtrack on my own statement earlier to say that I would feel comfortable voting uh that this property is not significant simply because it has lost most of its historic integrity I think I was looking for a basis to vote in the affirmative or in the negative for the significance part that that's what was challenging me um so uh yeah it had significance to a certain point there's still aspects of it they're probably worth documenting which we can do on a voluntary basis with the either with the commission um or and and or the owner um and go forward in that regard so that would be if that helps anybody make their decision around a vote for against significance that's what I would say there was some if that helps clarify things yeah I think I I would vote uh that it's not significant based on what you're saying Robin and I was thinking of abstaining um but I think I'll vote in the affirmative do we have any other discussion between commissioners okay let me leave you with a little idea though because because you know I bet you in the 1880s and 1890s that the people who lived in these three homes had no problem walking up to the east village center of Amherst and getting what they needed there whether it was employment yeah you know so um well that yeah that's I think what we've been trying to kind of tease out here um and we'd like to document that yep okay um so if there's no further discussion we can go ahead with the vote uh the motion before us in the affirmative uh that the property is determined to be not historically significant uh according to the bylaw so I will start with Pat I agree it's not a significant property okay uh Madeleine I agree Becky I vote it's not significant okay a heady not significant and I also vote in the affirmative so that's a five zero vote that this property has been termed not historically significant in the terms of the bylaw um so at this point I think the question um the questions are on documentation Nader I understand that uh the town's resources are flat out for doing this kind of documentation this is where the lovely volunteers on the commission can come in if they want to help out um if we want to start working on a form B for this property um I think my only question would be I would just love to get in there and um particularly because I want to learn to understand how to recognize now that I've had some training how to recognize the historic features of the property um and take more pictures and I think that would be it unless anybody else has any other any other request no I mean I think John you're here I think we could you know follow up with an email and set a date you know the next few weeks and work with you know you and the owner to have a site visit if that's if that's possible you know for photo documentation I think that you know I believe that I believe that would be fine okay great and who would be responsible for doing the form B the owner um the four so I'm working on form B's as part of my job now at pvpc um form B's are complicated and technical and really require pretty specific training so it's something that I've thought about trying to get a subgroup of the historic commission to work on together so that I'm not doing form B's all day and all night yeah Robin I can help so if you want to you know I can help um I know they have requirements for the map and formatting pictures and so I think you know if Robin and I can work on the form B if people you know if if anyone wants to help with the research I don't mind working on the form and then you know anyone could submit anyone can complete a form B I think the owners have done the research there really isn't a lot I think it's then on us staff and commission to do that um you know and uh you know so if there's you know for instance when we were looking at local historic districts volunteers and the committee end up doing form B's and they did a good job you know doing a bibliography you know bibliography doing references and finding that so I think some of that is what we'd have to do and you know work with special collections and go to the library and do a little bit more digging but I think it's something that we could pull together yep okay so I think um let's see I think we were supposed to close the hearing before you vote it maybe I don't remember no no sometimes I said sometimes you know yeah people go either way but I think now we can have a motion to close the hearing sometimes you like to keep it open just in case another tidbit of information comes in and we if we close the hearing we have to reopen it uh new information so I don't mind going okay did we miss the opportunity for public comment in the hearing or is the hearing still open so you can oh okay all right so um we should give the the public opportunity to comment there's two members in the public oh there's one andres uh held by you can unmute yourself my only concern listening to this conversation is that your credibility may be a little bit at stake here if it pushed it too far because it doesn't look like a house that has any integrity left at all of an old house and I think you might be better off saving your your reputation for something that's really important because it looks like whatever units are going to be lost here are going to be made up several times over by the new building which would be more attractive and I'm a preservationist I don't want to tear anything down but I I worry about your credibility here if you put too too much emphasis on documenting and all that and and the time in a form b is worth it that's just my two cents thank you held up save save your energy for the big one thanks held up we got some big ones coming I'm counting on your energy thank you any other members of the public who would like to make a comment and seeing no hands uh I think we moved to uh motion to close this public hearing so moved we have a second a second uh and uh roll call vote heady yes yes Becky yes Madeline yes Pat Pat you're muted I saw you say yes yes I vote for the record five zero vote to close the public hearing and uh I believe that concludes our public meeting hearing for this evening it does uh John thank you and thank the owner I was going to say we can adjourn I'll send an email to the commission as follow-up just to try to schedule the next meeting and then John I'll be reaching out to you just for a day visit the the site um you know I'll kindly disagree with Hilda I think you know we'll put the effort in to document it I you know whether or not it's a question really significant I do think it's it's nice to document structures that may be humble and modest because you know just to to have that have that piece of history um you know like I said there was a picture maybe from the 70s of this house but it'd be nice to have a follow-up and some you know we can include that that older picture in the form b and just kind of have it as a nice catalog you know record of it so um so I'm sorry it's okay I just think the pictures that you when you drove up college street on google maps be good to put those in as well okay if there's any kind of stylistic similarity right oh that's yeah that's a good point I just want to say thank you to everyone um your job is not easy um and I uh I did I did go back to a couple meetings I spoke with Nate about you know what I would need to know and I was just I just fell a little bit short I think um had I gotten some interior pictures of the of the home maybe that would have helped clarify anything but I do appreciate it thank you for your time thank you so much good luck thank you okay commission members I'll follow up with email just to confirm next meeting date and um you know thanks everyone good night bye all right we're adjourned